HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationSERVICE PLAN
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM
for
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
McLAUGHLIN WATER ENGINEERS
0139 Ventnor Avenue 2420 Alcott Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Denver, Colorado 80211
December, 1983
Job No. 82-71.00
a
SERVICE PLAN
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM
for
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
I INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-1
STUDY AREA DELINEATION 1-1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN STUDY AREA I-3
LOAD DESIGN CRITERIA 1-5
II REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES II -1
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 11-2
CLIMATIC AND PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS II -2
AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS 11-3
III FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANS
GENERAL 11I-1
PRETREATMENT III -1
SECONDARY TREATMENT 111-2
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT 111-3
SLUDGE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 1II-4
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES II1-4
IV FACILITIES PLANNING FOR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
GENERAL IV -1
PRETREATMENT WORKS IV -1
SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES IV -2
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IV -6
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND STORAGE IV -7
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES IV -14
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES IV -15
RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IV -17
PHASING OF TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION IV -20
V SEW AGE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
GENERAL V-1
TRUNK AND OUTFALL SEWERS V-1
VI EFFLUENT STORAGE AND REUSE SYSTEM
GENERAL VI -1
REUSE DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE VI -1
EFFLUENT STORAGE RESERVOIRS VI -2
EFFLUENT REUSE SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE VI -2
SECTION
SERVICE PLAN
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM
for
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
DESCRIPTION PAGE
VII FINANCING AND OPERATIONS
GENERAL VII -1
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS VII -2
INCOME REQUIREMENTS VII -2
RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE VII -2
APPENDIX A
Description of Service Area
APPENDIX B
Site Application for Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction
SECTION
FIGURE I -A
TABLE I -B
TABLE I -C
DRAWING I -D
DRAWING I -E
TABLE I -F
TABLE I -G
TABLE II -A
FIGURE III -A
TABLE IV -A
TABLE IV -B
TABLE IV -C
TABLE IV -D
TABLE IV -E
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
IV -F
IV -G
IV -H
IV -I
IV -J
IV -K
IV -L
IV -M
TABLE IV -O
TABLE IV -P
DRAWING IV -Q
DRAWING IV -R
TABLE IV -S
DRAWINGS V-A
TABLE V -B
TABLE VI -A
SERVICE PLAN
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM
for
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
TABLE OF FIGURES, DRAWINGS, AND TABLES
PAGE
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT SERVICE Pocket at End of Section
AREA
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SPRING VALLEY RANCH -SALES PROJECTIONS
SPRING VALLEY RANCH -DEVELOPMENT PLANS
LAKE SPRINGS RANCH -DEVELOPMENT PLANS
WASTEWATER EQR TABULATION
WASTEWATER EQR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
PROPOSED STREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
PRETREATMENT FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE
ALT. ST -1: CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COST ESTIMATE
ALT. ST -2: RELEX PROCESS COST ESTIMATE
ALT. ST -3: ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTRACTORS
COST ESTIMATE
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES COST
ESTIMATE
EXPECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES
THICKENED WASTE SLUDGE FLOWS
CENTRIFUGAL SLUDGE THICKENING COST ESTIMATE
AEROBIC DIGESTER DESIGN PARAMETERS
AEROBIC DIGESTION COST ESTIMATE
SLUDGE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
SLUDGE STORAGE COST ESTIMATE
LIQUID SLUDGE TRANSPORT AND APPLICATION SYSTEM
COST ESTIMATE
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES IV -14
PRESENT WORTH COMPARISON FOR SECONDARY IV -16
TREATMENT ALT.
PRELIMINARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM IV -19
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT -WASTEWATER TREATMENT IV -20
FACILITIES
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IV -21
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION/TREATMENT/REUSE
SYSTEMS Pocket at End of Section
TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE V-2
EFFLUENT REUSE AND STORAGE SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE VI -3
I-3
I-4
1-6
1-7
I-5
I-9
II -1
1I1-5
IV -2
IV -3
IV -4
IV -5
IV -7
IV -8
IV -9
1V-9
IV -10
IV -11
IV -12
IV -12
IV -13
I-1
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
It is proposed to develop approximately 6,500 acres of land in the Spring Valley area
of Garfield County, primarily for residential use.
The purpose of this Report (Service Plan) is to set forth the preliminary designs and
operating economic principles for the sanitary sewage utility which will service the
subject development. The Landis Sanitation District will be formed to establish a quasi-
municipal government body to provide sewage collection and treatment. District formation
is recommended to result in a governmental entity which would govern financing,
construction, and permanent operation of the sewage system.
The scope of the Report includes prediction of sewage flows and preliminary layout of
the collection/transmission sewer system. Practical methods for the treatment and
disposal of the wastewater to be generated within the proposed Landis Sanitation District
are evaluated. The quality and quantity of wastewater expected are estimated and used
as the basis of design for alternative treatment processes. Results criteria that must
be met by a successful treatment program are established and recommendations regarding
an optimum treatment scheme are made. A sewage treatment "Master Plan" has been
formulated to coordinate development and utility planning so that treatment facilities
can be constructed in logical and economical phases.
STUDY AREA DELINEATION
Foster Petroleum Corporation is the land owner and developer for Lake Springs Ranch,
which is a Planned Unit Development comprised of about 440 acres of land. Spring
Valley Holding, Limited, owns and plans to develop Spring Valley Ranch which extends
over 6,060 acres. Figure I -A delineates the Sanitation District's service boundaries.
Development requiring wastewater collection facilities will occur in the Spring Valley
drainage basin. Streams in the basin are intermittent in the upper reaches around and
above the development. The basin drains to the Roaring Fork River through Red
Canyon. The description of the proposed District is included as Appendix A.
I-3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN STUDY AREA
Information concerning the proposed development within the Landis Sanitation District
was obtained from Foster Petroleum Corporation and Spring Valley Holding, Ltd. This
information was used for the development of waste loading criteria for the wastewater
treatment facilities. Proposed development plans are summarized in Table I -B.
TABLE I -B
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Lake Springs Ranch
Single Family Residences
Multi Family Units
194
16
Spring Valley Ranch
Single Family Residences 1,150*
Multi Family Units 1,620
Resort Hotel 300 Room
Retail Space 100,000 Sq. Ft.
Office Space 50,000 Sq. Ft.
* 200 Single family residences are to have individual wastewater disposal systems.
Other development will include a golf course with associated amenities and community
support facilites (i.e., police and fire stations, schools, etc.).
Development of Lake Springs Ranch is anticipated to start in 1984 with sewage treatment
facilities being required in late 1984. Development of the 210 units at Lake Springs
Ranch is expected to proceed rapidly.
The timing for the development of Spring Valley Ranch is less certain. Sales projections
have been furnished for the 15 years following the initiation of development activities.
These sales projections are summarized in Table I -C.
1-4
TABLE I -C
SPRING VALLEY RANCH - SALES PROJECTIONS
Single Multi
Family Family Retail Office Hotel
Year Residences Units Space Space Room
1 35 25
2 85 50 10,000 sq. ft.
3 85 100
4 105 120 10,000 10,000 sq. ft. 150
5 110 140
6 80 160 20,000 10,000 150
7 85 170
8 105 160 30,000 15,000
9 95 180
10 85 205
11 80 135 30,000 15,000
12 75 90
13 65 45
14 60 20
TOTALS 1,150 1,600 100,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. 300
The Landis Sanitation District would also be capable of providing sewage treatment
service to other areas adjacent to Lake Springs Ranch and Spring Valley Ranch. Other
potential areas which could be serviced by the District were outlined in an earlier
report entitled "Upper Spring Valley Sanitation Alternatives" prepared by Eldorado
Engineering Company in December, 1981. Areas to be included in the District are
delineated in Figure I -A. The use and possible expansion of the Landis Sanitation
District's sewage treatment facilities to service other users would be considered on a
case by case basis.
1-5
Due to the development nature of the Landis Sanitation District, sewage treatment
facilities should be built in several increments. The phased construction and expansion
of sewage treatment facilities has several benefits including:
1. The initial sewer system users are not burdened with the higher capital and
operating costs associated with a larger treatment facility.
2. Future sewage treatment requirements can be evaluated as development progresses.
3. Treatment facilities are not built substantially before they
deferring depreciation, investment, and operating costs.
are needed, thus
Preliminary development plans are shown for Spring Valley Ranch in Drawing I -D and
for Lake Springs Ranch in Drawing I -E. Residential and commercial construction will
occur between elevations 6,880' and 9,000'. Most of the development can be serviced by
a gravity sewage collection system.
LOAD DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Flow. The quantity and quality of wastewater expected from the development
is determined through the use of equivalent residential units (EQR). One EQR is defined
to be an average single family residence and can be assumed to be about 2.8 resident
equivalent amount of wastewater. For design flow
persons
or an activity producing an
calculations,
one EQR generates about 250 gallons of wastewater per day.
breakdown for the Landis Sanitation District is shown in Table I -F.
The EQR
TABLE I -F
WASTEWATER EQR TABULATION FOR LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
Single Family Residences
Multi Family Units
Resort Hotel
Retail Space
Office Space
TOTALS
Lake Springs Spring Valley
Ranch Total
Total
194 EQR 950 EQR 1144 EQR
13 1280 1293
75 75
35 35
33 33
207 2373 2580 EQR
I-8
The peak day design flow for the sewage treatment facilities to service Lake Springs
Ranch and Spring Valley Ranch is approximately 650,000 gallons per day.
