-~»
^50S-00
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
I860 LINCOLN STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 8O2O3
NOTICE
FINAL ACTION
ON THE
DENVER REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
AND THE
CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
_.nD Mail code 3201
TO Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII, Denver
August, 1978
Approved by:
Alan Merson
Regional Administrator
-------
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Within the Denver Metropolitan Region various local agencies have
proposed or are developing proposals to construct, improve and/or
expand municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems for the
following service areas:
1. South Adams County
2. Englewood and Littleton
3. South Lakewood
4. Cherry Creek and Goldsmith Gulch
5. Lower South Platte
6. Clear Creek
7. Sand Creek
8. Westminster and Broomfield
9. Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1
10. Northglenn
The Environmental Protection Agency has received or is anticipating
requests to fund 75 percent of the construction costs for wastewater col-
lection and treatment facilities for these ten service areas. This
funding is in accordance with Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) has recently
completed a Clean Water Plan for the five county Denver region. The
Clean Water Plan has been submitted to EPA for action by the State of
Colorado. This Clean Water Plan was prepared in accordance with Section
208 of the Clean Water Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency has completed an environmental
impact statement process which evaluated the cumulative regionwide effects
of the ten wastewater treatment projects and the Clean Water Plan. The
final environmental impact statement was distributed for public comment
on April 11, 1978. Numerous comments were received and have been con-
sidered in making the final decision. The reader is referred to Volume I,
Section IV of the final environmental impact statement for a discussion
of the proposed actions. The final actions are presented below with
notations to indicate where changes have been made.
Final Action
EPA has decided to conditionally approve the Clean Water Plan which
was developed by DRCOG and certified to EPA by the State of Colorado in
accordance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. A copy of the
approval letter which EPA recently sent to Governor Lamm is included as
Appendix A. The Governor's letter of certification to EPA is included in
Appendix B.
-------
EPA has also adopted a number of policies in regard to the funding of
grants for wastewater treatment facilities in the five county Denver
region. These policies will be
used by EPA in reviewing the ten waste-
as well as any future projects. EPA
of these policies will require some flexi-
While EPA is firm on the intent and spirit
of these policies, we will work closely with State and local entities and
the public to resolve any difficulties which arise. The adopted policies
are discussed below.
These policies
water projects mentioned above,
recognizes that the application
bility in specific situations.
-------
Air Quality
EPA believes that the funding of wastewater treatment and collec-
tion facilities which involve the addition of capacity to serve future
population growth should be done in a manner which encourages the im-
plementation of measures to reduce the existing air pollution problem.
Population growth is going to occur in the Denver metropolitan area and
unless strategies to reduce air pollution (principally from automobiles)
are implemented, air quality will not significantly improve and may get
even worse. Funding of additional wastewater facilities does not cause
air pollution, but it does support growth, both economically and
locationally, by providing readily available services for sewage treat-
ment and reducing development costs. Therefore, EPA believes that funds
should be made available only where reasonable actions are being taken to
deal with the air quality impacts of growth.
Accordingly, EPA will require:
A commitment from the elected policy body of the local govern-
ments which are to be served by the proposed wastewater treat-
ment facility, to:
a.) Implement air pollution control measures considered reason-
able for their area from the general list of measures out-
lined in Appendix C. The air quality program adopted by
the City of Westminster is an example (new provision).
b.) Participate in the process established by the State of
Colorado and the Denver Regional Council of Governments
to revise the Denver element of the State Air Quality
Implementation Plan (same as proposed action).
.) Support the implementation of the Denver element of the
State Air Quality Implementation Plan once approved by
EPA (same as proposed action), -
*•
--r /
Design wastewater facilities based on DRCOG population pro-
jections (or as revised during the State Air Quality Implementation
Process) with capacity increases staged in accordance with the
April 25, 1978, regulations (43 FR 17697 pertaining to grants for
construction of wastewater treatment works. A copy of the portion
of these regulations dealing with "staging of treatment plants"
and "staging of interceptors" is included for your information in
Appendix D. (partial change from proposed action)
The grant applicant (in conjunction with local jurisdictions) to
develop and implement a sewer tap program which annually deter-
mines the number of taps available for new residential develop-
ment and which is consistent with the DRCOG population forecasts
for 1980, 1990, and 2000 (changed from proposed action)
fc*
>«
MJ*
* VH
f^e-y
ttAtw >
i*.
-------
4.
Development which will be served by the additional capacity to be
within the adopted regional urban service area boundaries and
contiguous to existing development as stated in DRCOG's Regional
Plan Policies. EPA may require evidence that local governments within
the^service area are promoting
^
zoning actions, building permit approvals and tap allocations (same
as proposed action). " ~~
EPA recognizes that population growth in established urbanized areas
tends to reduce urban sprawl and the resultant commuter automobile traffic.
EPA will look favorably upon projects for established urbanized areas
which would accommodate a denser settlement pattern than presently in-
dicated by the DRCOG population allocations. Any increase in population
allocations would have to comply with the policies and procedures estab-
lished by DRCOG.
In taking this action, EPA considered the need to continue to improve
and expand wastewater treatment facilities in order to improve the
water quality of the streams in this Region. Also, this action is con-
sidered necessary in order to limit the potential urban sprawl effects of
EPA's wastewater facilities construction grants program. Urban sprawl
often results in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), leading to in-
creased emissions of auto-related air pollutants. Sprawl is also associa-
ted with accelerated physical decline and disinvestment in the core
city, increased municipal service costs, loss of prime agricultural land
and increased energy consumption.
-------
Mater Quality (Stream Classifications)
EPA's action on the Clean Water Plan is confined to approval,
disapproval, or conditional approval. The State has conditionally certified
the Plan's recommendations for stream classifications and related recom-
mendations for discharge limitations. EPA's actions on the
Clean Water Plan for stream classifications and corresponding discharge
requirements are presented below. Rationale for these actions is
presented in the discussion that follows these three action items.
1. EPA shall conditionally approve the Clean Water Plan (see
Appendix A), (same as proposed action)
2. EPA shall approve reissued permits which are based on the
existing stream classifications and which are in accord
with existing effluent limitations. For those municipal
dischargers not in compliance with existing discharge require-
ments, compliance dates shall be based on the availability of
construction grant funds, (same as proposed action)
3. EPA, has notified the State (see Appendix A) that sufficient
documentation has not been presented in the Clean Water Plan
for EPA to accept any of the Plan's recommended stream segment
downgradings. EPA intends to testify to this fact at a public
hearing which considers the Clean Water Plan's recommended
downgradings, unless documentation is presented beforehand which
meets EPA's criteria, (same as proposed action)
The documentation presented in the Clean Water Plan conflicts with
the recommended stream classifications for those segments where the fishery
designation is to be deleted. The Clean Water Plan presently does not
demonstrate that background conditions, irretrievable man-induced condi-
tions, or widespread adverse economic/social impact will prevent attain-
ment of a water quality suitable for protecting and maintaining aquatic
life. DRCOG is preparing an addendum to the Plan which may provide
adequate justification for the proposed downgradings. EPA will review
that addendum to determine whether or not it provides adequate justifica-
tion for the downgradings.
Costs have been identified in the Clean Water Plan for achieving the
1983 objectives of the Clean Water Act (see Final EIS, Volume 1, Table 3).
These costs serve as the principal basis for the recommended downgrad-
ings. Examination of those costs reveal that approximately 14.7% of the
total present worth costs is for point source control. Discussions with
the DRCOG staff indicate that the aquatic life objectives can be met through
point source control alone. If this is true, then the per capita cost to
achieve this objective equals approximately $20 per year for a period of
-------
20 years. This figure represents the additional costs to achieve the
aquatic life objective given the existing controls for municipal point
sources. EPA considers this figure to be within the means of the metro-
politan community. The Clean Water Plan has not provided evidence that
this money could be better spent elsewhere or that the expenditure of
these monies would result in a "widespread adverse economic and social
impact."
