EPA-908/5-80-001A Draft
GREELENfe
Environmental Impact Statement
For Wastewater Facilities And The Wastewater Management Program
U.S. Environmetal Protection Agency Region VIII, Denver
-------
DRAFT
GREELEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
WASTEWATER FACILITIES .
and the
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI II, DENVER
Approved- by^
Roger L. Wi 11 iams /"
Regional Administrator
DEC 2 7 1979/
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
Executive Summary
This environmental impact statement (EIS) for the City of Greeley
Wastewater Management Program was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by URS Company of Denver, Colorado. The EIS is
a supplement to the original EIS prepared in 1976 for this project.
This supplement was necessary because a supplement to the original
facility plan of 1975 has been prepared which analyzes additional alter-
natives for the City of Greeley.
The original facility plan recommended a new activated sludge wastewater
treatment plant located east of Greeley at the "Delta" site. This
proposed plan resulted in considerable local opposition. This fact,
coupled with much higher revised cost estimates, caused the City to
obtain grant money from EPA to study additional alternatives. In
addition, EPA has recently been emphasizing alternative wastewater
treatment systems.
Four alternatives identified nine treatment processes for treating
Greeley's wastewater. They are:
o Delta Mechanical Plant
12 mgd activated sludge plant
o Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
24-day lagoon with direct discharge
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
o Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek and Ogilvy Ditch
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
24-day lagoon with direct discharge
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
o Land Application System
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage for irrigation
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage for irrigation
This EIS addresses ten areas of public concern relative to the new
study: treatment efficiencies, effluent quality, surface water quality,
ground water quality, public health, odor, visual,, agriculture, land use
and cost.
Findings related to these ten areas of concern are summarized in the
following evaluation matrix.
-------
IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX
ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT
EFFICIENCIES
EFFLUENT
QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
QUALITY
No Action.
jDelta Site-Mechanical Plant
|12 mgd, activated sludge
24-day detention, 12 mgd. la
goon, reservoir storage, dis
charge to Crow Creek.
24 day detention. 12 mgd.
lagoon, discharge to Crow
Creek.
4-day detention, 12 mgd. la-
goon, reservoir storage, dis-
charge to Crow Creek.
Primary and secondary treatment at
First Ave. plaice operation is complex
due to 2 different treatme'nt processes
Treatment is not consistent due in part
to industrial loadings.
Primary and secondary treatment at
Evans plant: 2 aerated lagoons provide
simpler -. operation. Third lagoon
planned would improve efficiencies
Primary and secondary treatment'o
Hill's Park plant: 2 aerated' lagoons
provide simpler operation. Efficiency
of treatment good.
'rimary and secondary treatment
No nutrient removal achieved.
Operation is less complex than First
Avenue plant, but requires knowledge
of various treatment processes to
achieve effluent quality requirements.
Primary and secondary treatment.
Potential for limited nutrient removal
in res. Operation is simplified by a
minimal amount of mechanical equip-
ment. Additional treatment benefit
from reservoir storage prior to dis-
charge. Solids removal infrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment.
Minimal nutrient removal in lagoons.
Operation is simplified by a minimal
amount of mechanical equipment.
Solids removal infrequent.
rimary and secondary treatment,
storage reservoir is intergal part of
treatment due to short detention time
n lagoon. Operation is simplified by
a minimal amount of mechanical
equipment, however, maintenance is
ncreased due to more frequent solid
removal. Limited nutrient removals-
First. Avenue plant BOD'-26
MG/L average, suspended
solids - 29 MG/L average.
No data for Evans and Hill 'n
Park.
BOD-10mg/l-23mg/l
Suspended solids-25 mg/l
Nitrogen-17.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-30 day:
6,000/100ml
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l, vari-
able depending on season and
fficiency of micro-strainers
Nitrogen-1 5,5 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal CoIiform-307/100 ML
to 5621/100 ML
30 day 6000/100 ML
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l, vari-
able depending on efficiency
of^micro-strainers
Nitrogen-15.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform- 307/100 ML
to 5621/ML
8OD-20 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l,
variable depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain"-.
era
Nitrogen-17 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal cpliform-387/100m/ to
5621 /100ml. - .
First Avenue discharge to Pou-
dre would . continue with as-
sociated degradation of water
quality assuming no Improve-
ments.
Evans and Hill 'n Park would
continue discharge beyond
1995. - Miriimar% impact on
water quality.
Removes ; discharge from
Cache la Poudre R. New
discharge to South Plane R.
Improves water quality in
Poudre, limited degradation to
Platte.
Removes discharge from
Cache la Poudre. New dis-
charge to Crow Creek. Im-
proves water quality in Pou-
dre R. above Crow Creek
No benefit to Crow Creek
Water quality, minimal im-
provement to 'S. Platte R. be
low Crow Creek.
Same as above
Same as above
GROUND WATER
QUALITY
No effect.
No Effect
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage reser-
voir but collect channel at
perimeter. Should collect
water. No seepage from lined
lagoons.
No impact expected. Lining
of lagoons will prevent seep-
age.
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage ressr-
voir but collection channel
at - perimeter should collect
water. No seepage from lined
lagoons.
PUBLIC HEALTH
ODOR
No improvement in potential
recreational use of Pcrudre
River for contact. If treatment
efficiencies decrease, public
health' risks might increase
slightly from First Ave.
No impact from Evans and
Hill' 'n Park.
Improves recreational aspects
of Poudre R. for contact.
Minimum threat to recreation
to Platte due to improved
treatment.
Improved, recreational aspects
of Poudre R. for contact
above Crow Creek. No benefit
to Crow Creek or S. Platte
below Crow Creek.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Periodic odor generation from in-
dustrial wastes likely to impact area
around First Avenue.
Minimal impact from Evans and Hill
'n Park.
Long interceptor from First Avenue
may develop odors that would be
emitted at influent to plant. As long as
aerobic conditions are maintained at
plant no odor problems expected.
Interceptor from Greeley to lagoon
potentially will develop odors that
would be released at plant. Solids
accumulation in reservoir may generate
odor that would be released due to
lowering water level during discharge.
Aeration of' lagoons should eliminate
odor potential.
Interceptor from Greeley to lagoon
potentially will develop odors that
would be released at plant. Without
reservoir potential for odors" reduced.
Aeration of lagoons should eliminate
odor potential.
Same as 24-day detention lagoon,
storage reservoir discharge to Crow
Creek option.
VISUAL
No Change.
Extent of negative
impact will be de-
pendent on archi-
tectural design.
Visual impact will
be greatest during
construction. High
effect at site and
immediate, sur-
rounding area.
Visual impact will
be greatest during
construction. Lim-
ited effect visually
at site.
Similar to 24-day
detention, storage
reservoir. dis-
charge - to Crow
Creek.
AGRICULTURAL
I'rrigators below dischargers
'would continue to benefjt
from nutrient and fertilizer ef-
fects. No new agricultural
land or protection of agricul-
tural land provided.
Loss of nutrients in waste-
water to irrigators on lower
Poudre, benefit to S. Platte
irrigators. No new agriculture
expected.
Loss of nutrients to irriga-
tors above Qrow Creek con-
fluence. No new agriculture
expected.
Same as above.'
Same as above.
COSTS
Present Worth
'". Hlflh . '
Low
Would slow resi-
dental and com-
mercial develop-
ment in the Gree-
ley area.
Acreage - need.ed:
40-45 acres
100 year flood
hazard. Could
slow residential
development in
Delta area.
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Will take
some • agricultural
land out of pro
duction. Wildlife
habitat potential.
Acreage . needed:
80^90 acres for la
goon, no agricul
tural la'nd taken
•out of production
Acreage . needed:
20 acres for la-
goop, -600. acres
for storage reser-
voir. WiJI take somi
agricultural 'land
out x>f production.
Wildlife habitat
potential.
31,123.150
29,847,150
37,582.400
32,429,900
3l,846,60b_
28.t44.500
37,161,200
32,008.700
-------
IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX (continued)
1 ~~~ "
n TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE J EFFICIENCIES
V^tf--%'iT-'*fl!i>>'frffif*!fPffl^fft*^^iW*'iil^TTiJL'
24-day detention. 12 mgd. la-
goon, reservoir storage,
summer discharge Ogilvy
dhch. winter - discharge Crow
Creek.
24-day detention, 12 mgd
lagoon, summer discharge O-
gilvy Ditch, winter discharge
Crow Creek.
4-day detention, 12 mgd. la-
goon, reservoir storage, sum-
mer discharge Ogilvy Ditch.
winter discharge Crow Creek.
24-day detention, 12 mgd
lagoon, reservoir storage, land
application, ground water col-
lection, discharge to Crow
Creek.
4-day detention, 12 mgd. la-
goon, reservoir storage, land
application, ground water col-
lection, discharge to Crow
Creek.
Primary and secondary treatment. Po-
tential for limited nutrient removals
in reservoir. Operation is simplified
by minimal amount of mechanical
equipment, however, winter-summer
operational requirements increase.
Solids removal infrequent.
3rimary and secondary treatment.
Minimal nutrient removal in lagoons.
Operation is simplified by minimal
amount of mechanical equipment,
however, winter-summer operation re-
quirements increase. Solids removal
infrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment.
storage reservoir is integral part of
treatment due to short detention time
in lagoon. Minimal potential for nu-
trient removals. Operation is simpli-
field by minimal amount of mechanical
equipment, however, winter-summer
operation and frequent solids removal
increases operational requirements.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary treat-
ment. Lagoon, reservoir, and soils are
integral treatment components. High
nutrient removals. Operation is less
complex due to minimum of mechani-
cal equipment, irrigation-storage func-
tions increase operational require-
ments. Solids removal infrequent.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment. Lagoon, reservoir, and soils
are integral part of treatment. Opera-
tion less complex than mechanical
plant. However, irrigation-storage func-
tions and frequent solids removal in-
crease operational requirements.
EFFLUENT
QUALITY
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids - 30 mg/l,
variable depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain-
ers
Nitrogen-15.5 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-307/100ML to
5621 /ML
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l.
Variable depending on ef-
ficiency of micro-strainers
Nitrogen-15.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-30 day : 6.000/
100ml.
BOD-20 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l.
Variable depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain-
ers.
Nitrogen-17 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-307/100ML to
5621 /ML
BOD-1-2 mg/l in captured
groundwater
Suspended solids-minimal to
none
Nitrogen-13.9 mg/l in captur-
ed grouodwater
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-0-10/100m/
in captured groundwater
Same as above.
SURFACE WATER jj GROUNDWATER 1
QUALITY jj QUALITY 8 . PUBLIC HEALTH
Removes discharge from
Cache la Poudre. Winter dis
charge to Crow Creek not
expected to significantly
change water quality. Ogilvy
Ditch water quality will
change depending on amount
of dilution available at dis-
charge.
Same as above
Same as above.
Removes discharge from
Cache la Poudre R. New dis
charge to Crow Creek. Water
quality in both streams shoulc
improve.
Same as above.
Degree of impact depends on
percent of effluent in ditch,
groundwater depth, and soils
of land irrigated by Ogilvy
Ditch. Reservoir seepage
should be captured.
Same as above.
Same as .24-day detention,
reservoir storage Ogilvy-Crow
Creek option.
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage reser-
voir but collection channel
at perimeter should collect.
Under drain at irrigation site
should collect seepage.
Same as above.
High public health risks as-
oc'iated with 100% effluent in
nc'ontrolled irrigation ditch.
improves recreational aspects
f Poudre. No benefit to Crow
Creek or Platte.
Same .is above.
Same as above.
Limited public health risks
associated with spray irriga-
tion provided adequate buffer
zone established. Irrigation
will be restricted to non-
edible crops. Control of ef-
fluent necessary to limit risks.
Same as above.
ODOR | VISUAL H AGRICULTURAL
Same as 24-day detention, lagoonU Same as 24-day
storage reservoir, discharge to Croww detention lagoon.
Creek. ' If storage reservoir,
H discharge to Crow
H Creek.
1
jj
|
Same as 24-day detention lagoon ,Q Same as 24-day
discharge to Crow Creek. fj detention lagoon,
H discharge to Crow
Same as 24-day detention lagoon, H Similar to 24-day j
Nutrients are available for
crops. Concentrations of nitro-
gen and salinity, even with
100 percent effluent will not
be injurious to crops. No new
agriculture expected.
Same as above.
Nutrients are available for
LAND USE
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Will take
some agricultural
land out of pro-
duction. Wildlife
habitat potential.
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la- |
goon, no agricul- t
tural land Taken f
COSTS
Present Worth
HIGH
LOW
39,337,800
34,185,300
33,077,200
29,375.100
M
out of production H
II
Acreage needed:
storage reservoir discharge to Crow H detention, storage J crops. Concentrations of nitro- |j 20 acrejijor ia-
Creek.
Same as 24-day detention lagoon.
storage reservoir discharge. Aerobic
conditions will prevent odors from
land application site.
Same as above
reservoir, dis- H gen and salinity, even w,th H goon, DUU acres
charge to Crow | 100 percent effluent will not | for storage reser-
Creek t! be injurious to crops. No new H voir. Will take
'
Same as 24-day
detention, storage
.
reservoir, dis-
charge. Conversion
of dry land to ir- J
agriculture expected. j] some agricultura
I] land out of pro-
|j duct.ion. Wildlife
38,916,600
33.764,100
|j habitat potential. i
H 1
Creates new irrigated agricul-
tural land. Utilizes nutrients
1 and water in crop productions.
1 Protects agricultural use of
1 and but reduces aqricultural
rigated with buffer R economy. Concentrations of
zone will be com- ,H nitrate should prove beneficial
patible with exist-. 1 to corn or alfalfa. No effects
ing visual features. 1 expected to livestock.
1
1
Same as above. 1 Same as above.
1 Acreage needed:
] 80-90 acres for la-
] goon, 600 acres
] for storage reser-
voir. Some agricul-
tural land taken
out of production.
2,000-3,000 acres •
of rangeland put
into production.
Wildlife habitat
potential.
Acreage needed:
1 B 20 acres tor la-
1 1 goon, 600 acres
Ifor storage reser-
voir. Some agricu -
tural land taken
oitt r\f nrnHnption
2,000-3.000 acres
of rangeland put
into production.
Wildlife habitat
potential.
1 37.424,800
32,272,300
37.003,600
31,851,100
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Purpose of and Need for Action 3
Description of Alternatives 4
o No Action ^
o Delta Mechanical Plant 25
o Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek 28
o Treatment and Discharge to Ogilvy and Crow Creek 33
o Land Application System 3**
Environmental Consequences 40
o Introduction 40
o Alternative Impacts 41
o No Action Alternative 41
o Alternative 1 - Mechanical Plant at Delta 45
o Alternative 2 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir,
Discharge to Crow Creek 49
o Alternative 3 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Discharge to Crow
Creek 54
o Alternative 4 - 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir,
Discharge to Crow Creek 56
o Alternative 5 ~ 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir,
Summer Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch, Winter
Discharge to Crow Creek 60
o Alternative 6 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Summer Discharge
to Ogilvy Ditch, Winter Discharge to Crow
Creek 62
o Alternative 7 ~ 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage,
Summer Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch, Winter
Discharge to Crow Creek 63
-------
o Alternative 8 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage,
Land Application for Crop Production,
Groundwater Collection, Discharge to Crow
Creek 65
o Alternative 9 ~ 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage,
Land Application for Crop Production, Ground-
water Collection, Discharge to Crow Creek 71
o Subalternatives 72
o Sewer Outfall (interceptor for consolidating wastewater) 72
o Subalternative 1 - Interceptor from Southeast inter-
ceptor pump station to First Avenue
(western routing) 72
o Subalternative 2 - Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta
following a northern plus southeast
interceptor 73
o Subalternative 3 ~ Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta
site following a southern routing plus
the southeast interceptor 74
o Pretreatment 74
o Subalternative 1 - Bar screen at First Avenue plant 74
o Subalternative 2 - Bar screen and grit removal at
Fi rst Avenue 74
o Subalternative 3 ~ Bar screen at Delta site 75
o Subalternative 4 - Bar screen and grit removal at
Delta site 75
o Pumping 76
o Subalternative 1 - First Avenue pump station 75
o Subalternative 2 - Delta site pump station 76
o Transmission (Interceptor to treatment site) . 76
o Subalternative 1 - Interceptor from First Avenue to east
Study Area (single or dual line) 76
o Subalternative 2 - Interceptor from Delta site to east
Study Area (single or dual line) 77
-------
o Storage Reservoir • 77
o Subalternative 1 - Single Cell reservoir 77
o Subalternative 2 - Two cell reservoir 78
Coordination 79
List of Preparers 112
Literature Cited 1 13
Glossary 116
Appendices
Appendix A - Water Quality A-l
Appendix B - Public Health B-l
Appendix C - Existing Facilities C-l
Appendix D - The Use/Value Assessment D-l
Appendix E - Impact of Treatment Facilities on Local Market
and Surrounding Land Values E-l
Appendix F - Water Rights Fully or Partially Owned by Greeley F-1
Appendix G - Wildlife G-1
-------
Table of Exhibi ts
Exhibit
1 Base Map - Greeley and Environs 2
2 Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Land with Property Values 12
3 Residence and Well Location 13
4 Percentage of Time the Wind Blows by Sector 20
5 Worst Case Odor Analysis - 1st Ave. 21
6 Existing Treatment Facility Locations 24
7 Original Study Area with Delta Alternative 26
8 Transmission Line Alternatives 29
9 Discharge Lines to Crow Creek and Ogilvy Ditch 31
10 Reservoir Sites 32
11 Preliminary Treatment - 4 Day Aeration Lagoons 35
12 Preliminary Treatment - 2k Day Aeration Lagoons 36
13 Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 38
14 Worst Case Odor Analysis - Delta Site 48
15 Worst Case Odor Analysis - 24 Day Lagoon and Reservoir 52
16 Visual Impacts - 24 Day Lagoon 53
17 Worst Case Odor Analysis - 4 Day Lagoon and Reservoir 58
18 Visual Impacts - 4 Day Lagoon 59
19 Land Capabilities Without Irrigation 69
20 Land Capabilities with Irrigation 70
A-l Hydrologic Schematic'of the Greeley Area A-2
C-l First Ave. Plant Facilities C-2
-------
Table of Tables
Table
aa Impact Evaluation Matrix in Executive Summary
1 Value of Production for Weld County and the
State in Dollars k
2 Estimated Crop Yields and Values 6
3 Average Crop Water Use - Greeley, Colorado 7
k Guidelines for Interpretation of Water Quality for Irrigation 8
5 Guide to the Use of Saline Waters for Livestock and Poultry 9
6 Recommendations for Levels of Toxic Substances in Drinking
Water.for Livestock 10
7 Water Quality Parameters and Criteria 15
8 Water Quality Summary 17
9 Project Cost Summary - Delta Plant Alternative 27
10 Project Cost Summary - Ogilvy and Crow Creek Alternatives 33
11 Project Cost Summary - Land Application System Alternative 39
12 Impact Evaluation Matrix 42,
13 Value Per Acre for Designated Soil Groups 68
14 Ownership/Operations Arrangements 71
D-l Farm Income D-l
0^2 Soil Groupings and Assigned Relative Weights D-2
E-l Average Colorado Corn Prices E~3
F-l Waters Fully or Partially Owned by Greeley F-2
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
Introduction
The City of Greeley has been planning for the upgrading and expansion of
their wastewater treatment facilities since 1972. The City has applied
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for grant monies for the
design and construction of these facilities under Public Law 92-500, the
Clean Water Act. This law specifies a three-step approach to such
projects:
Step 1 - Facility Plan
Step 2 - Design Plans and Specifications
Step 3 - Construction
The City received Step 1 funding from EPA and a facility plan was completed
in 1975. After completion of this study, the Greeley Water Board recom-
mended that the City Council proceed with the design and construction of
a new "mechanical" treatment plant at a location east of the City known
as the "Delta" site. The new facility was to be built in modular fashion
and the North Side Facility at First Avenue was to be upgraded and
operated until approximately 1990.
EPA, partially as a result of local opposition, prepared an environmental
impact statement on the project. The EIS was completed in 1976 and the
adopted plan was accepted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
and EPA.
An application for Step 2 funding was subsequently approved by EPA for
the design of these facilities. However, revised construction cost
estimates were prepared which were approximately three times those
contained in the facility plan. Because of this fact along with con-
tinued local opposition and a new national emphasis on alternative
treatment systems, the city decided to study additional alternatives
which had not been considered in the original facility plan. A request
for funding for a supplement study to the original facility plan was
then approved by EPA. Since new alternatives were being addressed, a
supplement to the original EIS was also required.
The base map in Exhibit 1 shows the Greeley region and the new study
area.
East of the study area is a continuation of rangeland.
-------
U/CERN
Union Pacific
Greetey Municipal
Afrport.
STUDY AREEA
LASAL
Lower L6th£ m
J
ervoir
EXHIBIT 1
GREELEY
AND ENVIRONS
All* t»I Ml "'
• •eniTfCTI PIAIMIS
-------
PURPOSE OF AND NEED
FOR ACTION
-------
Purpose of and Need for Action
i
Latest population projections indicate that the First Avenue facility
is not adequate to satisfy future demand for wastewater treatment.
Additionally, parts of the existing facility are quite old (1936) and
are inefficient. This plant will not consistently attain the water
quality requirements set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendment of 1972.
For these reasons, a new facility is needed. In conjunction with the
planning for this facility, an environmental impact statement is
required under the conditions of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA).
An EIS is required when the agency finds that a project may have a
significant impact on the environment. An EIS was recommended for Delta
site alternative and the new alternatives thus require a supplemental
EIS.
This supplement to the original EIS is designed to inform all interested
parties of the anticipated impacts associated with the project.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
No Action Alternative
Introduction
Historically, the First Avenue plant has had operational problems lead-
ing to both water pollution and odor problems. Operational problems
were attributed, in part, to the combination of Greeley's domestic
sanitary waste with Monfort's very high strength industrial waste for
treatment at the First Avenue plant. In addition to the combined waste
problem, the sewage treatment plant operators were not adequately
trained to operate the complex design of the First Avenue plant.
In 1973, the Monfort waste was separated from Greeley's domestic waste
and treated at the new Lone Tree Creek plant. Personnel changes along
with removal of the Monfort waste resulted in significant improvements
in the First Avenue plant performance. The BOD and suspended solids
averaged approximately 62 parts per million (ppm) in 197**, and were
reduced to a 34 ppm average in 1975 (EPA's secondary treatment require-
ments designated a 30 ppm average for BOD and suspended solids). The
plant performance during the last half of 1975 was in compliance with
secondary treatment standards. However, the plant has not consistently
maintained these standards. In the first half of 1979, BOD and sus-
pended solids standards were slightly exceeded in two monthly periods.
The lagoon plant was constructed in 1972 with a design for a flow load
of 2.77 million gallons per day and 35,000 pounds of five-day BOD, which
is a BOD concentration more than six times average domestic sewage.
Major problems in operating the lagoon are associated with the objection-
able odors that have come from the anaerobic ponds.
Existing Environment - Agriculture
Weld County in general and the Greeley area in particular has some of
the most productive farmland in the State of Colorado. The County
accounts for almost 16% of the state's crop value, more than two and one
half times any other county. Table 1 shows crop value of production for
Weld County and the state.
TABLE 1
Crops: Value of Production for Weld County and the State in Thousand Dollars
A11 Wheat Corn Barley Dry Beans Other Crops Al1 Crops
1978 Weld 9,81*5 1*9,020 4,130 5,120 44,398 112,513
Colo. 157,073 244,331 33,792 25,857 276,796 737,849
1977 Weld 6,735 47,964 4,267 5,235 43,867 108,068
Colo. 121,542 221,743 31,890 23,655 278,406 677,236
1976 Weld 9,631 55,409 3,879 3,512 46,985 119,416
Colo. 125,696 218,954 29,241 19,481 312,202 705,754
Source: 1979 Colorado Agricultural Statistics
Colorado Department of Agriculture
-------
The productivity of agriculture in Weld County has provided a strong
economic base for the Greeley area since the late 1800's. The signi-
ficance of Weld County's agricultural economic base is indicated in the
statistics that place the county first in agricultural productivity in
Colorado and second in the nation. The value of all crops produced in
the region was approximately $173 million in 1975 (1). Of the total
value of Weld County's agricultural production approximately 75 percent
is attributed to the feeder cattle industry, followed by dairy products.
In the 27 year period from 1950 to 1977, Colorado Agricultural Sta-
tistics shows an increase in the acreage planted in corn and wheat (2),
while other crops have gradually declined. During this same period,
yields per acre for all crops have increased. This may be attributed to
more efficient farm management practices and advances in agricultural
technology.
The irrigation of farmland is the primary reason that the county is one
of the top agricultural producing counties in the nation. All methods
of irrigation are practiced in the Greeley area, except where slope is a
limiting factor. There is a trend, where feasible, to replace furrow
irrigation with sprinklers. The two major reasons for this trend are to
increase water application efficiencies, and to decrease labor costs.
Soils, availability of water, and climate are features that contribute
to the overall productivity.
SOILS
Soils of the area generally are representative of the tertiary and pleisto-
cene sediments along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains. Recent
alluvial deposits occur along the stream valleys. Soils can be grouped
into the following general categories: high terrace and alluvial fan
soils, old terrace and plains soils, ridgecrest and slope soils, upland
soils, flood plain soils, and the sandhill area soils. The Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS) has conducted detailed soil surveys for Weld
County which have not been published (33). In general, soils of the
study area are well suited for crop production. The major soils of the
study area are sandy in texture, with clays and loams.
Soil Productivity
Soil fertility is naturally low within the area. Nitrogen, and to a
lesser degree phosphorus is needed for top crop production in the
irrigated areas. Lime and iron are also known to be deficient in many
of the soils. Most irrigation water contains enough of the minor
elements to meet the annual requirements of commonly grown crops.
Cropping Patterns and Yields
The irrigated farmland within the area produces a variety of crops.
Some of the more economically significant crops include corn for grain,
corn for silage and alfalfa. A common cropping system is a three to
four year rotation of alfalfa and corn. This type of rotation allows
maximum utilization of available soil nutrients. Crop yields are
presented in Table 2 along with an estimate of the 1979 market value.
-------
TABLE 2
Estimated Crop Yields and Values
Crop Yield Per Acre1 1979 Market Value2
Alfalfa k tons $40.50/ton
Corn (grain) 100 bushels 2.7Vbushel
Corn (silage) 16 tons 18.31/ton
Weld County Extension Service
f\
From Northglenn Feed and Bean, Western Alfalfa Corporation, Farmers
Marketing Association, and Monfort Farms.
Irrigation Practices in the Project Area
All methods of irrigation are practiced in the Greeley area. Slope and
soil type are the main factors in determining the type of irrigation
system utilized. Furrow and center pivot sprinklers are the more common
types practiced.
Furrow irrigation is accomplished by gravity flow of water in narrow
channels fed by a head ditch. Water seeps into the soils from the sides
and bottom of the furrows. Water is introduced into each furrow by a
siphon tube from the head ditch.
Rotating center pivot sprinklers pump water through a rotating boom
which has sprinkler heads attached. Water is sprayed from the sprinklers
as the arm rotates over the crop. Typical coverage of one pivot is 1^0
acres. Application rates vary, depending on precipitation, crop, and
soil. According to the Weld County Extension Service (3*0 , there is a
trend to replace furrow irrigation with sprinklers. The two major
reasons for this trend are to increase water application efficiencies
and to decrease labor cost.
Irrigation Water Demand
Water requirements for irrigation have been estimated using the Modified
Blaney-Criddle formula (35). This method gives an estimate of actual
evapotranspirat ion for irrigated areas of semi-arid and arid regions
based on correlations with existing irrigation practice. The estimated
consumptive use effective precipitation, and irrigation water require-
ment for corn (silage), corn (grain), and alfalfa are presented in Table
3. These data (presented in Table 3) were developed from information for
the period of January 1931 through December 1978.
-------
TABLE 3
Average Crop Water Use-Greeley, Colorado (35)
Annual Inches
Consumptive Effective Irrigation
Use Precipitation Requirement
In. [n. Ft.
22.406 4.435 1.500
22.898 4.46? 1.533
31.431 5.946 2.124
Source: Arix, Wastewater Facilities Planning Report No. 1. Evaluation
of Alternatives for Greeley Colorado, Volume II, Appendices, August
1979.
This period includes two dry cycles experienced during the early 1930's
and during the middle 1950's.
Water Quality Requirements for Agricultural Irrigation
Irrigation water quality is evaluated on these main criteria: salinity,
sodium hazard, toxicity and pH. The degree of severity of problems
potentially caused by using irrigation waters of various quality
are identified in Table 4. Although values given in this table are
proven to be applicable under most conditions, site specific conditions
(such as leaching fraction, drainage conditions, irrigation method, soil
conditions, and tolerance to salinity of crops) can modify the values.
Thus, with an increase in leaching fraction, waters with somewhat higher
salinity may be used with little or no problem. Also, with good drain-
age conditions, salt buildups and permeability problems are less
prevalent.
Livestock Watering Requirements '•
Studies conducted to relate water quality to livestock health are
relatively few in number. In general, animals can tolerate higher
salinities than human beings. Tolerance of animals to water quality
parameters depends upon many factors including the salt content of the
diet and the nature of the salts involved. Tables 5 and 6 provide
a set of recommendations for maximum levels of various elements in
drinking water supplies for livestock.
POPULATION
The Greeley region has been experiencing substantial growth which is
expected to continue. Between 1960-1970, City population increased
47.8%. The 1978 population stood at 60,250, Projecting population
figures to the year 2000 has led to varying estimates. The Colorado
Division of Planning gives a low figure of 81,233 and a high of 99,171.
Weld County Planning is projecting 114,764. The 1978 Needs Survey
Wastewater Systems Inventory projects 112,154 persons served by a
treatment plant in the Greeley region by the year 2000.
-------
CO
TABLE ^
GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION OF WATER QUALITY FOR IRRIGATION
Problem area
criterion
Salinity
Electrical conductivity, ECw (mmhoa/cm)
Soil permeability
Electrical conductivity, ECw (mmhos/cm)
Adjusted SARa
Toxicity
Sodiurab (adj SAR)
Chlorideb (meq/1)
Boron (mg/1)
Miscellaneous
Nitrogen: No-j or NH^ (mg/1)
Bicarbonates0, HC03 (raeq/1)
PH
None
0.75
0.50
6.00
3.00
4.00
0.75
5.00
<1.50
Degree of severity of
Increasing
s
0.75 to • 3.00
0.50 to 0.20
6.00 to 24.00
3.00 to 9.00
4.00 to 10.00
0.75 to 2.00
5.00 to 30.00
1.50 to 8.50
(Safe Range 6.50 to 6
problem
Severe
3.00
0.20
24.00
9.00
10.00
2.00
30.00
> 8.50 -
.00)
Adjusted SAR can be calculated from the formula presented in text. The medium range is amenable
to further Interpretation with knowledge of type of clay minerals in soil.
Principally applicable to tree crops and woody ornamentals. For annuals, see text.
c
Significant in sprinkler irrigation.
Source: Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W.
"Water Quality for Agriculture"
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 1976.
-------
TABfcfr 5
GUIDE TO THE USE OF SALINE WATERS FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY
Total Soluble Salts
Content of Waters( mg/l)
Less than 1 000 mg/l
(EC < 1.5)
Relatively low level of salinity.
livestock and poultry.
Excellent for all classes of
1 000 - 3 000 mg/l
(EC - 1.5- 5)
Very satisfactory for all classes of livestock and poultry. May cause
temporary and mild diarrhea in livestock not accustomed to them or watery
droppings in poultry.
3 000 - 5 000 mg/l
(EC - 5 - 8)
Satisfactory for livestock, but may cause temporary diarrhea or be refused at
first by animals not accustomed to them. Poor waters for poultry, often causing
water feces, increased mortality and decreased growth, especially in turkeys.
5 000 - 7 000 mg/l
(EC - 8 - 11)
Can be used with reasonable safety for dairy and beef cattle, for sheep, swine
and horses. Avoid use for pregnant or lactating animals. Not acceptable for
poultry.
7 000 - 10 000 mg/l
(EC - 11 - 16)
Unfit for poultry and probably for swine. Considerable risk in using for
pregnant or lactating cows, horses, or sheep, or for the young of these species.
In general, use should be avoided although older ruminants, horses, poultry,
and swine may subsist on them under certain conditions.
Over 10 000 mg/l
(EC > 16)
Risks with these highly saline waters are so great that they cannot be
recommended for use under any condition.
Source; Environmental Studies Board, Nat. Acad. of Sci.,Nat. Acad. of Eng .
Water Quality Criteria 1972
i. ; • ;•'
-------
TABLE- 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVELS OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN DRINKING WATER FOR LIVESTOCK
Constituent
Upper limit
Aluminum (al)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)a '
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molyodenum (Mo)
Nitrate + Nitrite
(N03-N+N02-N)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Selenium (Se)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
5 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
No data .
5.0 mg/1
.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
No data
0.1 mg/1
No data
.01 mg/1
No data
100 mg/1
10 mg/l'
0.05 mg/1 .
0.10 mg/1
24 mg/1
10,000 mg/1
Lead is accumulative and problems may begin at threshold value
0.05 mg/1
Source: Environmental Studies Board
"Water Quality Criteria 1972"
National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineers.
10
-------
LAND USE
The original study area consisted of approximately 40,000 acres. The
original EIS accounted for five unique land use configurations. They
were:
1. The high percentage - 32.8% - of the city's land in streets
and highways, which is the result of 100-foot wide streets
developed by the original planners of Greeley in 1870;
2. significant amounts of vacant land available for development;
3. commercial strip development south of the city on U.S. 85 and
the more recent development west on U.S. 3^;
k. the north-south corridor of industrial land use on the east
side of the city, and
5. continued residential growth south and west of the city.