Since wastewater flows fluctuate throughout the day, a hydraulic peaking factor is
taken into account in the design of collection and treatment facilities. This peaking
factor at the plant is estimated to be about 2.2, indicating a peak flow rate of about
1,000 gallons per minute. Peaking factors for sewer lines will vary, and will be
considered for preliminary trunk sewer sizing.
Infiltration and inflow (I&I) are extraneous flows entering the sewer collection system.
The contribution of flows from these sources is not expected to be significant. Inflow
will be controlled by preventing drainage connections to the sanitary sewage collection
system and the proper locating of sewer manholes.
Infiltration will be minimal since collection system sewer lines will be new and carefully
designed and installed.
Based on the sales projections for Spring Valley Ranch, the annual EQR development
and total EQR to be serviced by the sewage treatment facilities is provided in Table I -G.
y
7
1-9
TABLE I -G
WASTEWATER EQR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE - LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
Year of Spring Annual Cumulative
Valley Ranch EOR Total
Development Added EOR1
1 20 227
2 56 283
3 117 400
4 186 586
5 152 738
6 224 962
7 174 1,136
8 179 1,315
9 179 1,494
10 203 1,697
11 172 1,869
12 114 1,983
13 74 2,057
14 51 2,108
15 49 2,157
16 30 2,187
17 14 2,201
Ultimate Development Total 2,580 EQR
1 Includes 207 EQR of Lake Springs Ranch.
Wastewater Composition. Preliminary design of the treatment facilities should be based
on the following wastewater composition:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 260 mg/1
(5 day at 20 C)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 220 mg/I
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) 30 mg/1
1-10
The design organic loading of the proposed sewage treatment facilities is 1,400 pounds
of BOD5 per day. The population equivalent unit (PE) is used by some Colorado State
agencies in their review of wastewater treatment facilities plans. One PE is about
0.2 pounds of BOD5 per capita per day. Accordingly, the population equivalent of the
proposed facilities would be about 7,000.
F
SECTION II
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater into "State Waters" is
prohibited. The degree of treatment required depends on the location and quality of
the receiving water, the method of discharge, and other factors.
Due to the high quality and low flow of streams within and nearby the Landis Sanitation
District, an extremely high level of treatment would be required if treated wastewater
is to be discharged directly into a creek. The Northwest Council of Governments has
set proposed water quality criteria for streams near the Landis Sanitation District,
which are tributary to the Roaring Fork River, as partially listed in Table II -A.
TABLE II -A
PROPOSED STREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(Significant Parameters Only)
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/1 Min.
NH3-N (unionized) 0.02 mg/1 Max.
NO3-N 10.0 mg/1 Max.
pH 6.5 - 9.0
Fecal Coliform 200/100 ml Max.
Residual C12 0.003 mg/1 Max.
Since the streams are intermittent in some reaches below and around the proposed
sewage treatment facilities, the quality of the treated wastewater would theoretically
have to approach stream standards.
Direct discharge of treated wastewater can be avoided by using a form of land treatment.
Instead of discharging effluent to a natural surface watercourse, wastewater can be
used to irrigate crops and grassland for uptake and partial percolation into the ground.
The degree of treatment that the wastewater must receive prior to land
I1-2
treatment depends upon the specific type and design of land treatment to be used and
the location and use of the wastewater application site. Typically a secondary treated
effluent containing 30 mg/l of BODS and 30 mg/1 of TSS is suitable for most land
applications (other than for irrigation of residential type grasses). Disinfection of the
waste is required to protect the public health.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The Colorado Water Quality Control Act (CRS 1973, 25-8-101, et seq) authorized the
Water Quality Control Commission, a division of the Colorado Department of Health,
to "develop and maintain a comprehensive and effective program for prevention, control,
and abatement of water pollution and for water quality protection throughout the State".
The Act requires State approval of the location and design of domestic wastewater
treatment works prior to construction of facilities. The appropriate site application
form is provided in Appendix B.
Application for site approval for any proposed wastewater treatment facilities will have
to be submitted for review and comment to:
1. Garfield County Planning Agency and Commissioners,
2. Garfield County Health Department,
3. Northwest Council of Governments,
4. Colorado State Geologist, and
5. Colorado State Department of Health.
State acceptance or rejection of the site application will be based on the recommendations
of the other involved agencies, the expected impact of the proposed sewerage facilities
on the public health, welfare, and safety, a thorough review of treatment alternatives,
and other items.
CLIMATIC AND PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The cold winter climate of the area to be serviced by the Landis Sanitation District
establishes several requirements for treatment process design. Biological reactions,
which accomplish the major treatment of wastewater, slow down with depressed tempera-
tures. To prevent unreasonably slow treatment rates, to protect pipes and tanks from
freezing, and to provide for reliable operation and maintenance, portions of the treatment
facilities should be enclosed and operated in a controlled environment.
II -3
Periods of snow cover and subfreezing temperatures limit the application of wastewater
to grasses and other vegetation, thus requiring winter storage of the wastewater
treatment plant effluent and subsequent land application during the spring, summer, and
fall irrigation seasons.
Drainage at the proposed wastewater treatment plant site appears to be marginal. Soils
testing will need to be performed before final design of the treatment facilities can
be accomplished.
AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS
Due to the nature and quality of the proposed developments, it is important that sewage
treatment plant operations be efficient, reliable and discrete. This requirement is
accentuated by the proximity of proposed housing to the treatment facilities and the
potential use of the treated effluent for spray irrigation of the golf course and other
green areas throughout the development. The ability of alternative treatment processes
to operate effectively and reliably without causing odor or other aesthetic problems is
of primary importance for the sewage treatment plant.
Typically, small treatment plants do not have 24-hour operation attendance. Therefore
it is important that the wastewater treatment facilities require minimal maintenance
and are designed for reliability and ease of operation.
SECTION III
COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANS
GENERAL
Section I1 established several criteria which must be met by the wastewater treatment
facilities, including that they be:
1. Capable of meeting water quality objectives and criteria.
2. In conformance with Federal, State and local regulations.
3. Compatible with site conditions, social, and aesthetic values.
4. Practical, reliable, and easy to operate and maintain.
5. Cost effective.
These goals were used as qualifiers for selecting alternative treatment processes.
For discussion, treatment processes are organized into four general categories: (1)
pretreatment, (2) secondary treatment, (3) advanced waste treatment, and (4) sludge
treatment, storage and disposal.
PRETREATMENT
Pretreatment of wastewater involves the removal of hard and dense "grit" particles
from the wastewater stream, the screening out or grinding up of larger components in
the sewage, and the measurement and recording of incoming sewage flows. Pretreatment
facilities are a necessary prerequisite for any mechanical type treatment plant.
Aerated Grit Chamber. The removal of grit particles (eg. sand, coffee grounds) from
the incoming wastewater is practiced to reduce wear on subsequent process equipment
and to prevent the particles from settling out in later treatment processes. An aerated
grit chamber depends on the rolling action of the wastewater, established within the
grit chamber by diffused air introduced at the bottom side of the tank, to allow selective
sedimentation of the more dense, faster settling grit particles. The settled out grit is
periodically removed from the basin and disposed of.
I11-2
An alternative to the aerated grit chamber is the horizontal flow grit chamber which
relys on the maintenance of a uniform flow velocity through the grit chamber. Due to
the highly fluctuating flows expected at the sewage treatment plant and the ancillary
advantages of sewage preaeration, the horizontal flow grit chamber is not recommended.
Screening. Larger material entering the sewage treatment plant must be removed or
reduced in size to prevent plugging of process lines and damage to equipment and to
facilitate treatment of the solids. The cutting teeth of a comminutor cuts up solid
material which becomes trapped on the shear screen. The sheared particles pass through
the screen and continue downstream with the rest of the wastewater.
A mechanically or hand cleaned bar rack provides alternative treatment to comminution.
They are generally preferable because solids are removed from the stream. However,
bar racks produce a solids handling problem, namely, disposal of the screenings.
Flow Measurement. The measurement and recording of wastewater flows entering a
sewage treatment plant is required by State law and facilitates control of treatment
process operations. A number of weirs, flumes, orifices and other devices have been
developed to measure flows. Parshall flumes have met with widespread use and
acceptance in wastewater treatment plants. A float operated, totalizing indicating
recorder provides readout of incoming flows.
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Secondary treatment processes encompass alternatives for carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids removal. Typically, secondary treatment
processes for domestic wastewater rely on microorganisms to utilize the biodegradable
wastewater components for food. Some of the waste matter is synthesized to form
new biomass while the rest is oxidized to carbon dioxide and water which provides the
energy required by the microorganisms to live. Ten to thirty percent of the solids in
raw sewage are not biodegradable. These solids usually are removed from the treatment
processes as sludge.
Primary clarification sometimes preceeds secondary treatment processes. The main
benefit of this practice is a reduction in the organic and solids loading of the secondary
treatment units. The solids collected in the primary clarifier are periodically removed
and treated in conjunction with sludges from other treatment processes. Except when
III -3
explicitly required for downstream treatment processes, primary clarification is usually
not cost effective for small treatment facilities.