EPA views the State's role in setting water quality standards and
a corresponding classification system as one of its primary functions.
Despite the fact that the existing standards and classification system
are being revised, EPA believes that it is reasonable to implement the
existing State/EPA requirements for permits and construction grants.
ITS YOUR FUTURE - LOOK INTO IT
IT'S YOUR ENVIRONMENT - SPEAK UP FOR IT!
-------
7
Wastewater Facilities Siting and Treatment Processes
1. The following criteria will be used to evaluate facilities siting
issues on a case by case basis (same as proposed action):
a. Does the proposed facility provide in-stream flow
and quality benefits to meet the enforceable portions
of the Clean Water Act (i.e. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and pretreatment requirements)?
EPA will only approve funding for those projects which use
treatment processes that result in meeting NPDES permit
requirements and other enforceable portions of the Clean
Water Act.
b. Does the proposed facility have State 208 Plan and local
endorsement?
c. Does the proposed facility further the land treat-
ment/reuse goals of the law in accord with EPA's October 3,
1977 Policy on Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater?
EPA will give strong preference to land treatment reuse
systems and shall require applicants to provide complete
justification for the rejection of land treatment alternatives,
d. Is the proposed facility cost effective? Has the
facility plan identified the cost-effective solution which
could serve as the basis for establishing EPA's partici-
pation in the project, if other compelling reasons exist
to implement an alternative which is not the cost effective
proposal?
e. Does the proposed facility conform with other EPA,
State, and local requirements relating to water rights,
recreation, water supply, and the environment?
2. EPA has concluded the following in regard to the Clear Creek
and Northglenn proposal (similar to proposed action):
a. Clear Creek - EPA prefers that a sub-regional facility be con-
structed in the Clear Creek Basin below Golden and Coors
which would serve to maintain in-stream water quality and
flows. Additional study is necessary through the Clean
Water Plan and facility planning to resolve any conflicts.
EPA will reserve judgment on whether the remainder of the
basin should receive treatment at the Metro facility until
such time as the State decides on the Clean Water Plan's
proposed classification for Clear Creek and further analysis
-------
8
is made to determine the feasibility of discharging
effluent from these facilities to Clear Creek or to
downstream Irrigation ditches on a full or part time
basis.
b. Northglenn •- EPA endorses the water resource concept
being proposed by Northglenn as a rational approach
to managing the scarce water resource in the arid
West. Based on this factor and Northglenn's need for
an upgraded water supply, EPA is willing to fund North-
glenn 's proposal provided all of the criteria in Item 1
above are satisfied. It is EPA's understanding that
the Clean Water Plan and the Lower South Platte facil-
ity plan will be revised to be made consistent with the
Northglenn ^lan. While DRCOG and the State have designated
Northglenn as a management agency and approved their plan
concept, analysis and recommendations contained in the
Clean Water Plan do not reflect this action. Thus an
amendment to the Clean Water Plan will be required.
EPA is concerned that a site which is selected for a new wastewater
treatment facility be environmentally, socially, legally, and economically
acceptable. Sites for facilities considered in this EIS have not been
evaluated in any detail. Some site locations have not yet been selected
by the grantee. If it is determined that a facility may be located so
as to cause a significant adverse impact, considering environmentally
sensitive areas, historical and archaeological sites, stream flow, sur-
rounding land uses and energy requirements, then an individual EIS on
that project would be required.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"I'M ALL FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, BUT
YOU AIN'T GONNA LOCATE ONE IN MY NEIGHBOR-
HOOD."
J.Q.P.
-------
Management and InstitutionalArrangements
EPA's action on wastewater management agencies is confined to
approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the agencies
designated by the Governor in the certification of the Clean Water
Plan to EPA. On September 6, 1977, EPA issued, in the form of regula-
tions, criteria for evaluating the acceptability of management agency
designations. These regulations set forth guidance "to ensure (1)
that management agencies designated to implement the plan possess
adequate authority and capability to carry out applicable portions of
the plans, (2) that plans identify certain responsibilities assigned
to designated management agencies, and (3) that plans include indications
of the management agencies willingness to carry out such responsibilities."
Based on the guidance cited, EPA's review of the Clean Water
Plan, and EPA's review of the Governor's certification, EPA will take
the following actions (same as proposed action):
1. EPA shall accept the management agencies certified by the
State. Those include the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal
District Number One and the municipalities of Aurora, Arvada,
Brighton, Denver, Glendale, Deer Trail, Lafayette, Louisville,
Littleton, Englewood, Broomfield, Westminster, Boulder, Neder-
land and Northglenn. The South Lakewood Sanitation District,
South Adams County Water and Sanitation District and the Erie
Water and Sanitation District are designated as management
agencies for two years. The St. Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy
District is designated as a management agency for two years
with conditions. (See Appendices A&B)
2. EPA shall not award any wastewater construction grants to those
geographical areas covered by the Clean Water Plan for which a
designated management agency was not certified by the State
and approved by EPA under Item 1 above. Under this condition,
all those agencies that were recommended for designation by
DRCOG, but were not designated by the State, would not be
eligible to receive EPA construction grants for wastewater facil-
ities.
3. EPA shall not award any wastewater construction grants to the
St. Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy District until such time that
the cpntractural arrangements referred to in the State's certi-
fication letter are executed. This means that grants will not
become available to Longmont, Lyons, Niwot Sanitation District
and any other community or district included within the jurisdic-
tion of the St. Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy District as defined
by the Clean Water Plan.
-------
10
These actions mean that there are certain areas such as the Jeffer-
son County Mountain Region which do not have any designated manage-
ment agencies authorized to receive EPA grant awards. EPA suggests
that the State consider the designation of an interim management agency
for those areas. EPA prefers that this management agency be a general
purpose government rather than a special district. In the absence of
any commitment from general purpose government, a transition agency such
as an association of districts would be acceptable to EPA.
EPA realizes that these actions do not satisfy the special districts
desire to receive wastewater construction grants. EPA also realizes
that these proposed actions do not support the Clean Water Plan's
recommendation to organize eight water quality associations, each one
of which would serve as the management agency for its area of jurisdic-
tion within five years of EPA taking formal action on the Clean Water
Plan. Nationally, EPA does not have any policies or guidance which
would favor the designation of general purpose governments as opposed to
special purpose districts. However, EPA believes that there are advan-
tages to the objectives being promoted by both the State and the Clean
Water Plan.
The following is EPA's assessment of what these objectives are:
(1) The State is attempting to link directly together the decision making
for a broad range of activities into a single organization that has re-
sponsibility for those activities, and (2) the Clean Water Plan is attempt-
ing to link closer together geographical areas that have common water
quality problems and needs, while indirectly trying to improve the coordina-
tion between districts, and general purpose governments regarding water
quality matters as they affect land use decisions. From EPA's perspec-
tive there is a need to accomplish both objectives in the Denver metro-
politan area. This need stems from the fact that EPA administers numerous
environmental program;;, many of which have a legislative mandate to
assure that actions taken under one program are concistent with other
programs. The question of consistency among EPA programs is best illus-
trated by the relationship of air quality to the construction of waste-
water treatment facilities which is discussed elsewhere in this report.
EPA agrees with the effort of the State to promote management
agencies that have a broad range of authorities in addition to their
responsibility for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. There-
fore. EPA advocates the following actions regarding management and insti-
tutional arrangements for the Denver metropolitan area:
-------
11
1. EPA encourages the formation of a metropolitan council
or similar form of government which consolidates re-
sponsibility for planning and implementation of EPA
related environmental programs at the regional level.
2. In the absence of a Metropolitan Council or similar form
of government, EPA supports the designation of general-
purpose governments as wastewater management agencies in
order to promote more comprehensive responsibility for
environmental management, including wastewater treatment.