This residential growth has been taking some farm land out of production
west of the city. As residential growth spreads, the importance of the
central city to the commercial interests of the area declines. Primarily,
this is due to an increase in shopping centers and other small commer-
cial nodes, which are designed to service small residential jurisdictions.
The land use patterns of the current study area are agricultural. The
entire area is approximately kk square miles. However, no more than
5,000 acres would be actually utilized for treating the effluent.
Exhibit 2 shows current land use and land ownership. As can be seen in
this exhibit, the acreage under consideration is presently non-irrigated.
The irrigated farm land currently under cultivation borders the study
area. These lands are irrigated by water drawn from the Ogilvy Ditch
and other canals owned by the Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company.
Exhibit 3 shows residence and well locations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A cultural resources inventory report was prepared for the study area by
Gorden and Kranzush, Inc. This report, conducted for the 201 facilities
plan, sampled land within the study area to determine the potential
impacts to cultural resources. Cultural activities that were found to
exist included tool manufacturing, game or vegetal food activities and
hunting.
Historic sites in the general area include:
o The grave of the first permanent settler of Weld County
o Twin Buttes Campground
o Hardin (1906)
o Kuner (1908)
o Various stage coach routes and trails
II
-------
STUDY
AREA
EXHIBIT 2
IRRIGATED $ NONIRRIGATED
LAND WITH PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
Imgaftd Land
•^ Proptrty Boundary
^ Study Ar«o Boundary
-------
SIUD.YLAREA
RESIDENCE
O WELL
RESIDENCE AND
WELL LOCATION
-------
No sites within the study area are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). The Office of the State Archaeologist lists one
prehistoric site in the study area. It is a campsite of unknown age,
cultural affiliation and significance located in Section k, Township 5
North, Range 63 West, site 5 WL183-
There were no surface artifacts considered unique or of particular
scientific value. A possibility does exist for potential eligibility
for the NRHP. This is based on some of the artifacts only partially
exposed to the surface at Site 5 WL426 indicating other possible
cultural remains beneath the surface. This site could have possibly
served various functions. These include tool manufacturing, food
processing and camping. Further examination of this site might be
necessary to determine the degree of impact the land application
alternative might have on this potential cultural resource.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Criteria
The proposed Colorado water quality criteria are used to evaluate the
existing water quality. The water supply criteria pertain to ground
water quality which may be adversely affected, rendering it unsuitable
as a water supply. The recreational criteria is considered because of
potential public health risks associated with contact with the waste-
water. The agricultural criteria is important when assessing water
quality effects on crop and livestock production. The pertinent
criteria limits for these uses are presented in Table 7• The Colorado
Department of Health defines these various uses in Appendix A.
Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality data are available for the South Platte River,
Cache la Poudre and Crow Creek. Data are not available for Ogilvy
Ditch; however, it is assumed that the water quality of the Cache la
Poudre River below Greeley's First Avenue wastewater treatment plant is
representative of the Ogilvy Ditch. The Ogilvy Ditch headgate is
downstream of the treatment plant discharge.
Water quality problems in the Cache la Poudre River are associated with
fecal coliform, ammonia, and sulfate. Fecal coliform concentrations
range from 2.2/100 ml to 2.k x 106/100 ml with a mean value of
51,^16/100 ml. The mean value violates the water supply and recrea-
tional criteria. Mean concentrations of ammonia above and below the
First Avenue wastewater treatment plant (2.35 mg/1 and 1.9 mg/1, res-
pectively) exceed the water supply criterion. Mean values of sulfate
(647 mg/1) in the Cache la Poudre exceed the water supply criterion.
-------
TABLE 7
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND CRITERIA
Category
Parameter
Water Supply
Use
Recreation
Class I
Agriculture
Class-II
Physical
Nutrients/
Organics
Biological
Toxics
Metals
Inorganic
: Minerals
5.0 - 9.0
aerobic
free from
10
1.0.
Temperature, C
pH, units
Dissolved Oxygen,
mg/1
Alkalinity, mg/1-
CaCOs
Color
Turbidity, TU
TDS, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
TVS, mg/1
Settleable solids, mg/1
Hardness -
Conductivity, mmhos -
Phosphate, mg/1
Phosphorus
Ortho-phosphate, mg/1
Nitrate-N, mg/1
Nitrite-N, mg/1
COD, mg/1
BOD, mg/1
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
TKN
Total Coliform, tf/100 ml
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1*
Cyanide, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Iron, mg/1 (dissolved)
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
(dissolved)
Molybdenum, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
2000
0.5
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.05
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.01
5.0
250
250
6.5 - 9.0
aerobic aerobic aerobic
free from free from free from
200
2000
100
10
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.02
2.0
0.75
*Fluoride levels vary based on annual average of the maximum daily air temperature.
15
-------
Criteria for fecal coliform and sulfate are exceeded in Crow Creek.
Fecal coliform concentration is 4200/100 ml and sulfate has a concentration
of 800 mg/1.
A total of kl parameters have been monitored. These data are summarized
in Table 8.
The Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers in the study area are
currently classified 82 waters. This classification is comparable to a
warm water fishery and Class II recreational stream using the Use
Classification establishing water standards. Crow Creek is currently
unclassified. Stream classifications in the study area will not be
updated until the spring of 1980.
Use of the streams in the study area are primarily for agriculture. Crow
Creek is almost exclusively an agricultural stream, receiving infrequent
recreational use. The Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers have a
slightly higher recreational potential. This is a function of the
greater volumes of water carried by these rivers year round.
Groundwater duality
Groundwater quality data are available for the South Platte and Cache la
Poudre alluvial aquifers; additional data are also available at the
proposed agricultural site.
Groundwater quality data are limited in the tributary aquifers along the
South Platte River and the Cache la Poudre. The available data indicate
that the groundwater quality is poor. Concentrations of nitrate and
sulfate exceed the water supply criteria of 10 mg/1 and 250 mg/1,
respectively. High total dissolved solids (TDS) and conductivity
indicate the groundwater is saline in composition.
Groundwater at the proposed agricultural site varies from well to well
but generally is of a better quality than the tributary aquifers. With
the exception of a shallow well (40 feet deep), nitrate concentrations
are below the water supply criterion. The deeper groundwater (160 feet
deep) is generally less saline than the tributary aquifers of the South
Platte and Cache la Poudre Rivers. Data from the tributary groundwater
is probably part of this groundwater system..
Publ5c Health
Public health hazards can be a major concern when considering land
disposal of treated effluents and sludge. Potential health risks
associated with land applications of wastewater are:
o human contact with the effluent
o irrigation of raw edible food crops with the effluent.
16
-------
TABLE 8
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Parameter
o
Tcn>p£ r A tut*c C - —
Recreation
US Class 1 Clase 11
South Platte
Agriculture Mean
p!l. unite 5.0-9.0 6.5-9.0
Dtntiolved Oxygen
> *
ng/1
Alkalinity •• CsCQ3
*g/l
Color •
Turbidity, TU
TTIS. i»K/l
TSS, rag/1
TVS, »g/l
Settlcable Solids,
mg/1
Hardness
Conductivity, micro
mhos/cm
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Ortho-phosphate ng/1
Hltrate-N, mg/1
Hltrltc-N, ng/1
COO mg/1
BOD ng/1
Organic Nitrogen mg/1
TKN mg/1
Total Collform 1/100 ml
Frcal Collform 1/100 ml
Ammonla-N, mg/1
Fluoride, ng/1
Cyanide, rag/1
Aluminum, ng/1
Arsenic, ng/1
Cadmium, ng/1
Chromium, rng/1
Copper, mg/1
Iron, mc/l (dissolved)
Lead, ng/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Hangcneae, mg/1
(dlnaolved)
Molybdenum, mg/1
Selenlun, mg/1
Zinc, rog/1
Chloride, mg/1
Sodium, ng/1
Sulfnte, ng/1
Calcium, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
SAR
Total Solids, mg/1
Calcium as CaCO^ mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
- .
-
_
—
- -
_
. -
-
_
_
10 -
1.0
-
_
_
-
_ _ ..
2000 200 2000
0.5
0.2
_
0.05
0.01
0.05
1.0
0.3
0.05
- _
0.05
_
0.01
5.0
250
-
250
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
10
-
-
-
-
_
.
-
0.2
-
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.2
-
0.1
-
0.2
-
0.02
2.0
-
-
-
-
0.75
-
-
-
7.9
9«|
185
35.9
1049
577
1479
2.7
0.7
4.6
0.11
8.2
23.1
14921
15321
1.2
0.97
0.0
0.005
0.0
0.001
0.013
0.015
1.4
0.006
567
0.181
(Total)
0.011
0.001
0.11
57
127
538
0.27
2.3
345
7.0
Maxloua
9.3
UL
• 4
270
218
1435
730
2070
7.9
2.3
21.0
0.91
79.0
40.1
2.3xl05
2.4xl05
8.7
1.2
0.0
0.005
0.0
0.027
0.12
0.18
6.2
0.023
130
0.4
0.03
0.007
1.0
96
195
690
0.47
3.8
517
8.0
Minimum
4.5
Jf
* D
100
4.0
438
176
531
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
6.3
93
15
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.0
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
46
220
0.0
0.9
2.7
6.0
Cache La Poudre
Kean
7.9
in i
1U. 1
182.0
26.2
'•1318
728
1633
2.9
0.89
4.4
0.16
2.0
9.7
9.7
80820
51416
1.9
0.75
0.0
0.004
0.0
0.00005
0.0006
0.0068
0.77
0.003
67.9
0.187
(Total)
0.002
0.0019
0.04
40.3
117
647
0.21
1.9
452
9.0
Maximum
8.7
nn
>U
280.0
510.0
1638
900
2280
6.8
2.6
9.3
0.52
2.0
79.0
'•' 6
2.3x10*
2.4xlOfi
8.0
1.1
0.0
0.004
0.0
0.0006.
0.006
0.034
4.7
0.025
120.0
0.55
0.01
0.009
0.13
59.0
260
780
0.38
3.8
707
12.0
Hlmlmui
6.5
5n
.8
84.0
1.2
298
151
461
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.01
2-.0
2.0
9.7
22
2.2
0
0.23
0.0
0.004
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
10
170
0
0.6
120
5.0
Cache LaPoudre
Above Treatment
Plant
7.8
227.5
730
610
5.0
32.5
10-15
2.35
220
40
38.4
500
202
0.6
200
Mean
28
8.1
350
3720
47
»1000
1480
0
0
4.6
0.05
2.1
4200
0.0
Crow Creek
Maximum Mlnlo
8.2
8.0
5.2
0.1
4.0
0.0
BOO
1600
-------
Pathogenic organisms have been identified in domestic sewage including
bacterial, virus, worms, and protozoas. Traditionally, total coliform
bacteria have been used to indicate the possible presence of disease
causing organisms. However, it has been found that the fecal coliform
bacteria is a more specific indicator of the potential presence of
disease causing pathogens.
The draft water quality criteria, proposed by the Colorado Department of
Health, recommended fecal coliform criterion for agriculture, of
1000/100 milliliters (ml). This value was based on the recommended
criterion presented in the National Academy of Science report (6) and
represents an ambient in-stream condition. In Colorado's final proposed
water quality criteria, the agricultural fecal coliform criterion has
been omitted. Fecal coliform criteria for a raw water supply and for
Class I (contact) and Class II (non-contact) recreation are 2000/100 ml,
200/100 ml, and 2000/100 ml, respectively. (See Appendix B for a more
detailed discussion of public health.)
ODOR
The Odor Emission Regulation of Colorado prohibit emissions of odorous
air contaminants from any single source such as to result in detectable
odors which are measured in excess of the following limits:
• o For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial
purposes, it is a violation if odors are detected after the
odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of
odor free air.
o In all other land use areas, it is a violation if odors are
detected after the odorous air has been diluted with fifteen
(15) or more volumes of odor free air.
Odor concentrations eminating from wastewater treatment plants are
directly related to the design and operating conditions. A properly
operated treatment plant should not emit objectionable odors. Odor
production generally occurs when the facility is overloaded or tempo-
rarily upset. An upset may be caused by a toxic chemical discharge or
improper operation and management.
The sewage collection system is another potential source of odor
problems. Long residence times in the sewer lines as a result of low
flows and small grades can cause anaerobic conditions to develop. Such
conditions can generate hydrogen sulfide and can be very troublesome
when the odors are released to the atmosphere at open discharges.
Odor monitoring of the Lone Tree Creek treatment plant is being done by
the Weld County Health Department. This anaerobic lagoon, industrial
wastewater treatment facility is monitored four times annually and when
complaints are made. During the period from 197^-1975, several odor
violations were filed against the City of Greeley for odor concentra-
tions exceeding the State regulations of 15 to 1 dilutions. The last
18
-------
off-site odors from the Lone Tree facility were reported on June 15,
1978. Since that time, the County Health Department has not detected
any off-site odors. Improved operation of the facility appears to be
responsible for the lack of monitored odor problems.
Other potential odor sources east of Greeley are the Webster Feedlot and
Farr Feeders. It is reported that following rainstorms, these facilities
emit ammonia odors (36). Conditions at the end of last summer were
particularly bad. However, the new Colorado Air Quality Control Act (37)
exempts feedlots from the odor regulations.
Climatological data for wind in the Greeley area indicate that areas
to the north and west of an odor source would be impacted the most frequent
This is determined by the percentage of time the wind flows from any
given 30 degree compass point (see Exhibit k ). Worst case odor analysis
for the First Avenue treatment plant is shown in Exhibits.
Odor analysis typically consists of collecting a sample of air from
the odor source, diluting it with pure non-odorous air to the desired
concentrations (7 and 15 dilutions for Colorado Odor Regulations) and
determine if the diluted odor can be detected by 50% of a randomly
chosen group of people (panel). If more 'than 50% of the panel detects
the odor following a dilution of seven times, the source is in violation
for a residential/commercial area. If more than 50% of the panel
detects the odor following a 15 times dilution, the source is in viola-
tion for all other land uses (industrial, etc.). The areas designated
"7 dilutions" and "15 dilutions" on Exhibit 5 have been calculated based
on climatological data for the Greeley area. The areas within the
respective circles represent potential impact areas that could be
affected by odors generated from the plant site even though the odors
from the plant are within the Colorado State Odor Standards as described
above.
Ex? sting Fac?1ities
This section describes the existing wastewater treatment facilities in
the Greeley Study Area. This includes the Greeley First Avenue and Lone
Tree treatment plants as well as the Evans and Hill 'n Park plants. The
locations of these facilities are indicated in Exhibit 6. A brief
description of each facility follows with a more detailed analysis
contained in Appendix C. Some of this information has been taken from
the final environmental impact statement originally prepared for the
proposed Greeley project.
First Avenue Plant (City of Greeley)
Treatment Facilities
The First Avenue plant consists of an older South Side trickling filter
plant and a newer (196*0 North Side activated sludge plant. The South
Side facilities have a two million gallon per day nominal operation
19
-------
N
PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE WIND BLOWS FROM
EACH 30°SECTOR - GREELEY,COLORADO
. EXHIBIT k
20
-------
WORST CASE ODOR ANALYSIS
l«t AVENUEJCflEATMENT PLANT
(Using Class Fwind stability- wind speed Sto T mph)
LEGEND
•• Estimated oreo exceeding is dilution
— Estimated area exceeding T dilutions
EXHIBIT 5
I nut
SCALC
21
-------
capacity and is presently operated at 100% of capacity. The remaining
daily flow, averaging from four to five million gallons per day, is
treated by the North Side facilities. The North Side facilities have a
nominal operation capacity of six million gallons per day.
The raw wastewater flows through a pretreatment unit for removal of
large solids. The flow is split by pumping a portion (controlled at two
million gallons per day) to the South Side facilities and the remainder
flows to the North Side facilities. The South Side trickling filter
plant consists of one primary clarifier, two trickling filters, one
final clarifier, one chlorination basin, pumping and control building,
and anaerobic sludge digesters. The North Side activated sludge
facility consists of two primary clarifiers, two aeration basins, and
two final clarifiers. Sludge from this plant is pumped to the Lone Tree
Creek plant for treatment and disposal. The North Side effluent flows
across to the South Side where it is mixed with the South Side effluent.
The combined effluent is then chlorinated and discharged to the Cache la
Poudre River.
The discharge from this plant has generally met discharge permit require-
ments of 30 milligrams per liter for both biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and suspended solids, however, periodic violations have occurred.
Collection System
The Greeley sanitary sewer system includes 12,200 sewer lines, 207 miles
of gravity sewers, eight miles of force main pressure sewers and nine
lift stations (pump houses). The Greeley system also receives some flow
from sewers outside the corporate units—Highland Hills, Farmers Truck
Line Grove and the Spanish Colony Sanitation District. The sewers are
constructed primarily of vitrified clay and the remainder are concrete
sewers.
An infiltration/inflow (1/1) analysis was performed on the Greeley sewer
system. The results showed that I/I averages kO to k5 percent of the
total flow in the service lines in the summer months and 18 to 21
percent in the winter months with the majority originating in the
service lines themselves. It was also determined that up to three
million gallons per day of I/I could be removed through a sewer system
rehabilitation program and this approach was more cost-effective than
constructing additional treatment capacity.
Industrial Discharges
The Monfort Meat Packing Plant is the largest industry in the City of
Greeley. Removal of Monfort wastewater from the First Avenue Plant in
1973 substantially improved the operation of this facility. An indus-
trial water survey (9) prepared by CH2M-HI11 identified six other
potentially significant industries whose wastewater is treated at the
First Avenue Plant. These industries are:
22
-------
o Meadow Gold Dairy
o Misco Textile Rentals, Inc.
o Cassedy Brothers Meat Company
o HESCO Manufacturing, Inc.
o Sanitary Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.
Lone Tree Treatment Plant (East Lagoon)
This facility is a secondary biological facility utilizing anaerobic
ponds for clarification and large aerobic ponds for effluent polishing.
It essentially treats wastewater from the Monfort Packing Plant and
waste activated sludge from the North Side Plant. Monfort has a con-
tractual agreement dated March 7, 1970 with the City of Greeley for this
wastewater treatment. The plant discharges to the Lone Tree Creek, one
mile above its confluence with the South Platte River.
Evans Sanitation District Facilities
The Evans Sanitation District serves approximately 4500 people with
collection and treatment facilities. The sewer system includes 925
service lines, and 13 miles of vitrified clay gravity sewers. There are
no major problems with infiltration/inflow, therefore, no sewer system
rehabilitation is required.
The treatment facilities consist of two aerated lagoons with a 30-day
detention time and a treatment capacity of 0.6 million gallons per day.
A third lagoon is planned which would expand the treatment capacity to
1.2 million gallons per day.
Hill 'n Park Sanitation District Facilities
The Hill 'n Park treatment facilities consist of two aerobic lagoons
with a retention time of 52 days. These facilities presently serve
approximately 1500 people.
23
-------
LONE TREE
PLANT
FIRST AVE.
'PLANT
NEW ALTERNATIVE
STUDY AREA
DELTA
SITE
LTERNATIVE
^-EVANS LAGOON
HILL N PARK
LAGOON
LASALLE
EXISTING TREATMENT
FACILITY LOCATIONS AND
ALTERNATIVES
URS PROJgCT NO
-------
DELTA MECHANICAL PLANT
The Delta mechanical plant facility was the recommended alternative in
the original EIS. Due to the cost overruns and public opposition to the
project, other treatment plant alternatives are being considered.
However, the mechanical system at the Delta site is still a possible
technical alternative. (See Exhibit?).
This alternative would consist of a new 12 million gallon per day (MGD)
facility located in the original Delta site. The site location is east
of Greeley near the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte
rivers. In addition to the new facility, the existing First Avenue
plant would have both its north side operation and south side operation
deactivated while being used as a potential pumping station. In the
original facility plan, the north side facility would have remained in
operation until the mid 1990's. When the First Avenue facility was
completely phased out, an additional six MGD module would have been
built at the Delta site bringing the total treatment capacity to 12 MGD.
However, further analysis has established this phasing approach to be
not cost-effective. Therefore, phasing will no longer be considered.
The Delta mechanical plant alternative has four basic components. They
are:
o Outfall from First Avenue to site
o Extension of Southeast Interceptor
o The physical plant
o Discharge to river
The discharge (raw sewage) from the modified First Avenue plant to the
proposed Delta plant would be a gravity transmission line. All waste-
water would be transmitted to the new facility for treatment. The
southeast interceptor line would be extended to collect wastewater in
the southern sections of the city. Eventually, the line could be
extended to the Evans and Hill 'n Park Lagoons. It would then be
possible to treat all of the city's residential wastewater at one
location.
The plant itself would be constructed as a 12 MGD facility in one phase.
Some of the components of the mechanical plant include primary settling,
aeration basins, secondary settling, chlorination, and sludge thickening
and digestion.
At the time of discharge from the Delta plant, the wastewater will have
undergone secondary treatment. The First Avenue plant discharged
treated effluent above the intake of the Ogilvy Ditch. The Delta
alternative will discharge at the Delta location thus bypassing the
intake to the Ogilvy Ditch.
Table 9 presents the project cost summary for the Delta mechanical
facility alternative. All costs are in 1979 dollars for project life.
25
-------
\
{.ONE TREE
CREEK PLANT
Source:
SCALE < r * IO,OOO«
Exhibit 7
Original Study Area
with Delta alterna-
t i ve
Final EIS Greeley Region Wastewater
Management Program 1976
-------
TABLE 9
Project Cost Summary - Delta Plant (Million Dollars)
High Low
Capital Cost Total Cost 2k.7 23.8
Local Share Capital Cost 6.2 6.0
Operation and Maintenance 6.4 6.0
Equivalent Annual Cost Total EAC 2.9 2.8
Local Share EAC 1.176 1.119
Present Worth 31.1 29.8
Source: ARIX Corporation
For a detailed description of costs, see the Arix facilities plan,
Wastewater Facilities Planning, Report #1 Evaluation of Alternatives for
Greeley, Colorado, Volume II, Appendix E Capital Cost Estimates.
27
-------
TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO CROW CREEK
Under this alternative, outfall lines, pumping stations, transmission
lines and an aerated treatment lagoon will all be incorporated into the
system. Basically, the sewage would be pumped from a station at either
the First Avenue or Delta site to an aerated lagoon located approxi-
mately three miles east of Gill. Following treatment to an acceptable
level, the treated wastewater will either be discharged directly into
Crow Creek or stored for a period and then discharged. The five primary
components to this alternative are:
o Outfall lines to common location
o Preliminary treatment and pumping
o Transmission 1ine
o Treatment facility
o Discharge line to Crow Creek
The first stage of this system, the outfall lines, are the major sewer
lines that will extend from the city to one of the following two pro-
posed pumping stations; the First Avenue pumping station or, the Delta
pumping station. The First Avenue station would be located in the
northeast sector of Greeley at the existing First Avenue plant site.
The majority of sewage pumped through this station would come from the
existing West Line. The other alternative, the Delta station, would be
located farther east and just south of the municipal airport. Sewage
pumped through this station would come both from the North Gravity Line
and the South Line. The latter would require additional pumping to
reach the Delta station.
The preliminary treatment that would occur at either of these stations
will entail the removal of any large solids possibly followed by grit
removal. The size of the lines will determine whether grit removal is
required. More specifically, if twin 30 inch lines are constructed,
then the grit can be transported to the lagoon sites. Whereas, a single
36-inch line will require grit removal at the filter station.
The path that either the dual 30-inch line or the single 36-inch will
follow is described in Exhibit 8. Alternative 1 represents the pro-
posed First Avenue transmission line that would run from the First
Avenue pumping station to the treatment site boundary. This line is
almost eleven miles long and it follows the 8th Street alignment to the
airport. Then it gradually swings north and east along the section line
south of Briscoe Lake. Alternative 2 shows transmission from the
proposed Delta site. This alignment is identical to the First Avenue
line except for a short section running south to the Delta pumping
station. Again, in either of these systems a single 36-inch line or
dual 30-inch line can be employed. Project cost summary is found on
Page 31.
28
-------
ALTERNATESflD. /
TRANSMISSION; LINE
LASALLE
EXHIBIT 8
••'•'•" ""•
tlE* CtM 1*1 M' Ilil
TRANSMISSION LINE
ALTERNATIVES
-------
These lines will feed into one of two possible treatment facilities; a
24-day Aerated Lagoon or a 4-day Aerated Lagoon. The 24-day lagoon
generally consists of two or more earthen basins with a combined capa-
city equal to the total average flow of wastewater for approximately 2k
to 30 days. The liquid within the basin is mechanically aerated with
either floating aerators or by the dispersion of compressed air through
sub-surface distributors. The organic portion of the solids decomposes
through aerobic and anaerobic processes. The volume of the stabilized
sludge at the bottom of the lagoon accumulates at a very slow rate (up
to twenty years). Sludge would be disposed of through land application
as ferti1izer.
The storage cells in the 4-day lagoon system are much smaller and
provide for a total detention time of approximately four days instead of
the 24-day period. This reduction in size increases the amount of
aeration needed, and requires accumulated sludge removal approximately
every three years. Construction costs are slightly less for this lagoon
than for the 24-day lagoon ($4,443,000 and $4,509,000 respectively).
However, a storage reservoir would be required under this alternative,
as an intregal part of the treatment process.
Once the sewage has been treated to an acceptable level, the treated
wastewater will be either discharged immediately into Crow Creek or
retained in storage ponds and then released into the Creek at a later
date. Under the direct discharge option, the water would be chlorinated
and discharged straight into Crow Creek. During periods when suspended
solids exceed the maximum allowable amounts in the discharge permit, the
water would be filtered through micro-strainers prior to discharge. The
routing of this discharge line is presented in Exhibit 9-
A major benefit of the storage option is that it will provide a reserve
capacity or back-up insurance for any reservoirs further downstream. If
a call is made on the river, the city would be in a better position to
comply with that request with reservoir capabilities. This would serve
to provide water to the South Platte that has been adequately treated.
Several potential sites for storage reservoirs were initially identified
and based on a preliminary analysis of construction costs, volume
requirements, and proximity to the most desirable application areas (if
the land application system is to be employed), the reservoir should be
located within Section 31 as shown in Exhibit 10.
The topography of this area is well suited for economical construction
of the reservoir at the required capacity.
30
-------
CROV
CREtK
OUTLET FROM 24 DAY LAGOON
OUTLET FROM STORAGE
111* I. IIMSItlM *M.
MOTH. CMfc I«M
*tt* INt ]•> f«*-lf«l
DISCHARGE LINES TO
CROW CREEK AND
OGILVY DITCH
— • Study Ana Boundary |
-------
RESERV3IR
(alternative)
RESERVOIR Nor3~
1650 Ac-Ft
(alternative)
RESERVOIR No. 2
8350fAc-Ft
(alternative)
RESERVOIR No. 4
7070- Ae-R
(alternative) "
RESERVOIR Na. 5
7395
EXHIBIT 10
RESERVOIR SITES
—• Study Ar»a Boundary I
-------
TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO OGILVY AND CROW CREEK
This system is indistinguishable from the Treatment and Discharge to
Crow Creek system except that here there is also a discharge line into
the North Fork of the Ogilvy Ditch. The exact route that this line
would take is shown in Exhibit 8. The rest of the system, including
outfall lines to the First Avenue and Delta pumping stations, the
preliminary treatment and pumping, the treatment facilities, and the
outfall line to Crow Creek are identical to the previous system.
The following table summarizes project costs under the Crow Creek and
the Ogilvy alternates. For a detailed description of costs, see the
ARIX Facilities Plan, Wastewater Facilities Planning, Report #1, Evalua-
tion of Alternatives for Greeley, Colorado, Volume II Appendix E Capital
Cost Estimates. All costs are in 1979 dollars for project life.
TABLE 10
Project Cost Summary (Million Dollars)
Crow Creek Og?1vy
High Low High Low
Capital Cost Total Cost 31.1 21.8 32.8 22.9
Local Share Capital Costs 7.8 5-5 8.2 5-7
Operation and Maintenance 6.8 5-7 6.9 5-7
Equivalent Annual Cost Total EAC 3-5 2.6 3.7 2.7
Local Share EAC 1.331 1.092 1.337 1.125
Present Worth 37.6 28.1 39-3 29.^
Source: ARIX Corporation
33
-------
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM
The final alternative is the land application system. This system
utilizes treated effluent for irrigation purposes. The seven primary
components are:
o Outfall line to common location
o Preliminary treatment and pumping
o Transmission lines
o Pretreatment
o Storage
o Distribution system
o Discharge recovery
The outfall line to a common location would be the same type of an
arrangement as is the case with the Crow Creek and Crow Creek-Ogilvy
alternatives. One or more of three alternate routings would be followed;
North Gravity Line to Delta Site, South Line with pumping to Delta Site
and/or West Line with pumping to First Avenue.
Preliminary treatment and pumping as well as transmission are also the
same as the previous two alternatives. The transmission lines affect
the pumping and preliminary treatment requirements. If one 36-inch line
is used, pretreatment will consist of screening for removal of large
solids and settling for grit removal. If the 30-inch line is used, grit
removal would not be necessary because water pressure would be adequate
to carry the grit to the treatment lagoons in the study area. The 30-
inch line could either be a single or dual pipeline. If only a single
line, plans would call for adding an additional 30-inch pipe in a
right-of-way reserved when the first line was laid.
The pretreatment stage will consist of either the four-day lagoon or the
2^-day lagoon (See Exhibits 11 and 12). Sludge, when disposal becomes
necessary, would be used as fertilizer for the crops to be grown in
conjunction with this alternative. Unlike the Crow Creek alternative,
both lagoons will bring water quality up to a level acceptable for the
next stage in the process. Whereas the previous two alternatives
discharged the effluent after treatment in the lagoons (or via a storage
reservoir), the land application alternative further treats the
wastewater.
After treatment in the lagoons, the effluent is discharged to a storage
reservoir (see Exhibit 10). The potential sizes of the reservoirs would
be from 1650 acre feet to 8800 acre feet. These sizes represent the
maximum acre feet at the location due to topographical considerations.
Wastewater at this stage would be treated at a secondary level. Originally,
three methods of irrigation were considered, 1) ridge and furrow, 2)
surface flooding, and 3) sprinkler irrigation. Ridge and furrow irri-
gation does not adapt well to the study area due to the high perme-
ability of the study area soils. This would cause the water to concen-
trate in the upper ends of the furrows leaving higher salt-concentration
in the lower ends. Yields would also suffer because salts tend to
concentrate around the crops.
-------
/
• :X>•:•: • j>•-r^- ••: '•. •'• V •';±-^ZT~:~?=^^&?'/SZyr <>>
m-tf^*?^^
•S'.'*?•''•'•.'• .>V'-'. •. •-••J^..» ' _^^-^»^ *^^^il*Ix^/^L^x^vx^/^*^1^*'
ilif,Yf
MAXIMUM^
WATER SURFACE
MSpP
fete^f-^
//OUIFALLXO
•^STORAGE
xl-.-RESERVOIR
i /
'INFLUENT FLOW/
METERI /
CONTRGkJ-AB AMD /
/
i
EXHIBIT 11
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
4 DAY AERATION LAGOONS
Source: .ARIX Corp.
-------
INFLUENT FLOW
METER
LOW PRESSURE
AERATION
(TYPICAL)
STRUCTURE—
MICROSTRAINER
3SJORAGE: BESERVOIR-
N \ x x >
\\\\ \A
/ ///
CHLORINE STORAGE
EXHIBIT 12 N N x \\ \
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT\ \\ \\ \
f
CONTROL LAB a
^/MAINTENANCE
I
iL
H
W
/
_OUTFALL JO,
CROW CREEK
/// / -••— 24 DAY AERATION LAGOONS\ \
s s s T i
SCALE: i" »30o*
Source: ARIX Corp.
ll \\\\V
\\ \\\\
-------
Because the topography of the study area is not uniform (varying slopes,
sandy soils, etc.), surface flooding would not be a feasible alternative.
The key element in this method is uniform water distribution. This
cannot be achieved in the study area. Labor requirements would also be
extensive, offsetting the production value of crops grown.
The final method, sprinkler irrigation, is well suited to the study area
because the sprinkler system can negotiate the varying slopes. The type
of system that would be utilized would be a center pivot sprinkler
irrigation system.
These sprinklers would have low head nozzles designed to spray the
effluent down to the crops rather than traditional nozzles that spray
higher in the air off of the sprinkler line. Spraying down would reduce
effluent aerosol dispersal decreasing the chance of contact between
humans and effluent. In addition, the spray bar is adjusted according
to the height of the crop growth to maintain as low a height as is
possible. The ARIX 201 feasibility study described the center pivot
sprinkler as consisting 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. (See Exhibit 13).
Once applied, the effluent percolates through the soil for further
treatment. The soil in the study area is very sandy and porous allowing
for good permeability. This acts as a filtering agent. With proper
application rates, the nitrogen is absorbed by the crops to prevent
overloading of the soil. As the water enters the root zone, it is
directed by bedrock and underground collectors to a drainage ditch for
discharge into either Crow Creek or back into the reservoir. The
collector drains also serve to prevent flooding of the root zone. Once
in the drainage ditch, the water can be analyzed for quality. At point
of discharge, the effluent is treated to a tertiary level.
Table 11 presents the project cost summary for the land application
system alternative. All costs are in 1979 dollars for project life.
37
-------
CENTER PIVOT
W?RIGATORS»
2975 ACRES TOTAL
IRRIGATION PUMP STATION
^--> .
DRAIN TO GROUND WATER
v { •. PUMP SJTAIIQ
EXHIBIT 13
LEGEND
^•« Study Area Bogndary
CENTER PIVOT
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
-------
TABLE 11
Project Cost Summary - Land Application System (Million Dollars)
High Low
Capital Cost Total Cost 37-3 32.0
Local Share Capital Cost 9-3 8.0
Operation and Maintenance .485 .632
Equivalent Annual Cost Total EAC 3.4 3-0
Local S
Local Share EAC .884 .717
Present Worth 37-4 31.8
Source: ARIX Corporation
For a detailed description of costs, see the Arix Facilities Plan,
Wastewater Facilities Planning, Report #1 Evaluation of Alternatives for
Greeley, Colorado, Volume II, Appendix E Capital Cost Estimates.