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The use of spray irrigation for land treatment of the wastewater treatment plant effluent
is an ideal system for this development. Spray irrigation involves the application of
treated wastewater to vegetative covered land. When properly operated, the practice
results in the reuse of the wastewater to meet irrigation requirements and the avoidance
of surface discharges.
During land treatment further significant reductions of wastewater contaminants occur
through many processes including:
1. Extraction of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen) by vegetative uptake,
2. Adsorption of contaminants onto the soil matrix,
3. Biological degradation of wastewater organics by soil bacteria,
4. Removal of microorganisms by straining and entrapment in the soil.
After treatment by spray irrigation, the non -consumed portion would approach drinking
water standards providing that the application rate and vegetation are properly selected.
Since spray irrigation of the proposed golf course and other accessible green belts with
sewage treatment plant effluent is planned, thorough disinfection of the wastewater
will be required. Multi -media filtration, followed by chlorine disinfection, should be
used. The filter will economically remove suspended solids from the effluent which
would otherwise interfere with effective disinfection. The filter will also ensure a
high quality effluent for golf course irrigation. Chlorination will kill most of the
bacteria and other microbes remaining in the effluent, reducing odor problems and any
threat to public health.
Ozonation can also provide disinfection of wastewater. However, there has been much
more experience with chlorination; and because of the high capital costs associated
with the generation of ozone, ozonation should not be considered further.
During the winter months and periods of subfreezing temperatures, the effluent from
the sewage treatment plant will have to be stored. The ultimate required size of the
III -4
holding ponds will be about 280 acre feet, providing storage for about six months at
design flows. A portion of the storage ponds could be incorporated into the golf course
as water hazards and could be used as irrigation holding ponds during the summer.
SLUDGE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
Treatment of the solids passing through or produced in secondary treatment processes
is required. Sludge treatment and disposal typically accounts for nearly half of
wastewater treatment costs.
Due to process reliability and ease of operation, aerobic digestion should be used to
stablize the sludge. Sludge requires stabilization in order to: (1) reduce pathogens,
(2) reduce the potential for odor problems and putrefaction, and (3) to reduce the
quantity of sludge requiring storage and/or disposal.
Land application of sludge has been demonstrated to be the most economicaland
beneficial system for smaller plants, and is planned for the Landis Sanitation District.
Digested sludge will be applied to agricultural lands, as a soil conditioner thereby
utilizing the nutritive value of the sludge. Adequate land for sludge application will
have to be located.
Digested sludge will have to be stored during the winter months when frozen ground
prevents land application of the sludge. Aeration of the stored sludge will be required
to prevent odor problems. Storage volume requirements will depend on the solids
concentration of the sludge, with less capacity being needed for more concentrated
sludges. The design of sludge treatment and storage systems will also depend on the
specific secondary treatment alternative chosen.
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PERMANENT PLANT
General. Drawing III -A illustrates the individual treatment processes considered for the
ultimate sewage treatment plant and the relationship of each to the overall sewage
treatment scheme. Candidate unit processes have been identified for the secondary
treatment, pretreatment, and advanced processes.
Sizing of treatment processes is based on design wastewater flow of 650,000 gallons
per day and an organic loading of 1,400 pounds of BODS per day.
SANITATION
fn
Q
Q(/)
2
CD cc
11.1 B 1 i Q
p
d 0
Z
...a 0
�yy
gc'S fid.
`�n
Q
w
4
w
4
SECONDARY TREATMENT
PRETREATMENT
w
w
U
N
z w
o
F-¢ N
W 'J 7
7 O O
¢
W U
C3 U
Fes- D
d
N ¢
4
U O
O
CC w
W CD
Cl
A
N
F-
N
E
0
S-
U_
CU
N
'Thj
C.J
C'3 Z
LL U
F- J
CC NC
N .-.
U
0 c.
J L..
CI
Z +, C
Q o L,.
o -
lJJ 11- a • 0 z
CD
D 'D N o L.
J -
(I) N 3 G1 Q
J
4J U
N
III -6
Secondary Treatment Alternatives.
o Alternative ST -1 - Conventional Activated Sludge:
Activated sludge is a mixture of microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, fungi) which
contact and digest biodegradable materials in wastewater. In the activated sludge
process, a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated.
The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater in a
secondary clarifier and wasted or returned to the process as required to maintain
the desired microorganism content within the aeration basin. The process depends
on the maintenance of a good settling sludge.
Aeration basins for the conventional activated sludge process should provide a hydraulic
detention time of about eight hours, requiring a total basin volume of about 200,000
gallons. The BODS in the clarified effluent is typically five to fifteen percent of that
in the raw, untreated sewage, representing a removal efficiency of 85 to 95 percent.
About 0.8 to 1.0 pounds of excess biological solids are produced per pound of BODS
removed during treatment. This sludge would require further treatment and disposal.
o Alternative ST -2 - Relex (Sequential Batch Reactor):
The "Relex" process is a modification of the activated sludge process in which a
single basin is used for both active aeration of the sludge/wastewater mixture and
for the separation of the treated wastewater from the activated sludge. Relex
basins are sized to provide a hydraulic detention time of 24 to 30 hours. This
would require a combined treatment basin volume of about 0.75 million gallons.
BODS and suspended solids removal efficiencies for the Relex process are somewhat
lower than those for conventional activated sludge. Sludge production is substan-
tially lower than that for conventional activated sludge. Sludge removed from
the Relex basin is more stable than that withdrawn from the conventional activated
sludge process and requires minimal subsequent digestion. No separate secondary
clarifier is required, wherein lies a major advantage of the Relex system. As
growth occurs, two reactors could be used with alternate loading in a sequential
batch reactor mode.
o Alternative ST -3 - Rotating Biological Contractors:
This treatment alternative is based on the use of rotating biological contactors
(RBC's). The contactors provide a large media surface area for fixed film
microorganisms to attach to. The contactor is partially submerged and rotates
slowly, allowing the microbes to contact and treat the wastewater. Primary
III -7
clarification or fine screening is required preceding the RBC's to prevent plugging
of the media and to lighten the solids and organic loadings. While activated
sludge processes require a substantial amount of energy to operate blowers and
mixers, RBC's have lower energy requirements. As with other secondary treatment
processes, RBC's produce excess biological sludge which will require secondary
clarification and sludge treatment. Typical BODS removal efficiencies for RBC's
are around 80 to 90 percent.
r --
i
IV -1
SECTION IV
FACILITIES PLANNING
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
GENERAL
Having identified process alternatives which appear to be generally practical for handling
the sewage treatment needs for the Landis Sanitation District, preliminary design and
cost estimates for the facilities required to implement each alternative were undertaken.
The costs presented below have been developed for comparative Purposes and should
not be taken as precise. Sources used for cost estimates include manufacturer's pricing
information, cost data from comparable projects, and published cost estimation data for
specific treatment processes. All costs are in 1983 dollars. 0 & M costs are annual
expenses for the facilities operated at design conditions.
PRETREATMENT WORKS
(common to all alternative treatment schemes)
An aerated grit chamber would be sized to provide a three minute hydraulic detention
time for peak flows. The chamber would be 10 feet long, 6 feet wide, and 6-10 feet
deep. Medium bubble diffusors would introduce air at the bottom of the basin at a rate
of about 30 cubic feet per minute. About two cubic feet per day of grit would be
expected at design loadings.
An automatic bar screen would operate continuously and remove larger objects from
the influent sewage flow. A manually cleaned bar screen would be provided in an
adjacent channel to allow bypass of the automatic bar screen when it requires maintenance
or repair.
Flow measurement would be afforded by a nine -inch Parshall flume equipped with a
float actuated totalizing/indicating recorder. Expected construction and operation and
maintenance costs for the pretreatment facilities are itemized in Table IV -A.
IV -2
T ABLE IV -A
PRETREATMENT FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs
Structural $25,000
Superstructure 20,000
Air Supply System (fraction of blower, air piping,
and diffusers) 8,000
Automatic Bar Screen 10,000
Grit Handling Equipment (pumps, bins, piping) 25,000
Bar Screen, Metal Gates 1,500
Parshall Flume, Flow Recorder 8,000
Total Pretreatment Construction Costs $97,500
Operation and Maintenance (0 & M) Costs
Electricity Requirements ($0.06/Kw hr.) $ 600
Labor Costs ($15/hr.) 6,000
Equipment Maintenance 1,500
Total Pretreatment 0 & M Costs $ 8,100
SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES
Alternative ST -1: Conventional Activated Sludge
Under this alternative, pretreated wastewater would be mixed with return activated
sludge and then flow into aeration basins having a combined volume of 270,000 gallons.
The aerated mixture of activated sludge and wastewater, called the mixed liquor, would
flow into a secondary clarifier having a 40 foot diameter circular sludge collector. The
clarified effluent would pass on to advanced wastewater treatment processes. About
11,000 gallons per day of a 1 percent solids sludge would be collected in the secondary
clarifier and would require aerobic sludge digestion.
IV -3
Air would be supplied to the aeration basin by a blower and iron piping. The aeration
system would require about 40 horsepower.
Two methods are commonly used to meet aeration requirements of the activated sludge
process. The first method, diffused aeration, incorporates bubble diffusors in the bottom
of the aeration basin to keep the mixed liquor agitated and to provide the required
oxygen transfer into the wastewater. Mechanical turbine mixers and air spargers are
used in the second method to enhance oxygen transfer and to maintain suspension of
the solids within the aeration basin. Diffused aeration requires larger air compressors
but does not depend on turbine mixers. The use of submerge turbine aerators reduces
the air required to meet a given activated sludge process oxygen requirement, but
turbine mixers are an added maintenance problem and require substantial electricity.