EPA does not believe that the above positions are opposed to
the recommendations found in the Clean Water Plan. Rather, EPA believes
that the Plan's long-range objective of establishing a metropolitan
form of government should be promoted in a manner consistent with the
State's objectives for management agencies.
Today's Complex System of Shared
Water Resources
-------
Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution
The Denver Regional Council of Governments recommended in the
Clean Water Plan that: urban runoff pollution be controlled by non-
structural controls such as pollution control ordinances (see Final
EIS, Volume 1, page 33). The use of structural pollution controls to
collect and treat urban runoff was believed to be too expensive to jus-
tify at this time. The Clean Water Plan recommended further study of
nonpoint pollution to identify site specific problems and control
measures prior to considering structural controls.
The following actions will be taken by EPA:
1. In regard to the Clean Water Plan, EPA shall accept the State's
general condition #8 (see Appendix B) which requests that DRCOG
better define the nonpoint source control program for urban runoff,
construction, irrigated and dry-land agriculture, and septic tank
systems, as part of the first plan update. EPA shall further condi-
tion approval of the Clean Water Plan requiring DRCOG to develop
regulatory programs and identify management agencies to control
pollution caused by urban runoff, (changed from proposed action)
2. EPA shall approve the regionwide assessment of nonpoint sources as
soon as documentation is provided to EPA by DRCOG which demonstrates
that the computer model results used in conducting the assessment
are reflecting actual in-stream conditions based on recent sampling
data. This assessment was based on assuming loading factors for
various urban and non-urban land use types (e.g., single-family
residential, dry land agriculture, etc.) and placing this information
into a computer model for analysis. This analyses indicated that
nonpoint sources are a region-wide problem. This assessment is ade-
quate to promote the implementation of the type of control measures
being recommended in the Clean Water Plan, provided the model results
reflect actual in-stream conditions, (changed from proposed action)
3. Prior to granting funds for construction or expansion of wastewater
facilities, the general -purpose governments within the proposed ser-
vice area must show progress, in the form of ordinances adopted or
recent efforts taken, towards implementing the nonpoint source
controls recommended by the Clean Water Plan, (same as proposed
action)
NON-POINT POLLUTION is i.hat which comes
from everywhere . . like M'tliivent. dust, debris
s. animal wastes. Nion-p:>int pollution can
be combatted too. but it tnkes :i\v.irenes>
-------
13
Maintenance of StreamFlows
The potential impact on stream flows from a change in the point
of wastewater discharge needs to he more thoroughly evaluated on both
a regional and project basis. Such an evaluation on a regional basis
should consider, for some future year, the impact of all water and
wastewater programs and projects on the attainability of water quality
classifications for instream uses (fishing, swimming, boating, etc.).
The Clean Water Plan has identified stream reaches with prob-
lems where the attainment of a fishery may be restricted by low flow
conditions. Given the increasing level of interest in the Denver Region
on wastewater reuse and exchange projects as a means of supplementing
existing water supplies, future water and wastewater projects may
further affect stream flows. These projects can have a beneficial or
adverse effect on existing stream flows and thereby greatly influence
the future attainability of water quality classifications for fishing
and recreation.
EPA action on the issue of stream flow depletion which may result
from wastewater projects will be (same as proposed action):
1. To expect as part of the continuing Clean Water Plan 208 program a
regional evaluation of this flow depletion issue which considers
the cumulative effects of all wastewater treatment projects and
changes in water supply requirements and methods of supply.
2. To require as part of each wastewater facilities plan an evaluation
of the likely impacts of the project on seasonal stream flows and
thus on potential and designated stream uses.
3. For each proposed facility, which will alter stream flows, the
grantee will be required to consult with the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, (Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division and
Wildlife Division) to determine the significance of this proposed
change on existing or potential recreation and wildlife resources.
4. Where a proposed project may involve a water rights dispute, EPA
will require reasonable assurances by the grantee that the dis-
pute can be settled so as not to jeopardize the usefulness of the
project, including documented consultation with the State Engineer,
prior to providing any funds for project construction.
-------
Water Conservation
The Denver Metropolitan area is located In the semi-arid West
where water is naturally scarce. In order to protect existing water
uses as well as to provide for future developnent, the water resources
available to this area must be carefully used, conserved and reused,
wherever possible. The peak demand for water in the Denver region
occurs during the sutrmer lawn and farm irrigation season. Water con-
servation and reuse of wastewater can reduce this peak demand and may
result in a reduction in the need for additional water supply facili-
ties. Also, year-round conservation of water used in the home can
benefit the total water supply situation and reduce needs for additional
wastewater treatment capacity. This latter savings is what EPA proposes
to strongly encourage by the following action.
EPA will require prior to making a grant for design of a waste-
water facility that the grant applicant demonstrate (in conjunction
with appropriate local jurisdictions) that:
1. The feasibility e.nd cost effectiveness of metering and pricing
incentives have been studied and steps taken to implement these
measures where cost effective (similar to proposed action).
2. Building codes have been evaluated to incorporate, where feasible,
water saving devices in plumbing systems on new construction or
major remodeling and a program instituted to encourage voluntary
retrofit of such devices by property owners (similar to proposed
action).
3. The design capacity on other features of the wastewater treatment
facility reflect the projected reduction in wastewater flows (same
as proposed action).
4. Wherever the dry weather wastewater base flow (excluding industrial
flows) to be used for planning a treatment works exceeds 70 gallons/
capita/day, the applicant plan and implement a water conservation
program and use the reduction in wastewater flow as the measure
of design capacity for new treatment facilities. As a guide, a 15
percent reduction in wastewater flow may be expected from the im-
plementation of an in-house water conservation program, (same as
proposed action)
-------
15
Energy Conservation
EPA has the option of taking no action and assuming that the
realities of energy pricing and availability will exert sufficient
pressures so that energy conservation and recovery becomes a higher
priority. Other policies regarding water conservation, reuse and
land application, and effluent quality and treatment levels may also
tend to reduce treatment facility energy demands. However, available
technology and innovative techniques to use solar heat, and energy
conservation and waste heat recovery in wastewater treatment facili-
ties provide the potential for more immediate payoffs. Such technol-
ogy has also been shown to improve facility reliability, and in many
cases, reduce costs. It therefore appears reasonable and prudent that
consideration of this technology be incorporated in facility planning
and design.
The EPA will use the following policy regarding energy conserva-
tion (same as proposed action):
1. As a requirement for receiving a grant for planning or design of
any wastewater treatment works, the consideration of solar energy
and energy conservation technology and techniques must be demon-
strated by showing that energy requirements, particularly for
natural gas, have been reduced as much as possible.
EPA recognizes that there is a broader energy conservation issue
associated with land use patterns that can be affected by the size and
location of wastewater treatment facilities. EPA will encourage alter-
native forms of development (such as the DRCOG activity center concept)
which could have air quality, energy conservation and other benefits.
-------
16
Protection of Environmentally Sensitive and Resource Areas
EPA will protect environmentally sensitive areas which may be Im-
pacted, directly or indirectly, by funding wastewater projects.
Environmentally sensitive areas are defined by the 19 categories dis-
cussed 1n the final DRCOG Regional Growth and Development Plan for the
Denver Region {adopted ijy DRCOG, June, 1978)
1. EPA shall limit funding of projects that are located in, or Indirect-
ly affect, an environmentally sensitive area unless 1t can be shown
that there 1s no feasible alternative, and hazards and impacts have
been mitigated In accordance with DRCOG Regional Development Policies,
numbered 23 through 41 (same as proposed action).
2. EPA will use DRCOG Vs review processes under A-95 and the Clean
Water Plan as one mechanism for determining consistency of proposed
wastewater projects with the above development policies (same as
proposed action).