39
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Introduction
Probably the greatest concern regarding the development of a new waste-
water treatment facility would be the creation of significant growth
related secondary impacts. This is allied primarily to the assumption
that additional sewage treatment capacity will stimulate or induce
population growth. However, rapid growth has been experienced in the
Greeley area for some time now, through the late 60's and most of the
70's, and has been moving primarily in a westward direction from the
city. This has resulted in some of the agricultural land in the west
being replaced by residential development and some associated commercial
uses.
The resident population of the City of Greeley alone is expected to
increase from 60,000 in 1979 to close to 113,000 by the year 2000.
This will likely result in considerable changes and expansion of the
existing employment characteristics, tax base, education and recreation
facilities, and commercial, industrial and residential land use patterns.
To keep up with these growth patterns, additional sewage treatment
facilities will be essential. Thus, it would seem that a "no action"
alternative is not realistic.
The proposed location of the new facilities on the east side of town
will not stimulate any residential growth in the immediate area.
Adverse effects associated with sewage treatment, such as odor and
sludge wastes, will probably have some negative influences on the type
of uses that will locate near the facilities. Land in this area may be
more favorable for certain industrial or business uses. This would then
continue to support further residential growth on the west side of the
c i ty.
At present, there is a system of land use regulations and policies
controlling the use of land in a 60-square mile study area around
Greeley. Weld County has jurisdiction over approximately 85 percent of
the study area with Greeley and the adjacent communities of Evans,
Garden City and Rosedale, having control over the remaining urbanized
portions. Since the adoption of these controls in 1973, there has been
a general policy in effect that new growth is contained around cores of
existing urban development.
These land use controls and policy are based on an adopted comprehensive
plan, zoning regulations, the uniform building code and subdivision
regulations (Senate Bill 35). A list of policy statements used by the
county in achieving the basic pattern of ring growth around existing
towns was summarized in the original EIS.
The cultural resources inventory report identified nine prehistoric
finds, five prehistoric sites, five prehistoric localities, one historic
find and one historic isolated find. None of these resources are
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, based
-------
on the pedestrian survey and evaluation of resources contained in the
sample tracts, no significant impact to cultural resources would occur
as a result of cultivation/irrigation system construction. For a more
detailed discussion of the cultural resource inventory report, see
Cultural Resource Inventory Report, Greeley Wastewater Facilities
Project, Weld County, Colorado (Gordon and Kranzush, Inc. #79-16,
9/11/79); and Wastewater Facilities Planning, Report #1, Evaluation of
Alternatives for Greeley, Colorado (Arix, Volume 1, 8/79).
Alternative Impacts
The four alternatives identify nine differenct treatment processes for
treating Greeley1s wastewater. They are:
• Delta Mechanical Plant
12 mgd activated sludge plant
• Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
24-day lagoon with direct discharge
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
• Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek and Ogilvy Ditch
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
24-day lagoon with direct discharge
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage and discharge
• Land Application System
24-day lagoon with reservoir storage for irrigation
4-day lagoon with reservoir storage for irrigation
Summarized in Table 12, the evaluation matrix, are the impacts asso-
ciated with each of the nine treatment processes for the following:
Treatment efficiencies
eff1uent quality
surface water quality
groundwater quality
public health
odor
visual
agricultural
land use
cost
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would require that wastewater would continue to be
treated at the existing wastewater treatment facilities (First Avenue,
Evans, and Hill 'n Park). The First Avenue consists of a South Side
trickling filter plant and a North Side activated sludge plant. Cur-
rently, these facilities are treating an average of 6.9 mgd. The
two systems operate together and have extensive complexities in opera-
tion. Treatment efficiencies have improved with the removal of the
Monfort packing plant wastes but other industrial facilities waste-
water periodically upset the treatment processes. Solids from the
facilities must be frequently disposed.
-------
.Table 12
IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX
U TREATMENT • EFFLUENT
ALTERNATIVE 1 EFFICIENCIES 1 .QUALITY
* H > 1 '
No Action.
,i
• x^
.
Delta Site-Mechanical Plant
12 mgd, activated sludge
24-day detention, 12 mgd. la
goon, reservoir storage, dis
charge to Crow Creek.
24 day detention, 12 mgd.
lagoon, discharge to Crow
Creek.
4-day detention. 12 mgd. la-
goon, reservoir -storage, dis-
charge to Crow Creek.
•'
Primary and secondary treatment at
First Ave. plant: operation is complex
due to 2 different treatment processes.
Treatment is not consistent due in part
to industrial loadings.
Primary and secondary treatment at
Evans plant: 2 aerated lagoons provide
simpler operation. Third lagoon
planned would improve efficiencies.
Primary and secondary treatment of
Hill's Park plant: 2 aerated lagoons
provide simpler operation. Efficiency
of treatment good.
Primary and secondary treatment
Wo nutrient removal achieved.
Operation is less complex than First
Avenue plant, but requires knowledge
of various treatment processes to
achieve effluent quality requirements.
Primary and secondary treatment.
Potential for limited nutrient removal
in res. Operation is simplified by a
minimal amount of mechanical equip-
ment. Additional treatment benefit
from reservoir storage prior to dis-
charge. Solids removal infrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment.
Minimal nutrient removal in lagoons.
Operation is simplified by a minimal
amount of mechanical equipment.
Solids removal infrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment.
storage reservoir is intergal part of
treatment due to short detention time
in lagoon. Operation is simplified by
a minimal amount of mechanical
equipment, however, maintenance is
increased due to more frequent solid
removal. Limited nutrient removals.
First Avenue plant BOD • 26
MG/L average, suspended
solids - 29 MG/L average.
No data for Evans and Hill 'n
Park.
BOD-10mg/l-23mg/l
Suspended solids-25 mg/l
Nitrogen-17.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-30 day:
6, 000/1 00ml
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l, vari-
able depending on season and
efficiency of micro-strainers
Nitrogen-15,5 mg/l "
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal Coliform-307/100 ML
to 5621/100 ML
30 day 6000/100 ML
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l, vari-
able depending on efficiency
of micro-strainers
Nitrogen-15.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform- 307/100 ML
to 5621/ML
BOD-20 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l.
variable depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain-
ers
Nitrogen-17 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-307/100m/ to
562 1/1 00ml
!~*nj
GROUND WATER 1
QUALITY 1 PUBLIC HEALTH
~irst Avenue discharge to Pou-
dre would continue with as-
sociated degradation of water
quality assuming no improve-
ments.
Evans and Hill 'n Park would
continue discharge beyond
1995. Minimal impact on
water quality.
Removes discharge from
Cache la Poudre R. New
discharge to South Platte R.
Improves water quality in
Poudre, limited degradation to
Platte.
Removes discharge from
Cache la Poudre. New dis-
charge to Crow Creek. Im-
proves water quality in Pou-
dre R. above Crow Creek.
No benefit to Crow Creek
Water quality, minimal im-
provement to S. Platte R. be-
low Crow Creek.
Same as above
Same as above
-
No effect.
No Effect
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage reser-
voir but collect channel, at
perimeter. Should collect |
water. No seepage from lined
lagoons.
-
No impact expected. Lining
of lagoons will prevent seep-
age.
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage reser-
voir but collection channel
t
at perimeter should collect
water. No seepage from linec
lagoons.
No improvement in potential
recreational use of Poudre
River for contact. If treatment
efficiencies decrease, public
health risks might increase
slightly from First Ave.
No impact from Evans and
Hill' 'n Park.
Improves recreational aspects
of Poudre R. for contact.
VHnimum threat to recreation
to Platte due to improved
treatment.
Improved recreational aspects
of Poudre R. for contact
above Crow Creek. No benefit
to Crow Creek or S. Platte
below Crow Creek.
Same as above.
Same as above.
IT COSTS
1 | Present Worth
LAND USE 1 High
Periodic odor generation from in-
dustrial wastes likely to impact area
around First Avenue.
Minimal impact from Evans and Hill
'n Park.
Long interceptor from First Avenue
may develop odors that would be
emitted at influent to plant. As long as
aerobic conditions are maintained at
plant no odor problems expected.
Interceptor from Greeley to lagoon
potentially will develop odors that
would be released at plant. Solids
accumulation in reservoir may generate
odor that would be released due to
lowering water level during discharge.
Aeration of lagoons should eliminate
odor potential.
Interceptor from Greeley to lagoon
potentially will develop odors that
would be released at plant. Without
reservoir potential for odors reduced.
Aeration of lagoons should eliminate
odor potential.
Same as 24-day detention lagoon.
storage reservoir discharge to Crow
Creek option.
No Change.
Extent of negative
impact will be de-
pendent on (archi-
tectural design.
Visual impact will
be greatest during
construction! High
effect at site and
immediate, } sur-
roundina area.
Visual impact will
be greatest during
construction. Lim-
ited effect visually
at site.
j*
Similar to 24-day
detention, storage
dis-
Crow
k*recK .
Irrigators below dischargers
would continue to benefit
from nutrient and fertilizer ef-
fects. No new agricultural
land or protection of agricul-
tural land provided.
Loss of nutrients in waste-
water to irrigators ori lower
Poudre, benefit to S. Platte
irrigators. No new agriculture
expected.
Loss of nutrients to irriga-
tors above Crow Creek con-
fluence. No new agriculture
expected.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Would slow resi-
dental and com-
mercial develop-
ment in the Gree-
ley area.
,
Acreage needed:
40^5 acres
100 year flood
hazard. Could
slow residential
development in
Delta area.
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Will take
some agricultural
land out of pro-
duction. Wildlife
habitat potential.
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, no agricul-
tural land taken
out of production.
Acreage needed:
20 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir Will take some
agricultural land
out of production.
Wildlife habitat
potential.
0
31,123,150
29,847,150
37,582,400
32,429,900
31,846,600
28,144,500
37.161,200 ]
32,008,700 •
4
'\
-------
IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX (continued)
JRF.ATMENT
EFFICIENCIES
SURFACE WATER
QUALITY
GROUND WATER
QUALITY
detention, 12 mgd
agoon, summer discharge O-
gilvy Ditch, winter discharge
row Creek.
14-day detention. 12 mgd. la-
loon, reservoir storage, sum-
Tier discharge Ogilvy Ditch,
vinter discharge Crow Creek.
24-day detention, 12 mgd. la-flPrimary and secondary treatment. Po
jgoon, reservoir storage.Htential for (imited nutrient removal
summer discharge OgilvyHin reservoir. Operation is simplified
ditch, vyinter-discharge CrowHby minimal amount of mechanica
Creek. * jfequipment, however, winter-summei
operational requirements increase
Solids removal infrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment.
Minimal nutrient removal in lagoons
Operation is simplified by minima
amount of mechanical equipment
however, winter-summer operation re
quirements increase. Solids remova
nfrequent.
Primary and secondary treatment,
'storage reservoir is integral part of
treatment .due to.short detention time
in lagoon. Minimal potential for nu
trient removals. Operation is simpli
field by minima! amount of mechanical
equipment, however, winter-summer
operation and frequent solids removal
increases operational requirements.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary treat-
ment'. Lagoon, reservoir, and soils are
integral treatment components. High
nutrient removals. Operation is less
complex due to minimum of mechani-
cal equipment, irrigation-storage func
tions increase operational require
ments. Solids removal infrequent.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment. Lagoon, reservoir, and soils
are integral part of treatment. Opera-
tion less complex than mechanical
plant. However, irrigation-storage func-
tions and frequent solids removal in-
crease operational requirements.
'4-day detention, 12 mi
agoon, reservoir storage, landl
ppli cation, ground water col-|
ection, discharge to Cro
reek.
i-day detention, 12 mgd. la-
loon, reservoir storage, land
ipplication, ground water.col-
;ction, discharge to Crow
'reek. /
BOD-30 nig/I
Suspended solids - 30 mg/l,
variable .depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain-
ers I
Nitrogen-,15.5 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-307/100ML to
5621/MLg
BOD-30 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l.
Variable ('depending on ef-
ficiency of micro-strainers
Nitrogen-1'5.5 mg/l
Salinity-657 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-30 day : 6.000/
100ml.
BbD-20 mg/l
Suspended solids-30 mg/l.
Variable depending on season
and efficiency of micro-strain-
ers. '
Nitrogen-1.7 mg/l
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-307/100ML to
5621/ML
BOD-1 -2_ .mg/l :.in capjured
groundwater
Suspended solids-minimal to
none
Nitrogen-13.9 mg/l in captur-
ed groundwater
Salinity-718 micromho/cm
Fecal coliform-0 10/100m/
in captured groundwater
Same as above.
iRemoves discharge fron
Cache la Poudre. Winter di
charge to Crow Creek no
expected to significantly
change water quality. Ogilvy
Ditch water quality wi
change depending on amoun
of dilution available at dis
charge.
Same as above
Same as above.
Removes . discharge from|
he la .Poudre R. New dis
iharge to Crow Creek. Watei
quality in both streams shoulo^
mprove.
Same as above.
Degree of impact depends on
percent of effluent in ditch,
groundwater depth, and soils
of land irrigated by .Ogilvy
Ditch. Reservoir seepage
should be captured.
Same as above.
Same as 24-day detention,
•eservoir storage Ogi Ivy-Crow
Creek option.
No impact expected. Seepage
expected from storage reser-
voir but collection channel
at perimeter should collect.
Under drain at irrigation site
should collect seepage..
Same as above.
High' public health risks as-
soci_ated with 100% effluent in
uncontrolled irrigation ditch.
Improves recreationat aspects
of Poudre^ No benefit to Crow
• i
Creek or Plane.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Limited - public health risks
associated with spray irriga-
tionljprovided adequate buffer
zone, established. Irrigation
will|j be restricted to non-
edibl'e : crops. Control of ef-
fluent necessary to limit risks.
Same as above.
ODOR
Same as 24-day detention, lagoon.
storage reservoir, discharge to Crow
Creek.
Same as 24-day detention lagoon,
discharge to Crow Creek.
Same as • 24-day detention lagoon.
storage reservoir discharge to Crow
Creek.
'
Same as 24-day detention lagoon.
storage reservoir discharge. Aerobic
conditions will prevent odors from
land application site.
.
VISUAL
.
Same as 24-day
detention lagoon,
storage reservoir,
discharge to Crow
Creek.
Same as 24 -day
detention lagoon,
discharge to Crow
Creek.
' - '
Similar to 24-day
detention, storage
reservoir, dis-
charge to Crow
Creek.
Same as 24-day
detention, storage
reservoir, dis-
charge. Conversion
of dry land to ir-
rigated with buffer
zone will be com-
patible with exist-
ing visual features.
' • •
'
. I
Same as above. 1
1
(•! -™ ' ™™
,
| AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
1
Nutrients are available for
crops. Concentrations of nitro-
gen and salinity, even with
100 percent effluent will not
be injurious to crops. No new
agriculture expected.
I
f
i
i
f
Same as above.
!
I/
1'. Nutrients are available for
crops. Concentrations of nitro-
gen and salinity, even with
100 percent effluent will not
be injurious to crops. No new
i agriculture expected.
i
i
I
Creates new irrigated agricul-
tural land. Utilizes nutrients
•and water in crop productions.
Protects agricultural use of
land but reduces agricultural
i economy. Concentrations of
nitrate should prove beneficial
i to corn or alfalfa. No effects
expected to livestock.
Same as above.
1
ft
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Will take
some agricultural
land out of pro-
duction. Wildlife
habitat potential.
Acreage needed:*
80-90 acres for la-
goon, no agricul-
tural land taken •
out of production.
s •
Acreage needed:
20 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Will take
some agricultural
land out of pro-
duction. Wildlife
habitat potential.
Acreage needed:
80-90 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Some agricul-
tural land taken
out of production.
2,000-3,000 acres
of rangeland put
into production.
Wildlife habitat
potential.
Acreage needed :
20 acres for la-
goon, 600 acres
for storage reser-
voir. Some agricul-
tural land taken
out of production.
2,000-3,000 acres
of rangeland put
into production.
Wildlife habitat
pot'ential.
COSTS
Present Worth
HIGH
LOW
39,337,800
34,185,30*0
33,077,200
29,375,100
38,916,600
33,764,100 .
37,424,800
32,272,300
,
1
37,003,600
31,851,100
-------
The Evans Sanitation District Facilities consist of two aerated lagoons
operated in series. The facilities serve approximately 4,500 people.
Dentention time in the lagoons is 30 days and discharges about 0.6 mgd.
A third lagoon is planned for this facility which would expand treatment.
The lagoon systems can be operationally more efficient if operated properly.
Sludge disposal would be infrequent.
The Hill 'n Park system consists of two aerobic lagoons which have the
flexibility to operate in series or parallel with a detention time of
about 52 days. The facility serves approximately 1500 people and has an
average daily flow of 0.1 mgd. The operation of this facility is
simpler than conventional mechanical facilities. Solids will be removed
infrequently which aids in treatment and operational efficiencies.
Effluent Qual ity
Effluent data were only available for the First Avenue treatment plant.
Impacts from the Evans and Hill "n Park facilities on surface water
quality are expected to be minimal with continued operation of the
plants. The average BOO effluent concentration from the First Avenue
plant in 1979 has been 26 mg/1, with a maximum monthly average of 31
mg/1. The average suspended solids effluent concentration has been 29
mg/1, with a maximum monthly average of 33 mg/1.
Periodic upsets in treatment caused by industrial wastes has lowered
effluent quality and created violations of discharge permit require-
ments. Continued operation of the First Avenue plant is likely to
result in further permit violations.
Surface Water Quality
Continued discharge of First Avenue wastewater to the Cache la Poudre
with associated violations of permit requirements would contribute to
degradation of the stream's water quality.
Discharges from the Evans and Hill 'n Park facilities would continue for
the life of these facilities. Treatment is expected to provide an
effluent quality which would have a minimal effect on surface water
quality. However, receiving streams would be committed to assimilate
wastes.
Groundwater Quality
Continued operation of the three facilities would not impact groundwater
quali ty.
Public Health '
Operation of the First Avenue treatment plant without improvements would
not reduce any potential public health risks. The Cache la Poudre River
would not improve as a potential recreational stream, particularly for
contact recreation. If operational problems reduce treatment efficiencies
at the First Avenue plant, there exists the potential for increases in
public health risks.
-------
Health risks associated with discharges from the Evans and Hill 'n Park
facilities are not expected to increase providing these facilities
function properly.
Odor
Historically, odors have been emitted from the influent structures at
the First Avenue Plant. These odors are believed to be associated with
industrial wastewaters. These odors are likely to continue with opera-
tion of this facility. The areas that would be impacted from odors are
shown in Exhibit k, Page
Minimal odor impacts are expected from the Evans and Hill 'n Park
facilities provided aeration is provided to the wastewaters.
Visual
Visual features at the First Avenue Plant and the Hill 'n Park plant
would not change with continued operation. The addition of a third
lagoon at the Evans facility would create a localized visual impact,
however, this is not considered to be a significant impact.
Agriculture
Existing agricultural lands below all discharges which use discharge
receiving waters for irrigation would continue to benefit from nutrients
and fertilizing features of the water. However, this option does not
provide for the protection or expansion of agricultural land in the
Greeley area.
Land Use
Residential and commercial growth would be limited because additional
wastewater could not be adequately treated with the existing facilities.
Costs
There are no capital costs for this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - Mechanical Plant at Delta Site
A new activated sludge treatment plant would be built at the Delta Site,
effluent would be discharged to the South Platte River. The proposed
facility would have a design capacity of 12 million gallons per day
(mgd).
Consistent treatment performance of this plant would be highly dependent
on the control of high strength/toxic, slug loads of industrial wastes
which have periodically upset the First Avenue treatment plant. This
facility would provide both primary and secondary treatment of the
wastewater. It is expected that nitrogen compounds will undergo
conversion, but no removal of any nutrients in the wastewater is
expected.
-------
Effluent Quality
Activated-sludge plants, like the proposed Delta plant, when operated
properly and are not upset by industrial inputs, have the ability to
meet discharge requirements of 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1) bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 30 mg/1 suspended solids (SS).
Effluent quality of the proposed Delta plant is expected to range from
10 mg/1 and 23 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 SS. The treatment plant is expected
to reduce total nitrogen concentrations by 32 percent. Based on an
influent concentration of 25 mg/1, the effluent concentration is
expected to be about 17-5 mg/1. The total nitrogen component would
consist of the following forms of nitrogen:
Ammonia - 35 percent
Organic Nitrogen - 27 percent
Nitrate + Nitrite - 38 percent
Fecal Coliform concentrations in the effluent for any 30 day average
are expected to be about 6,000/100 milliliters (ml) and for any seven
day average, 12,000/100 ml. This facility would not result in any
reductions in salinity.
Surface Water Quality
Beneficial water quality impacts to the Cache la Poudre River will occur
by implementing this alternative. Currently, water quality in the lower
Cache la Poudre is being impacted by irrigation return flows and the
First Avenue treatment plant. The South Platte River's water quality
will be degraded since an additional discharge will require assimi-
lation. The discharge would likely be upstream from the confluence of
the Cache la Poudre with the South Platte, thus benefits gained in
dilution previously realized will be lost due to change of receiving
stream and point of discharge. Waste load allocations and water quality
modeling conducted by the Larimer-Weld COG for the Water Quality
Management Plan indicate that secondary treatment at the Delta plant
would not be sufficient in attaining water quality standards. Discharge
of a 30 mg/1 BOD and 15 mg/1 ammonia (RM 248.2) will cause the instream
ammonia level to reach 11.6 mg/1 and remain above 1.5 mg/1 until river
mile 230.8 where return flows provide acceptable water.' The DO standard
is also exceeded until the confluence with the Cache la Poudre River at
mile 247.7 provides sufficient oxygen to raise the instream DO above
5.0 mg/1." Even if the plant were upgraded to tertiary treatment,
dissolved oxygen and ammonia standards would continue to cause violations
one half mile below point of discharge until dilution with the Cache
la Poudre River.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater will not be effected as a result of this alternative.
-------
Public Health
The health risks associated with contact of the effluent are greatly
reduced since dilution will begin immediately upon discharge to the
South Platte. The Cache la Poudre will improve as a recreational stream
with public health risks reduced by removing the First Avenue discharge.
The segment of the river that will be improved is from the First
Avenue point of discharge to the confluence of the Poudre and Platte
Rivers. The effect of the effluent on public health in the South Platte is
further discussed by improved wastewater treatment.
Odor
Wastewater treated at the Delta site wastewater will be conveyed from
the First Avenue plant and the southeast interceptor. Long residence
time in the pipeline increases the potential for odors to develop.
Influent, if exposed to the air upon entering the treatment plant, would
emit odors. The potential areas that would be effected before a vio-
lation of seven to one dilutions and fifteen to one dilutions are shown
in Exhibit 13-
Visual
The Delta treatment plant will have some impact on the visual features
of the immediate site and adjacent area. The extent of this impact will
be contingent upon final architectural design. Variations include
warehouse type appearance to low profile contemporary styling.
Agricultural
This alternative does not increase or preserve agricultural land of the
area. Changing the point of discharge results in the loss of the
nutrient and fertilizer benefits the wastewater provided to irrigators
along the Cache la Poudre below the existing discharge point.
Land Use
The Delta site currently is a low density area. The primary land use is
agricultural with some residential. The county airport is located a
short distance to the north of the Delta. If the Delta alternative was
to be selected, kS acres would be required for facility location. No
single piece of property can be found above the 100-year flood level.
Consequently, flood proofing of the facility would become necessary.
Land use impacts associated with the construction of a wastewater treatment
facility would primarily be reflected in a slowing of residential
development in this area. This could possibly lead to the establishment
of some light industry and warehousing. Basic land use patterns would
not be altered in the short term. Long term consequences would depend
on whether the facility operated at designed standards.
A 7
-------
WORST CASE ODOR ANALYSIS
DELTA SITE
(Using Doss F wind stoblllty- wind speed 3 to 7 mph)
LEGEND
——— Estimated area exceeding is dQirtioas
Estimated area exceeding 7 dilations
SCALE
EXHIBIT
-------
Costs
The high and low cost estimates for this alternative are $31,123,150
and $29,847,150 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir, Discharge
to Crow Creek
This alternative consists of a 24-day detention time, aerated, two cell
lagoons with a design flow of 12 mgd. The site of this facility is east
of Crow Creek. The wastewater would receive secondary treatment in the
lagoons then would receive a final polishing in the storage reservoir
before discharge to Crow Creek. This treatment process would not
achieve any significant amount of nutrient removals. The operation and
maintenance of the treatment process would be reduced compared to a
mechanical facility once operational conditions in the lagoons were
established. Sludge would accumulate in the lagoons and to a lesser
degree in the storage reservoir. Preliminary design features of the
lagoons indicate there is a potential for short-circuiting, thus
reducing detention time and treatment of the wastewater. Relocation of
the inflow and/or outflow structures can eliminate this potential
problem. Suspended solids removal may not be as high due to algal
growth and seasonal changes in the pond.
The storage reservoir would be designed as either a one or two cell
system with a preliminary design detention of 160 days. Additional
suspended solids removal will occur in the reservoir as well as some
natural disinfection. The reservoir will be subject to algal blooms and
seasonal turnovers which may effect suspended solids concentrations in
the effluent. Location of the reservoir in Section 31 would require
the diversion of storm water from a tributary of Crow Creek. This
diversion would begin north of the reservoir and would be directed
back to its original course south of the facilities. In addition,
the storage reservoir could become a potential wildlife habitat for
duck, geese, and other water fowl. This could increase hunting
capabilities in the area.
The efficiency and reliability of this facility is highly dependent
on controlling industrial wastewater discharges to the system.
Effluent Quality
This alternative has been designed to produce an effluent which meets or
exceeds the BOD and suspended solids discharge permit requirements of 30
mg/1. In addition, nitrification and some nutrient removal may occur in
the storage reservoir. With the exception of nutrient removal and
nitrification, the effluent is expected to be similar to that produced
by the Delta mechanical plant. However, algal blooms and seasonal
turnover in the reservoir may cause occasional high discharges of
suspended solids. Successful operation of the micro-strains will govern
if violations occur. No reductions in salinity are expected in the
-------
lagoons, and, because of evaporation in the reservoir, it is expected
that salinity concentrations may increase. Fecal coliform concentrations
should be less than in a mechanical plant since bacteria die-off will
occur in the reservoir.
Surface Water Quality
The point of discharge is removed from the Cache la Poudre river. This
will have a beneficial impact on the streams water quality. Crow Creek
is composed primarily of irrigation return flows and runoff. Discharging
wastewater will have a negative impact on the streams quality, parti-
cularly with regard to nitrogen concentrations and salinity. Both of
these parameters are likely to increase below the discharge point. Crow
Creek is currently unclassified, therefore, impacts to designated uses
cannot be assessed. Concentrations of these parameters are expected to
be below livestock and crop tolerance limits but higher than historically
exper iended.
Crow Creek is tributary to the South Platte River. The impact of a
treated wastewater in Crow Creek on the South Platte will be similar to
the Delta mechanical plant.
The storage reservoir will provide a great amount of flexibility which
can further minimize impacts. Should algal growths or turnover cause
the water quality to be incapable of meeting permit requirements,
release could be withheld.
i
Groundwater Quality
Soils analysis indicate high permeabilities. The storage reservoir
would be only partially lined. Therefore, seepage from the reservoir is
expected. Based on data from the Muskegon Project, which has similar
site and design features, there is the potential for as much as 3-5 mgd
of treated effluent seeping through the bottom of the reservoir.
Preliminary design plans require the construction of a ditch around the
outer perimeter of the reservoir to intercept the seepage water. The
success of this ditch in capturing seepage will depend on the depth to
seasonal groundwater and the depth to an impervious substrate. Cur-
rently, these data are not available. However, .if the bedrock would
prove to be pervious in places, wells and pumps could be added to
control seepage as a mitigating measure.
The captured water would be monitored for its quality and if acceptable,
would be discharged to Crow Creek. If the water quality is not suitable
for discharge, it would be returned to the lagoons for treatment.
Current preliminary, design does not indicate if this additional flow is
factored into the treatment process.
The treatment lagoons will be lined with impervious material, therefore,
no groundwater impacts would occur from raw or partially treated
wastewater.
50
-------
Public Health
Health risks associated with treated wastewater from Greeley discharged
to the Cache la Poudre River will be removed. This will improve the
potential recreational use of this river. Health risks in Crow Creek
and the South Platte River are not expected to change provided the
wastewater receives some detention time in the storage reservoir and
disinfection prior to discharge. However, disinfection efficiencies can
be reduced if the discharged water is high in suspended solids. The
suspended solids will have a masking effect on bacteria, reducing their
contact with the chlorine and increasing health risks associated with
the discharged wastewater.
Odor
Long residence times in the transmission lines from Greeley to the
lagoons increases the potential for odors to develop. The odor would be
released to the atmosphere at the influent structure to the lagoon if it
were not submerged. The potential also exists that some decaying
material which settles in the reservoir might be exposed during discharge/
drainage which may also be odorous. Aeration of the treatment lagoons
will eliminate the potential for odors to form in these structures. The
areas that would be effected before a violation of the seven to one
dilution and fifteen to one dilution State regulations are shown in
Exhibit 15.
Visual
The proposed reservoir and lagoons will alter the topographic features
of the immediate area. The greatest impact will occur during construc-
tion when exposed soil will contrast with surrounding vegetation.
However, as vegetation establishes on the slopes of the facility, this
impact will be significantly reduced. Analysis of the visual features
of the area indicates that the rolling terrain of the area will aid in
further reducing the visual effects beyond the immediate site.
An exaggerated cross-section of the 24-day lagoon is presented in
Exhibit 16.
Agriculture
This alternative neither protects prime agricultural land nor provides
additional agricultural land. Wastewater nutrients and fertilizing
benefits will be lost to irrigators below the First Avenue discharge.
Irrigators using Crow Creek below the proposed discharge may realize
some benefit of these parameters, providing water is available for their
use.
Land Use
Impacts of this alternative on the existing land uses will be twofold.
First, there are those temporary disruptions on the land that will occur
during the construction phase of the various transmission lines and
second, there will be the more permanent effects associated with the
location of treatment facilities, lagoons, and storage reservoir.
51
-------
.PROPOSED TREATMENT
/ AND STORAGE SITE
WORST CASE ODOR ANALYSIS
24 DAY LAGOON AND RESERVOIR
(Using Clou F wind stability-wad speed 3 to 7 mph.)
LEGEND
—— Estimated area exceeding is dilations
——— Estimated area exceeding 7 dilutions
EXHIBIT 15
SCALE
I MILE
52
-------
VISUAL IMPACTS
24-- DAY LAGOON
CROSS SECTION
490O
48OO
ui
lit
•«£/.'£:'';>v,"
ik^ V'** -'r 'i-
^itfvJK
•' • '• -f.
v- '• __'•!
i,fe--7'
J_
I
J8OOO 4000
"aSod
2000
1000
t
LAGOON
1000
20OO
SOOO
4OOO
HORIZONTAL 018 TA NCE IM;. 'FEE T
(Vtrtical to horizontdl •xag^ardtioh is 10 to I )
Vtrf-Ical
In,;
-------
Under the 24-day lagoon alternative, 80 to 90 acres will be needed to
accommodate all lagoon and treatment facilities. A storage reservoir
will require an additional 600 surface areas. Up to 320 acres of irrigated
cropland will be taken out of production. The remaining area needed to
accommodate the proposed storage reservoir will be unirrigated range-
land.
Costs
The high and low cost estimates for this alternative are $37,582,400 and
$32,429,900 respectively. These costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Discharge to Crow Creek
This alternative is identical to the system described under Alternative
2 but without the storage reservoir. Eliminating the storage reservoir
improves the operation and maintenance of the treatment system. How-
ever, certain treatment efficiencies and flexibility are lost. Dis-
charge to Crow Creek under this Option is continued, no flexibility for
controlled discharges is available. Additional removal of suspended
solids will occur beyond the second lagoon. However, the potential for
increased algal/suspended solids concentrations associated with the
reservoir is eliminated.
Effluent Clual ity
This system is designed to meet the discharge permit requirements of 30
mg/1 BOD and suspended solids concentration. However, this process will
not provide supplemental treatment beyond secondary. Suspended solid
discharge requirements have a higher probability of being met since any
algal blooms or effect of turnovers will be confined to the lagoons and
not include the reservoir. No nitrification or nutrient removals are
likely to occur in the lagoons. This option will possibly be more
compatible with the micro-strainers since it is anticipated that sus-
pended solids will be less of a problem. Should temporary upsets in
treatment occur, potential for discharging a lower quality effluent
becomes possible. Proper design and operation should consistently
produce an effluent quality that meets permit requirements.
Surface Water Quality
The First Avenue Treatment Plant discharge is removed from the Cache la
Poudre; impacts are beneficial as described previously. The most
significant water quality impact will be to Crow Creek, which will
receive the entire effluent discharge throughout the year. The water
quality impact will vary depending upon the time of year and the con-
sistency of the treatment process. With consistent treatment process
performance, the impact on Crow Creek water quality should be minimal
most of the year and could be beneficial during the summer when the flow
consists largely of agricultural return flow.
54
-------
If process upsets cause discharges of effluent containing large quan-
tities of algae, the impact on Crow Creek will be detrimental. If this
occurs during periods when agricultural return flows are carrying
nutrients into the creek, then algae blooms may occur with concomitant
odors, and water quality and aesthetic problems. This would cause
reduced water quality in the South Platte River below the mouth of Crow
Creek.
Groundwater Quality
The treatment lagoons are designed to be lined. Depending upon the
final design material and its thickness, this material should prevent
any seepage into the groundwater. Should seepage occur, monitoring of
the groundwater would be necessary to evaluate the extent and severity
of any groundwater impacts.