Costs for the two alternative aeration methods are comparable. Therefore, for the
purposes of this Report, a decision on the method of aeration to be used is not required.
Final design of treatment facilities will determine the most suitable and cost effective
aeration system.
Cost Estimates for construction and operation of a conventional activated sludge system
are outlined in Table IV -B.
TABLE IV -B
ALTERNATIVE ST -1: CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs
Aeration Basins $ 41,200
Control Building 51,000
Aeration System 70,000
Secondary Clarifier 170,000
Sludge Pumps and Piping 34,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost $366,200
IV -4
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirements $ 20,000
Labor Requirements 10,500
Equipment Maintenance 2,500
Total Estimated O&M Costs $ 33,000
Alternative ST -2: Sequential Batch Reactor
The use of sequential batch reactors (Relex) would require basins with a combined
volume of 800,000 gallons. As with conventional activated sludge, an aeration system
would be required under this alternative. About 9,000 gallons per day of a 1 percent
solids sludge would be removed from the basins and pumped to the sludge handling
facilities. Table IV -C provides a capital and 0 & M cost estimate for a Relex secondary
treatment facility.
TABLE IV -C
ALTERNATIVE ST -2: RELEX PROCESS COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs
SBR Aeration Basins $ 98,000
Control Building 56,000
Aeration System 80,000
Sludge Pumps and Piping 39,000
Effluent Decant & Flow Control 30,000
Total Anticipated Construction Costs $303,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirements $ 22,000
Labor Requirements 10,000
Equipment Maintenance 4,000
Total 0 & M Costs $ 36,000
r
IV -5
Alternative ST -3: Rotating Biological Contractors (RBC's)
This secondary treatment alternative would include primary clarification of the pretreated
wastewater. The primary clarifier would remove about 60 percent of the incoming
suspended solids from the wastewater. About 1,600 gallons per day of a five percent
solids sludge would be removed from the 40 foot diameter primary clarifier and pumped
to the aerobic digesters. The effluent from the primary clarifier would have a BODS
of about 180 mg/l.
Four twenty-five foot long, twelve foot diameter, four stage rotating biological contactors
would be installed in parallel basins. The effluent from the contactors would pass
through a forty foot diameter secondary clarifier and on to advanced wastewater
treatment. An additional 4,500 gallons per day of a 1-1/2 percent solids sludge would
be removed from the secondary clarifier and require sludge treatment.
Table IV -D provides a construction and 0 & M cost estimate for the facilities required
under this alternative.
TABLE IV -D
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE ST -3: ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
Construction Costs
Primary Clarifier $110,000
RBC Building 142,500
RBC Equipment 240,000
Secondary Clarifier 170,000
Control Building 57,200
Sludge Pumps and Piping 52,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $771,700
IV -6
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirements $ 16,000
Labor Requirements 6,000
Equipment Maintenance 3,000
Total Anticipated 0 & M Costs $ 25,000
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
(common to all alternative treatment schemes)
Following secondary treatment of the wastewater, a holding basin with a volume of
about 350,000 gallons would be provided to equalize flows to the multi -media filters.
(Note that for the Relex system a polishing pond providing a 3 -day detention time would
serve this purpose.) Wastewater would be pumped from the basin at a constant rate
of about 500 gallons per minute and applied to the filters. Two filters would be
provided, each having a media surface area of 81 square feet. Backwashing of a filter
would be required when solids buildup within the filter caused excessive headloss through
the filter. A water/air backwash system would be provided to minimize potential odor
problems. A surface wash agitator would be provided to ensure thorough cleaning of
the filter media during backwash.
Chlorine solution would be mixed with the filtered effluent. The chlorine feed would
be from 150 pound chlorine gas cylinders at a maximum feed rate of about 30 pounds
per day. Chlorine feed equipment would be housed in a separate room.
The detention time required for disinfection would be provided in the pipeline to the
irrigation/winter storage ponds. Spray irrgation of the wastewater would take place
when environmental conditions permit.
The expected capital construction costs and annual operation and maintenance expenses
for advanced wastewater treatment facilities are provided in Table IV -E. The costs
for equipping a small monitoring laboratory has been included in this Table. The lab
would probably be required by the State for any treatment plant.
IV -7
Costs associated with irrigation using the sewage treatment plant effluent are not
included but are assumed to be part of a lands maintenance budget.
TABLE IV -E
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs
Structural (enclosure building for filter, 012,
and filter equipment) $140,000
Filter Installation (filter media, underdrain,
surface wash agitator, process piping and pumps) 120,000
Chlorine Feed Equipment (chlorine feeder, scales,
mixer, ventilation fans, etc.) 20,000
Laboratory Equipment and •Chemicals 10,000
Total Anticipated Construction Costs $290,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirements $ 1,600
Labor Requirements 10,500
Chlorine Costs 3,500
Equipment Maintenance 1,500
Total 0 & M Costs Expected $ 17,100
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND STORAGE
General. The sizing of the sludge handling facilities is dependent upon the quantity
of sludge requiring treatment and storage. Each of the alternative secondary treatment
processes considered in this Report would produce a different amount of sludge. The
volume of sludge requiring treatment and the expected solids concentration of the sludge
from each of the secondary treatment alternatives are estimated in Table VI -F.
IV -8
TABLE IV -F
EXPECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Secondary Treatment Process Alternative Weight of Sludge % Solids Quantity
Alt. ST -1 Conventional Activated Sludge 900 lb/day 1 11,000 gpd
Alt. ST -2 Relex 700 1 9,000
Alt. ST -3 Rotating Biological Contractors
Primary clarifier sludge (600) (5%) (1,600)
Secondary clarifier sludge (530) (1-1/2%) (4,500)
Total sludge produced Alt. ST -3 1130 6,100
The sludge produced from the secondary treatment alternatives also varies in quality
and composition. Due to the longer detention time and sludge age afforded by the
Relex process, the sludge from this process is more stable and contains less volatile
matter than the sludge from other treatment alternatives. Therefore, there is a smaller
hydraulic and organic sludge treatment process loading when the Relex process is used.
On the other side of the sludge quality spectrum, the sludge collected in a primary
clarifier has received little treatment and requires extensive stabilization within sludge
treatment processes. Therefore, sludge digestion facilities would be larger following
secondary treatment alternative ST -3 (which incorporates primary clarifiers and RBC's)
than for other secondary treatment processes. Sludge transport and disposal requirements
are discussed separately from sludge treatment and storage facilities in this section.
Sludge Thickening
Since sludge storage would be required when frozen ground conditions preclude the land
application of digested sludge, thickening of the sludge collected from the secondary
treatment processes would be cost effective. The sizing of the anaerobic digestion and
sludge storage facilities is based on the centrifugal thickening of the waste sludge to
a solids concentration of 5%. Resultant sludge flows to sludge digestion facilities are
given in Table IV -G.
T ABLE IV -G
THICKENED WASTE SLUDGE FLOWS
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST -1 Conventional Activated Sludge
ST -2 Relex Process. Waste Sludge
ST -3 RBC's (Primary and Secondary Sludge)
Quantity
2200 gpd
1800 gpd
2700 gpd
IV -9
The centrifuges would be sized to process all waste sludge flows when operated, five
days a week for 7-1/2 hours per day. Under alternative ST -3, the centrifuge would be
used only to thicken the sludge from the secondary clarifier. Sludge collected in the
primary clarifier would be pumped directly to the digester.
The construction and operating costs for centrifugal thickening of waste sludge are
given in Table IV -H. Costs for a structure to house the centrifuge are included with
the digester control building.
TABLE IV -H
CENTRIFUGAL SLUDGE THICKENING COST ESTIMATE
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST1 ST2 ST3
Construction Costs
Centrifuge and Controls $112,000 $112,000 $95,000
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirements $ 2,900 $ 2,900 $ 2,000
Labor Requirements 6,000 6,000 6,000
Equipment Maintenance 3,000 3,000 2,500
TOTAL O&M $ 11,900 $ 11,900 ' $10,500
IV -10
Aerobic Sludge Digestion
Design particulars for the aerobic digesters associated with the secondary treatment
alternatives are listed in Table IV -I. It is proposed that separate aerobic digestion
facilities will not be required following the Relex process (sequential batch reactors).
Further treatment and stabilization of this sludge will be obtained within the aerated
sludge storage basin.
TABLE IV -I
AEROBIC DIGESTER DESIGN PARAMETERS
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST -1: ST -3:
Conventional Rotating
Activated Biological
Sludge Contractors
Hydraulic Detention Time 15 days 20
Required Digestion Volume 35,000 gallons 58,600
Oxygen Requirement 850 pound per day 1,600
Aeration System Horsepower 20 Hp 35
The expected construction and operation and maintenance costs for aerobic digestion
are presented in Table IV -J.
as
IV -11
TABLE IV -J
AEROBIC DIGESTION COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs
Structural (enclosed digestion basin,
pumproom, control building)
Aeration System (mixers, fraction of
blower, air piping, etc.)