3. EPA will continue to rely on Its facility planning and NEPA require-
ments for archaeological and historical sites to provide protection
of these cultural resources . CPA will require the following (same
as proposed action):
a. An on-site cultural resource survey to be performed by a quali-
fied professional archaeologist/historian to determine if the
proposed project may directly Impact previously undiscovered or
unrecorded sites with results presented in the facilities plan.
b. A literature search for known, designated or undesignated sites
to be conducted by the grantee and reported in the facilities
plan.
c. Review and comment by the State Historic Preservation Officer
on the adequacy and results of activities described under 1 and
2 above.
d. For projects located in areas of high potential for finding
buried cultural resources, as determined by 1 , 2 or 3 above, EPA
shall require an on-site construction monitor who has authority
to negotiate a halt to construction should a find of potential
significance be nade.
If the project ivill have an adverse effect on a property or site
which is listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, EPA shall consult with the
State Historic Preservation Officer ard the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation to determine a feasible and prudent alterna
tive to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the adverse effect.
-------
17
Enhancement of Recreational Opportunities
'Ihe Clean Water Act specifics that FPA shall not make grants from
funds authorized after September 30, 1978 unless the grant applicant has
analyzed the potential recreation and open space opportunities in the
planning of proposed treatment works.
treatment works.
To insure that 201 facility plans comply with the Clean Water Act,
and to ensure that facility location and design is compatible with and
enhances the recreational opportunities of proposed sites and locations,
EPA will take the following action (same as proposed action):
1. As part of the A-95 review process, DRCOG and the State shall be
requested to make a finding that proposed facilities are compatible
with existing, planned and proposed local and regional recreation
facilities. Also the facility plans must analyze the potential
for incorporating into the proposed project recreation and open
space opportunities. EPA shall review the facility plans to
determine if consideration of recreational aspects are adequate.
-------
18
Funding ofWastewater Collection and TreatmentFacilities for
Northern Douglas County
EPA has not evaluated the impacts of growth and development in
the Northern portion of Douglas County. This area may experience rapid
development over the next 20 years and as a result, may significantly
influence the environment of the Denver Region. The service areas for
the Cherry Creek and Littleton/Englewood facility plans extend into
Douglas County. In order to adequately address the effects of funding
any extension of service into Douglas County, beyond what presently
exists, EPA will take the following action (same as proposed action):
1. EPA will not provide funds for extension of service into Douglas
County through actions taken on the proposed Cherry Creek and
Littleton/Englewood faciltity plans until:
a. Sufficient s':udy and review of the probable effects of pro-
viding such service has been conducted, possibly leading to
an environmental impact statement, and
b. Adequate population, land use and water quality planning for
the area to be served is prepared and integrated into the
Denver Regional Council of Governments regional plans and
the State's Air Quality Implementation Plan.
-------
19
12. Development in the Vicinity of the Rocky Flats Plant
This issue was not discussed in the Final EIS. However, EPA did
receive a comment on this matter. It is a very important issue which
EPA must address.
There is continuing controversy concerning the potential public
health risks associated with housing developments located in the vicini-
ty of the Rocky Flats Plant. There are two issues. One concerns the
location of housing in areas where the levels of radiation in the soils
may exceed the Colorado standard for Plutonium-in-soil contamination.
The second concerns the establishment of some procedure to notify existing
and prospective homeowners of the Rocky Flats emergency plan and their
role in its implementation, which may include evacuation, taking cover
or some other protective action.
The State of Colorado has defined a level of radiation in soils
which establishes a point where some mitigative measures need to be
carried out before construction can begin, particularly at the site
preparation stage. It is the responsibility of local governments to
review development proposals to insure either (1) that the development
will not be located in areas which exceed the state standards or (2)
that mitigating measures will be taken by the developer to carry out
some remedial measure which meets with the Colorado Department of
Health's approval.
The notification issue involves housing developments that may be
subject to a public health risk as a result of an accidental release
of radioactive materials from the Rocky Flats Plant. Housing develop-
ment is occurring in areas downwind from the Rocky Flats Plant where
exposure risks would be the greatest during an emergency episode. An
emergency evacuation plan has been developed by the Colorado Department
of Military Affairs. The Colorado Department of Health has prepared
protective action guides to control the radiation exposure to the
public in an accident situation. Reportedly the Rocky Flats Monitoring
Committee is developing recommendations concerning notification of
existing and prospective homebuyers.
EPA will use the following policies:
1, If EPA determines that a wastewater facility proposed for EPA
funding will serve a development which is located in the "Area
of Concern" as defined by the Colorado Department of Health
(Interim Guidance dated November 1972 for the US AEC Rocky Flats
Plant, Jefferson County, as amended) and appropriate mitigating
measures have not been carried out according to existing state
statutes, EPA will condition the grant of Federal funds to
prohibit sewerage service to that development.
-------
20
Pending recommendations of the Rocky Flats Monitoring Committee
on notification, EPA will require grantees (in conjunction with
appropriate local governmental entities) to develop a notification
mechanism (e.g. notification ordinance) for notifying existing
and prospective homeowners in the vicinity of the Rocky Flats
Plant of the provisions of the State Radiological Emergency Response
Plan and their role in carrying out prescribed protective actions.
(vicinity can be defined as the Category III and II areas, Rocky
Flats Radiological Emergency Response Plan.)
ELDORADO
SPRINGS
-------
21
OtherSignificant Problems and Study Needs
The ground-water issue is divided into the following three cate-
gories and EPA's action is presented under each:
1. High nitrate levels in Thornton's and Brighton's domestic water
supplies, (same as proposed action)
a. EPA shall request as part of the first Clean Water Plan update
a more thorough analysis of the causes and recommended solution
to this problem including a revised waste load allocation for
Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District Number One and other
municipal discharges, if needed.
2. Effects on ground water with continued increased use for domestic
water supply in the Region, (same as proposed action)
a. EPA shall request the work plan that is developed for future
208 planning to include an activity that addresses ground
water. Within this activity, priority should be placed on
the relationship between continued use of these ground-water
supplies to surface and ground-water quality.
b. EPA shall not participate in wastewater projects which are
believed to involve adverse impacts to water quality from
increased ground-water use.
3. Water quality effects, especially on ground water, of present and
projected solid waste disposal practices and septic tanks, (same
as proposed action)
a. EPA shall request as part of the first Clean Water Plan update
a more thorough analysis of the relationship between solid waste
disposal, septic tanks, and ground-water quality.
b. EPA shall require DRCOG to coordinate the Clean Water Plan with
planning conducted under the Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act.
4. Water quality management for various lakes and reservoirs such as
Chatfield, Cherry Creek, Sloan Lake and Barr Lake.
a. EPA shall request as part of the first Clean Water Plan update
that DRCOG develop a lake restoration project for Sloan Lake
or some other urban runoff demonstration projects.
These action items fall in the category of continuing planning
and future studies. EPA believes that it ts not reasonable to require
more, given the limited amount of existing information on the nature
and extent of the problems.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
N VIM
aeo LINCOLN ST
DENVER COLORADO 9O2O3
» 1978
Ref: 8W-WP
Honorable Richard Lamm
Governor of Colorado
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Governor Lamm:
I am pleased to inform you that I am approving the Water Quality
Management Plan (Clean Water Plan) for the five county Denver 208 region.
The EPA review of the Clean Water Plan included the issuance of draft
and final environmental impact statements which have resulted in EPA
accepting the State's certification of the Plan as identified in your
January 10, 1978 letter to me and later confirmed in your May 26, 1978
letter. Approval as it is used in this letter means that the Council
has complied with the provisions of their agreement with EPA. It does
not mean that the Council has complied with all of EPA's requirements
as defined in EPA regulations and guidance that were issued subsequent
to the Council's agreement with EPA.