Public Health
Public health risks that could develop as a consequence of this option
will be similar to those described under Alternative 2. Elimination of
the reservoir removes some of the die-off time for bacteria that additional
storage would provide but reduces the potential for algal/suspended
solid masking. This option, therefore, provides no significant benefit
to public health over Alternative 2.
Odor
Odor formation in the long transmission from Greeley and the spheres of
influence/impact will be the same as Alternative 2. This Option by
elimination of the storage reservoir reduces a source of potential
odors.
Aeration of the treatment lagoons will prevent odor generation resulting
from treatment.
Visual
Visual impacts will be identical to those described under Alternative
2. The greatest impacts will be during construction. Elimination of
the reservoir will proportionately reduce impacts adjacent to site.
Agricultural
This alternative neither protects existing agricultural nor provides
additional agricultural land. Impacts are the same as Alternative 2.
Land Use
Land use impacts for this alternative are the same as Alternative 2
except that no acreage would be needed for a storage reservoir. There-
fore, no agricultural land would be taken out of production.
55
-------
Costs
The high and low cost estimates for this alternative are $31,846,600 and
$28,144,500 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 4 - 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir, Discharge
to Crow Creek
The storage reservoir is an integral and necessary component of this
treatment option. Two lagoons each with a two day detention time would
be aerated. Aeration would be accomplished by fixed platform, mechanical
aerators instead of the coarse-bubble compressed air diffusion designed
for the 24-day detention lagoons. Operation and maintenance of this
process is likely to be higher. This is, in part, the result of the
need for more frequent solids removal from the lagoons and possibly the
reservoi r.
This process would also be somewhat more sensitive to shock organic or
toxic loads which would disrupt the treatment process. This type of
system is often designed as a three cell lagoon system because greater
operational flexibility can be achieved.
The lagoons and reservoir are designed to achieve secondary treatment.
Micro-strainers prior to chlorination will aid in achieving the discharge
permit requirement of 30 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids. The reservoir
will provide additional solids removal and may achieve some nutrient
removal and nitrification. The storage reservoir will operate in
similar manner as Alternative 2, but could be designed to a smaller
capacity. This facility would function as a polishing pond for the
wastewater prior to chlorination and discharge.
Effluent Quality
Short detention time in the lagoons require high aeration to reduce BOD
prior to storage. Additional BOD reduction is likely to occur in the
storage reservoir. Suspended solids removal and generation will be
similar to that described in Alternative 2. Depending upon the effi-
ciency of the micro-strainer, and algal blooms and season turnovers,
suspended solids in the effluent will vary. Salinity in the influent
wastewater will potentially be increased due to water losses through
reservoir evaporation. Fecal coliform bacteria may be masked during
disinfection if the micro-strainers are not efficient in suspended
solids removal, thereby reducing the efficiency of chlorination.
Surface Water Quality
Impacts to surface water quality are expected to be the same as those
described under Alternative 2.
56
-------
Groundwater Quality
Lining,of the treatment lagoons will eliminate the potential for seepage
of raw or partially treated wastewater. Seepage is expected from the
storage reservoir. Final design and success of seepage capture will
depend upon depth to groundwater and impervious substratum as described
under Alternative 2. Proper construction should capture the majority of
the seepage water thus minimizing any impacts to groundwater. Captured
groundwater would be monitored for quality and if acceptable, would be
discharged to Crow Creek. Captured groundwater that was deemed unsuit-
able for discharge would be returned to the lagoons for treatment.
Capacity of the lagoons may need to be adjusted in final design to
account for this additional water.
Public Health
Public health risks associated with this alternative will be similar to
those discussed under Alternative 2. The greater sensitivity of the 4-
day lagoons increases the potential for system upsets and associated
public health risks. However, operation of the reservoir inhibits the
discharge of partially treated wastewater.
Odor
Potential for the development of their emission is the same as those
described under Alternative 2. Since the reservoir will likely accu-
mulate more solids than the reservoir associated with Alternative 2, odor
impacts associated with draining/drawing down the reservoir will be
greater. The area that will be affected by nuisance odors are illustrated
in Exhibi t 1 7•
Visual
Construction of the 4-day lagoons would require less land and would be
located away from county roads thus reducing the visual impact. An
exaggerated cross-section of the 4-day lagoons is illustrated in
Exhibit 18 . Visual impacts of the reservoir would be greatest during
construction as described under Alternative 2.
Agriculture
Impacts on agriculture would be the same as described under Option 2.
Land Use
As in the previous alternatives, the laying of transmission lines would
cause temporary disruption to the land. In utilizing the reservoir, up
to 320 acres of agricultural land would be taken out of production. A
total of 600 surface acres would be needed for the entire reservoir.
The four-day treatment lagoon would require approximately 20 acres.
57
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT
AND RESERVOIR SITE
WORST CASE ODOR ANALYSIS
4 DAY LAGOON AND RESERVOIR
(Using Dose Fw'nd stability-•ind speed 3 to 7 mphj
LEGEND
———— Estimated oreo exceeding is dilutions
Estimated area exceeding 7 dilutions
EXHIBIT 17
SCALE
58
-------
iiwyj.BiTi.i8;
VISUAL IMPACTS
.4 -DAY LAGOON
CROSS SECTION
I
I
I
I
J
1000
10 00
LAGOON
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
(Vertical to horizontal exaggeration is 10 to I )
aooo
3000
t '
Horizontal
Vertical;
4-000'
i iii. «
V in. «
100
500O
-------
Costs
The high and low cost estimates for this alternative are $37,161,200 and
$32,008,700 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 5 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Storage Reservoir, Summer
Discharge to Qgilvy Ditch, Winter Discharge Crow Creek
This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 with the exception of the
seasonal discharge. Secondary treatment can be achieved as well as
minimal nutrient removal in the storage reservoir. Accumulated sludge
in the treatment lagoons would require infrequent removal. The preli-
minary lagoon design indicates a potential for short-circuiting, result-
ing in a lower level of treatment if not corrected in final design.
Impacts of this alternative will be the same as those discussed in
Alternative 2, except during the summer. Only these variations will be
discussed below.
Effluent Qua!ity
The effluent quality will be the same as that discussed in Alternative
2. BOD and suspended solids concentration in the effluent can be 30
mg/1 for each parameter. Suspended solids are likely to vary in the
reservoir but successful operation of the micro-strainers should provide
an effluent within permit requirements. Salinity will probably increase
due to evaporation losses in the reservoir to about 718 micromho/cm.
Fecal coliform will vary from 307/100 ml to 5621/100 ml.
Surface Water Quality
Impacts to the water quality of Crow Creek would be as described in
Alternative 2.
Summer discharge to Ogilvy Ditch would result in a variation in water
quality. The variation in quality will depend on the flow and quality
of the water in the Ditch at the discharge point. It is expected that
during particular times during the summer, the Ditch would contain 100
percent effluent. This is considered the worst case condition, since
water quality would be that discussed under effluent quality.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality at the treatment lagoons and storage reservoir would
be the same as that described in Alternative 2.
Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch and subsequent use for irrigation should not
adversely effect groundwater below the irrigated land. During times
when 100 percent effluent is in the Ditch and flows over the land,
groundwater should not be effected since soil filtration would further
treat the wastewater.
60
-------
Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch would occur during the irrigation season,
therefore, nutrients in the wastewater would be utilized by the crops.
This feature would minimize the potential for buildup of nutrients,
particularly nitrates, in the soil.
Public Health
Public health risks occur when 100 percent effluent would be in Ogilvy
Ditch. This situation represents a health risk because the City of
Greeley is no longer in control of the wastewater and public exposure to
the effluent is unrestricted. The reuse of wastewater, when out of the
control of the municipality, should provide for the protection of the
public health both during agricultural uses and public exposure. Data
on public health risks relative to irrigation with wastewater is con-
flicting and is reflected in the lack of uniform requirements or standards
covering such use. The data on public health hazards associated with
uncontrolled access/use of treated wastewater are virtually non-existent.
The proposed Colorado primary contact recreational bacteriologic standard
of 200 fecal coliform organisms per 100 ml is a reasonable bacteriological
criteria for discharge of the treated wastewater to Ogilvy Ditch. This
standard would be compatible with unrestricted public access to the
canal system. This bacteriological discharge level of the effluent
would provide a relatively high level of pathogen control, but the
presence of pathogenic organisms in the Ditch water can be expected.
The anticipated effluent fecal coliform concentration for this option
will not achieve 200/100 ml based on existing preliminary design.
Odor
Odor impacts of this alternative would be the same as described under
Alternative 2. The areas that would be affected by nuisance odors in
excess of State regulation are illustrated in Exhibit ]b on Page
Visual
This alternative would have the same visual impacts as Alternative 2.
The visual cross-section of the 2^-day detention lagoon is illustrated
in Exhibit 15 on Page
Agricultural
Crops irrigated by the Ogilvy Ditch would benefit from the wastewater
discharged in the summer. Concentration of nitrogen and salinity when
100 percent effluent is used would not be detrimental to crops. No
additional irrigated agricultural land would be developed but some
protection of existing agriculture is provided by committing the ditch
to receive effluent.
Provisions would be necessary to prevent the irrigation of raw edible
food crops with the effluent. There is also a potential operational
problem of discharging to the Ditch when land could not be irrigated or
was not available for irrigation in the summer. However, flexibility in
the system may allow discharge to Crow Creek in the summer during these
periods.
61
-------
Land Use
This alternative needs 80-90 acres for the lagoon and 600 acres for the
storage reservoir. The reservoir will take up to 320 acres of agricul-
tural land out of production. Temporary impacts on the land will occur
as a result of the laying of an additional line to transmit treated
wastewater to Ogilvy Ditch.
Costs
The high and low cost estimates for this alternative are $39,337,800 and
$3^,185,300 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 6 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Summer Discharge Ogilvy
Ditch, Winter Discharge Crow Creek
This alternative, with the exception of the summer discharge to Ogilvy
Ditch, is identical to Alternative 3. The treatment achieved would be
to a secondary level. Operational requirements would be slightly greater
due to changes required in the point of discharge. The impacts resulting
from this alternative would be the same as those identifed for Alter-
native 3 relative to treatment efficiencies and effluent quality, and
the same for the other categories as discussed in Alternative 5.
Effluent Quality
The benefit of not having the storage reservoir is a potential reduction
in suspended solids and salinity in the effluent. However, no nutrient
removals are likely to occur in the treatment lagoons, and the potential
for bacteria die-off that can occur in reservoirs is not likely, thus
increasing coliform counts. Effluent quality will be the same as that
discussed under Alternative 3«
Surface Water Quality
Impacts to Crow Creek water quality during the winter would be the same
as those discussed under Alternative 3. Summer discharge to Ogilvy
Ditch under this alternative would have similar impacts on water quality
as described under Alternative 5- The worst case water quality impacts
would be associated with 100 percent effluent. The relative concentra-
tions of parameters would vary between Alternative 5 and Alternative 6
as described under the effluent quality produced, respectively.
Groundwater Quality
The impacts on groundwater quality resulting from this alternative would
be the same as those identified in Alternative 5-
Public Health
The relative public health risks of this option would be greatest when
100 percent effluent would have uncontrolled use in Ogilvy Ditch. Fecal
coliform concentrations prior to chlorination are likely to be higher
62
-------
since the potential for.additional die-off provided by the reservoir is
eliminated; thus higher chlorination may be required. However, there is
the possibility that the masking effect of suspended solids on disinfec-
tion may be reduced without the reservoir, thus off-setting the need for
additional chlorination.
When discharging to Ogilvy Ditch, it is proposed that 200/100 ml fecal
coliform be achieved in the effluent to provide a suitable degree of
public health protection.
Odor
The potential for odor development and emission along with the resultant
impact would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 3-
Visual
Visual impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative 3-
Agriculture
The impacts to agriculture would be confined to lands irrigated by the
Ogilvy Ditch. These effects would be the same as those discussed under
Alternative 5.
Land Use
The 24-day lagoon would require 80-90 acres. No agricultural land would
be taken out of production.
Costs
The high-low cost estimates for this alternative are $33,077,200 and
$29,375,100 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 7 ~ 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage, Summer Discharge
Ogilvy Ditch, Winter Discharge Crow Creek
This alternative is the same as Alternative k with the exception of the
flexibility to discharge to Ogilvy Ditch during the summer. Treatment
efficiencies, operational features, and treatment levels achieved would
be the same as those identified in Alternative k. The only variation is
in the season discharge points.
Effluent Quality
Effluent quality produced by this process would be the same as that
discussed under Alternative k. The BOD concentration may be slightly
less than options using the 2^-day lagoons due to the need for higher
aeration requirements of short detention lagoons. Salinity may increase
in the reservoir during detention due to evaporation loss. Fecal .
63
-------
coliform bacteria may experience some die-off in the storage reservoir
decreasing counts; however, suspended solids may increase in the
reservoir due to algal blooms.
Surface Water Quality
The impacts on Crow Creek water quality during winter discharge would be
the same as those discussed under Alternative 4. Impacts on the water
quality of Ogilvy Ditch would be the same as those discussed under
Alternative 5.
Groundwater Quality
The impacts to groundwater quality at the treatment and reservoir site
would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 4. The effects
on groundwater under lands irrigated with the effluent are also discussed
under Alternative 4.
Public Health
The public health risks associated with this alternative are associated with
the potential for uncontrolled use of and access to 100 percent effluent.
The health risks of this situation are the same as those discussed under
Alternative 5.
Odor
The potential for odor problems and the area that would be affected is
the same as Alternative 4. The potential area of impact is shown in
Exhibit 16, Page
Visual
Visual impacts of this alternative would be the same as those identified
in Alternative 4. The exaggerated cross-section, Exhibit 17, Page , is
also applicable to this option.
Agriculture
Beyond the benefit of providing nutrients to crops irrigated by the
Ogilvy Ditch, impacts to agriculture would be the same as those identified
under Alternative 5.
Land Use
The 4-day lagoon will require 20 acres. The storage reservoir will
require 600 surface acres. Will take approximately 320 acres out of
agricultural production.
Cost
The high-low cost estimates for this alternative are $38,916,600 and
$33,764,100 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
-------
ALTERNATIVE 8 - 24-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage, Land
Application for Crop Production, Groundwater Collection, Discharge
to Crow Creek
Facilities that comprise this alternative include aerated treatment
lagoons with a total detention time of 2k days and a design flow of 12
mgd. These lagoons would be constructed east of Crow Creek. The
treated effluent from these lagoons would be discharged to a large
storage reservoir for final effluent polishing and winter storage.
During the summer, water from the reservoir would be used to spray
irrigated crops through center pivot sprinklers for nutrient removal,
and additional treatment by soil filtration. Wastewater not lost
through evaporation, and crop uptake would be collected by underdrains
and discharged to Crow Creek. The treatment process and design of the
lagoons and reservoir would be identical to those of Alternative 2, 3» 5
and 6. However, treatment efficiencies would be greater. The nutrient
removals achieved by crop uptake and additional treatment provided by
soil filtration would provide tertiary treatment.
Operational requirements would be more involved than other options since
storage and releases from the reservoir would depend on growing season
and farming practices at the land application site. Current preliminary
design features do not provide sufficient winter storage in the reservoir
(160 days) if irrigation can only occur for 20 weeks. Additionally,
prior to conveyance of the effluent from the reservoir to the sprinklers,
screening would occur to remove suspended solids and algae which could
interfere with the sprinkler operation. In addition to surface drainage
impact associated with the reservoir, some subsurface drainage will be
diverted into the reservoir due to the addition of underground collectors
with this alternative. This impact is seen as minimal.
Effluent Qua!ity
The effluent from this system is expected to be of very high quality,
with BOD and SS less than 10 mg/1 and essentially free of nutrients and
ammonia. This system is modelled after the successful Muskegon,
Michigan land application system, which consistently produces a high
quali ty eff1uent.
It is expected that the Greeley system may experience problems of algal
growth in the reservoir which is not experienced at Muskegon. This
could result in problems with pumping and spraying the effluent.
This alternative would remove the existing First Avenue treatment plant
discharge from the Cache la Poudre River. Treated effluent would be
discharged to Crow Creek. The Hill 'n Park and Evans discharges would
continue until 1995, at which time they would be abandoned and their
flows diverted to the new facility for treatment and disposal. This
alternative produces the highest quality of effluent of the alternative
evaluated.
65
-------
Surface Water Quality
The impact on the Cache la Poudre River water quality would be identical
to Alternative 2. The option would have a net positive effect on the
river water quality. The South Platte River water quality would improve
when the Hill 'n Park and Evans discharges were removed.
Crow Creek would receive the treated effluent discharged from the land
application facilities. This discharge would occur from March to October,
and is expected to be of very high quality. The flow in Crow Creek
during these periods consists largely of agricultural irrigation return
flows which is poor in quality. Crow Creek water quality could therefore
be improved by the addition of this discharge. This water would eventually
flow into the South Platte River, and would have a slight beneficial
effect on the river water quality.
The net effect of this alternative on surface water quality is
beneficial. There will be no significant impact on livestock watering
requi rements.
Groundwater Quality
Impacts to the groundwater under the lagoon and reservoir would be the
same as those discussed in Alternative 2. It is anticipated that the
underdrains at the land application site would capture old effluent that
percolated through the soil. Therefore, minimal impacts to groundwater
at the land application site are expected.
Public Health
Public health risk associated with this option is the potential public
exposure to the effluent during irrigation. Wind blown effluent from
spray irrigation has been shown to transmit pathogens. Consequently,
buffer zones surrounding the land application site would be required.
The size of these buffers currently has not been determined. Det rmining
factors would include evaluation of wind velocity, residential dwelling
locations during the final design stage.
Health risks would be greatly reduced in this option since the City of
Greeley would maintain control of the effluent during reuse and discharge.
Some risks would be associated with the farms during operations. Educa-
tion and special precautions should minimize these risks.
Odor
Odor impacts from treatment and storage will be the same as those des-
cribed under Alternative 2. The potential for odors at the land appli-
cation site should be minimal providing the soil is maintained in an
aerobic condition. Farming practices of discing, plowing, etc. should
provide odor free conditions in the soil.
Visual
Visual features and associated impacts of the treatment and reservoir
facility will be the same as those discussed under Alternative 2.. The
conversion of dry land to irrigated agriculture should not produce any
visual impacts due to the agricultural character of the surrounding
i i
land.
66
-------
Agricu]ture
This option will convert between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of historically
dry land to irrigated land. This is in keeping with EPA's agricultural
land policy of preserving agricultural land. At this time, the crops
that would be cultivated have not been determined. Corn and alfalfa are
the most probable crops that would be grown.
Both crops have high annual water requirements and their nutrient
uptakes should remove most of the wastewater nutrients and there is a
local market. A third crop option would be reed canarygrass. Reed
canarygrass has been irrigated with applications of water of two inches
per week (in/wk) which is comparable to corn (2.5 in/wk) but has the
benefit of a longer irrigation period. Reed canarygrass can be irrigated
as long as the soil will take water. It is also a nutrient demanding
crop. Local markets have not been identified at this time which may be
a major drawback to this crop.
The buildup of toxic or hazardous materials in soil crops or livestock
has a minimal potential for occurring. Concentrations of these para-
meters in domestic wastewater have not proven detrimental in similar
land application projects. The implementation and enforcement of
pre-treatment requirements on industries along with detention/storage of
the wastewater prior to application will minimize toxic materials buildup
at the application site. It will be necessary to occasionally monitor
the pH of the reservoir water to insure a more basic condition. This
basic condition will reduce the tendency toward solubility of metals
which occurs with more acidic conditions.
No impacts to livestock as a result of being feed silage or grain
produced under this system are expected.
Land Use
This alternative has the most significant land use impacts. Between
2,000 and 3.000 acres would change from rangeland to cropland. A
use/value assessment was conducted on the study area to determine the
productive value of the land. This model was utilized to avoid values
associated with speculative influences. Consequently, only values
associated with the land's productive capabilities are shown. (See
Append-ix D for details of this procedure.)
Every soil in the study area has been grouped into land capability
classes by the Soil Conservation Service. Land capability classes are
soil groupings of both arable and non-arable soils which are classified
according to their potentialities and limitations. Of the eight classi-
fications, five were found in the study area. These classes were broken
down into four soil groupings because classes IV and VI were quite
similar regarding the needs of this study. Group A were the highest
quality soils such as Ascalon loam while D soils were of least quality
(such as Bankard sandy loam). A productive value was then assigned to
each.
67
-------
.A best value-worst value case was established for each soil grouping.
This was necessary because it was impossible to determine the exact
amount of acreage under irrigation by soil type. Best value-worst value
establishes extreme parameters. Actual value would fall in between
these parameters.
Exhibits 19 and 20 show the study area by soil groupings without and
with irrigation. Irrigation alters the capability class of some soil
types. With the use/value assessment, this alteration can be measured
by productive value. The change of classes occurs between two soil
groupings; D to C and D to B. Table 13 shows the value per acre of soil
groupings both best case-worst case.
TABLE 13
Value Per Acre for Designated Soil Groups
Best Case Worst Case
A $1,360.26 A $ 36k.98
B 1,174.77 B 315-21
C 618.30 C 165-90
D 61.83 D 16.59
There are three ways of measuring the effects of irrigation. First,
there is a comparison of values within the worst case classification.
Groupings changing from D to C have an increase of value per acre of
$149.31. Groupings D to B increase $298.62. Best case comparisons are
a second measurement. Comparisons within the best case are $556.47 and
$1,112.9^ value per acre respectively. Finally, assuming the non-
irrigated land (not being used agriculturally) is worst case and when
irrigated, it becomes best case (in that the treated effluent is very
high in nutrient value), the change in values would be D to C $601.71
and D to B $1,158.18.
Irrigation in the study area from the land application alternative will
have a positive effect on land use. This area is not looked on as an
area of commercial or residential development. Production value of the
land in the study area would increase as well as the generation of crop
revenue. There would be little detrimental long term land use impacts
on adjacent farmland (see Appendix E on land value impact).
There are four primary institutional arrangements for ownership/operation
in this alternative. These are presented in Table 14. All four alternatives
would maintain the land on public tax rolls in order to eliminate the
possibility of tax revenue loss.
68
-------
GROUP B SO
GROUP C SOILS
0 SCILS
EXHIBIT 19
LAND CAPABILITIES
WITHOUT IRRIGATION
-------
LEGEND
GROW A SOILS!
B SOILS
C SOU!
GROUP 0 SOILS
EXHIBIT 20
LAND CAPABILITIES
WITH IRRIGATION
-------
TABLE 14
OWNERSHIP OPERATIONS
Pretreatment Pretreatment Farming
Faci1i t ies Farm Lands Faci1ities 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
Costs
The high-low cost estimates for this alternative are $37,^24,800 and
$32,272,300 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
ALTERNATIVE 9 " 4-Day Detention Lagoon, Reservoir Storage, Land Applications
for Crop Production, Groundwater Collection, Discharge to Crow Creek
This alternative is identical to Alternatives 4 and 7 in treatment processes
in the lagoons and reservoir, and identical to Alternative 8 in the land
application and discharge facilities.
The significant difference between this alternative and Alternative 8 is
operation of the lagoons and the function of the reservoir in the
treatment process. The 4-day lagoons may require more frequent solids
removal and would be more sensitive to system upsets. Consequently, the
reliability of this alternative is considered lower in its ability to
provide a consistent water quality for irrigation.
The impacts to surface water quality, groundwater quality, public
health, and agriculture are the same as those discussed in Alternative
8. Visual and odor impacts are the same as those discussed under
Alternatives 4 and 8. Land use impacts are the same as Alternative 8.
Costs
The high-low cost estimates for this alternative are $37,003,600 and
$31,851,100 respectively. All costs are in 1979 dollars.
71
-------
Subalternatives
The nine alternatives have five common components which themselves have
various subalternatives. These are:
Sewer outfal1
wastewater)
(interceptor for consolidating
Subalternative 1
Subalternative 2
Subalternative 3
Subalternative 1
Subalternative 2
Subalternative 3
Subalternative 4
Subalternative 1
Subalternative 2
Subalternative 1
Subalternative 2
Subalternative 1
Subalternative 2
Interceptor from southeast interceptor pump station
to First Avenue (western routing)
Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta Following
a northern routing plus southeast interceptor
Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta site follow-
ing a southern routing plus the southeast inter-
ceptor.
Pretreatment
Bar screen at First Avenue plant
Bar screen and grit removal at First Avenue
Bar screen at Delta site
Bar screen and grit removal at Delta site
Pumping
First Avenue pump station
Delta site pump station
Transmission (Interceptor to treatment site)
Interceptor from First Avenue to east Study Area
(single or dual 1ine)
Interceptor from Delta site to east Study Area
(single or dual 1ine)
Storage Reservoir
Single cell reservoir
Two eel 1 reservei r
Each subalternative for the components has beneficial and detrimental
features. The majority of the consequences of selecting one component
subalternative will be realized in operations and maintenance of the
total system. The following describes the beneficial and detrimental
features of'the component's subalternatives.
Sewer Outfal1
Subalternative 1
Interceptor from southeast interceptor pump station
to First Avenue
Beneficial Features
o Preliminary routing follows existing roadway right-
of-way, no private land required to consolidate
72
-------
• Gravity flow reduces maintenance and energy require-
ments
• One line handles total ultimate flow of six mgd
from southeast interceptor
• Limited potential for odors to develop in line
because of short conveyance distance to central
collection point \
• Consolidates majority of Greeley's wastewater with
construction of on line
Detrimental Features
• Disruption of local traffic during construction
and maintenance
• New, large lift station to gravity flow line requires
additional energy and maintenance
• Loss of useful life of existing lift station at end
of southeast interceptor
• Conveyance of wastewater from Delta area not provided
• Line does not terminate at a proposed treatment site,
additional line will be required, increasing costs
and maintenance
Subalternative 2 Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta following
a northern routing plus southeast interceptor
Beneficial Features
• Does not require new lift station on Southeast
interceptor, existing lift station abandoned, reduces
maintenance, improves reliability
• No lift station required on Northern link, improves
maintenance and reliability, and reduces energy
requi rements
• Line terminates at proposed treatment site. Reduces'
cost and maintenance
Detrimental Features
• Preliminary routing requires acquisition of some private
land
• Disruption of Iocs1 traffic and private residences
during construction and maintenance
• Northern interceptor conflicts with proposed recreational
lake
73
-------
• The length of interceptor increase the potential for
odors to develop
Subalternative 3 Interceptor from First Avenue to Delta site following
a southern routing plus the southeast interceptor
Beneficial Features
• Preliminary routing avoids private lands
• Provided wastewater collection to Delta area
• Terminates at alternative treatment site
• Abandon pump station on Southeast interceptor
reduces maintenance and energy requirements, but
new pump station on southern line offsets benefits
Detrimental Features
• Preliminary routing will disrupt local traffic
during construction
• Lengthy interceptor increases potential for odors
to develop
Pretreatment
Subalternative 1 Bar screen at First Avenue plant
Beneficial Features
• Removes solids prior to conveyance to treatment
• Maintenance and disposal of solids more convenient
• Provides flexibility in selections of conveyance options
/
Detrimental Features
• Does not remove grit which may create problems in
conveyance of wastewater particularly in long inter-
ceptors with minimum slope. Grit also will increase
wear and maintenance on pumps
• May not provide for any pretreatment of Southeast
interceptor wastewater, depending on conveyance
option
Subalternative 2 Bar screen and grit removal at First Avenue
Beneficial Features
• Same as Alternative 1 plus grit removal, eliminates
grit from outfall lines and reduces maintenance and
wear on pumps
-------
Detrimental Features
• May not provide for any pretreatment of southeast
interceptor waste, depending on conveyance option
Subalternative 3 Bar screen at Delta site
Beneficial Features
• Removes solids from both First Avenue and southeast
wastewater
• Site is compatible with a treatment alternative
Detrimental Features
• Commits system to use Subalternative 2 or 3 outfall,
reducing flexibi1ity
• Potential odor emissions due to potential for odor
generation in Subalternative 2 and 3 outfalls
• Potential increases for solids and grit accumulation
in outfall lines thus increasing maintenance require-
ments
• Commits Delta site as pretreatment site, may decrease
maintenance and disposal efficiencies
• Does not provide grit removal
Subalternative 4 Bar screen and grit removal at Delta site
Beneficial Features
• Removes solids and grit from both First Avenue and
southeast wastewater
• Site is compatible with a treatment alternative
Detrimental Features
• Commits system to use Subalternative 2 or 3 outfall,
reducing flexibility
• Commits Delta site as pretreatment site, may decrease
maintenance and disposal efficiencies
• Potential increases for solids and grit accumulation
in outfall lines thus increasing maintenance requirements
• Potential odor emissions due to potential for odor
generation in Subalternative 2 and 3 outfalls
75
-------
Pumping
Subalternative 1 First Avenue pump station
Beneficial Features
• Pumping is not required for all outfall options from
this site
• Maintenance may be reduced due to short travel
distance
• Energy requirements depend on transmission option
selected
Detrimental Features
• None Identified
Subalternative 2 Delta site pump station
Beneficial Features
• Pumping required only if Delta treatment site not
selected
• Energy requirements depend on transmission option to
alternative treatment site
Detrimental Features
• Maintenance may increase due to increased travel
distance
• Requires implementing Subalternative 2 or 3 outfall,
reducing flexibi1ity
Transmission - Transmission lines are not necessary in the Delta
Site option.
Subalternative 1 Interceptor from First Avenue to east Study Area
Beneficial Features
• No additional river crossing required
• Provides transmission of First Avenue wastewater to
proposed treatment site, would require conveying
southeast wastewater to First Avenue pump station
• Two lines offer higher reliability
76
-------
Detrimental Features
• Lengthy transmission line increases potential for
odor generation
• Lengthy transmission line increases maintenance
requi rements
• If Subalternative 1 for pretreatment were imple-
mented potential for accumulation of grit
• Two lines increase costs,' both construction and
ma intenance
• Requires two pump stations at First Avenue and
southeast terminus
• No treatment provided for Delta Area
Subalternative 2 Interceptor from Delta site to east Study Area
Beneficial features
• Provides conveyance of wastewater from First Avenue,
southeast and Delta area to alternative treatment
site
• Requires only one pump station from Delta site under
certain outfall options
• Two lines offer higher reliability
Detrimental Features
• Requires river crossing
• Lengthy outfall and transmission lines increase
potential for odor generation
• Lengthy transmission line increases maintenance
requi rements
• Two lines increase costs and maintenance
• Commits Delta site to be integral part of any treat-
ment system
Reservoir - Storage reservoirs are integral components of the
lagoon treatment alternatives
Subalternative 1 Single cell reservoir
Beneficial Features
• Provides storage during winter in land application
and additional treatment
77
-------
• Provides uniformity in water stored
Detrimental Features
• Potential for algal growth increasing suspended
sol ids in effluent
• Operation and maintenance may be complicated should
reservoir require emptying
Subalternative 2 Two Cell reservoir
Beneficial Features
• Provides storage during winter in land application
and additional treatment
• Operation and maintenance likely to be more flexible
Detrimental Features
• Water quality in two cells likely to vary
• Potential for algal growth, increasing suspended
sol id in eff1uent
78
-------
COORDINATION
-------
Chronology of Events for EIS Supplement
8/30/79 Meeting between Environmental Protection Agency, URS Company,
Engineering Science, and the City of Greeley
9/11/79 Meeting between URS Company, ARIX Corporation and the City of
Greeley
9/25/79 Public meeting for the environmental impact statement
10/4/79 ARIX presentation to the Greeley Water Board
10/11/79 ARIX presentation to the Greeley Water Board (continued)
10/30/79 Initial Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting
11/1/79 Second CAC meeting
11/7/79 Public Forum
11/28/79 Third CAC meeting
12/6/79 Northern Colorado Water Conservation District meeting
12/11/79 Coordinating meeting between City of Greeley, ARIX Corporation,
Ara Dimersion (Musgegon Wastewater Land Application Manager)
12/11/79 ARIX Meeting with Gill area residents
12/12/79 Fourth CAC meeting
79
-------
Greeley Public Meeting
September 25, 1979
An initial public meeting was held in Greeley, Colorado to discuss the
framework for the supplemental environmental impact statement on the
City of Greeley1s 201 Wastewater Treatment Project. Formal presenta-
tions were given by Armando Balloffet, URS Company, Gary Windolph, Arix
Corporation, and Darryl Alleman, Director of Water and Sewer, City of
Greeley. Forty-one citizens attended.
After a presentation on the EIS process and project schedule by Mr.
Balloffet, Mr. Windolph explained the technical ramifications of the
project. He also gave a brief history of the overall project to date
with the justifications of re-evaluating original alternatives and
developing new ones. He emphasized that the process involves technology,
engineering, planning, and public participation throughout the study in
order to develop an optimal plan for Greeley.
Mr. Alleman spoke on the alternatives themselves and how they fit into
the context of Greeley1s needs. He explained the differences between
aerobic and anaerobic systems and their adaptability to the project.
Mr. Alleman presented two displays showing the new study area and the
routing of the pipeline from a pump station at Delta site to the study
area.
In response to this, a question was asked concerning why the pipeline
was to follow the county road. Mr. Alleman explained that it presented
the least difficulties for right-of-way and dealings with the County.
This brought up a concern by some land owners over pipelines in their
fields which they did not want. In addition, future plans could include
Gill in the pipeline design and eventual hookup.
Mr. Alleman explained that the irrigation alternative would provide
Greeley with revenue from crop production whereas with a mechanical
facility, no expenditures could be recovered. There was a discussion on
the potential for renting water and selling sludge from a mechanical
facility. This was explained as not being cost effective. The project
is concerned with meeting future needs as well as present ones. The
initial capacity will be 12 million gallons daily (MGD) with a potential
for increase to 32 MGD.
Mr. Farr, Chairman of the Water Board, made a follow-up presentation in
support of public participation. He reiterated various aspects of the
existing facilities and the need for the City to recognize short and
long-term wastewater treatment needs for the next 25 to 50 years.