Process Piping and Pumps
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST -1 ST -3
$98,800 $117,500
30,000 35,000
25.000 25,000
Total Anticipated Construction
Costs $153,800 $177,500
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirement $ 8,000 $ 13,000
Labor Requirement 3,500 3,500
Equipment Maintenance 2,000 2,500
Total 0 & M Costs $13,500 $19,000
Aerated Sludge Storage
The aerated storage volume required to meet winter sludge storage demands depends
on the secondary treatment process selected. Storage basin volumes are calculated using
a required sludge storage period of 200 days each year and an average residency of
75 percent during the winter months. Aeration would be IV -13 required in the storage
tanks to prevent odor problems. The required sludge storage basin volumes required
under the different secondary treatment alternatives are given in Table IV -K.
T ABLE IV -K
SLUDGE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Secondary Treatment Alternative Required Storage Capacity
ST -1 Conventional Activated Sludge
ST -2 Relex Process
ST -3 Rotating Biological Contractors
350,000 gal.
290,000 gal.
440,000 gal.
IV -12
The expected capital and O&M costs for the sludge storage facilities are shown in Table
IV -L.
Construction Costs
TABLE IV -L
SLUDGE STORAGE COST ESTIMATE
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST -1 ST -2 ST -3
Structural (enclosed storage basin) $243,400 $190,000 $297,600
Aeration System (blower, mixers, air 26,000 24,000 29,000
piping)
Process Piping and Pumps 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total Anticipated Construction Costs $284,400 $229,000 $341,600
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Electricity Requirement $ 4,400 $ 2,900 $ 7,100
Labor Requirements 1,400 1,400 1,400
Equipment Maintenance 1,000 900 1,200
Total Expected 0 & M Costs $ 6,800 $ 5,200 $ 9,700
IV -13
Liquid Sludge Transport and Application
(common to all alternative treatment schemes)
A tank truck would be required for hauling liquid sludge from the treatment facilities
to the sludge application site. Several tank trucks are made specifically for the
transport and land application, of domestic wastewater sludges. A small truck with
1600 gallon capacity tank would meet the requirements of Landis Sanitation District.
Subsurface injection of sewage sludge provides thorough mixing of the sludge with the
soil and reduces odor and the potential for sludge runoff by burying the sludge eight to
ten inches deep. Cost estimates for equipment and operation of a liquid sludge transport
and application system are presented in Table IV -M.
TABLE IV -M
LIQUID SLUDGE TRANSPORT AND APPLICATION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE
Capital Costs
Sludge Truck (a specially designed
tank truck with attached subsurface
injector)
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Sludge Handling Alt
$80,000
Secondary Treatment Alternatives
ST -1 ST -2 ST -3
Fuel $ 4,400 $ 3,400 $ 5,600
Labor Requirements 4,200 3,300 5,300
Equipment Maintenance 5,500 4,300 7,000
Total O&M Costs Expected $14,100 $11,000 $17,900
IV -14
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
Table IV -0 provides a summary of costs for the alternative secondary treatment and
sludge handling combinations. The cost estimate for sludge handling combines aerobic
digestion, aerated sludge storage, sludge transport and land application.
TABLE IV -O
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Construction Costs
Pretreatment
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Total Construction Cost
Add 25% Engineering, Legal,
Contingencies
Total Estimated Budget
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Pretreatment
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Total O&M Cost
Secondary Treatment Alternative
ST -1 ST -2 ST -3
$ 97,500 $ 97,500 $ 97,500
366,200 303,000 771,700
290,000 290,000 290,000
$ 630,200 421L000 694,100
$1,383,900 $1,111,500 $1,853,300
346,000 277,900 463,300
$1,729,900 $1,389,400 $2,316,600
$ 8,100$ 8,100$ 8,100
33,000 36,000 25,000
17,100 17,100 17,100
46,300 28,100 57,100
$ 104,500$ 89,300$ 107,300
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
General
Preliminary designs and cost estimates presented for several practical alternative
treatment systems are compared hereinafter, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages
IV -15
inherent with each alternative. On the basis of this screening, an optimum cost-effective
plan for wastewater treatment can be selected.
The screening process will evaluate the relative merits of the alternative systems using
monetary and non -monetary factors. The major elements to be considered are:
1) Analysis of monetary costs,
2) Engineering evaluation of alternatives with regards to process reliability and
operability, and
3) Attainment of goals established in Section II of this Report.
Analysis of Monetary Costs
In order to select a cost-effective treatment plan, the previously developed costs must
be compared. To provide a direct comparison of alternatives, only items which vary
between alternatives will be compared. The pretreatment and advanced wastewater
treatment processes, which are common to all alternatives, are not involved in this
comparison.
Because the costs incurred for sludge treatment and disposal are linked to the secondary
treatment process selected, the costs for processes in these two treatment categories
are considered together.
Since lower operation and maintenance costs might balance out the effect of higher
capital costs, a common basis is required for comparing the total costs for treatment
plans. The common basis for comparison is provided by a present worth analysis which
presents all costs in terms of present dollars that would have to be committed today
to yield funds to cover the expected capital costs and operation and maintenance expen-
ses. Thus, the present worth method of comparison consists of reducing all future
monetary costs for each alternative to a single present sum. The long term interest
rate has been estimated to be 10 percent for the present worth analysis presented
herein. The present worth of expenditures associated with the implementation of the
alternative treatment plans is shown in Table IV -P.
IV -16
TABLE IV -P
PRESENT WORTH COMPARISON FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SECONDARY TREATMENT SLUDGE HANDLING
Alternative Present Worth Present Worth Total Ratio to Low
ST -1
Conventional $647,100 $1,024,400 $1,671,500 1.32
Activated Sludge
ST -2
Relex
Process
609,500
660,200 1,269,700 1.00
ST -3
Rotating
Biological
Contractors
984,500
1,180,200 2,164,700 1.70
Analysis of Table IV -P indicates that the use of the Relex process for secondary
treatment is the least costly treatment alternative. Savings due to the reduced power
consumption and labor requirements associated with rotating biological contacts do not
outweigh the capital costs for a primary clarifier installation, and the RBC mechanism
and the increased sludge handling costs.
Engineering Evaluation of Alternatives
The Relex process requires relatively less operator expertise to maintain efficient
operation. Due to the longer aeration period, the Relex process is less sensitive to
fluctuating (peak) and toxic waste loadings. Also, some nitrification of the wastewater
(the conversion of ammonia -nitrogen to nitrite and nitrate -nitrogen) will occur if the
Relex process is used. Since high concentrations of ammonia can be toxic to aquatic
life, nitrification is desirable.
Advantages associated with the use of rotating biological contactors at Landis Sanitation
District do not outweigh the inherent problems of this secondary treatment alternative.
IV -17
The primary clarifier preceding the RBC's would collect a highly unstable sludge. The
use of aerobic digestion for primary sludge stabilization is prone to odor problems. The
use of anaerobic sludge digestion is not recommended at Landis Sanitation District due
to the constant monitoring required for anaerobic processes and the sensitivity of the
process to fluctuating sludge loadings. The use of aerobic treatment processes will
minimize potential odor problems at the sewage treatment plant.
A significant advantage of the Relex process is that it does not require a separate
clarifier for the separation of sludge from the wastewater. It is not economical to
build two smaller clarifiers instead of one single unit to meet ultimate requirements for a
1 MGD or smaller plant. The phased construction and expansion of sewage treatment
facilities is important at Landis Sanitation District and it is important that treatment
processes be amenable to cost effective phasing.
RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
The wastewater treatment system that appears to be best suited and most cast effective
for the Landis Sanitation District consists of the following treatment operations and
processes:
Pretreatment
Aerated grit chamber
Screening
Flow measurement
Secondary Treatment
Sequential Batch Reactors (Relex - activated sludge process)
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Multi -media filtration (for golf course and accessible greenway irrigation only)
Chlorine disinfection
Spray irrigation/winter effluent storage
IV -18
Sludge Handling
Centrifugal sludge thickening
Aerated storage/aerobic digestion
Liquid sludge transport
Subsurface injection of sludge
A flow diagram for the proposed wastewater treatment system is provided in Figure IV -O.
A preliminary sketch plan of the proposed treatment facilities is shown in Drawing IV-
R. Flexibility exists in the organization of unit treatment operations. Drawing IV -R
is intended to convey the approximate arrangement of the treatment processes to
facilitate a plant cost estimate. Details of the design and layout of the wastewater
treatment facilities would be determined during final design.
A preliminary construction cost estimate for the proposed treatment facilities is provided
in Table IV -S. Costs are given in 1983 dollars. It is difficult to accurately estimate
O&M costs during the preliminary design. Assuming the plant to be fully loaded, an
approximate estimate of system O&M costs is provided in Table IV -T.