The following comments summarize our position on the Plan for those
issues which we view as critical to the successful implementation of a
water quality management program for the Denver area. These issues are:
(1) designation of a management structure to implement the Plan; (2)
recommendations for stream classifications; and (3) control of diffuse
sources of pollution, especially urban runoff. An attachment to this
letter further specifies EPA's position on the Plan based on EPA's exist-
ing regulations for areawide waste management plans.
The question of who should be designated management agencies under
the Clean Water Plan has been thoroughly discussed at the local and
State levels. We have been included in some of these discussions and
understand the arguments being presented by opponents and proponents
to the State's position on this matter. In the final EIS we supported
the State's designation of management agencies. It is our position that
the State's designation of management agencies is consistent with the
policies being advocated by EPA for the Denver area. We also believe
that the State acted within the authority of the Act when designating
the management agencies. Because of these two factors, we endorse and
approve the State's designations of management agencies for the Denver
area. However, we suggest that the State consider the designation of an
-------
Governor Lamm
Page 2
interim management agency for those areas, such as the Jefferson County
Mountain Region, where a. void exists. We would prefer that this manage-
ment agency be a general purpose government. In the absence of any
commitment from general purpose government, a transition agency such
as the association of districts would be acceptable to us.
We note where the Water Quality Control Commission has set November
IS, 1978 as the date to hold a public hearing for stream classifications
in the Denver area. During the time from now until the State classifies
the Denver area streams, we will continue to approve reissued permits which
are consistent with existing water quality standards classifications and
waste load allocations. Municipal compliance schedules for these dis-
charge requirements will be based on the availability of construction
grant funds.
The question of what level of control is acceptable for urban runoff
was raised in several comments we received on the EIS where we supported
the recommendations of the Clean Water Plan. We believe that progress
needs to be made toward controlling new construction and its effect on
water quality in the Denver area and that the best approach to accomplish
this objective is that outlined in the Clean Water Plan. Although we
agree with the State that the nonpoint source program needs to be refined
in future plan revisions, we encourage the State to support the implemen-
tation of nonstructural urban runoff controls as identified by the Clean
Water Plan. EPA will encourage the implementation of these controls by
requiring general purpose governments to show progress, in the form of ordi-
nances adopted or recent efforts taken, towards implementing the nonpoint
source controls recommended by the Clean Water Plan prior to granting
funds for construction of wastewater treatment works.
All applications for future 208 funds should be consistent with the
State/EPA agreement. As part of the attachment, we have identified those
activities which we believe should receive high priority for future 208
funding. We expect the State/EPA agreement to consider these items in its
formulation of priorities for 208 funding in the Denver area. We look
forward to continuing our relationship with the State and DRCOG as the Plan
is implemented and revisions are made.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Merson
Regional Administrator
cc: Mr. Robert Farley, DRCOG
-------
ATTACHMENT
The following identifies EPA's evaluation of the Clean Water Plan
for the five county Denver 208 study area, as compared with the "plan
content" requirements found in 40 CFR Part 131.11(a) through (p). The
following paragraphs identify our findings on each plan element. EPA's
comments are structured to provide direction to DRCOG and the State on
what additional work needs to be completed for the Plan to comply with
current EPA policies and 208 program requirements.
(a) PLANNING BOUNDARIES: The plan provides all information and maps
required.If the State should desire to include Douglas, Gilpin,
or Clear Creek Counties in the DRCOG 208 area, the Governor will
need to formally designate the area and submit it to EPA for approval.
(b) WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS: EPA realizes
that classifications other than those recommended in the Clean Water
Plan may result after the November IS, 1978 hearing is held on stream
classifications for the Denver area. EPA, also, recognizes that the
recently adopted State criteria may result in the Plan changing some
of its recommendations for downgradings. EPA expects that the plan
update will reflect these changes if they should occur. The State's
general conditions #2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are acceptable as they apply
to stream classifications. The present water quality assessment
appears not to adequately support the Plan's recommended downgradings
for the South Platte downstream from Littleton and Clear Creek down-
stream from Golden. Sufficient documentation will need to be pro-
vided to EPA before these downgradings can be approved. The criteria
identified under 40 CFR 130.17(c)(3)(i-iii) will be used to assess
the adequacy of the documentation. These criteria are: (1) the
existing designated use is not attainable because of natural back-
ground; (2) the existing designated use is not attainable because
of irretrievable man induced conditions; and (3) application of
effluent limitations for existing sources more stringent than those
required pursuant to Section 301(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act in
order to attain the existing designated use would result in substan-
tial and widespread adverse economic and social impact. In addition
to tests for downgrading the State must assure that existing instream
uses are maintained (40 CFR 130.17(e)(1)).
(c) INVENTORIES AND PROJECTIONS: The Plan provided an adequate inventory
of municipal sources of pollutants. Lesser detail was presented in
the Plan for industrial sources. This additional work will be needed
for toxic pollutants which are discharged to the South Platte drainage
basin, especially if the proposed downgradings are not accepted. Pro-
-------
Attachment
Page 2
jections o£ municipal wastes are acceptable. More work may be needed
for projected industrial wastes. The population projections used in
the Plan are consistent with State projections.
(d) NONPOIOT SOURCE ASSESSMENT: The Plan uses loading factors based on
national data and a computer model to determine whether nonpoint
sources are a water quality problem in the 208 study area. The pre-
dicted results from the numerous computer runs have been compared
with some recent in-stream data. Indication from DRCOG staff are the
model is reflecting actual in-stream conditions. However, no docu-
mentation has been provided which demonstrates that this is the case.
DRCOG needs to provide this documentation. Once this information is
provided and found acceptable then EPA can accept the regional
assessment of nonpoint sources. Regardless of the outcome of the
regional assessment, future 208 nonpoint source assessment work will
need to be site specific and oriented toward solving significant
water quality problems.
(e) WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: The Plan used the latest information on
stream classifications and criteria that was available from the
State at the time of Plan formulation. The Plan will need to be
modified to reflect several changes made in those standards since the
time they were used by DRCOG in its Plan development. Notable dif-
ferences exist in the criteria tor ammonia, chlorine, phosphorus, and
nitrates for certain use classifications. The Plan will also need to
be modified to accommodate any differences between stream classifica-
tions adopted by tie State and those recommenced by DRCOG for the
area's surface waters.
(f) TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS: If the State adopts and EPA approves the
Clean Water Plan's recommended stream classifications, the maximum
daily load for point sources is satisfactory. However, if the
State does not adopt or EPA does not approve all of the Plan's
recommendations then the Plan will need to be revised accordingly.
A gross load allotment for nonpoint sources is not presented in the
Plan. This information will need to be included in the plan update.
(g) POINT SOURCE LOAD .ALLOCATIONS: If the State adopts and EPA approves
the Plan's recommended stream classifications, the point source load
allocations are satisfactory for the parameters evaluated. Toxics,
including heavy metals, may require further work depending on the
assessment of total allowable loads. A more thorough evaluation is
-------
Attachment
Page 3
also needed to determine the relationship of domestic potable supplies
and wastewater discharges in the study area. Of particular concern
are the water supplies found in the South Platte and Clear Creek
basins. If the State does not accept the Plan's recommendations for
stream classifications, the Plan will need to be revised accordingly
as part of the plan update.
(h) MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM NEEDS: The comments found under (g)
above apply here.Coordination with existing 201's and the use of
DRCOG projections in these facility plans has been acceptable. The
DRCOG needs to be commended for their efforts in this area. The plan
does not recommend municipal WWTP site locations, nor does it conduct
a cost effective analysis to determine a recommended alternative to
meet existing and future wastewater control needs. Therefore, each
201 facility plan will be used to fill this void.
(i) INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS NEEDS: Except for toxics the
work done to date is acceptable if the State adopts the Clean Water
Plan's recommendations for stream classifications. Otherwise, addi-
tional work will be needed to revise the Plan to make it consistent
with the State's adopted and EPA approved stream classifications.
The appropriate place to make these changes will be in the plan
update.