Mr. Balloffet gave some concluding remarks and directing further inquiries
to himself at URS Company. Mr. Windolph announced that a facilities
plan forum would take place in 30 - 40 days.
LW/jj/mg
80
-------
No. 18 Date November 27, 1979
File
To:
Citizens Advisory Committee
From: Stephen P. Sugg, Water and Sewer Department
Subject: MINUTES OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ON OCTOBER 30, 1979
In Attendance:
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Elmer Jones
John Hall
Bill Crosier
Jim Whitmore
John M. Wheeler
Sam Sasaki
Vicki Ericson
Doug Sears
Dewey Marcy
Jack Larson
Victor Wolfe
Harvey Peppier
Gretchen Cutts
OTHERS
George Hovey, URS
Larry Walker, URS
Al Udine, Engineering Science
Paul Sealy, Engineering Science
Tom Jones, Engineering Science
Gary Windolph, ARIX
George Barber, ARIX
Darryl Alleman, City of Greeley
Steve Sugg, City of Greeley
This first meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee started off with a
slide presentation given by Darryl Alleman on the City of Greeley's Waste-
water Treatment facilities (First Avenue and Lone Tree Plants); the
Muskegon Land Treatment System; the Lubbock, Texas Land Treatment System;
and the Mitchell, South Dakota Land Treatment System.
31
-------
Citizens Advisory Committee
November 27, 1979
Page Two
2. Doug Sears asked why the City doesn't abandon the Lone Tree Plant and hook
it into the transmission line for treatment in the new study area. Darryl
explained that the reasons are several: the Lone Tree Plant has not yet
served its useful life, Monfort is still paying the amortization costs on
the facility, and Monfort would have to pay ICR if they were included in
a new wastewater treatment system for Greeley. Gary said that it would not
be economical or practical to include the Lone Tree Plant into the new plant
because the wastes are incompatible with the aerobic systems planned for the
new facility.
3. Vicki Ericson asked how the land treatment sites were chosen. Darryl listed
several factors: remoteness for odor control, uniform soils, cost of land,
and water rights (all return flow will go back to Crow Creek).
4. Doug Sears asked about the total consumptive use from the land treatment
alternative. Gary Windolph said they estimate around 8,000 acre feet per
year of evaporation plus some use by the crops. He said we would have to
augment the stream with 1,500-2,000.acre feet per year on the average.
Darryl noted that the City can augment with No. 3 Ditch water.
5. Jim Whitmore expressed some concern about what measures will be taken to
prevent the new wastewater plant from becoming overloaded, Gary stated that
this will not become a problem because when the system reaches 80% capacity,
the City is required to start the 201 planning process for a new facility.
At 95% capacity, construction of a new facility must be complete.
6. Jack Larson, who lives near the proposed land treatment site, said he thinks
the new plant should be built in town (Greeley). In building the plant east
of Gill he says it's "out of sight, out of mind" to the City of Greeley.
Darryl said that the only system that could be built in Greeley is a mechan-
ical plant. The costs of a mechanical system are high and the treatment is
undependable.
7. The Committee agreed to meet again on Thursday, November 1, to learn more
about the alternatives in the ARIX report. At that meeting Gary Windolph
will give the same presentation on the alternatives that he gave the Water
Board.
SPS/ld
82
-------
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR THE
201 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
1.
2.
3.
8.
Mr. Elmer Jones
1218 Fern Avenue
Greeley, Colorado
PHONE: 353-1141
80631
Mr. John Hall
Weld County Health Department
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 353-0540
Mr. Bill Crosfer
1010 9th.Avenue
Greeley, Colorado
PHONE: 356-1115
80631
4.
5.
Mr. James Whitmore
25550 County Road 62-%
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 353-9267
Mr. John M. Wheeler
2100 East 18th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 352-5065
Mr. Sam Sasaki
City of Greeley Planning Department
919 7th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 353-6123 ext. 245
Mr. Doug Sears
Sears and Company Realtors •
1221 8th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 356-7700
Mr. Dewey R. Marcy
3430 13th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 356-7152
9. Mr. Jack Larson
Rural Route
Gill, Colorado 80624
PHONE: 352-2111
10. Mr. Victor Wolfe
30354 Weld Road 66
Gill, Colorado 80624
PHONE: 352-9436
11. Mr. Harvey Peppier
Rural Route
Gill, Colorado 80624
PHONE: 352-9182
12. Mrs. Vicki Ericson
Central Bank of Greeley
P.O. Box X
Greeley, Colorado 80632
PHONE: 352-7030
13. Mrs. Gretchen Cutts
2336 Sunset Lane
Greeley, Colorado 80631
PHONE: 353-8373
83
-------
DATE: November 1, 1979
TO: Citizens'Advisory Committee for the 201 Wastewater Management Project.
FROM: G. Hovey and J. Fitzpatrick, URS Company
RE: Minutes from Gary Windolphs presentation to the Citizens' Advisory
Committee regarding the proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
In attendance at this meeting were the following members from the Citizens'
Advisory Committee; James Whitmore, John Wheller, Sam Sasaki, Jack Larson,
Victor Wolfe, Harvey Peppier, Vicki Ericson and Gretchen Cutts. Others in
attendance were, Rhiny Leffler, DEPA: Steve Sugg, City of Greeley; Paul Seeley,
Engineering - Science; Gary Windol ph and George Barber, AR1X; and George Hovey
and Jamie Fitzpatrick, URS Company.
Gary Windolphs presentation on the Wastewater Treatment facilities covered the
following areas; the alternatives how they were constructed and put together,
cost estimates and, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
Windolphbegan by describing the components of each of the k alternatives which
are so numerous that he said there were possibly 90 different ways that the
system could be coordinated. He said that costs are an important factor here
in that all capital costs, contingencies and operating and maintenance costs
have to be evaluated for each alternative.
Windolph said that the first system, the "Delta" Mechanical Plant, would be
served by either of two alternatives; the north gravity line or the south line.
In a comparison of costs the gravity line was shown to be the cheapest for
this system.
James Whitmore wanted to know why the costs were presented twice, once with
inflation and once without. Windolph explained that it was a government
requi rement.
The question was brought up as to how ARIX determined what area should be
evaluated for the irrigation system. Windolph said that several revisions were
required to find a final area and that the following factors weighed heavily
in:.that decision; large land ownership, suitable soil characteristics, and con-
sideration of water rights.
In regards to the treatment and discharge to Crow Creek, Windojph said that if
there was no construction at the Delta site then the City could pump from the
present First Avenue site. The advantages here would be lower capital costs but,
operation and maintenance costs would be greater than those that might be
experienced at the proposed Delta plant.
Two options are available for pumping to the lagoon and irrigation sites.
Either the wastewater can be screened and the grit removed before it is pumped
from the Delta or First Avenue plants, or it can be just screened and then
pumped to the lagoon area. The Advisory Committee expressed some concern over
having these lines located through their fields. Windolph explained that the
alignment as shown in Exhibits 1A and 15 were not sacred and that adjustments
could be made.
-------
Windolph then explained the two options for treatment; the 2k day lagoon and the
k day lagoon.
Whitmore wanted to know if the effluent could be sent into Crow Creek immediately
out of the lagoons under new standards that will be applicable in 1983. Windolph
said that this was still an unknown.
Whitmore also questioned the fact that if the proposed system is so simple (as
was indicated byWindolph) then why was it not employed several years ago?
Windolph replied that at that time people favored the mechanical systems.
The odor problem was brought up by Jack Larson. Windolph indicated that any
odors would probably be limited to the immediate area.
Larson then stated that if odor will not be a problem then why not locate the
plant closer to the City. Windolph said that ARIX's proposed location main-
tains the option to use the effluent for .irrigation purposes.
Steve Sugg also supported the new system saying that not only would it be
better than the existing system at First Avenue, but that a 2k day system would
be easier to maintain. He said that at present the City has a general lack of
facilities to work with and that a new system is needed.
Several citizens then expressed concern over the City's method of dealing with
the odor problem at the existing treatment plant. Sugg said that the City
was doing its best to alleviate the problem.
Windolph then discussed the k day treatment alternative explaining that after
the k day period the effluent would then be discharged into a reservoir which
would allow for material treatment. The advantages of this system over the 2k
day lagoon is that there would be better control of water and water rights and
that it would require a smaller land area.
Whitmore questioned what would happen to the system if a power failure occured.
Windolph responded saying the system would have a built in alternative power
source to deal with such a situation.
A disadvantage of the k day system over the 2k day system would be that it
will require a more frequent sludge removal schedule.
In regards to costs, Windolph indicated that a 24 day lagoon would be cheaper
to build than the k day because of additional costs associated with the reservoir
construction necessary under the k day system.
Under the Land Application SystemWindolph said that either a 2k day or a k day
lagoon could be used but that each would require a connecting storage reservoir.
He then discussed the potential reservoir sites based on existing terrain.
Here he referred to Exhibit 19 of the ARIX report which shows all the potential
sites and the site that they (ARIX) determined to be most suitable.
Whitmore, Larson and various other members voiced some disagreement with ARIX's
choice saying that they felt that site #4 would be more suitable.
-------
In regards to irrigation Wfndolph said 'that soil types are not uniform in this
area and so the location of the irrigators is not necessarily fixed. Underground
piping to direct some of the water flow may be required.
Larson and Whitmore said that they thought ARIX's figures on crop revenues for
the proposed irrigated areas were too high. Larson felt that there might be
a possible drop in the value of some of the farm land if too much water was
applied. He said that some of the fields could not hold as much water as ARIX
proposed using. Windolph answered that the amount of water to be used was not
a fixed figure and that, furthermore, numerous tests had been completed on soil
permeability that showed most of the study area to be very suitable to the
proposed irrigation program.
In a final note, Windolph reemphasized the fact that everyone should keep in
mind that what is being^ proposed first is a wastewater system and that the
irrigation function is only an option of this system.
JF:cdh
86
-------
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting #3, November 28, 1979
In Attendance:
Citizen's Advisory Committee
John Hall Jack Larson
John Wheeler Victor Wolfe
Sam Sasaki Harvey Peppier
Doug Sears Gretchen Cutts
URS Co. Engineering Science ARIX Corp. City of Greeley
George Hovey Allan Udine Gary Windolph Darryl Alleman
Larry Walker Paul Seeley George Barber Steve Sugg
1. The meeting began with a presentation on the. Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) by George Hovey. The nine alternatives found by URS and
Engineering Science were briefly discussed.
2. A question was rafcsed on why odors would emit from the alternatives.
It was explained that a worst case analysis was made showing the degree
of impact should the facilities malfunction or if high strength indus-
trial wastes enter the system. John Hall clarified state regulations
for violations of odor standards.
3- The effect on market value of the City growing corn was discussed. URS
explained that their studies indicate a significant impact on local
market value of corn if the city sold their crop at harvest time. The
way to mitigate this is for the city to store their corn until after
January 1, when the Greeley region imports corn for the feed lots.
Alfalfa is imported all year round while there would be little effect
on local market conditions with reed canary grass.
k. Darryl Alleman asked about the EIS timetable. It was explained that
EPA is reviewing the preliminary draft. Upon completion of that, revi-
sions will be made and the draft will be published in the Federal Register
as a matter of public record. Thirty days from that date, a public
hearing may be held. After the public hearing, the Final EIS will be
prepared with a prefered alternative. It is anticipated that the public
hearing will be held in mid-January.
5. Gretchen Cutts asked about staging the construction of the project
with the possibility of adding the land application system when tertiary
treatment becomes mandatory. Three constraints were discussed; 1)
inflated costs, 2) land availability, and 3) federal funding.
6. The discussion turned to Gary Windolph on alternative reservoir sites.
ARIX looked at site #k as the reservoir site with the irrigation facili-
ties remaining where originally proposed. ARIX determined an additional
expenditure of 14 million with $13-5 million in capital costs and
approximately $500,000 for increased operation and maintenance.
87
-------
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting #3, November 28, 1979
Page Two .
7. Doug Sears raised the possibility of smaller MGD facilities west of
Greeley. This was felt to be impracticable for several reasons.
Previous studies found that smaller plants west of Greeley would not be
cost effective. Three sets of employees would be needed. If standards
were raised to a tertiary level, upgrading three facilities would be
very expensive. Land application is not feasible due to land acquisition
costs.
8. Jack Larson was concerned about the bedrock. He feels it is pervious.
Gary Windolph responded that he didn't think it was,, but if it were,
wells and pumps could be added to control seepage. A lengthy discussion
on drainage characteristics followed.
9- Darryl Alleman concluded the meeting with a review of the public forum.
10. The citizens from Gill agreed to meet with Gary Windolph for a detailed
discussion on their concerns with the project and ARIX's reasons for
site selection.
-------
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting #4, December 12, 1979
Submitted by: Larry Walker, URS Company
In Attendance:
Advisory Committee
Elmer Jones John Wheeler
John Hall Jack Larson
Bill Crosier Victor Wolfe
James Whitmore Vicki Ericson
URS Company Engineering Science ARIX Corp. City of Greeley
George Hovey Allan Udin Gary Windolph Steve Sugg
Larry Walker Paul Seeley George Barber Pete Morrell
Ara Dimersion (guest)
1) Gary Windolph began the meeting by handing out a composite of pros
and- cons for the four major alteraatives. Discussion centered on
this handout as the CAC gave their observations.
2) A question was raised on the costs for land application. It was ex-
plained that the land needed for producing crops was not figured in
the cost total.
3) Mention was made of the potential for the reservoirs providing a habi-
tat for waterfowl and other wildlife. This would be a possibility.
Ara Dimersion, who directs a land application system in Muskegon,
Michigan, said that between the reservoir and corn fields, thousands
of additional duck, geese, rabbit and deer have entered the area
significantly increasing the hunting potential there.
A) A question was raised if the treatment lagoons were capable of handling
industrial waste. Gary Windolph explained that this design of lagoon
is flexible enough, however the Greeley system isn't designed to handle
heavy industrial wastes like that produced at Monfort. The size of
lagoon for Greeley would have to be greatly increased. The lagoons
can handle variations in waste better than a mechanical facility.
5) Vicki Ericson asked if the questions raised at the public forum had
been addressed. Gary Windolph explained that this was in process of
being documented. All concerns expressed by the public at that forum
will be presented to the Water Board.
6) The meeting concluded with a general discussion on reservoir sites.
The Gill area residents would like to see the site moved to alterna-
tive reservoir #k. They stated if that were to occur, there would
be no opposition to the project. They expressed confidence in the
work done to date but emphasized again their concern over the loca-
tion of the reservoir.
89
-------
PUBLIC FORUM
OH
CITY OF GREELEY
NASTEHATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
November 7. 1979
The following persons were tn attendance:
NAME ;
J.K. and Virginia Harsh
Eugene and Shirley Robb
Margaret Crapps
Connie Mueller
Mil ford E. Peterson
Jonathan M. Pfelffer
Edith and Frank Williams. Jr.
Al Harrington
Sandra Sapptngton
Charles L. Achzlger
Jim Whltraore
Glen Hanson (Platte Valley
School District Re-7)
Sarah Herbert
Carl Nakagawa
J. B. Hells
ADDRESS PHONE
906 East 20th, Greeley 353-1181
2233 llwy. 34 E, Greeley 352-8381
1031 E. 16th. Greeley 353-4856
1019 E.. 16th St.. Greeley 352-3670
Route 1 Box 19. Gill 353-0583
Route 1 Box 17, Gill 352-8455
2145 Hwy. 34 E, Greeley 352-2414
2126 14th St.. Greeley 352-3731
27512 HCR 54->s. Kersey 353-9462
29358 Hwy. 37. Greeley 353-0021
25550 62-)$ Road. Greeley 353-9267
316 4th Street. Kersey 352-6168
909 15th Street. Greeley 353-6564
29945 Road 388. Kersey 352-0699
Gill
NAME
Elmer Rothe
Darwin Tomky (Bijou Irrigation)
Paul Seeley (Engineering Science)
Allan Udln (Engineering Science)
John Gauthlere (City of Greeley)
Steve Sugg (City of Greeley)
Sue and Dana Sughroue
Harold and Barb Andrews
Mr. and Mrs. Claude T. Cecil
Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Miller. Jr.
R. Perchllk
Harold and Gladys Pfeif
Stow L. Uttwer
Dave Bates
John Nakagawa
Dennis L. Wagner (Bijou Irrigation)
Stewart and Helen Brlscoe
Dewey Marcy
Harvey and Ella Peppier
Vlckl Ericson
Mr. and Mrs. Jake L. Miller
John M. Wheeler
Don Myers
Elmer H. Jones
ADDRESS
1851 26th Ave. Ct.. Greeley
Fort Morgan
26899 C.R. 62->s, Greeley
28847 Co. Rd. 62. Gill
Route 1, Gill
1721 13th Avenue
25705 Hwy. 263, Greeley
27401 Road 58->5. Greeley
32736 Rd. 50, Kersey
29945 Road 388, Kersey
Route 1, Orchard
27465 Weld Co. Rd 60-S. Greeley
1990 Hemlock. Greeley
Rt. 1 Box 68. Gill
1816 22nd St.. Greeley
Rt. 1 Box 25. Gill
2100 E. 18th Street. Greeley
2001 Hemlock
1218 Fern
PHONE
352-6409
867-5179
353-6123
353-6123
353-4708
353-0016
353-2798
352-1749
352-5420
356-1677
352-6943
352-8831
352-0699
645-2546
352-8289
356-3152
352-9182
352-7030
356-2498
352-5065
353-3195
353-1141
-------
HAHE
Mr. and Mrs. Lee Miller
Bill Putnam
John C. McKay
Caroline Smith
Carroll Bishop
Bud demons
Loretta Lofgren
Hike Kupko
Bill Kelly
Hr. and Mrs. Victor Wolfe
Connie Uinpegler
Ed Meyer
Joe Kutcher
Sam Sasaki (City of Greeley)
Mark and Donn Vornholt
(Falrmeadows Land Company)
Fred Fangmeier
Linda Fangmeier
Jack Mo1man
Frances Christensen
Catherine Ha thews
Stow Ultwer. Jr.
Russell Lofgren
Ken Muller
Rich Peterson
ADDRESS PHONE
29532 WCR 64, 15111 352-1631
525 N. 35th Ave., Greeley 353-1393
1214 16th St., Greeley 352-5575
2501 E. 18th St.. Greeley 353-7606
Road 68. Gill 352-8048
Route 1. Kersey 284-5320
Rt. 1 Box 20. Gill 353-0193
2860 15th Ave. Ct., Greeley 356-0457
1401 32nd Ave.. Greeley 353-2514
30354 W C Rd. 66. Gill 352-9436
26890 WCR 61. Kersey 352-4782
29975 HCR 59. Greeley 352-7286
Box 29. Gill 353-4941
Civic Center. Greeley 353-6123
P.O. Box 836 352-3496
2717 E. 18th St., Greeley 356-2267
2717 E. 18th St., Greeley 356-2267
28236 Co. Rd. 58-ij, Greeley 352-9572
Kersey 771-6054
3791 E. 18th St.. Greeley 352-0632
1854 12th Ave., Greeley 352-3161
Rt. 1 Box 20. Gill 353-0193
508-4 9th Ave.. Greeley 356-4333
31010 WCR 388, Kersey 352-6638
NAME
Electa Isakson
Gary Fortner
George E. Barber
Rebecca L. Safarlk
Mr...jnd Mrs. Carroll Flack
Armenia He and Hans Blelker
Bill Folger
John Given
Bob Boekenkamp
David E. Bates
IlaMae Larson
Jack Larson
Ramon C. Moore
Don Miller
John Hall
Gary Sears
W. H. Webster
Robert A. Ruyle
Louise Kutcher
Andrew Gurtner
ADDRESS PHONE
262-i8 Road 66, Greeley 352-1481
915 10th St., Greeley 356-4000
1806 Montvlew Blvd. Greeley 353-2460
1610 12th St.. Greeley 356-2020
29950 Hwy. 37 352-1824
1020 Grand Avenue (307)742-5941
1607 14th Ave.. Greeley 351-0067
1734 17th Ave., Greeley 356-7466
3942 22nd St.. Greeley 330-9388
610 Cheyenne. Eaton 454-2524
Rt. 1 Box 29-A. Gill 352-2111
Rt. 1 Box 29-A, Gill 352-2111
1909 21st Ave. Ct.. Greeley 352-8620
209 2nd St.. Kersey 353-2607
1516 Hospital Rd.. Greeley 353-0540
2145 Glenfalr Dr.. Greeley 356-7700
1850 26th Ave., Greeley 352-3356
2101 24th St., Greeley 352-1643
Gill
1219 4th Ave.. Greeley 352-5140
-------
HANS BLEIKER
Thts Is a Public Forum on Creeley's Wastewater Restudy. The study 1s being
conducted by ARIX of Greeley1 for the City of Greeley. I am Hans Blelker. my
wife Is out there signing people In. He In turn are advising ARIX and the
City on how to do things like this, specifically on how to Involve the public
In a project that Is potentially controversial. That is why we are here. I
am the moderator for this forum here and my only role is to see that the purpose
of the forum gets accomplished as well as possible. So I need to explain a
little bit what the purpose of the forum is. The purpose as we see it, is that
for once the public is heard. Me are very much used to it that the professionals
who do the research and the studies for public officials ... and that Is neces-
sary In this kind of project. But there is something to be said for the deci-
sion makers who have to choose among various alternatives and the people who
do the research for It for them to listen to what the people have to say. how
they react to it, the concerns they have and the problems they perceive, and so
forth. And that Is really the purpose of this forum here. I have to look at
ny notes here that I wrote down during supper or otherwise I'll ramble on too
much. So I will ask you to keep this In mind that this Is a little unusual be-
cause all of us are really used all the time to the fact that public officials
are up here presenting something to us, and we're not going to do that tonight.
I would ask you in fact to, that If you have a lot of questions that you use
some other medium. It Isn't that there's a question that can really be ans-
wered ... and other officials that they can readily answer, sure we can, but
I think It will Interfere with the real purpose that they listen ... so please
keep that one In mind. The problem is to literally outline, as I see it, and
I'm not an expert in this area of wastewater In general, and certainly not about
Greeley's project. But as I understand it. it is a rather serious problem.
-1-
It isn't one that Is going to go away, even though maybe there aren't very
easy solutions around. The City of Greeley evidently will have to do some-
thing about Its wastewater. I understand that the restudy is done on the
understanding, on the belief that there might be some better solutions a-
round than the one that has been officially adopted sometime back. And we
are in that process of exploring what those solutions are. Among those
solutions as I understand 1t, there are no perfect solutions, all of them
have some drawbacks, some few weeks back we had some ideas of further solu-
tions they need to consider as I understand no decision has to be made or can
be made until, not only all the engineers are done with their work, but also
until they have heard from the people as to how other problems that you can
read into It and that you can see. I think one should recognize this Is
just one kind of project of a whole kind of project. It's very very small...
to any of the solutions they come up with that of course we are stuck with
whatever has been done before, because that wastewater is not going to go
away. The roles of lay people, of citizens, of populations. Institutions,
groups, neighborhoods and so forth, the lay, the citizens In general in this
project as we have ... to be used In the city it has replaced several roles.
We think a couple of very Important roles as far as I know the project has
been carried ... One very Important role is that everybody who's possibly
affected by anything being proposed needs to know about It and they need to
know about It thoroughly and as far as I know our engineers work on this pro-
ject, have gone and sought out these people and said you are thinking about
something, want you to know about it, you may not particularly like what we're
doing, but you need to know, please, let's establish a dialogue and you tell
us what ... we think it's absolutely necessary. We can't do very good plan-
ning work, engineering work, anything else unless you talk to the people.
-2-
-------
Secondly, It's our assumption, It's not an assumption, It's an observation,
anybody today who works on fairly complicated things knows that. And that Is
the observation of the engineers who can't think of everything. They're go-
Ing to overlook something. You know certain problems that they ought to locate.
You have Ideas, sometimes you have very clever solutions that they did not
think of. That's another role that we think citizens have to play In this kind
of project, If we don't use you as a resource, we might wind up with a project
that Is less good than It could have been and nobody gains from that. There
Is a very similar project that we saw In Wyoming, I lived In Wyoming, I used
to be a resident of Wyoming. A very similar project that that community went
through a few years ago. a water pollution problem ... everyone overlooked one
little detail. Now, years later there are millions of dollars that are wasted,
the problem Is worse, everyone tried so hard but they missed one little de-
tail. If just somebody could have found that and surfaced that, that whole
agony could have been saved. Just everybody Is heartbroken over what has
happened to the community, how sour, how bad things have gone. That's what
we want to avoid. And this forum can contribute to that, tf we can get you
to speak about things that are on your mind, whether It's good about what you
know they are doing or It's bad, or simply concerns that need to be brought
out that just might keep us from making that kind of a mistake. ... I have
footnotes made about this, even though that Is our purpose, that people can
accomplish through this forum. I have to admit this, you probably also know,
It's very difficult to have a large public meeting and have very constructive
thing: happen. It really Is difficult. Not Impossible, but difficult. And If
somebody here wants to sabotage this purpose, you probably can because It's
far easier to sabotage this kind of thing than It Is to really make It work.
-3-
I'm here to hope that something useful comes out of this but there's no guarantee
that It will. I have, I'm essentially appealing to you to help us to do some-
thing constructive with this. To tell us what bothers you is also of concern.
So what we need to hear 1s your concern, your comments, your reactions. It's
not necessarily a popularity contest, cleaning up wastewater Is not very pop-
ular. It's very expensive, nobody really likes this kind of thing. So we
recognize that. You probably have more Important things than just to say that
I like tt or I don't like It. Tell us why you like 1t, or what you don't like.
and what bothers you. The engineers promise to follow every expression of con-
cern, the research element, your response, not tonight, but to go back to their
drawing boards to look Into it and feel that every...and I have very confidence
and belief that they really will. We are recording everything that Is being
said so that, you know, we will not lose what you are saying...! think you will
be most effective by being as specific as you can. But chances are there are
reasons why you don't like It, reasons why you like something. Try to get after
those things. There are some ground rules that I am going to suggest. The sign-
In, sheets that I see. there are relatively few people who have definitely said
that they are going to speak ... wrote down that you don't want to speak doesn't
mean that you can't ... we hope that more people will speak than said that they
will. So, since there's not a heck of a lot of people that said that they want
to speak, I'm going to try to do It without a time limit. And Instead, I'm going
to ask you to simply be as brief and as concise as you can and not make a longer
presentation than Is absolutely necessary, rather than have some artificial
time limit. I'd rather that everybody with something to say, say It and make
It as brief as you can. If there's a particular point that somebody else has
already made, please don't repeat it. Just simply say that you agree with that
particular point. I ask you, I can't really ... you. but I appeal to you not
-4-
-------
to use this forum as a soap box. ... Please be considerate of other people's
time as well. The Important thing that's going on back home may be of concern,
but don't use up your colleague's, your friend's time more than you have to.
The order of speakers. I'm going to just read the names off the sheets of those
who specifically said they want to speak In the order In which they signed In
and then we'll go through the, those people In that order, too, that said that
maybe they want to speak, again, looking at the order on the sheets, and after
that, those people who have not necessarily said that they maybe even want to
speak. If there are a lot of questions of the engineers or of the City, 1
think that is far more important because then you're right back to the normal
public meetings in which ... give a presentation, and that's not the purpose...
If it's absolutely necessary that something be answered I'm going to call on
some of the ARIX people to answer them, but I'll try not to. Well, those are
the ground rules that I would suggest. Besides the soap box problem that some-.
times happens at meetings like this, there Is another that you may be familiar
with, it's called the red herring problem. The red herring is an institution
that the English peasants Invented in the middle ages, and the nobility ...
through the countryside, they would sometimes release the fox and the hounds
would chase after them. Then elegant ladles and gentlemen came on their horses.
so what the peasants would do, ... out in the meadows once in a while, and of
course the fox would circle around, the fox got away, the horses would arrive
and it would be pandemonium ... they would enjoy this, this was their form of
entertainment, and sometimes this happens all over again today in the twentieth
century life, somebody asking a question, not for the purpose of asking the
question, ... but for the same purpose of simply raising hell, for saying
something that Is simply going to take the whole meeting off on some tangent.
I can't really stop you from doing that, but I would ask you that you please
-5-
refrain from doing that if you can. The first person to sign In as definitely
wanting to give a presentation is Glen Hanson. If you'd just come up here and
speak from the box up here.
GLEN HANSON
Thank you. My name Is Glen Hanson and I'm Superintendent of Schools of the
Platte Valley District located In Kersey, Colorado. The boundaries of our
school district encompass the proposed areas for the Greeley's wastewater
treatment facilities as presented in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The school
district is not listed as an affected group nor was the Platte Valley Fire
Protection District or the Galeton Fire District or the Alms Community College
all of which are tax-supported entities ... only those agencies such as the
City of Greeley assumes ownership of property, that property becomes tax-
exempt. Herein lies the major concern of our school district. It 1s a long-
range concern not necessarily a concern of just the immediate future. It is
a concern for a lost opportunity. Why are we concerned about this? If either
Alternative 2. 3 or 4 are selected it will have some effects. The first effect
relates to the location and it is apparent in all three Alternatives pre-
sently I believe, I haven't checked this out, but I believe that agricultural
land is assessed on a combination of productive value and market value. The
assessment method, however, can change in the future so there is a need to be
concerned. The locations of the lagoons would have a market value effect on
the surrounding land. This will be true particularly 1f the facilities oper-
ate as odor free as the City of Greeley indicates that it Is capable of oper-
ating. Skepticism enters in on the part of potential buyers based on the pro-
blem we have found with any lagoon waste treatment facility, and particularly
if you are familiar with either of Greeley's present systems. Concern that
-6-
-------
even If the system Is not presently operating properly Is the City of Greeley
firmly commuted to Us continued proper operation or will the Increased
load, population growth, the effects of Inflation on the future budgets, and the
turnover of personnel cause the system In the future to become more of a problem.
I ask. Is the City of Greeley committed to the proper operation and maintenance
of the facility to the point that they will sign long-range assurance ... with
substantial damage clauses and suits of operation clauses In them. If they
are not willing to provide Insurance clauses, then there must be some skep-
ticism on their part and It Is only natural for someone Interested In pur-
chasing the land In that area also to be skeptical. If the proposed system
operates with problems similar to Greeley's two present systems, you cannot
disagree that there will be an Impact on the market value for the surrounding
land. Even If the proposed facility Is operated properly, the reputation comes
with the community, not with the new facility. A concern which we should also
consider is alternative three, crop application. Two areas of concern surface
here. First is the possibility that the City of Greeley owns the land to be
Irrigated by the sanitary ... Again, the land, if owned by the City of Greeley
would be taken off the tax rolls. Of even more concern in the future Is the
fact that with the application of water to the present dry land, the value of
that land would Increase substantially. Therefore those governmental agencies
that are supported by taxes derived from that land stand to lose not only the
present value of the land, but they'd miss the opportunity to benefit from
increased values as a result of irrigation. The City of Greeley can accomplish
their purpose and meet their needs by alternative three, crop application plan,
leaving the land-In private ownership. If Greeley sewage must be treated in
that location which Is not our first choice, this method would help offset
some of the decreased land values previously mentioned. There is a concern
about the City of Greeley going into competition with farmers in the area. Tax-
supported governmental agencies exist for the purpose of providing service to
-7-
their constituents and not to be in competition with private industries. The
governing board of the Platte Valley School District is interested in conmunity
Impact studies that the City of Greeley is consulting...to the best of my know-
ledge I'm not aware that this.kind of Impact studies have been done. It would
appear to me that with the proper planning, It would need to be looked at.
Questions like this we need some Information on. What will be the effect on...
and total assessed evaluation of the school district in the Platte Valley RE7...
about future zones of the greater Greeley area ... proposed facility which they
have not thought Into the future about Increased capacity, then there is a real
concern there. What is the potential Impact on the Platte Valley area? How
does that translate into student Increase or decrease? And more importantly,
the ability to support an educational program with an Increase or decrease in
student population? And, how would the location of the sewage treatment fac-
ility and its effect on the assessed value of the district relate to the mill
levy necessary to support a quality education program.
HANS BLE1KER
Thank you very much. The next person, I'm not sure that I'm reading the name
right, it's Stan or Stow Hitwer.
STOW HITHER
Hy name Is Stow Witwer Jr., unlike Glen Hanson I do not have a prepared speech.
I'm not sure what I'm going to say, but I do agree with all his comments. I
must indicate that this is a difficult subject for many of us to consider be-
cause of the history of that area, the present use of the area and the future
of the area. I speak particularly on behalf of our family, my father, mother,
sisters and children...We are concerned about the economic impact, and we're
also concerned about the aesthetic or life quality impact of this operation. I
must Indicate that there are several concerns which I think kind of form a
general concern ... And one is that I'm not certain that the Integrity of the
representations made by the City of Greeley ... I think that the people In the
-8-
-------
affected areas have deep concerns about whether or not the well-Intended.
well-meaning representations made by those who know can be relied upon as
absolute because I believe that those of us without very long memories, remember
representatives from Omaha and others speaking with you about the present
lagoon systems of Greeley. That has been answered to me when Indicating that
that Is an anaerobic system and this Is not to be an anaerobic system. So
that may very well be the case and I certainly hope that this system would be
more acceptable to the surrounding community than the existing facility. But
1 think that the fact of the matter Is that the representation will be question-
ed somewhat and will be viewed with skepticism. I think the second matter
which 1 think needs to be considered and maybe addressed In a general sense
Is that we, the population, cannot particularly well answer specific scientific
and technical data which is as complex as has been prepared and it certainly
seems to be excellent material and well-prepared. I have some gut reactions
to portions of It, some of which are favorable and some of which are not fav-
orable, but I am unable to respond particularly well because I don't know
which of the alternatives the city views with most favor. By the same token,
the city wants to know the reactions of the affected people before they come to
that conclusion but I point out that that Is a somewhat troublesome dilemma
because I don't know that anyone can say exactly what their concerns are until
they know exactly what the proposal is...However, no matter what the proposal
is, no matter how well it operates, I don't believe there are many people who
are going to welcome It. I believe It Is somewhat like an uninvited guest com-
ing into your living room. You're not quite sure what to do with him and your
first impulse might be to throw him out. It may be that you would try to make
some accommodations and work that out, and it is that latter approach which
I would Intend to suggest might be most beneficial. I don't know because you
-9-
see there are a number of uncertainties there. I would also Indicate that the
process Itself does not lead to providing the absolute assurance that, that
what we're saying this evening or any other time would be particularly mean-
ingful in a decision-making process. It's curious to me that the plan at the
Delta Site is changed because cost overrun, or revaluation cost figures and
the alternatives in the southeast of Gill area I believe all run somewhat high-
er than that. But there must be some other than cost considerations. Now I am
advised that the reason for that Is that It is now determined that the land
application or variations of the land application system may be more suitable,
but I have to say again for those of us who are not technically oriented, we
have to view that with some concern and some skepticism because I think we're
left to wonder whether or not the fact that we're few In number might be one of
the reasons for those particular alternatives. I think what I'm trying to say
In various ways is that we view this with great and abiding skepticism and con-
cern. He are unable to state what the Impact will be because, at least I am
because I, I don't know which of the representations are absolute and which
are going to be carried out. You indicated In opening of the situation that
occurred in Wyoming where one factor was left out and It turned out to be a dis-
astrous situation. From what I know about the situation right now. reasonable
engineering advice indicates that this is a sound and good proposal and to the
extent that it has been studied at this point, I am not in a position to argue.