TABLE IV -S
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES
CAPITAL COSTS
Earthwork $ 77,400
Concrete 260,000
Superstructure 77,300
Pretreatment Equipment
Automatic Bar Screen $ 16,000
Parshall Flume w/TIR 6,000
Grit Handling Equipment 32,600
IV -19
Subtotal -Pretreatment Equipment $ 48,600
Aeration System
3-40 Hp blowers $ 73,600
4-7 1/2 Hp mixers 36,000
Air Diffusers and Piping 32,000
Subtotal -Aeration System $ 149,600
Sludge Wasting Pumps 18,000
Process Piping and Valves 60,000
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Equipment
2-9' Filter Installations $109,600
2-500 gpm Filter Pumps 16,000
Surface Wash Pump 6,000
Chemical Feed Equipment 30,000
Effluent Pumps 16,000
Subtotal AWT Equipment $ 177,600
Centrifuge $ 112,000
Sludge Tank Truck w/subsurface
Injection System 90,000
Electrical and Control 40,000
Lab Equipment 10,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,112,500
Add 25% for Contingencies, Legal,
Engineering 278,100
Total Recommended Project Budget
(1983 dollar levels) $ 1,390,600
Cost Per Equivalent Residential Unit 540/EQR
0
J
0
z
J
2
U
CO
Ca
w
U
Z
w
O
w
VV)
Cr:
W
(-)
CO
LU
U
Z
w
Cr
w
cC
U
w
c
CI Cr
w w
1- I-.
Q U
t
2
w
W
I-
¢ J
W Li_
CC 2
1-- I-+
UJ
CD Z
¢ ¢
3 -1
LU Cl.
V)
I
'�- - -V
I I
o I I
J I
N C3
1
¢
LaJ
tl
_
F
1--
2
=2
w
U
IV -19
as
2 I- ': /
wIJJ ww 2 �1r L.
wJCC1--=0 O ti1
I -L
2'u -OCA¢ 2 1 L
I- w 1- 4 U' O 1
L '--.
Cw7F-O-- .� V
< 1— ..-, w
J 2: c.V) C 1 w L.
N b--.= I--- I-
W CY
O I-
V▪ )
IV -20
SANITATION
F5CILITIES —
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT -
cr
I
cr
0
ga
4 0
0
ZW
W
N
0
O
O
O
0-
8 8
J
8
ozy
t15
2c'
z
J _
OJ
1,900,000 GALLONS
w
8
>
McLAUGHLIN WATER ENGINEERS
IV -22
TABLE IV -T
ANNUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT O&M COST ESTIMATE
(1983 DOLLARS)
Labor (3,000 hours (@ $15/hour) $ 45,000
Electricity (700,000 Kwhr $0.05/Kwhr) 35,000
Equipment Maintenance 23,000
Diesel Fuel (3,000 gallons ® $1.10/gallon) 3,300
Chlorine (14,000 pounds $0.25/pound) 3,500
Supplies and Miscellaneous 10,200
Total Annual Plant O&M Costs $120,000
(at full development)
PHASING OF TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
Alternate treatment plans considered in this report are based on different phasing
assumptions and upon different unit treatment process selections. Phased construction
of sewage treatment facilities is essential for the Landis Sanitation District.
As discussed previously, the Relex process is capable of economical phasing. Based on
the sales projections provided by Spring Valley Holding, Ltd., the treatment plant should
be built in three stages. A breakdown of the facilities to be constructed under each
stage follows.
o Stage 1 is the construction of the minimum recommended initial plant and
would include construction and/or installation of the following treatment
facilities and equipment: bar screen, Parshall flume, one 350,000 gallon
Relex basin, aeration diffusors for Relex basin, polishing pond, one 40 Hp
blower with one standby blower, one sludge wasting pump with one standby
pump, one aerated sludge storage tank, two 7-1/2 Hp mixers, chlorination
equipment, the sludge injection truck, portions of the control building and
pump and piping gallery, and required process piping.
The estimated project budget for the first stage plant is $600,000 and the
capacity of the plant would be about 300,000 gallons per day. The plant
would serve a 1200 EQR development which is expected to be adequate
through year seven of the Spring Valley development. The effluent from
IV -23
the first stage plant should be used for irrigation only of inaccessible
greenways.
The winter effluent storage ponds for the first stage would need a combined
capacity of about 80 acre feet.
o Stage la would include the construction of one of the tertiary treatment
multi -media filters and related facilities and would occur when irrigation of
the golf course with the treatment plant effluent was required. The estimated
project cost for Stage la is $150,000.
o Stage 2 would include the construction of the aerated grit chamber and the
installation of the automatic bar screen and the sludge thickening centrifuge.
This stage would increase the treatment plant capacity to about 450,000
gallons per day and have a project cost of about $200,000 (1983 dollars).
The second stage plant could serve 1,800 EOR and would be sufficient through
year 10 of the Spring Valley Development.
The winter effluent storage ponds would need to have a combined capacity
of 130 acre feet for the Stage 2 plant.
o Stage 3 would include the construction of the second Relex basin and aeration
system, the second aerated sludge storage tank, the second multi media filter,
and the equipment to expand the plant to the design capacity of 650,000
gallons per day. The estimated project cost for the final phase of the plant
is about $460,000 (in 1983 dollars).
Additional winter effluent storage ponds would need to be constructed to
provide the design winter storage requirements of 280 acre feet.
V-1
SECTION V
SEWAGE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
GENERAL
The sewage transmission system can be divided into two subsystems: the neighborhood
collection sewers and the trunk and outfall sewers. This Service Plan is based on
neighborhood sewer lines being installed and paid for by the neighborhood building
developers. Ownership and maintenance of the neighborhood collections sewers would
be transferred to the District after completion of their installation and acceptance by
the District.
The sewage collection system should be designed as a gravity system in so far as
possible, minimizing the number of lift stations. The majority of the sewer pipelines
should be polyvinyl chloride; however, it may be necessary to use cast iron or ductile
iron pipe where strength or watertightness are important. Sewers will have grades and
manhole spacings conforming to the Colorado Health Department's design
recommendations.
The actual pipeline locations will be field located to minimize rock excavation and
adverse environmental impacts. Development planning should recognize critical sewer
elevations and build above these.
TRUNK AND OUTFALL SEWERS
Trunk and outfall sewer sizes and general locations are shown on Drawing V-A. All
trunk sewers have been sized to accommodate peak flows of the predicted ultimate
development. The preliminary scheduling plan and cost estimates assume that the sewer
system design will influence, or in some cases limit, development planning in some
critical areas.
T
7-
TABLE V -B
TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE
Year Description of lines Length Cost
1 8" to Mfg. Housing 8250 ft. $ 206,250
10" to Moderate Housing 3300 ft. 99,000
15" Main Trunk 6600 ft. 231,000
TOTAL YEAR 1 $ 536,250
3 8" to Central Valley 8250 ft. $ 206,250
8" to South Valley 3850 ft. 96,250
10" to Multiple Family 6050 ft. 181,500
TOTAL YEAR 3 $ 484,000
4 8" to Equestrian 2200 ft. $ 178,750
5 8" to Golf Course Lots 6600 ft. $ 165,000
8" to Upper Golf Lots 15400 ft. 385,000
TOTAL YEAR 5 $ 550,000
TOTAL TRUNK SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST $1,749,000
Add 25% Engineering and Contingencies 437,000
TOTAL TRUNK SEWER PROJECT COST $2,186,000
V-2
VI -1
SECTION VI
EFFLUENT REUSE AND WINTER STORAGE SYSTEM
GENERAL
Due to the value of water in the Spring Valley/Lake Springs Ranch area, and to avoid
possible environmental problems associated with the direct discharge of effluent from
the sewage treatment plant, the effluent will be used for spray irrigation of the golf
course, agricultural land and greenways within the Landis Sanitation District. Long
term agreements between the Sanitation District and landowners within the District will
need to be secured in order to insure that adequate suitable land is available for
irrigation with effluent. As detailed in Section III, the effluent from the sewage
treatment plant will be of a very high quality and its use should not create a public
nuisance or health threat. The careful siting of the areas to be used for spray irrigation
and precautions taken during the irrigation process will further decrease the likelihood
of problems.
Winter storage of the effluent will be required during the winter months and periods
of subfreezing temperatures, as noted in Section III. The effluent storage ponds should
be sized to provide about five months of storage.
REUSE DISTRIBUTION PIPELINES
Pressure pipelines will be required from the sewage treatment plant to the effluent
storage ponds and to the areas at which spray irrigation will occur. The pipelines could
be ductile iron or polyvinyl chloride. Precautions should be taken to clearly distinguish
the reuse pipeline from the domestic water pipes. The physical separation of the reuse
pipelines and the domestic water pipelines will be required in much the same manner
that sewers and domestic water pipes must be separated. It might be possible and
economical to install the reuse pipeline and a sewer outfall line in the same trench at
some locations.
The size and general location of the reuse distribution pipelines are shown on Drawing
V-A. The actual pipeline locations will be field established during final design in order
to minimize rock excavation and environmental impacts.
VI -2
EFFLUENT STORAGE RESERVOIRS
The sites for the effluent storage ponds have been preliminarily field located and are
shown on Drawing V-A. Three ponds have been located; two having a developable
capacity of about 80 acre-feet and one with about 120 acre-feet. A small existing
pond located next to Landis Creek could be used on an emergency basis and would
provide about 10 acre-feet of storage.
EFFLUENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE
Table VI -A presents a preliminary phasing schedule and cost estimate for the effluent
distribution and storage system. Equipment costs and annual operation and maintenance
cost for the pumping of the effluent to the storage ponds have been included in Section
IV with sewage treatment costs since the reuse of the sewage treatment plant effluent
by spray irrigation is an essential part of the overall sewage treatment scheme.