(j) NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL NEEDS: The Plan's recommendations for non-
point source controls are commensurate with the level of detail
presented in the nonpoint source assessment. Site specific problems
were not identified in the Plan. Therefore, nonstructural control
measures are recommended for urban runoff and standard SCS erosion
control measures are recommended for agriculture. Construction acti-
vities are included under urban runoff and erosion control and envi-
ronmental ordinances are suggested to address water quality problems
associated with construction. Gross cost estimates for the controls
needed to meet 1983 goals are presented in the Plan. Tasks which are
required by EPA regulations (see 40 CFR 131.11(j)) but which have not
been completed are: (1) development/identification of regulatory
programs to achieve the proposed controls; (2) identification of
milestones for when the desired controls will be ijnplemented; (3)
identification of management agencies that will be responsible to
implement the desired controls; (4) presentation of costs by agency
and activity by 5 year increments to achieve the desired controls;
(5) and a description of the proposed actions necessary to achieve
the desired controls. Regarding agriculture the Clean Water Plan
-------
Attachment
Page 4
does not include sufficient detail to justify the expenditure of
Culver Funds. We suggest that the State in cooperation with DRCOG,
determine whether the Denver 208 area is a high priority to receive
these funds if existing deficiencies in the ?lan are corrected. EPA
would not place a high priority on agricultural activities for the
Denver area.
00 RESIDUAL WASTE CONTROL NEEDS; LAND DISPOSAL MEEDS: The Plan did not
have as a priority the disposal ofmunicipaT sludges or water quality
problems related to solid waste disposal sites. The Plan did evalu-
ate the comparative costs of land treatment: of wastewater versus
conventional treatment. The potential impact of land disposal of
solid waste, sludge, and wastewater on groundwater needs to be ad-
dressed. There are some questions whether planning funds under
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act should be used for this activity.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act may be more appropriate
funding source. EPA expects the State to address the question of
funding of this activity in the 208 funding plan that will be included
in the State/EPA agreement.
(1) URBAN AND INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER MEEDS: A program is underway to sepa-
rate combined sewers in the metropolitan area which have been identified
as a source of pollution resulting from overflows. Treatment and con-
trol of urban stormwater for the entire area does not appear to be
feasible at this time due to costs. Consequently, the Plan recommends
good housekeeping practices for existing and new developments and ero-
sion control ordinances for the urbanizing area. The Plan also recom-
mends further study of the problems and their solutions through the
use of demonstrated programs. EPA is in agreement with this approach.
(m) TARGET ABATEMENT DATES: Capital improvements were identified in the
Plan for municipal facilties to meet the Plan's recommended stream
classifications. If these classifications are not adopted and approved
some adjustments will be needed in the capital improvements schedule.
Abatement dates are not presented in the Plan, for the control of non-
point sources because of the lack of information available on the
nonpoint sources. A long term program will probably be needed before
meaningful target dates can be established for nonpoint sources.
(n) REGULATORY PROGRAMS: Adequate regulatory programs exist to control
point sources. They do not exist for nonpoir.t sources. This acti-
vity will need to be completed for nonpoint sources.
-------
Attachment
Page S
(o) MANAGEMENT AGENCIES: The State designated 15 management agencies
without conditions and 6 others with conditions. The Plan recom-
mended 34 agencies for designation. For those agencies that were not
designated or were designated with conditions, the State has instructed
DRCOG to reevaluate their role as waste treatment management agencies
with the objectives of (1) correlating land use, growth, and ser-
vices; (2) coordinating the control of point and nonpoint pollution
sources, and (3) integrating the responsibility for septic tanks and
package treatment plants with other management responsibilities. Of
the 21 agencies receiving designation only one does not meet the legal
requirements prescribed by the Law for management agencies: St.
Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy District. This designation was conditioned
based on the District negotiating acceptable contracts with existing
wastewater disposal agencies. EPA can accept the provisional desig-
nation for the St. Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy District, but no 201
construction grants can be made to the District until these contracts
are executed. EPA views the State acting within its legal authority
regarding their designation of some but not all the management agencies
recommended in the Plan. However, EPA would prefer to see an orderly
transition to management agencies that are general purpose governments
in those cases where general purpose government is unwilling to assume
responsibility for wastewater management.
(p) ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECQNCMIC IMPACTS: An environmental impact
statement was prepared for the DRCOG Clean Water Plan. Twelve sub-
stantive issues were raised in the EIS and responses were received
from several agencies. Comments were received addressing the issues
surrounding the Clean Water Plan's recommendations for management
agencies and the control of nonpoint sources. EPA's position rela-
tive to these issues is addressed under items (j) and (o) above.
There is concern that EPA's approval of the Clean Water Plan's recom-
mended nonpoint source controls will result in unnecessary expendi-
ture of funds possibly leading to economic hardship for the area's
residents. EPA does not believe that this is the case and will need
more documentation before reconsidering its current position.
The DRCOG Clean Water Plan was subjected to many public participation
processes involving citizens throughout the community and individuals at
all levels of government. Several special interest groups that perceived
the Plan would adversely affect them responded to the Plan's course of
action for managing Metropolitan Denver's water quality. The Plan reflects
a compromise among many of these groups. The true test of the Plan's
success will be in its implementation.
-------
Attachment
Page 6
EPA prefers that the following activities receive priority in future
requests for 208 funding. EPA expects the Council and the State to decide
on priority activities as part of the State/EPA agreement which are con-
sistent with these priorities and also local and State priorities.
1. Revision of the management structure for muncipal point sources
that will provide geographical coverage for the entire 208 study area and
which will satisfy EPA's objective of designating a minimum number of
agencies that have implementation authority in. all the environmental pro-
grams administered by EPA.
2. Development of a plan update which addresses the EPA policies,
found in the April, 1978 EIS, for air quality, depletion of stream flows,
water and energy conservation, enhancement of recreational opportunities,
and planning for Douglas County.
3. Development of a point and nonpoint source control program that
is designed to protect municipal surface and groundwater supplies used or
potentially usable as sources of drinking water in the South Platte and
Clear Creek drainage basins, and which will make further progress towards
meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act.
4. Development of a lake restoration project for Sloan Lake or other
urban runoff demonstration projects.
5. Further development of nonstructural controls for urban runoff and
working with local/regional/state government to identify an appropriate
management structure to implement these measures.
i_
-------
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
RICHARD O. LAMM
January 10, 1978
Mr. Alan Person / ' ' '
Regional Administrator \ - JAN 13 1978
Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln
Denver, CO 802Q3
:
Dear Alan:
It is my pleasure to notify you of the State's approval of the 208 water quality
management plan developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments for the desig-
nated area of Adams, fi.rapa.hoe, Boulder, Denver, and Jefferson Counties and my condi~
tional certification of that plan as the official State water quality management plan
for that region. Attached are a copy of a letter to Mr. Donald DeDecker, Chairman of
DRCOG, notifying him of our actions, a list of conditions of plan certification, and
a briefing paper which summarizes the basis of our review and approval decisions. The
State certification of this plan is consistent with the terms of certification con-
tained in the program regulations, 40CFR Part 131.
The State congratulates DRCOG and its staff on the actions and basic information
contained in the initial plan. The State is particularly supportive of the efforts
made in defining regional population projections and allocations of those projections;
in emphasizing the decentralization of wastewater facilities in the interest of total
water management; in determining the general locations, timing, and capacities of fu-
ture wastewater facilities; in taking the initial steps to define management agencies
and responsibilities for those point sources; and in making initial assessments of the
impacts of urban runoff on water quality.
In the interest of strengthening and expanding the basic features of the initial
plan during the ongoing program, I have approved the attached conditions to this plan
certification including a more detailed definition of my actions with respect to man-
agement agencies. Those general conditions are intended to provide supporting infor-
mation regarding future stream classifications, future nonpoint source activities, and
related more technically oriented water quality management aspects of the program.