I think that it has going for it the Idea that it cooperates with nature rather
than going against the natural functions. On the other hand, because of the
skepticism I have, and I don't know that I am unique in the skepticism, but
because of that skepticism, I think it Is absolutely imperative that the City of
Greeley stand behind whatever Is done, and I personally have coimwnlcated this to
the City In a letter which I have written which basically states that we're un-
-10-
-------
able to state whether or not we oppose this program. I don't know whether there
are going to be engineering facts which will develop, which will develop, which
will make It particularly objectionable, but I state number one that I have to
start out with substantial opposition, but I have to also state that if the City
of Greeley were to guarantee, or warrant or represent the effects of that operation
on the Impacted area, I think many minds would be relieved. I'm not talking about
a release to the newspaper by the mayor or city manager, or city council. I'm
talking about a binding obligation in some form which would perhaps Involve the
Ingenuity and creativity on behalf of the City and the city attorney to come up
with something that will In perpetuity and forever obligate the City to operate
In a manner that does not adversely affect the area. If that's possible, in
other words. 1f the engineering advice and if people look at it at the outset
and say it looks reasonable, and It looks like It's going to work, and can start
from that premise, and If the City will then underwrite that with a guarantee,
then I think that the concerns that I have expressed would be less than very sub-
stantial. I would emphasize, however, that I am not talking about some loosely
worded public relations document. I'm talking about something that would bite.
I'm talking about something that would place a very severe financial responsibility
on the City that if the operation is not successful, that they will, within some
reasonable period of time correct that situation. If they don't correct that
situation, they will cease operation. Now if the City is willing and if the City
can legally enter Into such assurance. I think that would be very helpful. If
Greeley cannot enter into that ... of assurance, or if between now and the final
product it appears that the engineering product does not look acceptable, then I
must Indicate that our opposition would be complete and substantial, and it would
not be engaged In a forum such as this, it would be engaged in another form. I'm
-11-
not as comfortable speaking for groups as I am at the courthouse. I'm Indi-
cating that, that I can't over emphasize this to responsible officials that
if in fact the thing works and you're willing to stand behind It, I think
that's a very different thing, than asking the affected area to accept the
gamble because I don't know how it is other than gamble because other than In
a very limited number of places this is still very Innovative. It may be that
there will be government funding to support that because what I'm talking a-
bout in terms of assurance, perhaps it involves the City replacing the entire
system If it doesn't work. And that may seem very onerous, but It seems
rather simplistic to me that whoever makes the proposal and whoever makes the
assurance should, like the rest of us in the private world, be obliged to
stand behind it.
HANS BLEIKER
Thank you. Hark and Donn Vornholt.
DONH VORHIIOLT
My name is Donn Vornholt, and I'm speaking on behalf of Fairmeadows Land
Company. Hopefully I will ... He recognize that these facilities have to be
built somewhere. Sacrifices have to be made. In viewing the various alter-
natives I would like to comment very briefly on each of them. First of all,
the mechanical system at the Delta site. I have a great deal of sympathy for
the people that live In the area. At the present time, they are struggling
with the problems and effects of the airport. I've been down in that area
several times, we cannot even carry on a conversation down there until the
helicopters get through doing their thing. And now they add Insult to injury,
the alternative of the Delta Site has risen again. In the last instance
there was vigorous opposition to it which I think was justified, and I think
actually the site was turned down because not only the cost, but the opposi-
tion of the people in the area. To have this resurface again, It is a
-12-
-------
oo
serious alternative, I'm sure the people In the area will oppose It just as
vigorously as they did before. As a display of sensitivity for the people
living In the area, 1 would like to see that alternative rejected. As far
as alternative number two, discharge to Crow Creek ... as I understand It,
this Involves the, principally the Miller Farm located in the Gill or Barnes-
vllle area. It would Involve an aerated lagoon system. The site Is located
from Thirty-fifth avenue In Greeley, a distance of fifteen miles. Now If we
consider the growth west of Greeley Is going to continue, let's assume that
it will grow an additional five, perhaps ten ... That would mean In reality
that we are transporting sewage quite a distance for treatment. From cost
standpoint one would have to agree that it would be considerable. We are
out In that area, we are neighbors of Mr. Miller, we would regret that his
land be taken for an aerated lagoon system. It is Irrigated land, and it's
capable of good production. There is sufficient dry land in that area, that
if this alternative were to be used, that this lagoon site could be put in a
dry land area that would not have the environmental Impact on those that
would ... the Miller farm. In other words, what I'm saying is that If you're
going to put this aerated lagoon site out in that area, put it in the dry
land, at a site that is not going to be affecting people In that area environ-
mentally, aesthetically, or etc. etc. Alternative number three, crop appli-
cation, we are particularly concerned about this alternative, we are speaking
of, I probably can't quote It accurately what ... twenty thousand, twenty
acres of crop production of dryland would be put ... OK, two thousand ... we
are very concerned about the economic impact on the people in the area. We
have a very limited market for the crops grown. So far we have found few
alternatives when we consider, that our main crops 'are sugar beets, pinto beans.
hay, and corn, either silage or chopped corn. Our only-market, and we're grate-
ful for It, is Monfort Kuncr lot. Their quota is based on the number of cattle
that they feed, and it Is not a set number of acres each year. To give you an
example, this year they contracted for the Kuner Lot, which a good number of
acres in the Barnesville area were contracted. They contracted approximately
seven thousand acres. Last year they contracted approximately sixty-five hun-
dred. This was based on the fact that their lots here not full and so they
had to carry over the silage and cut down their allotment, which means that
that is that much less corn that we are able to sell to them. Now when we
consider the fact that alternative three is talking about crop application to
three thousand acres of land, if we are taking about sixty-five hundred acres
and we are going to compete with the City directly or Indirectly, that amounts
to close to half of what Monfort is contracting to the area. We do not relish
the prospect of competing with the City in the production of crops and the sale
of them. Alternative number four. I'm confused on this because ... explained
to me, but I couldn't quite hear exactly what he was saying, but they are talk-
ing about percolation through the ground and to go ahead and supplement under-
ground water. This apparently is in further study and is not feasible, so I'm
confused by alternative number four. When you get back to mileage consideration,
when we consider pumping sewage fifteen to twenty miles, I would like to have
the City consider, perhaps an alternate proposition of the area west of Greeley.
The area east of Greeley, we are told,' that it is capable in view of gravity
flow. Now the area west of Greeley has both the Platte and the Poudre Rivers.
and we have talked with, for example, In the areas of lagoon, with discharge
back to Crow Creek and then back into the Poudre River. It would seem to me
that the elevation of the area west of Greeley and the location of the Platte
and Poudre Rivers would provide that gravity flow, and with the Installation
of aerated lagoons would be much more economical in that type of Installation
-13-
-14-
-------
than transporting the sewage the distance fifteen or twenty miles east of
Greeley. I think this should be certainly a serious consideration as an
alternative. It 1s true, as previously mentioned, that sewage treatment
facilities are not the most desirable thing In the world; however, we would
like to share some of these facilities with the area west of Greeley. I
think that's about all I have to say and we certainly appreciate the oppor-
tunity to speak to you this evening, and I think there are people considera-
tions and as I just mentioned we would like to share some of these facilities
such as the airport, sewers, feedlots, small Industries, etc. with our neigh-
bors to the west. Thank you.
HANS BLE1KER
Thank you ... George & Gary, If you need to say something because maybe a
question that needs to be ... Get my attention. We have another, next on
the list Is another Stow Witwer.
STOW HITHER
I'll decline for the time being.
HANS BLE1KER
All right. OK, how about Bill Folger?
BILL FOIGER
I'm Bill Folger, President of the Greeley Audubon Society. I'd like to
say that I speak for myself primarily, but I am sure that most of the members
of the Society would agree with me that we would favor a crop distribution ...
and tertiary as well as secondary treatment. I would think also that the site
served by gravity, that west of town should also be considered.
HANS BLEIKER
Thank you. Jack Larson?
-15-
JACK LARSON
I didn't sign to speak.
HANS BLEIKER
In that case, I'm going to go to the people who said maybe they might speak,
and let's see whether we have anybody take the bait on the subject. J.K. and
Virginia Harsh, am I saying It right? Hould you like to. ah...
HARSH
I have nothing ...
HANS BLEIKER
Eugene and Shirley Robb?
Hr. Robb ,
Pass for now.
HANS BLEIKER
OK. Please, don't everybody pass. Mllford Peterson?
Hr. Peterson
I don't have anything to say.
HANS BLEIKER
In light of how well I'm doing at people turning me down, ah, I'm going to
change the format and simply ask for the next person that would like to,
rather than reading off a whole bunch of names. Uho would like to speak next?
Here we have somebody. And you are?
DARWIN TOHKY
I'm with Bijou Irrigation Company.
HANS BLEIKER
Give us your name so that the people who report will have It.
DARH1H TOHKY
My name Is Darwin Tomky. I'm President of the Bijou Irrigation District.
-16-
-------
We take our water out of the rtver a couple of miles east of Kersey, He use
water on twenty-five thousand acres approximately, and tf you take this two
thousand acres of land and put It under Irrigation, basically you'll be taking
our water and we will highly object to It.
HAIIS BLE1KER
Next? Who's next? Yes? You want to take advantage of this. It's always
the bureaucrats up front ... this is your chance.
CHARLES ACIIZIGER
Charles Achztger, I think everything of concern has been said about the plant
Itself. I'm representing a few people that will be affected by the pipeline
crossing their property. And we are opposed. If this happens, we are opposed
to the pipeline crossing our property. Me think there's a better alternative
If it ... with our concern that the pipeline go through our property.
HANS BLEIKER
2 Would you speak on the better alternative that you had in mind?
CHARLES ACHZ1GER
Well, as we see It, if they're going,, if they are going to go out there
they can go right out Eighth Street, or what we call Eighth Street, they make
a jog off Eighth Street, go half a mile north, then cross about approximately
two miles of farms, and then up the county road, and they can very well
easily go straight out Eighth Street and not cross our farms.
HANS BLEIKER
I get It. OK. thank you. Who's next?
JOHN HCKAY
I'm John McKay. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity of presenting
what I consider a perfect alternative, to offer the possible sewage disposal
project. It seems that most people have the idea that their human waste is
-17-
not offensive, and it's all right to dump it in an area that they don't use.
Now I have in mind a program that would take care of the sewage of every town
and hamlet in this drainage area. The only thing that kind of bothers me.'and
I've been assured that that is not anything to worry about because they say
that there's a possible way to treat sewage so that it's in a condition that
can be used in fertilizer and water used after the treatment has occurred.
Now there's an area of up to two thousand acres east of Brush that there isn't
a house in miles of where this treatment plant can be placed. And the physical
contour of this whole drainage area would allow this plant to be located in
that area, and be fed by gravity pumping just a pipeline that would take the
sewage, from just an example. Fort Collins. Loveland and Longmont and all thr-se
towns in that drainage area, and be transported in a pipeline to that area east
of Brush. Now I'm sure that there's going to be lots of opposition to such a
program as that, but when you take care of Greeley's sewage in itself, you
still have all that other sewage in the Platte and Poudre River, and in reality,
we're just taking care of Greeley's sewage. I've heard that the main opposi-
tion that would be is that you couldn't get the cooperation of the, these other
towns. Well, I don't know that it's ever been tried, and I'm sure that a plan
of this kind would be of such vital Interest to the whole drainage area that
it deserves consideration, and in signing off, I would like, before too much
is made with other plans, I would like to furnish the transportation for the
engineers to go down there, and just Investigate this idea. Thank you.
HANS BLEIKER
Thank you. Who's next?
DAVID BATES
I'm David Bates, and I hope I'm not still a landowner out there, I think I'm
-18-
-------
released from that under a contract of sale, but it would be possible that I
would again come In possession of some land In the area suggested for plans
two, three, and four. First, Is the planning and engineering to be compensated
on a percentage basis of the cost of the plant?
HANS BLEIKER
The answer Is no. It's a fixed fee.
GARY HIHDOLPH
At this time there Is no contract signed of any of the alternatives.
DAVID BATES
What Is traditional?
•
GARY WINDOLPH
Hell, at the present time, EPA allows several different forms of contract.
It does not allow percentage of construction cost. Generally. It's a nego-
_ tlated lump sum or cost-based contract.
— DAVID BATES
.1 would suspect that the cost rate might give us a little Idea of who might
be Interested In the most expensive solution to the problem. Is there any-
body here who has any confidence whatever that Greeley will operate an odor-
less plant? That's probably about the situation now. This plant Is so de-
sirable that everybody Is anxious to get It as far away from Greeley as pos-
sible. And ... people on whom to blame. Nobody has suggested a properly
operated mechanical plant ... adjacent to the present First Avenue or Second
Avenue plant, whatever Us name Is. That might even keep the problem and
solutions right where the problem began.
STOW WITHER
I'm Stow Ultwer, Sr.. To me this Is a very Interesting meeting because as the
-19-
roan In charge said, generally they have a few big shots up here and they tell
us what's going to happen and we can take It or leave It. And then there's a
big argument, and nobody gets anywhere. To me, It's a frightening situation,
because It's a sewer problem. It Isn't just for Greeley, It's worldwide, and
as somebody suggested, we'd like to share It. We don't v/ant to take It all on
us, and If you're not Interested to go out west, you can go south. Brush,...
and I can only back up what my son said so much better than I can, that my
feeling Is that If they do come out there In our area, there's got to be not
just a nice statement made by the mayor or some Greeley engineer, or George here.
George has told me nice stories about what they are going to do. George and I
are good friends, see, and he has a job with a good company, but this thing Is
for the ... to take a look at. I've been there for quite a while, I've been
out there ... , I've got a couple of neighbors here that have been out there
pretty near all my life, too, and we don't like to see a thing like that come
Into our area ... be no opposition from the people out east ... I see neighbors
out there that I think would rise up and leave If necessary, ... but I don't
think that's the attitude that you want to take. You want to work with It If
you can. Now I see Ed Meyer sitting out there, my neighbor, and there's some
engineers working right In front of his house that this group don't know any-
thing about, and they're building the ... little beaver dam there you ever saw.
And the thing about It ... If I was as sure that this fine engineering company
would be as successful as that pair of beavers, I wouldn't fight It. But, I
haven't talked to Ed since the visitors moved in, but apparently that's where
the beavers feel Is the best location, they come up the river, and It's about
three miles that they have to travel up the river and they find this spot.
Very few of us have beavers in the front yard. And they, three years ago did
the same thing, It's a big spot with a nice lake, it might be a nice place
-20-
-------
for a lagoon. I don't know ... it seems to me that the, I don't think we out
there, we don't want to have troubles ... but we know that there had better
be some insurance or, I appreciate this type of meeting, I'm sorry that more
of the folks out there didn't get up and tell the things, that some of them
told me what they think, and I know that it isn't easy. What we must realize
is that they've got a good engineering group and I think they're trying hard
... but we never have, as I told George. I said George, I can't make any state-
ments, if I make any statements on the thing it'll be to my attorney, my son.
but. I don't know which they want to do. Until I know some more about it, I'm
not going to stick my neck out and get it chopped off ... he said that, be-
cause.too often that happens. But I do want to compliment this group. I like
what our school superintendent, Mr. Hanson had to say, and I appreciate the
opportunity, see I've lived out there for.going on seventy-seven years now,
right in the same yard, but now people move around, but I hate to see this
o type of thing being talked about for out there, we can't stop that. I just
want to encourage you that, don't anybody ... don't get too bothered about
this thing until they lay something one way or the other, and made pretty
plain what they're going to do, and then whatever you do, let's stick to-
gether on it. Thank you.
HANS BLEIKER
Mho's next?
BILL WEBSTER
Thank you. I'm Bill Webster. I would second certainly. Stow Wltwer's com-
ments as to the neighbors we have in the area and certainly the competence
that we would like to see from the city council, the city engineers and the
engineers hired for this project that It will be, not certainly another East
Lagoon type of project that came about, that so many of us live with now.
-21-
That was not in our minds a successful project, did not operate to specifica-
tions that It was claimed to be. And I think many of us are very much con-
cerned about the way that this will be constructed and as to how well It will
perform as far as problems that would be Incurred by the people in the area.
I might state the one specific thing, and I came in a few minutes late, but I
did catch Chuck Achziger's comments on the route of the pipeline out there.
Yesterday I spent about two hours on the works that ARIX Company has done, the
engineers in the proposal, and I think certainly they've done an excellent job
In laying out the alternate programs but what they do with the project once they
get out there, and how it is to be handled. But I had a tough time figuring
out how they went out there with it, and a detailed description of the trans-
mission line to take the materials out there to be aerated and consumed In
the lagoon system. My problem Is ... the pipeline goes east of Greeley for
approximately five miles then takes a half-mile jog north, and proceeds to
cut through some of the best Irrigated country in Weld County. Certainly I
don't think this is an asset to those farms that are going to have to consume
a large pipeline running through that area for a period of two miles before
it again reaches the barrow pit of a county road and goes on to the area,
the lagoons to be built. I can't In my mind, In studying it and talking to
engineers, as well as constructors who hope to bid on this project ... they
can't either see why the pipeline after running five miles in the barrow pit,
is taken a half-mile north and proceeds to go through good Irrigated farm.
In their minds, and in mine too, I feel that the pipeline could stay In the
barrow pit, the construction costs are less and there are less problems
with easements and right-of-ways that have to be filed and costs thereof
and they could stay in the seven-mile area completely out to the turn where
-22-
-------
it turns and goes north to Gill and then turns Into the county road, approx-
imately a mile north of that GUI road. This Is In my mind Is a simpler system,
and 1 would entertain the comments from the engineering firm as to the reasons
why they are doing this, if they hope to pick up the connection with the East
Lagoon system which they would let folks do, it would be just as simple to
take a pipeline from the East Lagoon system down to the main line, tie Into
It and go straight on east. I think that's all my comments. Thank you.
HANS BLE1KER
Somebody else has something else to say, I'm sure. Same opportunity...
BUD CUHONS
I'm Bud demons, and I live out south of Kersey. I'm an employee of the Colo.
State Land Board who happens to own some land In the area that will be affected
possibly If, I don't recall which alternatives, three or four, I believe num-
. ber four, effluent would be applied, a possibility It would be applied through
° some state land. There are a few things I would like to bring to your atten-
tion to something that I think a lot of conrnunlties are having to undergo all
types of problems. I have personally-been Involved with state-owned lands,
handling Denver's effluent, Union's,Sterling's and several other communities
that are In the process of ... problems. In fact, I laid down ... on an
agency basis ... that are putting the pressure on the municipalities. Some
of the things that the other communities are doing. Sterling Is undertaking
a situation very similar to Alternative 14, which would be to apply effluent
to pasturelands, but they can't use irrigated land. This, I think, probably Is
one of the more viable applications where it does exist. Of course. It doesn't
exist in some communities because they don't have that prerogative. One thing
that hasn't been talked about, to my knowledge at least, is the possibility
-23-
that Limon ... are applying our plan because their plan Is to apply effluent
back to their municipal golf course. I am sure that most of you have read in
the Greeley Tribune recently that the city had purchased some CBT water at
$2,000 per acre foot, and I am sure they ... in excess of that. Perhaps
rather than the city going out and buying additional water, maybe they should
take this effluent and apply it back to the municipal golf course and various
city parks they have, rather than going out and trying to purchase additional
water, which will become more expensive as time goes on. That's all.
HANS BLE1KER
Thank you. Who Is going to be next? If you have some Ideas going around in
your head you're not sure you want to bring up, the reason that we are doing
»
this is very much that engineers are looking at the alternatives. They are
going to report to the city. There Is ... way that probable choosing among
alternatives by appropriate decision-makers, they will have to choose some
alternatives between the ones that they have developed .... They will look at
your comments, at others, that will lead to that decision as they know how.
It's just so tragic if two or three years later, some mistake pops up, and
everybody says If only I had said something two years earlier. I had an idea
but I didn't think It was important. Everybody has hindsight, we all get very
smart with hindsight. Twenty-twenty hindsight. It turns out a lot of you
have had ideas beforehand ... Anyone have any of those Ideas, concerns, re-
actions, here we are.
JACK LARSON
My name is Jack Larson. I'm from the Barnesville area. I would be one of
those more closely blessed if this goes through. I would like to remind
everyone that It seems to be the general assumption that this crop applica-
tion is the most popular Idea, when in essence It's four plans, and we should-
n't forget that the Delta site should still be under consideration. If this
-24-
-------
is your feeling. I think we ought to push for It because I think that by
moving It out that far they are going to use the theory of "out of sight,
out of mind". If there Is a problem, It won't be so readily available. If
It's In here at the 1st Avenue location or some place close to town, they'll
be more apt to take care of It. Thank you.
DAVID BATES
In order to avoid the correctness of hindsight and the error of foresight, I
think we should begin concentrating on the fact that there are good odorless
mechanical plants in operation. I know of no objection to Denver's operation
In recent years. They certainly have a much larger amount of waste to dispose
of In Denver, as long as I've known about It, which is almost four years, It's
been an essentially odorless plant and discharges drinking water as an effluent.
I don't see any reason to go Into a risky venture when technology for a mechan-
O ical plant Is well established.
HANS BLEIKER
For those who are recording, your name again?
David Bates
HANS BLEIKER
Who Is next?
ELHER JONES
Hy name Is Elmer Jones and I've been studying this in the Delta region, and
I wish that I had these people on my side when I was studying out there. You
people have not talked such extreme problems that we have. He have the Delta,
but first of all, is the financial situation of the plant. Nobody here has
talked about that. He have a plant being built in the Delta area, in 25-30
years from now, we will have to re-do it. And we are not thinking of plans
-25-
for 50 or 100 years from now. This Is the reason that this plant came up
with the Delta, as people have not asked for. And so I can simplify It for
you people. We know what the odor problem would be and It seems like we
have always had the problem of Greeley putting something east of Greetey.
But, on the other hand, when you look at a plant that is being used for
25-30 years, then having to re-do it again, that's a waste of taxpayers
money. So why not let's do It right this time. Let's put it out and take
care of our population In future years. And for the Information that I would
like to give, I can show the engineers where they can move the Delta pumping
station to 8th Street Road which would probably sell and the land would be...
the City could resell that and they could save $100,000 which could go to-
wards the pipeline. And the other point that I would like to point out is
that some of the sewer pumpllnes could be put out following the Platte River
going to the pumping station which would be east of the airport. I am sorry
that I can't be for the people out there, I know how you people feel but I
think that the Delta people were in your spot and I think that its got to go
someplace, but the financial portion of your tax dollar is more Important
than what we're talking about, putting it out there on a long-range plan.
That's all. Thank you.
HANS BLEIKER
??777?
Who's next? I thought I had a volunteer there. Anybody else? TouTcTI
comment kind of on the reason the Bijou System would object? We don't have
any idea how many acre feet of water you are discharging into the river right
now, but this Is how we get our Irrigation water in Ft. Morgan, every bit
that you put in the river. So when you put it out on that new land, we would
lose It and I think by law, you wouldn't be allowed to do it In the first*
place, because these lands that are Irrigation ...and this is one reason why
-26-
-------
1 brought It up. I was only notified the 5th. so we don't know what all your
plans are.
GEORGE BARBER
We've hired George Palos from Ft. Collins to make the augmentation study ...
for land application ... If selected, there would be augmentation and I would
be more than happy to furnish you a copy of the report that gives some ball-
park figures. Me can't, of course, refine this until we know exactly what
we are going ...
HANS BLEIKER
Somebody else?
(lay I ask a question? Are any EPA people here tonight?
HANS BLEIKER
— Is somebody here from U.S. EPA? Who would admit It? Maybe the question you
o
*"" had In mind maybe can be answered by somebody who Is not with EPA.
I didn't want to ask than a question. I just wanted to know If they was 'present.
HANS BLEIKER
I guess they are not here.
There's another EPA hearing scheduled, isn't there?
GARY WIHDOLPH
- ~ i
Yes, that would be the first part of December.
Can I ask how this Gill site was selected? Why didn't they go farther east
with it?
-27-
IIAH5 BLEIKER
Who selected what Gill site?
Apparently the city, I don't know.
HAHS BLEIKER
George, do you know ... put him on the spot.
GARY WINPOLPH
Are you asking about the particular site or just the general area? ... What
we are trying to do, for a land application system, we knew we had to have a
fairly large land area, and the thinking was that we were looking for a dry-
land area, because If it was already Irrigated it probably wouldn't work very
well. Of course, there is a large area out there of dryland, a relatively few
number of landowners to deal with. We were looking at such things as the water
rights Issue that was brought up. getting the return flows back Into the river
as quickly as possible, and that particular area satisfied that requirement, in
that Crow Creek goes In above Riverside... Bijou Ditch. We were considering •
the farming operation, you have to have suitable soils, well-drained soils and
a whole variety of things like that and also cost considerations. As much as
we would like to go farther east another 5 or 10 miles, not to say that that
couldn't be done, but sometimes you have to stop before you go beyond the
dollars that are available. So a variety of things like that led us to the
present site that is under study. There are also some more site specific
things, the reservoir site on Jake Miller's land ... Mother Nature really put
a nice location there to put a dam across that draw, and to give a pretty
sizable storage reservoir at a reasonable cost. Just things like that, really.
We just ended up there.
-28-
-------
777777
Gary, I would like to ask you a question. Has therebeen any ... advising of
what this might cost? Dr. Bates made a suggestion ... the site In Denver,
what would It cost to Increase the plant on 8th Street to take care of the
thing In the manner like they do In Denver? Has that been bounced back and
forth?
GARY U1NDOLPH
Probably the best way to answer that Is to look at the cost for a mechanical
plant whether It be at the 1st Ave. site or the Delta site. The cost range
Is, we are looking at around 24-25 million dollars for a mechanical plant
like Denver's at the Delta site. The land application alternative, which Is
the most expensive, ranges from 32 to 37 million in capital costs. I don't
•recall what the lagoon and the discharge in Crow Creek Is, somewhere in be-
tween, In that range.
£ 777777
So actually we'd pay less money to put one here, then.
GARY WINDOLPH
In first costs, In construction costs.
7777777
Oh, alright, but the future then, Is around the people that are going to use
It, and they'll see It's taken care of, than rather out with us where we've
got to have some guarantee It's going to be taken care of.
DARRYL ALLEMAN
I'm Darryl Aileron. Water ft Sewer Director for the City. I'd like to add
some comments made on that point. In our analysis, we're very conscious
about operating costs for the City. We look at capital costs, what It costs
-29-
to build It and we are also very concerned about what It costs to operate the
facility, because we are concerned with annual dollars. The mechanical plant
Is the cheapest capital cost, but it is very expensive to operate a mechanical
plant. It Is very energy Intensive, you need a lot more employees, the relia-
bility is a lot less. He are very conscious of that. You go to the other end
of the spectrum, and you have a lagoon system where there are crops grown.
The annual operating costs of that are less than any of the other alternatives
because there is a potential for the sale of the crops. There Is a very sig-
nificant possibility that you can lower your annual costs below any of the
other alternatives, and in addition, you get a much, much higher level of
treatment. You get a tertiary level of treatment, rather than a secondary
level of treatment which is what we have now at 1st Avenue, and what Denver
also has in their operation. I think anyone who has looked at the ...
HANS BIEIKER
Hy thought Is ... the people who have something to say wouldn't have a chance
of saying anything ... the opposite problems these people have other questions
of the engineers. I Just want to remark that if you have any questions, OK.
777777
In response to what he said I guess that's equal to the point that I brought
up, and I appreciate the concern on capital costs and maintenance costs, but
having it out In our area, we are very concerned that the City of Greeley is
committed to enough maintenance and operation costs over the next 50 or 100
years, that it will be operated properly and that's where you come in with the
insurances. If they are concerned about that now in operating a mechanical
plant, is it such a concern that there will not be enough to properly operate
it within the system.
-30-
-------
777777
What do you do with the water In wintertime and after you saturate this ground
out there to a point, It won't be good for farming and I don't think anyone Is
getting rich right now at farming ...
GARY H1NDOLPH
The proposal Is. we would store the effluent during the winter In a large stor-
age reservoir that will hold 5,000 acre feet of storage, 600 surface acres,
and then of course, It would be applied through the summer. Now, with the
topography and geology ... being what It Is In that area, It would require
underdralns and the underdralns would be plugged In,...measuring, checking
quality and releasing It to Crow Creek. With respect to getting rich raising
corn, I don't know about that. I grew up on a farm and I remember the problems
associated with It.
HANS BLEIKER
I thought you were going to say I got rich. Any other questions we can
answer?
777777
In the operating cost...what happens If you looked Into the operating cost of
the equipment out there which does not discharge back Into the Platte, Including
your cost of replacement water In the Platte. Now that Isn't free.
HANS BLEIKER
Did everyone hear that question? I don't want to start It ... let's make
sure that everyone hears the question.
GARY HIHOOLPH
The question was, what about the cost of the water required ... the consumed
water, the augmentation required, with respect to the consumptive use of the
-31-
water on the project. It looks like that would be In the vicinity of 8,000 acre
feet In consumptive use, out of about 13,400 acre feet that would be taken out to
the site. So it's greater than SOX. Now with the reservoir, you have to consider
also the calls on the river and what's happening, what the situation with the river
Is at any given time. You can't really predict precisely what's going to happen.
The augmentation plan would have to take Into account what has happened in that
given year. Has it rained or floods ... downs or call on the river, whatever. Me
looked at 25 years of records on the river, rainfall, river flow records, call
records, and so on and in the worst year we would have to replace 8,000 acre feet
... In the best year we would have to replace probably zero water. On the average
for that 25 year period, it looks like around 1,500 to 2,000 acre feet of water.
Now you can just sort of place your own value on what that 2,000 acre feet of water
Is really worth and what that would add to the cost of the system.
IIAHS BLEIKER
So your answer is yes, we do take that Into account with the degree that we form
costs In the operation. Other questions or comments?
777777
Mr. Alleman has got me very concerned with his statement that he brought up a little
while ago. 1 don't think that I or anyone else Intend to subsidize the citizens of
Greeley by helping them operate their plant cheaper while the City of Greeley is
selling in competition with me so the people of Greeley have a cheaper wastewater
system and they put it In our area, plus we are going to subsidize them by being
in competition on which it would be corn most likely, which is probably 70% in that
area. This has me very concerned at this point when he comes out and makes a state-
ment that that's how they want to cheapen their operating costs. Now this Is ...
it is their problem and they should pay for their problem and we don't want to
subsidize them. How am I correct or am I wrong?
-32-
-------
GARY WIHDOLPII
Sort of half and half. Now really what he said is what you heard. What he said,
he may not have said enough, not that I'm trying to change your opinion, what you
said is valid. What it really boils down to, and I think what Oarryl was trying
to say. is that a mechanical plant is more expensive to operate than a lagoon system,
even forgetting the land application part of the area being used, the operation and
maintenance cost is quite a bit less than a mechanical plant. Now on top of that.
the farming operations, I think everyone has a different opinion on that, whether
that would reduce or increase the operating cost. Maybe we couldn't make it fanning,
I don't know. But just the treatment aspect itself, the secondary treatment is
cheaper in the long run ...
CO
It is certainly cheaper to knock off some operating costs with some Income coming
in versus any other kind of plant, but this is, I think, should be of great concern
to the people and has me worried more so now than it's ever had.
GARY WIHDOLPH
Another thing 1 want to say about that, is who would own and who would operate this
is really an open question and I don't think it's any secret that the present plan
shows the irrigated farming operation on Jack Wells' property and I've talked to Jack
and 1 know he is not Interested in selling the land and so on, and 1 don't think the
City is particularly interested in going into the farming business. What I am
really saying is that maybe we could end up with something like the system at
Mitchell, South Dakota, where they treat it, Mitchell built it and provided the pivot
sprinklers and everything, but the land remains in private farmland and it's just an
agreement that in exchange for providing the water and pivots, the farmer agrees to
take 2 or 3 feet of water or whatever through the year or so.
-33-
Well, I just have to say that you're still missing my point somewhat. Irregardless
of how it's done, if this Is a cheaper method, the people in that area are going to
subsidize the people in Greeley, one way or another. If this is a cheaper ... either
way we are going to subsidize it. ... this is kind of on top of It, another depart-
ment.
HAIIS BLEIKEB
Do we have any other questions?
?7?77?
Now is this, I'm not trying to get past Jack or anything, but if you're ... with
him, how about me, I live a half mile from him. The value of my land is going to
go down, about half at least.