Timing for the different components of the effluent reuse system differs from that for
the sewage collection system. Sewage collection utilities are required as different
areas within the District service area are developed. Outfall sewers are required to
developed areas whether there are 100 or 1000 people in the area. The sizing and
location of the reuse pipelines and effluent storage ponds, on the other hand, is based
on the average daily flow to the sewage treatment plant. Therefore, the construction
of some of the components of the reuse system are anticipated to lag behind the
completion of the sewage collection system by several years.
Year
1
5
10
r
r
r
TABLE VI -A
EFFLUENT REUSE AND STORAGE SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE
Description of Facility Cost
9,900 feet of 8" $247,500
Pond #1, 80 a.f. 150,000
TOTAL YEAR 1 $397,500
4,950 feet of 8" $123,750
Pond #2, 120 a.f. 200,000
TOTAL YEAR 5 $323,750
1,650 feet of 8" $ 41,250
Pond #3, 80 a.f. 150,000
TOTAL YEAR 10 $191,250
TOTAL EFFLUENT REUSE SYSTEM $912,500
CONSTRUCTION COST
Add 25% Engineering, Contingencies 228,000
TOTAL EFFLUENT REUSE
SYSTEM PROJECT COST $1,140,500
VI -3
•
VII -1
SECTION VII
FINANCING AND OPERATIONS
GENERAL
The area encompassed by the Landis Sanitation District is presently unincorporated. It
is recommended that a Sanitation District be formed to provide a legal governmental
entity which can administer, finance, and construct the sewerage system. The District
will also provide for the perpetual operation and maintenance of the system to the
benefit of its customers.
Under Colorado law, a Sanitation District is a quasi -municipal non-profit corporation
having powers of management, taxation, and condemnation. The District is governed by
an elected Board of Directors of five persons.
The District Board would administer the investment and construction contracts. The
Board would also operate the system and determine the amounts and sources of revenue.
The estimated capital requirements and recommended probable rates, charges and tax
levies are presented in this section.
In rapidly developing areas such as Lake Springs Ranch and Spring Valley Ranch, it is
essential that the utility systems be constructed in phases as described previously in
this Report. Sewerage facilities should be built in logical increments only as needed
by actual (rather than predicted) land and building development. Any parts of the
sewerage system that are constructed and not utilized represent an economic Toss and
such unneeded construction should obviously be avoided. Phased scheduling will minimize
potential losses and result in a less costly sewerage service.
It is assumed that areas will develop in a logical sequence so that the investment costs
for sewerage facilities will be in line with projections. The payment of tap privilege
fees as described later will ensure the fair apportioning of system costs and protect
the financial integrity of the District.
Fiscal information is incorporated in Volume II of this Service Plan Report.
VII -2
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
The total estimated capital requirements for different development phases are given in
Volume II of this Service Plan. The cost estimates are as derived in Sections IV, V, and
VI of this report. It is anticipated that District formation costs and funding for the
sewerage facilities will be born entirely by developers within the District and the users
of the system. The availability of federal or State grants to assist District development
is doubtful and no allowance has been made herein for such grants.
The capital requirements do not include land acquisition costs for rights-of-way needed
for facilities within the District boundaries, as it is assumed that the District will
require developers to provide the required easements. Land acquizition costs for the
sewage treatment plant site have been estimated and included as a capital requirement.
For purposes of capital investment analyses, the number of customer tap units served
have been estimated for each construction phase. The tap unit used for convenience,
as developed in Section IV, is termed an equivalent residential (EQR) tap. An EQR is
represented by a single-family residence or living unit with an average resident population
of 2.8. The EQR basis is a convenient method to approximately equate single-family
residences, duplexes, apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and commercial properties.
INCOME REQUIREMENT S
Total District operating income must be sufficient to cover debt service for bond issues,
system operation and maintenance costs, and commodity purchases. The District's income
sources include tap fees, property taxes derived from the tax (mill) levy, and service
charges for such service being available.
For approximate analysis purposes, debt service requirements have been assumed to be
issuing bonds in accordance with the phases described earlier. The rate of interest for
the bond issue reflects market conditions. Bonds will be assumed to sell at a discount,
and the fiscal and legal fees of two and one-half percent are included in the cost
estimates.
RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE
The actual rates and charges for service will be set by the District Board of Directors.
Tentative rates and charges schedules have been computed and are presented in Volume
II for the purpose of informing the developers and land owners in the District of the
al
VII -3
probable cost of water and sewer service. Two considerations are significant in the
establishment of a rate structure:
1. The rates set must produce enough income to sustain system operation, and
2. The rates should be set equitably so that persons will pay for service in approximate
proportion to actual benefits.
The various potential methods of obtaining District income and the recommended initial
rates for the Landis Sanitation District are discussed following. The initial rates should
be adequate on a long-term basis if development proceeds as projected.
Sewer Service Charge. This is a charge which should also be billed monthly as a
payment for sewer service. This charge is designed to pay the cost of the operation
and maintenance of the sewer system and to cover a portion of the debt service for
the sewerage facilities.
Sewer Standby Charges. In order to insure partial District income (as needed for debt
service retirement) it is necessary to establish a standby charge schedule. Provisions
for standby charges must be contained in a firm contract between the Developer and
the land buyer, made at the time of sale; or the Developer may otherwise guarantee
standby charge income. The standby regulations are to include the following provisions.
1. Standby charges may be deferred up to 24 months after sewer service is available,
as needed to serve the subject property.
2. The standby charge for sewer will be based on a predicted equivalent residential
unit to be constructed on the property.
3. In the event that actual construction on a particular lot results in more EOR
units than have been paid for on a standby charge basis, then the District shall
assess an additional system development fee to be paid before connection.
System Development Fees. "Tap Fees" are those obligated by the developers at the time
of utilities installation. These fees are designed to pay part of the system capital
costs whch cannot be amortized with service charges and tax levies. The fees are
capital contributions to construction as required to result in economically feasible
systems. The amounts may be included in land sales prices or collected separately as
tap fees, which is reasonable since the availability of utility services immediately
VII -4
increases land values. The tap fee does not include the cost of physically making the
actual connection for utility service when the service lines are installed.
It is recommended that the District's Board establish sewer system development fees
considering the capital cost of construction. Since collection lines are to be paid for
by the developers, a uniform fee per unit EQR value is reasonably equitable.
Connection Charges. There will be no signiicant connection charge for customers
tapping into sewer system. The District will have a nominal inspection fee payable at
the time of connection. However, it will be the responsibility of each customer to
have installed his service line from the collector sewer to the building. The user will
remain as owner of these lines and responsible for maintenance. If, because of street
paving schedules, it is determined desirable to install portions of the service before
actual building construction, then these service line costs can be recovered in the form
of an increased connection charge. Note, that this procedure will actually result in a
savings to property owners since they will not have to cut and replace paving.
Tax Income. A mill levey on property is a common method of obtaining revenue to
support sanitation districts. The sewer system is a property of the entire District and
raise property values in the District. Even though a property has no existing improvements
which utilize the utilities, by being in the District the property normally has the right
to use the District's facilities whenever desired and economically feasible.
It is recommended that the District, plan to operate with a tax. If later found desirable,
this levy may be lowered or raised to suit the income requirements of the District.
Developer Constructed and Contributed Utilities. It is currently planned that outside
builders and general contractors will take responsibility for actual development of
specific neighborhoods, which will include installation of neighborhood sewer lines and
appurtenances within the neighborhood. They will connect to District installed sewer
trunk and collector lines in a pre -designed manner consistent with the District's overall
Master Plan. The developers will pay for, and install, sewer lines and appurtenances
after their layouts and designs have been approved by the District. The system
development fees, service charges, and tax levies charged by the District for sewer
service can be correspondingly lower because of the contribution of the neighborhood
utility lines to the District upon their final completion and acceptance.
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA
LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
Page 1 of 2, Legal Description of Lake Springs Ranch, taken from
Final Plat prepared for P.U.D. by Eldorado Engineering Company.
CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Know all men by these presents that Foster Petroleum Company, being
sole owner in fee simple of all that real property described as follow
A parcel of land situated in Lots 5 and 6, Section 32, Lots 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and the NE 1/4
SE 1/4 of Section 33, S:; 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 34 all in Township
6 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal feridian, and also Lots
2, 3 and 9 of Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the
6th Pc.nci f,al feridian, County of GarfielJ, State of Colorado,
according to General Land Office Plats dated and approved April
29, 1893, of Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Township 7 South,
Range 88 West of the 6th Principal reridian :nd also according to
General Land Office Plat dated and approved June 17, 1908 of Town-
ship 7 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian and by
General Land Office Supplemental Plat of Section 4, Township 7 South,
Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, approved August 15, 1939,
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Quarter Corner common between Section 33, Township
6 South, Range 83 Uest and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88
West being a Lava Stone properly marked and set; thence N 89° 42'
46" tJ 2504.15 feet between said Sections and also the south lines
of Lots 20 and 21 of Section 33 to the southwest corner of Lot 20,
Section 33, whence the southwest corner of Section 33 bears N 89°
42' 46" W 175.56 feet; thence t; 01° 53' 48" E 2065.00 feet along a
fence in place and also between Lots 17, 18, 19 and 2C. Section 33
to the northwest corner of Lot 17, Section 33; thence N 87° 15' 05"
W 199.55 feet between Lots 9 and 13 common to Section 32 and 33
bear N 010 14' 01" E 511.58 feet to an iron post with a brass cap
properly set and marked; thence ri 87° 15' 05" td 1179.82 feet between
Lots 6 and 7 of Section 32 to the southwest corner of Lot 6, Section
32; thence N 010 41' 27" E 1295.00 feet between Lots 3, 5, 6 and 7
of Section 32 to the northwest corner of Lot 5, being in the center
line of County Road too. 119; thence S 89° 05' 51" E 2695.30 feet along
the traveled area of said road and eventually leaving said road and
between Lots 4 and 5 of Section 32 and Lots 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Section
33 to the northeast corner of Lot 7, Section 33 being one foot southerly
of a fence corner; thence S 01° 55' 45" W 838.37 feet along a fence in
place and between Lots 6 and 7 of Section 33 to the southeast corner of
Page 2 of 2, Legal Description of Lake Springs Ranch, taken from
Final Plat prepared for P.U.D. by Eldarodo Engineering Company.