DRCOC is also being asked to coordinate the various projects being proposed for the
northern suburban area communities for combined compatibility and effectiveness.
The actions which I am taking on the management system reflect a strong State in-
terest in having plan implementation build upon the broad authorities and general re-
sponsibilities vested with general purpose governments. The management system pro-
posed in the plan does include many of the municipalities of the region, but it does
not include a management role for any of the counties. In the interest of strengthen-
ing the role of general purpose governments in the management system, I am designating
-------
Mr. Alan Merson
January 10, 1978
the municipalities listed in the plan (including Xorthgie.in, which was added by DRCOG
at its meeting of December 21, 1977) and the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal Dis-
trict Number 1 as management agencies. In addition, I am designating those special
purpose districts that are in the process of receiving construction grant assistance
or are scheduled to receive grant assistance in the near future and the St, Vrain-Left
Hand Conservancy District as management agencies for a two-year period,
Finally, I am designating the Denver Regional Council of Governments as the on-
going planning agency for this program for the 5-county ares. We believe that DRCOG
has provided an excellent beginning for this program and will maintain the momentum
created. Me are aware that the extent of meeting the conditions contained herein will
depend to a large degree upon the availability of ongoing program funds. We trust
that adequate program funds for Colorado are forthcoming to permit the continuation of
the overall 208 program.
The position taken herein has been developed with a broad base of assistance and
support from pertinent State agencies and the Statewide 208 Policy Advisory Group and
with close coordination of the DRCOG staff and officials. We are sensitive to the
need to proceed promptly, especially in view of the linkage between the 208 plan and
the Denver SIS and associated grant assistance for municipa^ wastewater facilities.
Although the Attorney General's Office has recently advised the Mater Quality Control
Commission that it needs to hold a public hearing on the plan, we believe that it is
prudent to certify the plan. I have asked the Commission to conduct the hearing as
soon as practical. Following ths the hearing, the State position as contained herein
will be reviewed and revised as necessary to reflect the hearing results.
We hope that you will concur with our actions and promptly approve the plan as
submitted. Please feel free to call on Jim Monaghan or Gary Broetzman should you or
your staff care to discuss this further. tie have appreciated the help provided by
your office and trust that the cooperative effort underway with this program will
continue.
Sincerely,
Richard D.
Governor
attachment
-------
STATE CONDITIONS OF PLAN CERTIFICATION
FOR THE DRCOG 208 PLAN
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. URCOG is to prepare a report in accordance with the attached outline which
shall become an official part of the 208 final Clean Water Technical Report. The pre-
paration shall be coordinated with the Water Quality Control Commission.
2. State certification of the plan does not mean endorsement of the recommended
stream classifications. The recommendations included in the plan will be considered
by the Commission to guide water quality decision-making during the period until the
Commission reclassifies those streams according to the revised water quality stream
classification system currently under consideration. When reclassifying the waters of
the b-county Denver regional area,the Commission will consider:
a. recommendations and supporting information in the 208 plan.
b. testimony presented at public hearings on the issue.
c. recommendations and requirements of 208 plans for adjoining regions.
d. goals, objectives, and requirements of appropriate State and Federal
statutes and regulations.
3. JRCOG, with State assistance, is to revise tne waste load allocations as ne-
cessary following stream reclassifications by the Commission. Such revisions snail be
included in the first annual plan update provided that the streams are reclassified in
jtime for this to be accomplished.
4. DRCOG is to include a time-phased strategy for achieving those adopted stream
classifications oy no later than the year 2000, if feasible, in the first annual plan
update, provided the streams are reclassified in time for this to be accomplished.
5. DRCOG is to redefine, as necessary, the list of projects and their priorities
set forth in the plan in tne first annual plan update to conform to the construction
grants priority system established by the Commission. Any projects considered of pri-
ority to the region but not recognized as such by the Commission's priority system are
to be Drought to the attention of the Commission.
6. The State will revise all NPOES discharge permits upon their expiration to
conform witn the waste load allocations (upon State adoption) referred to in condi-
tion 3 and other pertinent constraints called for in the plan and State regulations.
7. DRCOG is to give priority to assisting the pertinent municipalities and the
Water Quality Control Commission in resolving the apparent conflicting wastewater
treatment proposals in the Broomfield, Westminster, Northglenn, and Thornton area to
assure that the final solution for that area best meets the goals of P.L. 92-500,
3. The first annual plan update is to include a definition of the processes that
are oeing or will be followed in identifying and controlling nonpoint sources resulting
from urban runoff, construction, irrigated and dry-land agriculture, and septic tank
systems consistent with the State's nonpoint source framework (scheduled to be comple-
ted in early 1973). That definition of processes is to include the Objectives, long-
' nd snort-term remedial measures, management agencies and functions and possiole regu-
latory controls. A draft of this work should be made available to the State for its
review and comment prior to its inclusion in the first annual plan update.
-------
State Conditions of Plan Certification for tne DRCOG 208 Plan
page 2
9. Altnough the population projections and allocations are compatible with the
projections currently published by the Divison of Planning, Department of Local Af-
fairs, these have not been completely analyzed yet under tne air quality and transpor-
tation planning programs within the region. Consequently, as air quality and transpor-
tation plans are developed and refined, the region's 208 plan will have to be reviewed
and perhaps revised.
10. DRCOG is to meet with the elected officials of city and county governments
within 6 months of the date of State certification to explain the principal features
of the 20'd plan and how local plans can best be modified to support this regional pro-
gram. In conjunction witn che first annual plan update, DR30G will assess the prog-
ress of local plan revisions to reflect the region's 208 plan.
11. The State will review and revise its overall
sary to reflect the results of a public hearing to be
Control Commission.
ACTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
position on this plan as neces-
conducted by the Water Quality
1, The municipalities included in the plan as amended (Aurora, Arvada, Brighton,
Denver, Glendale, Deer Trail, Lafayette, Louisville, Littleton, Englewood, Broomfield,
Westminster, Boulder, Nederland, and Northglenn) and the Metropolitan Denver Sewage
Disposal District Number 1 are aesignated as management agencies.
2. In conjunction with the first annual plan update, the management agency sta-
tus for Northglenn is to oe reviewed in relation to State and Federal actions on the
Northglenn project.
3. The South Lakewood Sanitation District, South Adams County Water and Sanita-
tion District, and the Erie Water and Sanitation District are designated as management
agencies for their defined 201 facilities planning area for a two-year period. The
St. Vrain-Left Hand Conservancy District is also cesignated as a management agency for
the portion of tne St. Vrain basin within Boulder County for a two-year period condi-
tioned upon the development of contractual arrangements between the District and the
municipalities to be served.
4. Within one year of plan certification, DRCOG, in close working cooperation
with appropriate counties and the major cities not ident'fied as management agencies,
is to reevaluate the management agency recommendations covering:
a. Jefferson County Mountain Area
b. Boulder County Area
c. Special Purpose Districts
The reevaluation snoulc focus on estaolisninc an active management role for
general purpose governments for point source management ~n these areas. The following
criteria should be used in establishing revised management agency recommendations:
a. have management jurisdiction over the entire area and replace the provi-
sion for temporary rranagement agencies contained in the plan.
b. have capabilities tc relate decisions between growth and development and
associated services.
-------
State Conditions of Plan Certification for the DRCOG Plan page 3
c. provide for coordinated management over both point ana nonpoint sources.
d. incorporate management responsibilities over package treatment plants and
septic tanks.
In the evaluation of alternative proposals for determining management agencies,
the principal consideration should be the identification of those entities that can best
implement the broad goals and objectives and comply with the requirements of P.I. 92-500.
Identification of management agencies in this process is to be completed within one year
and suomitted to the State for approval. At the end of the second year, the necessary
agreements and contractual arrangements need to be in effect to permit operation of the
management system.