GARY WIHDOLPII
Now with respect to the use of that water in that area, I suppose water could go
more places than just one. It wouldn't have to be just in one particular area. There
are some problems with spreading it around, if you would want to take the wastewater,
agree to take it. think it would be beneficial, it certainly would be looked at. We
do have to keep close tabs on where that water is going, keep the control of it.
That's one thing about it. How we have the site now, it's a sloping site, an inter-
ceptor to hold the water, and everything's fairly well confined in a small area.
So the Health Department officials and so on and surely the residents can be assured
that they're not going to have "contaminants" all over the area. I think that's one
of the problems of spreading it around.
777???
Do you Intend to buy any more land than what it takes ...7
GARY WIHDOLPH
Well, 1 don't know, it just sort of depends on how people feel about it and we're
just kind of feeling our way Into this, we don't know really.
-34-
-------
IIAHS BLEIKER
OK, maybe because of the question and answers we've had so far, maybe we have some
more people who according to the ground rules we started with, want to make some
comment, observations, reactions, at this point.
GARY WIIIDOLPH
Why don't we take a break for a few minutes ...
HANS DUIKER
OK, one thing that you may want to do Is to single out Gary, George, ask them some
specific questions that you feel they haven't answered, but why don't we take a
break.
BREAK
IIAHS BLEIKER
1 hope that there will be a few more people who would like to express particular
views that they have, concerns that they have.
— ANDREW GURTHER
O
^° Hy name Is Andrew Gurtner. I have lived In the city of Greeley, on the east side
around ... for the last forty years. I have served on the Board of Health for 6
years. One year I was Chairman of the Board. I was able to help the community here
because they did have at that time, and still have, a sewer odor over on the east
side. It has been somewhat improved in the testing ... and uses of how we go about
It. But I do feel 1t is my concern for the people here to tell you that the City
of Greeley needs a sewer plant and they need It real bad. They have been fighting
this old system for the last IS years. When I was Chairman of the Board of Health,
they got some people out In Kansas City, Missouri for an International Convention
on sewer systems all over the world. I was very much convinced that there Is some
possibility that sewer systems.can be established without .. If they are far out.
But from what I have found from that convention, that most of the plants went out
-35-
quitc a ways from the cities and Sydney, Australia has a plant 70 miles out into the
desert to eliminate the problems. They have the same type of sewer system Greeley
has. It constantly broke down, they constantly had problems about the odors, so
finally they raised enough money and built a 5 foot pipeline 70 miles out Into the
desert with lagoons whereby they switched from one section to another section and
eliminated all their problems. They were even able to ... the engineers ... they
even deliver the chicken ..., sewage, rubbish, papers, anything that floats, to pump
out there and get rid of it from the city. I do feel that I think you people are
concerned about the sewer being built east or west. I cannot blame you for being
concerned because most places sewer systems are having an odor problem. But I think
If they are properly arranged, properly handled, from what I have seen at Omaha,
Nebraska, I have seen it in plants 1n the state of Colorado here that waste removal
with Its odor problems and 1 still don't understand why Greeley has such an enormous
odor problem. Of course, the big question Is because we have a sewer system here
which Is good enough for 20,000 to 25,000 people and we have 60,000 or 70,000 people
here so It's completely overloaded. And I think It Is necessary for the City of
Greeley to take priority to do something about it immediately before the prices jump
again and 37 million dollars Is 137 million dollars, 4, 5, or 10 years from now. We
should get a plant built today, tomorrow, the next day, so we can get some relief.
I thank you.
HANS BLEIKER
Some other comments?
LOUISE KUTCHER
Hay I ask Mr. Gurtner a question? If the situation was reversed, would the City
of Greeley take care of our sewage? I am In Gill and we have quite a problem out
there, but I don't see the City of Greeley coming along and solving our problems.
So therefore, I think the City of Greeley should solve their own problems. Put It
-36-
-------
out here next to the Country Club, build a 1200.000 frame around It that makes U
look like a house and they'll be satisfied.
AIIDRCW CURTHER
... but something needs to be done, and it's going to have to go somewhere.
LOUISE KUTCIIER
Yes, hut why does it have to fall east of Greeley?
AHDREH GURTHER
I do not say it has to go east, it maybe has to go west. But it has to go somewhere
to relieve 70,000 people from this odor. They've got to do something.
LOUISE KUTCHER
Because vie're the minority out there, we're going to get it.
ANDREW GURTHER
Well, you may be right.
LOUISE KUTCHER
I know I'm right.
ANDREW GURTHER
And I'm not here to criticize you, but it has to go somewhere to do something pretty
soon.
LOUISE KUTCHER
Alright, then go south. South or west. Everything that's rotten goes out towards
Gill.
ANDREW GURTHER
Well, I'm sorry that ... talk to the engineers.
HANS BLE1KER
Mould you like to ...
IODISE KUTCHER
No, I've said my part, because if I get up there I get mad.
-37-
IIAHS DUIKER
For the benefit of the people recording, would you give your name?
LOUISE KUTCIIER
Sure, I'm Louise Kutcher and I live right in the town of Gill.
HARK VORHHOLT
My name is Hark Vornholt and I'll try to bail Andy out a little bit there. I don't
understand why consideration west of Greeley hasn't been talked about a little bit
more, in that the future growth is headed west, the current growth is here now, and
it seems to me that the cost analysis and what not, the feeder lines between our
future growth and our existing growth would be cheaper in the long run if we cen-
tralized the site that way.
HANS BLEIKER
Fair enough, an honest way, consider something less. Some other suggestions, concerns.
If I hear no others, I'll declare this Forum closed. I would invite you as individuals
to take advantage of the fact that we have Gary Hindolph and George Barber here and
you may want to address a particular concern or question to them personally that they
can answer personally. But if no one wants to come out and make a comment, I want
to close the forum part. :
DARRYL AUEHAII
I have one comment, because we didn't respond to this woman's questions doesn't
really mean that we don't have the concern, that I don't personally. I do have a
great concern about the people in Gill. There was another comment about the economics.
Me realize that the economic situation in Weld County, particularly in agriculture,
is very, very delicate. Our position is not to take advantage of anyone. Me are
going to do our very dead level best to try to have a system that would benefit
everyone. I don't think projects are sound unless you can try to benefit everyone.
Maybe that's not totally possible.
-38-
-------
IIAHS BLEIKER
I think that's just another way of saying ... If there were some solutions that had
no drawbacks, we wouldn't need to meet. These kinds of problems have ten times the '
drawbacks ... these kinds of solutions still have some drawbacks. We just want to |
make sure we understand these drawbacks ... that's the nature of It. Well, just
because we're closing this Forum doesn't mean that the opportunity for expressing ,
your concerns is finished. Any time you have any kind of concern or idea coming up,
we invite you to get In touch with anybody in the City or particularly with the j
I
people at ARIX who work directly with George Barber and/or Gary Windolph. With that I
I would like to thank everybody for their participation and that's it. i
-39-
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
URS
George Hovey, Project Manager
Armando Balloffet
Wendie Cop Ian
Jamie Fitzpatrick
Robert McWhinnie
Larry Quinn
Larry Walker
Muriel Greason
Engineering Science
Paul Seeley, Project Manager
Tom Jones
Al Ian Udin
EPA Project Officer
Gary Johnson - Environmental Engineer
CITY OF GREELEY
Darryl Al1eman
Steve Sugg
112
-------
LITERATURE CITED
-------
LITERATURE CITED
1. Ch^M Hill, Inc., Industrial Waste Survey. Prepared for City
of Greeley, Colorado, May 1978.
2. National Academy of Science, Water Quality Criteria, 1972,
Washington, D.C. 1972.
3. Colorado Department of Health. Memorandum on Interim Division
Guidance on Planning and Design Review for Land Application
Systems, March 18, 1977.
k. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater.
5. Bryan, F.L., Disease Transmitted by Foods Contaminated by Waste-
water, in: Environmental Protection Agency Document No. 660/Z-7^-
041, pp. 16-1*5, June 197^.
6. Malina, J.F., Ranganathan, K.R., Moore, B.E.D., and Sagik, B.P.,
Poliovirus Inactivation by Activated Sludge, in: Virus Survival
in Water and Wastewater Systems,(Maiina and Sagik, Editors),
Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at
Austin, pp. 95-106, 1972*.
7. Schaub, S.A., and Sagik, B.P., Association of Enteroviruses with
Natural and Artificially Introduced Colloidal Solids in Water and
Infectivity of Solids-Associated Viruses, Applied Microbiology,
Vol. 30, No. 2, p. 212, 1975-
8. Malina, J.F., Viral Pathogens Inactivation During Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater, University of Texas at Austin, 15 pages.
9. Stanford, G.B., and Turburan, R., Morbidity Risk Factors from
Spray Irrigation with Treated Wastewaters, United States
Environmental Protection Agency Document No. 660/2-7*+-04l, June
197A.
10. Fujioka, R., and Loh, P.C., Recycling of Sewage for Irrigation:
A Virological Assessment, Abstracts of the Annual Meet i ng of the
American Society of Microbiology, E25, p. 5, 197^-
11. Cooper, Robert C., Health Considerations in Use of Tertiary
Effluents, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, No. EE1, Proceedings Paper 12726, pp. 37-^7,
February 1977.
12. Lund, Ebba, Report on a Working Group on Bacteriological and
Virological Examination of Water, Water Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 177-178, 1976.
113
-------
13. Katzenelson, E. , Buium, I., and Shuval, H.I., Risk of Communi-
cable Disease, Infection Associated with Wastewater Irrigation
in Agricultural Settlements, Science, Vol. 194, pp. 3kk~3k6,
November, 1976.
]k. Cramer, W.N., Kawata, K. , and Kruse, C.W., Chlorination and
lodination of Poliovirus and f2, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. k8, No. 1, pp. 61-76, 1976.
15. Gerba, Charles, P., Wall is, Craig, and Melnick, Joseph L., Viruses
in Water: The Problem, Some Solutions, Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 13, pp. 1121-1126, December 1975-
16. Mijumdar, S.B., Ceckler, W.H., and Sproul , O.J., Inactivation
of Poliovirus in Water by Ozonation, Journal of the Water Pollu-
17.
18.
tion Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 2048-2053, 1974.
Parkhurst, John D., The Market for "Used" Water, The American
City, March 1968, pp. 78-80.
Selleck, R.E., and Collins, H.F., Disinfection in Wastewater
Reuse, in: Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Workshop. Proceedings,
University of California-Berkeley, p. 286.
19. Sepp, Endel , The Use of Sewage for Irrigation, A Literature
Review, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California State Department
of Public Health, Revised 1971.
20. Gerba, Charles, P., Wall is, Craig, and Melnick, Joseph L., Fate
of Wastewater Bacteria and Viruses in Soil, Irrigation and
Drainage Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. 1R3, pp. 157-175, September
1975.
21. Lefler, E., and Kott, Y., Virus Retention and Survival in Sand
in: Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems, (Mai ina and
Sagik, Editors), Center for Research in Water Resources,
University of Texas at Austin, pp. 8*1-91,
22. Bitton, Gabriel, Absorption of Viruses onto Surfaces in Soil and'
Water, Water Research, Vol . 9, pp. 473- Wt, 1975-
23. Culp, Russell L., Breakpoint Chlorination for Virus Inactivation
8 pages.
2k. Sorber, C.A., Schaub, S.A., and Bausum, H.T., An Assessment of
a Potential Virus Hazard Associated with Spray Irrigation of
Domestic Wastewaters, in: Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater
Systems (Mai ina & Sagik, Editors) Center for Research in Water
Resources, University of Texas at Austin, pp. 241-252, 197**.
25. Sorber, Charles A., and Guter, Kurt J., Health and Hygiene
Aspects of Spray Irrigation, American Journal of Public Health,
tygie
3! ic
Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 47-52, January 1975.
-------
26. Katzenelson, E. and Teltch, B., Dispersion of Enteric Bacteria
in the Air as a Result of Sewage Spray Irrigation and Treatment
PTocess, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48, 1976.
27. Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the San.itary
Engineering Division, Engineering Evaluation of Virus Hazard in
Water, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, SA1 ,
pp. 11-150, Feb. 1970.
28. Neefe, John R., and Stokes, Joseph, An Epidemic of Infectious
Hepatitis Apparently Due to a Water Borne Agent, Journal of the
American Medical Association, pp. 1063-1075, August 11, ]3kk.
29. Neefe, John R., Stokes, Joseph, et al., Disinfection of Water
Containing Causative Agents of Infect ious (Epidemic) Hepatitis
Journal of the American Medical Association, August 11,
30. Ingram, W.T., Gerber, R.A. , et al., Glossary Water and Waste-
water Control Engineering, American Public Health Association,
1969.
31 . Toups Corps. Water Quality Imports of Irrigated Agriculture,
Loveland, Colorado. April 1977-
32. Colorado Agricultural Statistics. 1977-
33' U.S; Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Weld County.
Unpubl ished.
3^. Boxes, Stan, Weld County Extension Service. Personal communi-
cation, August 23, 1979.
35- Wastewater Facility Planning Report 1, Evaluation of Alternatives
for Greeley, Colorado, Volumes 1 and 2. ARIX Corporation.
36. Personal communication. Weld County Health Department. October
1 979.
37. Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Regulation, 1979.
38. Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments, Waste Load Allocations
And Water Quality Modeling; Water Quality Management Plan,'
December 1977.
115
-------
GLOSSY/?/
-------
GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge Plant - A biological wastewater treatment facility in which
a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated aerated. The
activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater
(mixed liquid) by sedimentation and wasted or removed to the process as
needed.
Aeration Basins - Tanks in an activated sludge plant where the raw or primary
treated wastewater is mixed with activated sludge and agitated and aerated,
Aerobic - Requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of free elemental
oxygen.
Aerosol - A suspension of colloidal solid or liquid particles in air or gas,
having small diameters ranging from 0.01 to 50 microns.
Ammonia - A chemical combination of hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) occurring
extensively in nature (Nhh)
Anaerobic - Requiring, or not destroyed by, the absence of air or free
elemental oxygen.
Aquifer - A geologic formation situated in the zone of saturation that has
sufficient transmissibi1ity to yield water to wells in usable quantities.
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand, which is the quantity of oxygen used in the
b'rochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specific time, at a speci-
fied temperature, and under specific conditions.
Bacteria, Coliform Group - Group of bacterial predominantly found in the
intestines of man and animals which provides an indicator of the potential
pathogenic bacteria in wastewater.
Chlorination - The application of chlorine to wastewater, generally for the
purpose of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing other biologi-
cal or chemical results.
Clarification - See sedimentation
Coagulation - The destabi1ization and initial aggregation of colloidal and
finely divided suspended matter by the addition of a floe-forming
chemical or by biological processes.
Denitrification - The removal of nitrogen or nitrogen compounds from
wastewater.
Detention Time - The theoretical time required to displace the contents of a
treatment unit at a given rate of discharge (volume divided by the rate
of discharge).
Digesters - A tank in which sludge id placed to permit digestion to occur.
Digestion is the biological decomposition of organic matter in sludge,
resulting in partial gasification, 1iquifacation, and mineralization.
116
-------
Disinfection - The act of killing the larger portion of microorganisms in
or on a substance with the probability that all the pathogenic bacteria
are killed by the agent used.
Effluent - Wastewater, partially or completely treated, or in its natural
state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin or treatment plant.
Filter - Device for removing solid or colloidal matter by passing wastewater
through a medium that may be natural or artificial granular material,
finely woven cloth, unglazed porcelian, specially prepared paper, or
synthetic media.
Flocculation - The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided suspended
matter after coagulation by gentle stirring by either mechanical or
hydraulic means.
Force Main - Pressure sewer line originating at a pump station.
Grit - The heavy suspended mineral matter in wastewater such as sand, gravel,
and cinders.
Industrial Wastewater - The solid and liquid wastes from industrial processes,
as distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
Infiltration - Groundwater which enters sewer lines through joints, porous
wal1s or breaks.
Inflow - Direct extraneous connections to the sewer system such as roof
drains and catch basins.
Influent - Wastewater, raw or partially treated, flowing into a reservoir,
basin, treatment process, or treatment plant.
Interceptor - Larger diameter sewer lines which transport wastewater from
smaller collector lines to a wastewater treatment facility.
Lagoon - A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Application - Processs of applying treated wastewater to the land for
further treatment or reuse as irrigation water.
mgd - Million gallons per day.
Microstrainer - A rotating filter utilizing a fine mesh screen.
Nitrification - The conversion of nitrogenous matter into nitrates by bacteria.
Nutrients - Inorganic substances involved in energy transfer and necessary
for the growth and development of plants and animals.
Outfall - The point, location or structure where wastewater or drainage
dischages from a sewer, draw or conduit into the treatment facility or
receiving waters.
117
-------
Pathogens - Bacterial that may cause disease in the host organism by their
parasitic growth.
Permeability - Measure of the absorptive capacity of a substance.
Pretreatment - Preliminary treatment either at the wastewater source or just
at the beginning of a complete wastewater treatment facility.
Primary treatment - The first major (sometimes the only) treatment in a
sewage treatment plant, usually screening and sedimentation. Primary
treated effluent is usually unacceptable for discharge.
Pump Station - A pumping location on .a sewer line which forces the wastewater
in a pressure sewer line to a higher elevation. Also, known as a lift
station.
Salinity - Measure of the salt content in water.
Screw - A device with openings, generally of uniform size, used to remove
solids in flowing wastewater and to prevent them from entering an
intake or passing a given point in a conduit.
Secondary Treatment - The treatment of wastewater by biological means after
primary treatment. Secondary treated wastewater is usually adequate
for discharge unless the receiving waters require tertiary treatment.
Sedimentation - The process of deposition of suspended solid matter in
wastewater by gravity separation. Also known as clarification.
Sewer - A pipe or conduit that carries wastewater or drainage water.
Short-circuiting - Direct flow through a treatment process without utilizing
the entire detention time or process.
Sludge - The accumulated solids separated from wastewater. During processing
by sedimentation, coagulation, or chemical treatment.
Soil Filtration - Utilizing soil as a filter medium.
Suspended Solids - Measure of the solids content of wastewater. It is the
quantity of material deposited when a quantity of wastewater.is filtered
through an asbestos mat in a Gooch crucible.
Tertiary Treatment - Processes which treat effluent from secondary processes
to remove or reduce nutrients, residual organics, and residual solids.
Trickling Filter - A filter consisting of a bed of coarse material over which
wastewater is distributed or applied in drops, films, or spray from
troughs, drippers, moving distributors, or fixed nozzles and through
which it-trickles to the underdrains, giving opportunity for the formation
of zoogleal slimes on the media surfaces to clarify and oxidize the
wastewater.
118
-------
Wastewater - Combination of the liquid and water-carried wastes from residences,
commercial buildings, industrial plants, and institutions, together with
any groundwater, surface water, or storm water that me be present.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Criteria
Colorado Department of Health defines various uses as follows:
Surface waters suitable for a water supply are defined as:
"Waters which after receiving approved disinfection such as simple
chlorination of its equivalent or which after receiving standard
treatment (defined as coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration and disinfection or its equivalent) will meet Colorado
drinking water regulations and any revisions, amendments, or
supplements thereto."
Recreational water is separated into Class I and Class II by the
State of Colorado. These are defined as:
Class I - "These surface waters are suitable or intended to become
suitable for prolonged and intimate contact with the body or for
recreational activities when the ingestion of small quantities of
water is likely to occur. Such waters include but are not limited
to those used for swimming."
Class II - "These surface waters are suitable for recreational uses
on or about the water which are not included in the Class I category".
Agricultural waters are defined as:
"These waters are suitable or intended to become suitable for
irrigation of crops usually grown in Colorado and which are not
hazardous as drinking water for livestock."
Surface Water Quality
Water quality data have been monitored at four stations. These stations
are located schematically in Exhibit A-l.
Water quality problems in the South Platte River are associated with the
following parameters: fecal coliform, Ammonia and sulfate.
Fecal coliform bacteria are organisms that indicate the possible
presence of disease-causing organisms such as pathogenic bacterial,
viruses, worms, and protozoas. Fecal coliform is a more specific
indicator of contamination from warm-blooded animals. Fecal coliform
A-l
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
HYDROLOGIC SCHEMATIC OF
THE GREELEY AREA .
c--
201 STUDY SAMPLING STATION
CROW
CREEK
TREATMENT PLANT
SITE
LANO
APPLICATION
SITE
FIRST
AVENUE
TREATMENT
PLANT
NOTE: NO SAMPLING DATA IS
AVAILABLE FOR THE:
• SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
ABOVE THE POUDRE RIVER
• OGILVY DITCH
•SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
BELOW CROW CREEK
CDH - Colorado Department of
' • Health
SOURCE: ARIX, Wastewater Facilities Planning Report No. 1. Evaluation
of Alternatives for Greeley, Colorado, August 1979, Volume 1,
Main Report.
A-2
-------
criteria for a raw water supply and for Class I and Class II recreation
are 2000/100 ml, 200/100 ml, and 2000/100 ml, respectively. Fecal
coliform in the South Platte range from 15/100 ml to 2.k x loVlOO ml,
with a mean value of 15,321/100 ml.
Sulfate imparts an unpleasant taste to water and also has a laxative
effect. Sulfate is not removed in conventional water treatment. The
water criterion for sulfate is 250 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations in
the South Platte range from 220 mg/1 to 690 mg/1, with a mean value
of 538 mg/1.
A-3
-------
criteria for a raw water supply and for Class I and Class II recreation
are 2000/100 ml, 200/100 ml, and 2000/100 ml, respectively. Fecal
coliform in the South Platte range from 15/100 ml to 2.k x 10^/100 ml,
with a mean value of 15,321/100 ml.
Sulfate imparts an unpleasant taste to water and also has a laxative
effect. Sulfate is not removed in conventional water treatment. The
water criterion for sulfate is 250 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations in
the South Platte range from 220 mg/1 to 690 mg/1, with a mean value
of 538 mg/1.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEALTH
Literature Summary - Public Health
Different levels of pathogen removal by various treatment processes
should be considered when using reclaimed water. Bryan (5) discussed
the removal of a wide variety of bacteria and virus by processes in
sewage treatment plants. Malina (6) analyzed more specifically virus
removal by processes in both water and wastewater treatment plants.
Primary Sedimentation
Primary sedimentation normally removes less than 50 percent of the
pathogenic bacteria from sewage (5). The wide variation in virus
removals documented is probably due to variations in the concentrations
of incoming suspended solids (6). Viruses are known to absorb to
suspended solids and, hence, be much less detectable in an analysis of
the liquid phase. This does not necessarily imply that their ability to
infect is altered (7).
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment normally removes about 90 percent of the pathogenic
bacteria (5). The different types of biological treatments vary
somewhat in their ability to remove virus. Activated sludge and aerated
lagoon systems are the two most effective. Both can remove more than 90
percent of the incoming virus. Careful operation can achieve removals
of greater than 98 percent (6).
In another study by Malina (8), the sensitivity of virus removal to
changes in different parameters of the activated sludge process was
examined. Virus inactivation was found to be independent of (1)
organic loading, (2) hydraulic detention times and mixed liquor
suspended solids concentrations, and (3) whether oxygen or air was used
in the process. Virus absorption to sludge was found to be almost
immediate. It was determined also that inactivation in the process
occurs in a time-stable sludge-virus complex. Further information
concerning virus inactivation in activated sludge can be found in
several other publications (9, 10, 11, 12).
Pi slnfection
Various disinfecting agents have received attention (10, 13, I'*, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), but chlorine remains the most widely
used. Several factors influence the effectiveness of chlorine in in-
activating pathogens. These are discuss'ed in an article by Culp (23)
and are: 1) pH and the concentration of hypochlorous acid present; 2)
detention time; 3) turbidity or solids content (the lower the concen-
tration of particulate matter including algal, the more effective is
disinfection); 4) presence of oxides of iron, manganese and hydrogen
sulfide; 5) presence or organic compounds; 6) temperature; and, 7)
mixing.
B-l
-------
Effective disinfection of wastewater with chlorine generally requires a
solids free effluent, good mixing, adequate contact time and chlorina-
tion to the breakpoint to obtain a free chlorine residual.
The use of ozone as a disinfectant has recently been given increased
consideration. In a comparison of ozone with chlorine (18), it was
noted that ozone oxidizes phenols, cyanides and pesticides more completely
than does chlorine. It also is unaffected by the presence of ammonium.
Disadvantages of its use are lack of residual, cost and high sensitivity
of bactericidal effectiveness to method of application.
Aerosol Transmission of Pathogens
One concern of spray irrigation systems is the health hazard posed by
aerosols from the wastewater.
Sorber (2k, 25) has shown in pilot plant studies that aerosols can
disperse pathogens found in domestic sewage. A decrease in the number
of inhaled infectious units occurred with a corresponding decrease in
infectious viral units in the sewage. The viricidal effect of sunlight
and higher temperatures was found to be definite, though the effect of
relative humidity varied with different types of virus. In aerosols,
the majority of bacteria die off in the first three seconds of exposure,
while others persist longer.
A review of Stanford and others (9) analyzed the morbidity rate factors
associated with spray irrigation of wastewater. The authors state that
a literature search has not revealed any incidence of disease from
irrigation with properly treated sewage (i.e., chlorinated secondary
effluent). They also state that the formation of droplets smaller than
500 microns in diameter should be prevented.
Katzenelson (26) presented data on aerosol hazards due to spray irriga-
tion with contaminated river water and aerated lagoon effluent. Coli-
form bacteria and Salmonella were found 350 meters and 60 meters (1,150
and 200 feet), respectively, from the sprinklers when contaminated river
water was used. Only coliform bacteria were found in tests on aerosols
from an aerated lagoon, and these were at a maximum distance of 30 .
meters (100 feet) from the sprinkler sites.
Irrigation with Wastewater Effluent
A committee organized by the Sanitary Engineering Division of the
American Society of Civil Engineers stated that no outbreaks of disease
due to crop irrigation with secondary effluent has been reported with
the systems in use up to 1970 (27). However, a number of outbreaks have
been associated with various types of foods contaminated with waste-
water, some as a result of irrigation. One outbreak resulting from
contaminated vegetables occurred with the use of secondary effluent.
All other outbreaks were connected with water treated to a lesser extent
(5).
B-2
-------
Katzenelson (13) demonstrated the hazards of using partially treated
non-disinfected oxidation pond effluent for irrigation. A survey of the
incidence of singellosis, salmonellosis, typhoid fever and infectious
hepatitis showed that these diseases were two to four times more
prevalent in communities where spray irrigation was practiced than in
others. Unconfirmed cases of influenza also occurred twice as often
where spray irrigation with oxidation pond effluent was used. However,
no significant difference in disease incidence was noted during the
winter non-irrigation season.
One of the main hazards of irrigating crops with poorly treated sewage
is the possible spread of infectious hepatitis. Neefe and Stokes (28)
demonstrated that the causative agent of infectious hepatitis is
transmitted in the feces of humans. In another article by the same
author (29), the effects of the agent were shown to be much less severe
after exposure of effluent to high concentrations of chlorine, but only
partially diminished after treatment by aluminum sulfate or activated
carbon.
Reuse of effluent for irrigation can be free of health hazards. The key
requirement is proper disinfection which is defined as, "the art of
killing the large portion of microorganisms...with the probability that
all pathogenic bacteria are killed" (30). However, it must be understood
that disinfection of ordinary wastewater does not kill all pathogenic
organisms. Disinfection relative to public health protection is impor-
tant in systems where effluent and reuse of the wastewater occurs in an
uncontrolled environment and the potential for public contact is high.
Where a high degree of control is provided, disinfection requirements
can be less stringent.
B-3
-------
Katzenelson (13) demonstrated the hazards of using partially treated
non-disinfected oxidation pond effluent for irrigation. A survey of the
incidence of singellosis, salmonellosis, typhoid fever and infectious
hepatitis showed that these diseases were two to four times more
prevalent in communities where spray irrigation was practiced than in
others. Unconfirmed cases of influenza also occurred twice as often
where spray irrigation with oxidation pond effluent was used. However,
no significant difference in disease incidence was noted during the
winter non-irrigation season.
One of the main hazards of irrigating crops with poorly treated sewage
is the possible spread of infectious hepatitis. Neefe and Stokes (28)
demonstrated that the causative agent of infectious hepatitis is
transmitted in the feces of humans. In another article by the same
author (29), the effects of the agent were shown to be much less severe
after exposure of effluent to high concentrations of chlorine, but only
partially diminished after treatment by aluminum sulfate or activated
carbon.
Reuse of effluent for irrigation can be free of health hazards. The key
requirement is proper disinfection which is defined as, "the art of
killing the large portion of microorganisms...with the probability that
all pathogenic bacteria are killed" (30). However, it must be understood
that disinfection of ordinary wastewater does not kill all pathogenic
organisms. Disinfection relative to public health protection is impor-
tant in systems where effluent and reuse of the wastewater occurs in an
uncontrolled environment and the potential for public contact is high.
Where a high degree of control is provided, disinfection requirements
can be less stringent.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C
EXISTING FACILITIES
FIRST AVENUE PLANT
Treatment Facilities
The First Avenue plant services the City of Greeley and has an average
flow of 6.9 million gallons per day. Prior to 1973, it also treated
wastewater from the Monfort plant until this industrial flow was diver-
ted to the newly constructed Lone Tree Creek plant. Excluding infiltra-
tion and inflow contributions to the plant, the residential flow con-
tribution accounts for 85 percent of the total flow. The other 15
percent is contributed from commercial and industrial sources; however,
25 percent of the BOD load comes from these two sources. The infil-
tration/inflow has been estimated at 1.3 million gallons per day, and up
to four million gallons per day during heavy rainfall periods. The 85
percent residential and 15 percent commercial/industrial could be
considered a representative flow condition for a city the size of
Greeley.
As shown in Exhibit C-l, the First Avenue plant consists of an older
South Side trickling filter plant and a newer (196A) North Side acti-vated
vated sludge plant. The South Side facilities have a two million
gallons per day nominal operation capacity, which is the flow presently
being treated at the South Side facilities. The remaining flow, four to
five million gallons per day, is treated by the North Side facilities,
which have the capacity to treat an average flow of up to 6 million
gal Ions per day.
The raw sewage is first directed to a recently constructed pretreatment
unit for removal of large solid materials. The flow is then split by
pumping a portion (two million gallons per day) to a primary clarifier
on the South Side and the remainder to the North Side.
The South Side units, constructed in the years 1936 and 1955, consist of
one primary clarifier, two trickling filters, one final clarifier, one
chlorination basin, and a pumping and control building. The anaerobic
digesters constructed in the years 1936, 1955 and 196A are also located
on the South Side.
The flow is pumped from the South Side primary clarifier to the trick-
ling filters, where the waste is treated by trickling it through a
medium consisting of rocks coated with microbial growth. The trickling
filters are presently being operated so that the wastewater is 100
percent recycled through the trickling filters. The waste then flows by
gravity to a final clarifier for settling of any solids that may have
accumulated in the filters and subsequently sloughed off or passed
through the filters. Following final clarification, the flow is mixed
with the North Side flow for chlorination and discharge.
The North Side facilities consist of two primary clarifiers, two aera-
tion basins, and two final clarifiers. The facilities are designed and
C-l
-------
o
N>
LEGEND
C & P- Controls & Pumps
Cl - Chlorination
D - Digester
PC - Primary Clarifier
SC - Secondary Clarifier
P - Pretrearment
TF - Trickling Filler
Raw Sewage-*
EXHIBIT c-1
- First Avenue Plant Facilities
-------
operated as a conventional activated sludge system. The pretreated flow
is pumped from the South Side through a tunnel constructed under the
Cache la Poudre river to the two North Side primary clarifiers. The
clarified waste flows by gravity through the remainder of the plant.
The aeration basins contain a biological culture which is maintained for
degradation of the remaining organic material in the waste. This
culture forms a sludge and settles out in the final clarifiers. A
portion is recycled back to the aeration basins to maintain the bio-
logical activity, and the remainder is pumped out to the Lone Tree Creek
plant for treatment and disposal. The effluent from the final clari-
fiers flows back through the tunnel to the South Side where it is mixed
with the South Side effluent prior to chlorination. The combined
effluents are chlorinated and discharged to the Cache la Poudre.
The sludges produced at First Avenue are stabilized by anaerobic
digestion. The 196A digester is the primary digester and the other
two are operated as a second stage in the three South Side digesters.
The waste-activated sludge produced at the North Side plant is not
digested at the South Side, but is pumped out to the Lone Tree Creek
plant and disposed of in the anaerobic lagoons. The digested sludge can
either be trucked to farmers directly from the digesters, or spread on
the sand drying beds for dewatering and retention until there is suf-
ficient agricultural demand for the sludge. At present, the demand for
the sludge has been sufficient to dispose of all the sludge produced.
The annual average effluent concentration and highest monthly average
concentrations of BOD and suspended solids (SS) are presented in Table
These data indicate that the plant performance improved markedly from
1972 to 1976 and have remained fairly consistent since 1976. The yearly
average BOD and SS concentrations have been in compliance with the
plants discharge requirements of 30 milligrams per litre for both BOD
and SS (30/30). However, these standards are violated at times during
the year. These violations are, in part, a consequence of operational
upsets caused by slug discharges of industrial wastes.
Collection System
The Greeley sanitary sewer system consists of 207 miles of gravity
sewers, eight miles of force main and nine lift stations. The Greeley
system also receives some flow from sewers outside the corporate
limits—Highland Hills, Farmers Truck Line Group and the Spanish Colony
Sanitation District. The sewers are constructed primarily of vitrified
clay and the remainder are concrete sewers. In 197^, the Poudre inter-
ceptor was constructed to relieve flows in the old North Trunk inter-
ceptor. The new 36-inch interceptor extends from the First Avenue Plant
up into the Hilltop basin. There are some 12,200 service lines con-
nected to the sanitary system amounting to over 180 miles of vitrified
clay pipe.