-------
OUTLINE OF ADDENDUM OF TECHNICAL REPORT TO CRCOG 208 PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview of the DRCOG Clean Water Program
B. Purpose of the Report
C. Use of the Report
II. CHERRY CREEK BASIN
A. Existing Situation in the Basin
1. Water Quality Conditions
2. Point Source Discharges
3. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
4. Water Supply Intake (surface and groundwater)
5. Existing Groundwater Conditions
8. Environmental Considerations in the Basin
1. General Environmental Aspects
2. Impacts on Stream CLissifications
C. Financial Considerations of Alternative Stream Classifications
L. Costs to Meet the 1933 Goal
2. Alternative Stream Classifications
3. Required Facilities and Associated Costs
4. Recommended Stream Classifications
5. Criteria for Classification Recommendations
6. Financial Plan for Attaining the Recommended Classifications
7. Recommended Solutions for Groundwater Problems
D. Public Involvement Considerations (only where such documentation clarifies
the basis for the recommendations)
1. General Public and Citizen Group Meetings
2. Water Quality Management Task Force Recommendations
3. Public Hearing Comments
III. OTHER BASINS UTILIZING THE CHERRY CREEK BASIN OUTLINE
St. Vrain Creek Basin
Clear Creek Basin
Bear Creek Basin
Sand Creek Basin
-etc-
IV. REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
A.
3.
C.
D.
Stream Classification Recommendations
Point Source Recommendations
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
Groundwater Improvement and Maintenance Recommendations
-------
APPENDIX C
List of Potential Local Air Pollution Control Measures
A. Public Awareness campaigns to inform the citizenry about the nature
of the problem of air pollution and its potential solutions.
B. Emission inspection and maintenance of vehicles owned by local
governments.
C. Measures to provide incentives for use of mass transit, carpooling,
vanpooling, bicycling, and walking as alternatives to single occu-
pancy vehicle use, such as:
1) educational programs,
2} auto-free zones, malls and people movers,
3) bicycling paths and bicycle racks,
4) local shuttle bus service to and between "activity centers",
5) special carpool parking areas, and
6} assistance in developing employee vanpooling programs.
D. Local ordinance to control smoking vehicles.
E. Staggered or flexible working hour programs in local government
offices.
F. Development of capability to evaluate potential air quality effects
and measures to reduce adverse impacts in local land use planning
and decision making.
G. Traffic light synchronization
H. Local ordinance or policy to require new developments to include
bus shelters and park and ride areas (coordinated with RTD).
I. Measures to control particulates, such as:
1. Upgrade street sweeping by increasing frequency and using
vacuum sweepers;
2. Reduce amount and area of sanding during winter by using plows,
metered sand spreaders, and designating specific snow routes;
3. Clean sand from streets as soon as temperature permits;
4. Institute a program to pave or seal coat unpaved roads, alleys
and parking areas;
5. Local ordinance to:
a. require sweeping of all paved commercial areas
b. stabilization exposed soil at construction sites to
reduce wind blown dust.
-------
APPENDIX D: Staging of Treatment. Plants
e. Staffing of treatment plants. (1) The ca-
pacity of treatment plant* (I.e.. new plants,
upgraded plants, or expanded pi.ants) to be
funded under the construction grants pro-
gram shall not exceed that necessary for
wastewater flows projected during an initial
staging period determined pursuant to one
of the following methods:
(a) first method. At least three alternative
staging periods (10 years. 15 years, and 20
years) shall be analyzed and the least costly
(I.e., total present worth or average annual
cost) staging period should be selected.
(b) Second method. The slatting period
shall not exceed the period which is appro-
priate according to the following table.
STAGING PERIODS FOR TRBATHZHT PLANTS
now growth facto™ (20 yr>'
Maximum Initial
xtaglng period
Cos Qo>
1MUD 1MOD
(yr) (yr)
Lenttut 1.3
1.3 to 1.8
Oreaterthan 1.8..
20
20
10
20
15
10
'Ratio of vutewater flow enpecUsd at end of
twenty (20) yr. planning period to Initial now when
plant la expected to become operational (QZO/Qo).
(2> A municipality may stage the construc-
tion of a treatment plant for a shorter
period than the maximum allowed under
this policy. A shorter staging period might
be based upon environmental factors (sec-
ondary impacts, compliance with other envi-
ronmental laws pursuant to $35.925-14,
energy conservation, water supply), an ob-
jective concerning planned modular con-
struction, the utilization of temporary treat-
ment plants, or attainment of consistency
with locally adopted plans Including com-
prehensive and capital improvement plans.
However, in no case should the staging
period be less than 10 years, because of asso-
ciated cost penalties and the time necessary
to plan, apply for and receive funding, and
construct later stages.
(3) The design parameters for the pro-
posed treatment plant shall be (resented in
the facility plan. Whenever the size or capa-
cities of proposed treatment plant compo-
nents would exceed the minimum reliability
requirements suggested In the EPA techni-
cal bulletin. "Design Criteria for Mechani-
cal, Electric, and Fluid System s.nd Compo-
nent Reliability," a complete justification.
Including supporting data, shall be provided
to the Regional Administrator for hla ap-
proval.
f. Staying of interceptors. Since the loca-
tion and length of interceptors will influ-
ence growth, interceptor routes imd staging
of construction shall be planned carefully;
shall be consistent with approved 208 plans.
growth management plans and other envi-
ronmental laws pursuant to {35.925-14; and
shall be consistent with Executive Orders
for floodplalns and wetlands.
(1) An Interceptor may be provided in the
initial stage to phase out or eliminate exist-
ing point source discharges and to accom-
modate flows from existing habitations.
Unless necessary tc meet those objectives,
interceptors should not be extended into en-
vironmentally sensitive areas, prime agricul-
tural lands and other undeveloped areas
(density less than one household per two
acres). Where extension of an interceptor
through such areas would be necessary to
interconnect two or more communities, the
grantee shall reassess the need for the inter-
ceptor through further consideration of al-
ternative wastewater treatment systems,
analyze primary and secondary environmen-
tal impacts of the Interceptor, and provide
for appropriate mitigating measures such as
re-routing the pipe to minimize adverse im-
pacts or restricting connections to the pipe.
Conditions to ensure implementation of the
mitigating measures shall be included in
NPDES permits when new permits are
issued to the affected treatment facilities in
those cases where the measures are required
to protect the treatment facilities against
overloading.
<2> Interceptor pipe sizes (diameters for
circular pipes) allowable for construction
grant funding shall be based upon a staging
period of 20 years, unless the grantee can
demonstrate that a longer staging period
not to exceed 40 years would be consistent
with projected land use patterns In Water
Quality Management Plans or plans devel-
oped for compliance with other laws in ac-
cordance with 5 35.925-14. where such plans
have been approved, and would reduce over-
all (primary plus secondary) environmental
impacts based on the evaluation of factors
such as the following:
(a) Primary impacts.
(i) Short-term disruption of traffic, busi-
ness and other dally activities.
(11) Destruction of flora and fauna, noise,
erosion and sedimentation.
(b) Secondary impacts.
(i) Pressure to rezone or otherwise facili-
tate unplanned development.
tii) Pressure to accelerate growth for
quicker recovery of the non-Federal share
of the interceptor Investments.
(ill) Effects on air quality and environ-
mentally sensitive areas by cultural
changes.
(3) The estimation of peak flows in inter-
ceptors shall be based upon the following
considerations:
(a) Daily and seasonal variations of pipe
flows, the timing of flows from the various
parts of the tributary area and pipe storage
effects.
(b) The 'easibility of off-pipe storage to
reduce peas flow s.
(c) The use of an appropriate peak flow
factor that decreases as the average dally
flow to be conveyed increases.
FEDERAL •HHSTER, VOL 43, NO. 80—TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1971
-------
|