Summary of Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
The following conclusions are presented in the infiltration/inflow
analysis that was conducted on Greeley's sewer system:
C-3
-------
o Infiltration/inflow averages kQ to ^5 percent in the summer
months and 18 to 21 percent in the winter months.
o Ninety-five percent of the infiltration originates in the
service 1ines.
o Up to three million gallons per day of infiltration/inflow is
removable through a sewer system rehabilitation program.
o It is more cost-effective to rehabilitate the sewer system, as
opposed to constructing three million gallons per day addi-
tional capacity in a treatment facility.
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
The Monfort Meat Packing Plant is the largest industry within the City
of Greeley, and removal of its effluent from the First Avenue Treatment
Plant in 1973 to the Lone Tree Lagoons substantially improved the treatment
performance of the First Avenue treatment plant. However, slug loadings
from other industries into the First Avenue facility continue to cause
reductions in treatment efficiencies. The City of Greeley contracted
with CH^M-Hill to conduct an industrial waste survey (1). The report
identified six potentially significant industries whose wastes are being
treated at First Avenue. These industries are:
o Meadow Gold Dairy
o Balcom Chemicals, Inc.
o Misco Textile Rentals, Inc.
o Cassedy Brothers Meat Co.
o HESCO Manufacturing, Inc.
o Sanitary Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.
Meadow Gold Dairy is identified as the largest single discharger into
the sewer system. Meadow Gold's wastes comprise about \k percent of the
average BOD load to the treatment plant. This waste is high-strength,
low volume, and is often discharged during early morning when dilution
is minimal. This causes high-BOD shock loads on the plant which con-
tribute to system upsets.
Balcom Chemicals and HESCO Manufacturing are identified as discharges of
potentially toxic wastes. Balcom Chemical provides pretreatment of its
wastes and discharges at a constant, low rate throughout the day to
ensure adequate dilution. HESCO Manufacturing provides no pretreatment
of .its wastes and periodically discharges high-volume, high-strength
waste. These discharges may account for some of the periodic strong,
solvent odors reported by the First Avenue plant operators.
The two major dischargers of laundry wastes, Misco Textile Rentals and
Sanitary Laundry and Cleaners, are relatively minor sources of BOD and
suspended solids. No further pretreatment of these discharges is seen
as necessary. It is expected that the First Avenue Plant can success-
fully treat these laundry wastes with no significant problems.
The industrial waste survey resulted in the following recommendations:
1. Require Meadow Gold Dairy to use its pretreatment facilities by
enforcing the City ordinance which prohibits any discharge harmful
to the treatment process.
C-4
-------
2. Periodically analyze the Balcom Chemical discharge through an
independent laboratory to ensure that discharge of pesticide
materials remains below the detectable limits.
3. Require Balcom Chemicals to install a standby discharge pump which
will ensure no discharge greater than two gpm from the drum washing
facility.
k. Require HESCO Manufacturing to landfill all solvent and cutting oil
wastes generated at their engine rebuilding plant. Enforcement
action should be based on the same ordinance as applied to Meadow
Gold Dairy.
5. As Cassedy Brothers Meat Company comes into full production, sample
the discharge from the clarification equipment. Determine if the
load from that source is sufficiently stable to allow treatment at
the First Avenue Plant. Consider requiring prechlorination of the
discharge to enhance grease removal and/or consider a separate lift
station with discharge routed to the Delta Plant.
6. Install flow diversion structures to allow selective routing of
the Z^f-inch South Trunk sewer, which serves Meadow Gold Dairy,
Balcom Chemicals and HESCO Manufacturing, to the new high-stability
treatment process at the Delta Plant.
7. As new industry enters the Greeley service area, investigate
potential load variations as well as average loads expected. If
substantial load variations are expected, locate new industrial
dischargers in a place that allows routing of all highly variable
wastes to the Delta Plant for treatment.
Implementation of these recommendations are essential in reducing
periodic plant upsets of any biological treatment facility.
LONE TREE TREATMENT PLANT (EAST LAGOON)
This facility is located five miles east of Greeley and essentially
serves the industrial waste from the Monfort Packing plant and provides
some treatment for waste activated sludge from the North Side plant.
The plant is a secondary biological type using the activated sludge
process and is referred to as the lagoon plant because anaerobic ponds
are utilized in place of primary clarifiers with large aerobic ponds
providing effluent polishing. Discharge from this plant is to- Lone Tree
Creek and one mile above its confluence with the South Platte River.
The City of Greeley became obligated to treat Monfort Packing plant
waste in accordance with an agreement dated March 7, 1970. Essentially,
this contract stated that the city would build and operate the Lone Tree
plant with a load capacity reserved for Monfort consisting of k.3
million gallons per day and 30,000 pounds of BOD. Monfort is required
to pay $51,600 annually as a capital contribution in addition to their
C-5
-------
share of all operating costs based on BOD load ratios. The contract
further states that if additional capital costs are incurred to meet
more stringent effluent standards, Monfort would be required to pay
extra capital costs based on BOD loadings.
HILL 'N PARK SANITATION DISTRICT FACILITIES
The Hill 'n Park treatment system consists of two aerobic lagoons which
may be operated in series or parallel at a retention time of 52 days.
The lagoons are constructed with surface areas of 3-3 acres (at 10 foot
depth) and 1.7 acres (at 5 foot depth). The facility services approxi-
mately 1,500 people and has an average daily inflow of 0.1 million
gal Ions per day.
EVANS SANITATION DISTRICT FACILITIES
The Evans treatment facility consists of two aerated lagoons operated in
series. This facility provides service for approximately ^,500 people
in the Evans Sanitation District. The retention time of the waste in
the lagoon is approximately 30 days and the average discharge from the
facility is 0.6 million gallons per day. A third lagoon is planned for
this facility, which would expand the potential treatment capacity to
1.2 million gallons per day.
The Evans Sanitation District sewer system constructed in 1962 consists
of sli.ghtly less than 10 miles of vitrified clay gravity sewer. The
majority of the sewers are eight-inch diameter pipe, the remainder being
10-inch and 12-inch. The 775 service line connections have a total
length of 11.^5 miles. There are no known storm sewer connections to
the sanitary system and the infiltration into this system is estimated
to be less than the allowable rate for a system of its size (0.02
million gallons per day); consequently, no sewer system rehabilitation
is needed for this system.
The sewer system constructed in the 1965-1971 period consists of three
miles of eight inch and ten inch gravity sewer made of vitrified clay
pipe. The 150 service line connections account for 2.2 miles of pipe.
There are no infiltration/inflow problems with this collection system.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D
The Use/Value Assessment
The use/value assessment is a tool that was originally created by Donald
J. Epp, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at the Pennsylvania
State University. It is a procedure designed to determine the productive
value of agricultural land free from speculative influences. Originally,
it was utilized as a tax assessment tool. It was adapted for this study
by the URS Company.
The first step was to determine the net farm income for Colorado. This
is found in Table D-l, Value of production for crops for Weld County was
next determined to establish an approximate percentage share of sales
which came out to 15.96%. The net farm income for the County was then
found and subsequently divided by the percent of the total acreage for
South Weld County. This was done because the Soil Conservation Service
has not, to date, completed their survey for North Weld County. The
income was then capitalized at 15% to obtain the total value of the
agricultural land. Table D-l presents these figures.
TABLE D-l
Net Farm Income (1977)
Percentage Share of Sales
County Net Farm Income
South Weld Survey Area Acreage
South Weld Net Farm Income
Capitalized Net Farm Income
$163,300,000.00
15-96%
$ 26,062,680.00
152,000.00 (kk.6% of total
1
$ 11,623,995.28
$17^,359,329.20 (at 15%)
County/acreage)
The soils in the study area were placed into capability classes.
that pertain to the study were grouped as follows:
Those
Group
Group
A -
B -
Land Capability Class I. These are soils that have
few limitations that restrict their use.
Land Capability Class II. These soils have "some
limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
moderate conservation practices".
Group C - Land Capability Class III. These soils have "severe
limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
special conservation practices, or both".
Group D - Land Capability classes IV and VI. These soils are
restricted in their choice of plants, require careful
management or are largely unsuited for cultivation.
(Source: Soil Conservation Service, for a more detailed
discussion of land capability classifications see: Land
Capability Classification, Agriculture Handbook No. 210,
SCS-USDA.)
Table D-2 shows the weights assigned to each soil grouping. The purpose
of these weights is to reflect the relative contribution of the soil
classification to the productive value of the agricultural land. The
D-l
-------
square root of the coefficient of variance was found for each grouping .
in relation to average yields per acre (for corn); the formula being
A/ -i. . With Group D being unity (a weight of 1), all other groups were
then substracted from Group D to arrive at the corresponding weight.
TABLE D-2
Soil Groupings and Assigned Relative Weights
Group Weight
A 22
B 19
C 10
0 1
The use/value assessment formula was then applied to the data to deter-
mine the productive value per acre for each of the soil groupings. The
formula reads ^-_ /•%.) (Y-)
Where X = weights for soil groups and Y = acres of soils groups this
figure is then divided into the capitalized net farm income to get the
value per acre of Group D soils. This figure is then multiplied by each
weighting to achieve value per acre for each soil group.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
APPENDIX E
IMPACT OF TREATMENT FACILITIES ON LOCAL MARKET
AND SURROUNDING LAND VALUES
Land values in a 25 mile radius surrounding Greeley have risen 12 to 15
percent over the last couple of years with most of this increase being a
direct result of the soaring value of the related water rights. At
present, irrigated land is valued between $1,500 to $2,000 an acre while
range land is between $800 and $1,200". Water rights in this area are
in the range of $2,000 per acre foot.
The location of the treatment facilities in this farmland area is not
likely to have a direct impact on land values. Mr. Thomas Reinbolt, an
assessor with the Federal Land Bank in Greeley said that any significant
land devaluation should not occur but that some slowdown in the rate of
value appreciation might be expected in the short term. This same
opinion was expressed by various realtors contacted in the Greeley area.
Also, surrounding land values in the vicinity of the Muskegon County
system (a similar treatment plant to the proposed Greeley system) have
not been significantly impacted by the treatment program. Requests for
building permits have risen almost 15% since the system began operation.
The new supply of corn produced in the study area could possibly be in
competition with some of the corn for silage from the surrounding farms
and would in turn effect the revenues that those farms are presently
receiving. Indirectly, as the income generated from the crops decreases,
the farmer may be faced with a similar decrease (or slow down in the
rate of value appreciation) in the value of his land.
This, of course, assumes that the land application system is used only
to grow corn. There are other alternatives, such as reed canarygrass,
which may not be competitive with other silage crops and could provide
superior water absorption.
Changing land values could also effect the Platte Valley School District
(REl) revenues. Their most prevalent concern though is in regards to
the ownership status of the proposed treated land. If this land was to
come under City ownership, then all associated land tax revenues to the
district would be eliminated. At this time, however, there is every
indication that the land in question will remain under private owner-
ship, thus actually increasing tax revenues as range land is put into
product ion.
Agricultural Economic Impact
The land application system is the only alternative that has a signi-
ficant impact on agricultural economics. This is because the primary
crop to be irrigated are revenue producing crops. Corn for silage is
well suited to the project because of its nutrient removing capabilities
•Source: The Federal Land Bank, Greeley, Colorado
E-l
-------
and revenue potential, thus reducing operation and maintenance costs.
Prices do fluctuate on a yearly basis, however. In 1978, corn for
silage commanded about $3-90 per 100 Ibs. for the Greeley market. This
figure rose to between $4.65 - $5.00 per 100 Ibs. for 1979-
If the City tried to introduce an additional 2,000 - 3,000 harvested
acres of corn on the local fall market, prices would most likely
decrease significantly in the area. However, if the corn was stored and
only introduced on the local market after the first year, fall prices of
the local farmers would not be decreased. This is because after the
first of the year, the feedlots demand cannot be met by the local
farmers. Imported corn from Nebraska and Iowa is used to satisfy the
demand. Prices in the winter are usually higher so the City would
receive higher revenues by initially withholding their crop.
Alfalfa would not have as significant an impact on local market value as
would corn. This crop is constantly being imported for silage into the
area throughout the year. Prices have recently fluctuated between $45 -
$70 a ton and the City entering this market would not significantly
alter the fluctuation in this crop. Storage considerations would be
eliminated, further reducing 0 S M costs. Reed canarygrass would
possibly produce some revenue as silage. It is low in digestive
nutrients and protein and would not command a high price in the market
place. Presently, there is no significant market for reed canarygrass
in the Greeley area.
A yield of 125 bushels per acre is considered a reasonable figure. The
determining factor in reducing yields would be if the soils contained a
particularly high salt content.
E-2
-------
TABLE E-1
AVERAGE COLORADO CORN PRICES, GREELEY OR DENVER
January
February
March
Apr! 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1975
$5-90
5.40
5.20
5-30
5. 'tO
5.35
5.45
5-90
5.65
5-20
4.70
4.90
1976
$4.85
4.85
4.85
4.75
5.00
5.20
5.45
5-30
5.20
4.75
4.10
4.35
1977
$4.20
4.25
4.25
4.10
3.90
3-70
3-50
3.20
2.90
3.00
3.10
3-50
1978
$3.80
3.85
4.05
4.35
4.40
4.50
4.30
4.05
4.00
3.90
4.10
4.20
1979
$4.15
4.25
4.30
4.35
4.60
5.00
5.20
4.75
4.50
4.65
--
—
Source: Weld County Extension Service
Colorado State University
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
Source: Wastewater Facilities Planning
Report No. 1
Evaluation of Alternatives
For Greeley, Colorado
August, 1979
Volume II Appendices
By ARIX
APPENDIX F
WATER RIGHTS FULLY OR PARTIALLY OWNED BY GREELEY '
The various waters owned by the City of Greeley are summarized in Table
F-l. As this table reveals, there are different types of water owned by
the City extending over almost all of the water-right types discussed
above.
The direct-flow diversion rights on the Cache la Poudre River are
represented by priorities 6 and 6-1/2 diverted at Greeley1s raw water
intake canal from the Cache la Poudre River above the Bellview Filter
'Plant at the river gage on the Poudre designated at the mouth of the
canyon. These priorities have the amounts of 5 and 7-5 cfs, respectively.
Priority numbers 35, **6, 50, and 59 are decreed to the headgate of
Greeley No. 3 Ditch for irrigation. The City of Greeley has two types
of ownership in these water rights. The original ditch was constructed
by Union Colony which was the owner of the four water rights stated
above. At the time when the City of Greeley began to emerge as the
center of the surrounding agricultural community, Union Colony deeded
3/8 of the water rights to the City of Greeley. With the remaining 5/8
of the water rights, Greeley Irrigation Company was formed with 525
original shares of water stock. From this time on, the ditch was run
jointly by Greeley Irrigation Company and the City of Greeley.
At a later time, Greeley Irrigation Company acquired 60 preferred rights
in Fossil Creek Reservoir with a corresponding storage volume of 1,377
acre-feet. This acquisition supplemented the water available under the
four direct-flow diversion rights with 2.62 acre-feet of storage water
per share.
The City of Greeley presently owns 21 shares of stock in the Greeley
Irrigation Company which water stock was acquired by individual, pur-
chases. Speaking of terms of averages, this acquisition represents 20.8
acre-feet per share of direct-flow diversion and 2.62 acre-feet per
share of reservoir water in addition to the 3/8 ownership of the original
four water rights.
F-l
-------
TABLE F-1
Waters Fully or Partially Owned by Greeley
Subtotals
Direct-Flow Diversions and Plains Reservoirs
(AF)
% of
total
Cache la Poudre River
Priority Amount (AF)
6
6-1/2
35246250259
Reduction per W-7767
Fossil Cr. Res. 21 shares in QIC
South Platte River delta irrigation
Big Thompson River
Greeley-Loveland
Seven Lakes Res.
Lake Loveland Res.
High Mountain Ditches (transbasin Import)
Columbine
Bob Creek priority 85
3620
5*30
7280
-390
15995
300
5788
400
29.84
.56
10.80
.75
High Mountain Reservoirs
Colorado-Big Thompson project water
Other Minor Storage Water Rights
5008
1711
2629
301
2349
1239
13237
17888
Total presently owned - 53608
Seaman
Hourglass
Comanche
Twin Lake
Barnes Meadow
Peterson Lake
G i1 more Reserve i r
(needs excavation work, inactive)
Porter Lake or North Poudre Res. #17
(never filled above 18 ft.)
Timberline Reservoir
(dam broke in 1911 and has
not been repaired)
Trap Lake
(contltional upon completion
of reservoir)
Priority
No.
TTI
93
99
42
55
131C
135C
Priority
date
1/22/1919
6/18/1906
6/14/1908
8/13/1902
6/01/1924
6/08/1922
6/01/1928
Total storage capacity of decree -
2769
Potential future water acquisitions and/or developments
Six-cities Windy Gap project water (transmountaln import)
Greeley Irrigation Company, No. 3 Ditch
Fossil Creek Reservoir
Greeley-Loveland, Seven Lakes, Lake Loveland
Delta Irrigation
8000 AF
10900 AF
1322 AF
7
I
20222+ AF
References:
1978 Annual Report, year ending Dec. 31. 1978, Water & Sewer Dept... Greeley, CO.
City of Greeley water in Canal No. 3, Resource Consultants, Inc., Apr. 1978.
Oral communication with Mr. Darryl Alleman, Director, Water & Sewer Dept., Greeley, CO.
Source: Arlx Corporation
F-2
-------
The City of Greeley owns and operates numerous groundwater wells within
the city area for the irrigation of green areas in cemeteries and parks.
In Water Court case number W-77&7, tne City obtained a decree to operate
these wells as alternate points of diversion for some of the Greeley No.
3 Ditch water rights to the extent of 390 acre-feet per year of diver-
sion. This water is therefore considered as not available from the
general supply standpoint.
Through stock ownership, the City has water in Delta Irrigation Ditch,
and in the Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Company, including Seven Lakes
and Lake Loveland reservoir water. The present annexation policy of the
City requires that developers provide water for lands they intend to
annex to the City and Greeley-Love land water is accepted for this
obligation. It is therefore anticipated that the City's stock ownership
in this company will increase with time.
The high mountain ditches represented by Columbine Ditch and Bob Creek
diversion are both transporting water into the Cache la Poudre Basin
from the Laramie River Basin and therefore can be considered as imported
water. Unfortunately, these structures have not been used to th'eir
greatest potential -in the past 10 to 20 years and their rejuvenation may
run into difficulties with the Wyoming versus Colorado decision 353 U.S.
953, (1957). This case apportioned the water of the Laramie River
between Colorado and Wyoming and thereby limited any future developments
for transmountain diversions in Colorado.
The high mountain reservoirs owned and operated by the City of Greeley
have active water rights and are being used intensively every year.
These reservoirs represent a valuable asset to the City for these
storage waters are available for direct diversion to the Bellvue Filter
Plant for releases to the lower reaches of the river, or for an almost
unlimited number of exchanges.
The Colorado-Big Thompson Project water owned by the City is a similarly
important part of its water supply in which such water can directly
reach the raw water treatment facilities of the City.
FUTURE WATER ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
The City's participation in the Six Cities Windy Gap Project will result
in an increasing of the City's raw water supply by 8,000 acre-feet of
imported.water. In this project, water collected in the upper Colorado
River Basin is transported to the Eastern Slope using the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project facilities for the use by six communities, including
Greeley. The construction of the project is-presently underway and this
water is anticipated to be available parallel to the construction of the
new sewer-treatment facility of the City.
F-3
-------
It is anticipated that at some future time, the expansion of the City
will overtake the remaining irrigated areas under the No. 3 Canal. As
development progresses, more and more of the corporate water stock
should find its way to the City increasing its water supply ultimately
to the average 18,000 acre-feet of diversion substantiated by the
diversion records of the ditch. How soon this transaction will be
completed cannot be estimated at the present time since it is a function
of political and socio-economic developments.
t
Due to similar expansion, it can be anticipated that the City will
increase its ownership of the Greeley-Loveland system. A similar
acquisition is potentially possible on lands served by Delta Irrigation
Canal and in the direction of the town of Evans. How much water will be
transferred to the City from these sources and the timing of the transfer
cannot be reliably estimated at the present time. For general planning
purposes, a conservative estimate of the water-supply increase from
these sources can be placed between 20,000 to 30,000 acre-feet per year.
Some minor storage rights are also owned by the City of Greeley and
are listed in Table . With the exception of one, these water rights are
considered inactive generally due to deficiencies of the impounding
structures. Relative to the total water supply of the City, these water
rights are minor ones; however, they may be used as trading stock with
some of the larger irrigation companies.
ELEMENTS OF AN AUGMENTATION PLAN
Assuming that the City will have to augment for any additional consumption
of its sewage effluent in the amount of the illegal depletions, the
injured water rights, and the method and place of augmentation releases
must be determined. Considering the sources of waters introduced into
the City's system, depletions of in-basin diverted water and that of
Colorado-Big Thompson Project water must be compensated for. As it was
explained earlier, water imported by the City into the South Platte
Basin can be completely consumed or the proportionate part of the
effluent claimed for replacement purposes. At the present time, the.
City has only very limited ownership of such waters; however, after
completion of the Windy Gap project, this type of water will become
significant. The question as to whether replacement has to be provided
for waters originating from the City's reservoirs cannot be specifically
answered at this time. It was mentioned earlier that there are different
legal theories concerning the reservoir water and if the City chooses to
claim 100 percent of its reservoir waters, the question will probably
have to be decided in court. To answer this question, the City will
have to enlist the services of legal counsel with sufficient experience
in water law.
F-k
-------
After it is determined which of the City's water types require augmentation,
the magnitude of the augmentation requirement at any day is relatively
easy to determine from the filter plant's records. Since the City does
not have substantial internal storage facilities that could change the
timing of the return flow by an appreciable amount, an assumption of
almost immediate effluent appears to be sufficiently correct. It is
similarly reasonable to assume that within the City water-supply system,
the different types of water undergo a complete mixing so that a
proportioning based upon the sources is sufficiently accurate.
Determination of the injured water rights. If the river depletions
resulting from the land-treatment of the sewage effluent are considered
illegal depletions, there are two types of injuries to be considered.
In the first one, the City is changing the point of effluent return to
the stream and in the second there is a water consumption connected to
the treatment process.
Treated sewage effluent released from the City into the Cache la Poudre
is physically available to Ogilvy Ditch and to Hoover Ditch. Considering
that the new point of return will be through Crow Creek, there are no
other headgates between the old and the new points of return requiring
this consideration.
x
Irrigators under the Hoover Ditch have decreed their shallow groundwater
wells as alternate points of diversion to the direct-flow diversion
right of the ditch. Apparently from an operational standpoint, there
are practically no diversions from the river by that ditch and the water
supply is obtained instead from groundwater. From this arrangement, it
appears that the proposed change of the effluent point of the treated
sewage will not injure these water rights.
Unfortunately, the same statement is not true for Ogilvy Ditch. The
ditch has a certain physical reliance on the treated effluent that will
have to be compensated for. The real question is the determination of
the magnitude of the injury which question is somewhat complicated as
explained in detail below.
A direct flow water right is entitled to place a call on the river for
water when water is needed for beneficial use and the water is not
available in the river at the headgate of the ditch. At the same time,
the water right must be in priority; that is, there may be no call on
the river by any more senior water right. The amount of water for which
a call may be made is certainly limited by the amount of the water right
itself.
On November k, 1893. the City adopted Ordinance No. 70. Subject to
numerous provisions in this ordinance, the City has granted the right to
use part of its sewage effluent to a W. Albrecht Insinger. A 24-inch
diameter conduit was to be constructed by said Insinger to transport the
F-5
-------
water from the City's collection point across the Cache la Poudre for
use of the effluent on the north side of the river. The grade of said
conduit was specified as 1 foot/1,000 feet. The estimated capacity of
the conduit, assuming gravity flow, was somewhat above 8 cfs. The
ordinance allowed Insinger to use the water for irrigation or to release
the water to the Cache la Poudre River as he wished. Ordinance No. 70
grants the use of effluent waters to Insinger, his heirs and assigns.
It is not known at the present time whether Ogilvy Ditch Company can be
considered legally the assign of the original grantee.
Assuming that the grantee is Ogilvy Ditch Company, there is the question
as to whether an agreement between two parties can override the adminis-
tration of the priority system. Valid appearing arguments can be made
for either side and this question has to be answered by legal counsel or
possibly by the courts.
If the conduit required by Ordinance No. 70 is still in existence, a
flow measurement in the conduit can be arranged to establish the upper
limit of the amount that could have been the subject of the ordinance.
To estimate the amount of sewage effluent that could have been picked up
by Ogilvy Ditch under the priority system, the historic ditch diversion,
the historic City of Greeley sewage effluent releases, and the river-
flow records in the Cache la Poudre River near Greeley have been
collected and analyzed on a daily basis. The river-gaging station is
about 1.8 river miles downstream below the .headgate of Ogilvy Ditch.
Therefore, on this short stretch of the river, only a limited amount of
underground return flow or river gain can be expected. The amount of
this river gain was assumed to be 7 cfs; that is quite high but would
keep the results of the modeling on the conservative side.
It was considered that the "river" at the headgate of Ogilvy Ditch
consists of the natural river flow and the total sewage effluent
released by the City. To allow for the return flow between the ditch
headgate and the gage, it was assumed that if the flow in the river at
the gaging station is 7 cfs or less, Ogilvy Ditch has diverted the
entire flow of the river at its headgate. Any river flow at the gate
exceeding 7 cfs was considered to be available at the ditch headgate.
that the ditch has not diverted apparently in lack of need. This
quantity then was deducted from the sewage effluent of the City and
considered as releases not required by the Ogilvy water right. Sub-
sequently, the daily sewage effluents that were diverted by Ogilvy Ditch
were summarized to arrive at the seasonal totals. During the last five
years, Ogilvy Ditch has obtained the following quantities from sewage
returns: 1971* - 129 acre-feet; 1975 - 118 acre-feet; 1976 - 59 acre-
feet; 1977 - 873 acre-feet, and 1978 - 6 acre-feet. These quantities
have been made available to Ogilvy Ditch from the City of Greeley's
sewage returns. The data show a quite variable water availability
pattern, and at the time of designing and operating the final augmen-
tation plan, a daily accounting will be required throughout the
irrigation season.
F-6
-------
Augmentation releases for Ogilvy Ditch can be made either through the
Cache la Poudre River from sources above the headgate of the ditch or
since the irrigated area of the ditch is between Lone Tree Creek and
Crow Creek, treated water could be piped back from the treatment site
directly into the ditch.
Injury to other water rights can be alleviated by releases through Crow
Creek or at any point higher on the river. Similarly, any return-flow
credit from the land-application treatment process will discharge into
the river via Crow Creek.
Sources of augmentation water. The water rights belonging to No. 3
Canal cannot be physically used in the water-supply network of the City;
therefore, they will be considered primarily for augmentation purposes.
The future growth of the City will undoubtedly result in the acquisition
of additional agricultural water rights in the form of direct-flow
diversion and storage rights. These will likely originate from areas
around the City and most of them will not be suitable for treatment and
direct use. Water obtained from the Windy Gap project presently under
construction represents a significant quantity of valuable augmentation
water. At the time the Windy Gap project is completed and the No. 3
Canal is fully acquired, only from these sources an estimated 8,000 to
10,000 acre-feet will become available for augmentation.
A part of the high mountain reservoirs that represent almost 25 percent
of the present supply could immediately become available for augmenta-
tion. It is anticipated that this water will be used through exchanges
in the augmentation plan rather than by direct releases to the river due
to the high transportation losses. With the existing supply and the
projected acquisitions, it appears that the City has ample water to meet
its eventual augmentation requirements. The composition of the types of
water rights is also fortunate and allows a large degree of operational
flexibility in designing the augmentation plan.
F-7
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
APPENDIX G
WILDLIFE
Construction of the treatment facilities will cause a permanent loss of
approximately 700 acres of wildlife habitat. The land application
system will cause a loss of an additional 2,000 - 3.000 acres for the
production of crops, although as an agricultural use, will itself
provide a habitat between planting and cultivation.
Unknown numbers of small mammals will be lost during the construction
stage of the project due to predation and construction related kills due
to forced migration as burrows are covered and dug up. Nesting for
Mourning Dove and songbirds potentially could be disturbed. This impact
to wildlife would be minimal as areas for wildlife migration are numerous.
The construction of reservoirs would have a positive impact by creating
a habitat for waterfowl. Most of the area under consideration for a
reservoir is currently cropland so there would be minimal disturbance of
wildlife habitat. Wildlife that might potentially benefit would be
Canadian Geese, Mallards, the American Widgeon, various species of
amphibians and reptiles, among others. Wildlife species that potentially
occur in the study area are found below:
Class/Order/Common Name
Mamma 1i a
Marsupialia
Oppossum
Insectivora
Masked Shrew
Vagrant Shrew
Chi roptera
Little Brown Bat
Long-eared Myotis
Small-footed Myotis
Silver-haired Bat
Big Brown Bat
Red Bat
Hoary Bat
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Lagomorpha
Eastern Cottontail
Nuttal1's Cottontail
Desert Cottontail
White-tailed Jackrabbit
Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Rodent!a
Richardson's Ground Squirrel
Thirteen-1ined Ground Squirrel
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Northern Pocket Gopher
Plains Pocket Gopher
Scientific Name
Didelphis marsupialia
Sorex cinereus
Sorex vagrans
Moytis lucifugus
M_. evotls
M> Leibii
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eptesicus Fuscus
Lasiurus boreal is
L_. cinereus
Plecotus townsend i i
Sylvilagus floridanus
S_. nuttal 1 i i
$_. auduboni i
Lepus townsendi i
L_. cal ifornlcus
Spermophilus richardsoni i
j^. trideceml ineatus
Cynomys ludovicianus
Thomomys ta1po ? des
Geomys bursarius
G-l
-------
Class/Order/Common Name
Scientific Name
Mammal ia
Rodent ia
01ive-backed Pocket Mouse
Plains Pocket Mouse
Silky Pocket Mouse
Ord's Kangaroo Rat
Plains Harvest Mouse
Western Harvest Mouse
Deer Mouse
Muskrat
Meadow Vole
Mexican Vole
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Porcupine
Carnivora
Coyote
Grey Fox
Red Fox
Raccoon
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink
Black-footed Ferret
Striped Skunk
Spotted Skunk
Badger
Artiodactyla
Mule Deer
Aves
Anseriformes
Canada Goose
Mallard
Pintail
American Widgeon
Shoveler
Blue-winged Teal
Connamon Teal
Green-winged Teal
Lesser Scaup
Fa Icon!formes
Turkey Vulture
Rough-legged Hawk
Ferruginous Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Swainson's Hawk
Golden Eagle
Bald Eagle
Prairie Falcon
Peregrine Falcon
American Kestrel
Perognathus fasciatus
P_ f lavescens
P_. flavus
Dipodomys ordi i
Reithrodontomys montanus
J*. mega lot is
Peromyscus maniculatus
Ondatra zibethicus
Microtus pennsylvannicus
M_. mexicanus
Zac
nudsonius
Erethizon dorsatum
Can is latrans
Urocyon cineroargenteus
Vulpes vulpes
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
Mk vi son
M_. nigripes
Meph?t i s mephi tis
Spilogale putorius
Taxidea taxus
Odocoileus hemionus
Branta canadensis
Anas platyrhynchos
A_. acuta
A. americana
A..
A_.
A,.
A.
clypeata
discors
cyanoptera
crecca
Aythya affinis
Cathartes aura
Buteo lagopus
Buteo regal is
Buteo Jamaicensis
Buteo swainsoni
Agu?la chrysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco mexicanus
FaIco peregrinus
Falco sparverius
G-2
-------
Class/Order/Common Name
Scientific Name
Aves
Gal 1iformes
Bobwhite
Prairie sharp-tailed Grouse
Ring-necked Pheasant
Columbi formes
Rock Dove
Bank-tailed Pigeon
Morning Dove
Strigiformes
Great-horned Owl
Short-eared Owl
Screech Owl
Barn Owl
Passeriformes
Horned Lark
Common C row
Magpie
Western Meadowlark
House Sparrow
American Robin
Starling
Red-winged Blackbird
Brewer's Blackbird
Common Crackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Grasshopper Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Lark Bunting
Vesper Sparrow
Lark Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Amphibia
Caudata
Tiger Salamander
Anura
Leopard Frog
Bull Frog
Chorus Frog
Rocky Mountain Toad
Reptilia
Squamata
S i x-1i ned Racerunner
Lesser Earless Lizard
Eastern Fence Lizard
Colinus vi rginianus
Pediocetes phasianellus Jamesi
Phasianus colchicus
Columba
Columba
Zenaida
1 ivia
fasciata
macroura
Bubo v? rginianus
Asio flammeus
Octus asio
Tyto alba
Eremoph?la alpestris
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Pica pica
Sturnella neglecta
Passer domesticus
Turdus migratorius
Sturnus vulgar is
Agela ius phoeniceus
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Quiseal us quiscula
Molothrus ater
Ammodramus savannarum
Passerculus sandwichensis
Calamospiza melanocorys
Pooecetus gramineus
Chondestes grammacus
Spizella passerina
Melospiza melodia
Ambystoma tigrinum
Rana pipiens
R_. catesbeiana
Pseudacris triseriata
Bufo woodhousei
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Hoi brook?a maculata
Sceloporus undulatus
G-3
-------
Class/Order/Common Name
Scientific Name
Rept i 1 ia
Squamata
Common Garter Snake
Plains Garter Snake
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake
Western Rattlesnake
Racer
Gopher Snake
Milk Snake
Smooth Green Snake
Thamnophis si rtalis
J_. radix
T_. elegans
Crotalus vi ridis
Colubar constrictor
Pituophis melanoleucus
Lampropeltis triangulun
Opheodrys vernal 1s
Sources:
Armstrong, 1972
Bailey & Niedrach, 1965
Robbins et al., 1966
Smith, et al., 1965
Stebbins, 1966
------- |