Lot 7, being also the east -west centerline of Section 33; thence S 88°
28' 36" E 3624.12 feet between Lot 6, 11, 12 and the SW 1/4 NE 1/4,
SE 1/4 `hE 1/4 and NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33, being also the east -west
centerline of Section 33 to the Quarter Corner between Sections 33 and
34, being a Lava Stone properly set and marked; thence S 03° 53' 31" E
1236.27 feet between said Sections and also between the NE 1/4 SE 1/4
of Section 33 and the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 34 to the southeast
corner of the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33; thence N 89° 02' 17"
E 1365.61 feet between the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 and SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section
34 to the northeast corner •S: 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 34; thence S 02°
50' G7!" E 1215.09 feet between the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 SW
1/4 e' "•ect 3n 34 to the southeast corner SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section
34 being also on the intersecting point between Section 34, Township
6 South, Range 88 West and Section 3, Township 7 South, Rance 88 West
of the 6th Principal Meridian; thence S 88° 10' 31" W 1342.31 feet
between said Sections and also the south line of the SW 1/4 SW 1/4
of Section 34 to the corner common to Sections 33 and 34, Township
6 South, Range 88 West and Sections 3 and 4, Township 7 South, Range
88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; thence N 89° 52' 15" W 1127.59
feet between Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section
4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
being also between Lot 13, Section 33 and Lot 1, Section 4 of said
Township to the northeast corner of Lot 2, Section 4, Township 7 South,
Rance RR West: thence S 00° 19' 29" F 490.00 feet between Lots 1 and
2, Section 4 to the southeast corner of Lot 2 of Section 4; thence
ff 89° 51' 06" W 218.38 feet between Lots 1 and 2 of said Section 4
to the northeast corner of Lot 9; thence S 00° 11' 22" W 852.20 feet
between Lot 1 and Lot 9 of Section 4; thence N 89° 49' 27" W 1330.86
feet along the south line of Lot 5, Section r; to the southest corner
of Lot 9, being the same as the north -south centerline of Section
4; thence M 00° 16' 06" W 1341.07 feet along the north -south centerline
of Section 4, also being the west lines of Lots 3 and 9 of Section
4 to the point of beginning; said parcel of land contains 441.76 acres,
more or less.
have by thee pre,,nni s laid out, (: t+ec: r Buhr, v.e
same into lots and blocks as shown :ereIn ar,c thr:
same as Lake Springs Ranch Planned !knit DFvr.1nprc.' r+ in thf.
County of Garfield, State of Colorado and (1) dedicate for
public use the roads and road easements shown hereon for
roadway, drainage and utility purposes; (2) dedicate for
public use the public utility and drainage easements shown
hereon for their indicatE,d uses; (3) the e.-iuestrian and
pedestrian easements are dedicated to the Homeowner's Asso-
ciation for equestrian purposes; (4) the agricultural open
space districts are dedicated to the Homeowner's Associa-
.t on, (5) and further state that this subdivision shall be
subject to the Protective Covenants filed and recorded for
this subdivision in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of
Garfield County, Colorado as Document No.
Description of Spring Valley Ranch, taken from Stewart Title Order No. 6173,
Policy No. 0-389400, prepared for Spring Valley Holding Company, Ltd.
Township 6 South, Range 88 West, 6th Pri i11.1 Meridian:
Section 14: WAS: , SW3NW;-
Section 15: S1/2,NE4, Nb1/4NE4 NE1/4SW, L. is 1, 2, 3 and 4
Section 22: NE4, N1/2SE4, E NE1/4SW1 , Lots 2, 3 and 4
Section 23: E 1, Lots 1, 2, nd 4
Section 26: ` 4, Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 13
Section 27: A 1 of Section 27
Section 28: Lo 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 ana 14
Section 29: Lot- 11, 12, 24, 25 and 32
Section 32: Lots d 4
Section 33: NEU, L• 1, 2, 3. 4, 5 and 6
Section 34: W itb+'4
EXCEPT the following parcels, which have heretofore been conveyed out:
1. Doc. No. 277987 recoraed in Book 495 at page 596 (Cabrinha)
2. Doc. No. 281051 recorded in Book 501 at page 393 (Clarke, 33 per cent)
Doc. No. 281052 recoraea in Book 501 at page 395 Carrithers 67 per cent)
3. Doc. No. 281583 recoraed in 'nook 502 at page 387 Klink)
4. Doc. No. 281622 recoraea in Book 502 at page 467 Clarke)
5. Doc. No. 232773 recorded in Book 504 at page 751 (Solar Pathways, Inc.)
6. Doc. No. 289675 recoraed in Book 518 at page 283 (Klink) (See copies attached)
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
r
r
APPENDIX B
SITE APPLICATION
FOR
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
421,0 East llth Avenue
Renver.m^Colorado 80220
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF:
A) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND
B) LIFT STATIONS HAVING OVER 20,000 GPD CAPACITY
PHONE:
Consulting Engineer's Name and Address:
PHONE:
A. Information regarding new sewage treatment plant:
1. Briefly describe on a separate sheet of paper the reason for locating the sewage
treatment plant on this particular site. This should include, but is not
necessarily limited to, a description of the present and possible development
of the site location and service area.
2. Size and type of treatment facility proposed:
GPD:
(gal/day)
PE design
capacity
Type
Present PE
to be served
% Domestic: % Industrial:
3. Location of facility:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
(a) 10 -mile radius: all sewage treatment plants and lift stations.
(.b) 5 -mile radius: domestic water supply intakes.
(c) 1 -mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and
an approximate indication of the topography.
4. Effluent will be discharged:
(Watercourse)
Subsurface disposal: Land:
Evaporation: Other:
State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s):
5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this
project?
6. What is the present zoning for the proposed service area?
Present zoning of site area?
Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site?
WQ-3(rev. 1-78-40) - 1 -
r-
? What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water
"supply intake?
(name and address of supply)
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point
of diversion
(name and address of user)
8. Who has the responsibility for operating the facility?
9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed?
Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to
construct the proposed facility.
10. Estimated project cost:
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the
facility?
11. Names and addresses of all water and sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream
of proposed wastewater treatment facility site.
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.)
12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain?
If so, what precautions are being taken?
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
Department of Natural Resources?
If so, what is that designation?
13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control
Commission make an informed decision on your application for site approval.
WQ-3(rev. 1-78-40) - 2 -
4
B. Information regarding lift stations:
0
1. The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the following
additional load:
Population Equivalent
Peak Hydraulic (MGD) to be served:
2. Is the site located in a 100'year flood plain?
If yes, on a separate sheet of paper describe the protective measures to be taken.
3. Where will the overflow be discharged?
4. Name and address of facility providing treatment:
5. The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the
facility to % of hydraulic and % of organic capacity.
C. If the facilit will be located on or ad'acent to a site that is owned or mana•ed b
a Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application.
D. Recommendation of governmental authorities:
Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed
facilities consistent with the comprehensive planning for the area and with other plans
including the 201, 208, 209 and 303(e) plans? If you have any further comments or
questions, please call 388-6111, Extension 378.
Recommend Recommend No
Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative
Date:
District Engineer Action:
Local Government (Cities or Towns, if inside
municipal boundary or within 3 miles, and
Sewer District)
Board of County Commissioners
Local Health Authority
City/County Planning Authority
Regional Planning Agency
Council of Government
State Geologist
Signature of Applicant
Recommend Approval: Recommend Disapproval:
r- Date:
Signature
WQ-3(rev. 1/78-40)
3
r
flcro, Architecta
A55*psw, Cotortide
•
••••-••••••
1 •
•
. • •
. • -
LA
_ _ — • POI -1'5,41 imey
/ • 9 "I
• 9/4 •i
X
zz,L0FEC, PAIKEP
AC—R.,4770i./ 0,45/NO (2)
74, /
• PRG-- 77ea.4 s'Arr
peii45(2)
44,
I tj
in•A t*r
/p= lo0
GH3g,on &n,.:7•.,% Architects"
2
11-
1111111111111111111111111
V/
11
/"
Pi-ANtr*
Fb4.4.3:7
A 9 .
)
/9E_P-../4770/V 8.1/Ais (a)
•40 >< 60
A 0/ of /s,t/L,.
2e,
EH/ et -a 4GeS
13,
•
• . •
• \
S. \
aglow & Reno, Atchitects
Agpen, Colorado
-
• . .
''. .... •
/ • ---. . , - / \
lc' V--..„. •.....„ ..,.,'
. ,
,... .
.. .
--' '....›,,.... 4'..
\,../
•-.._________
N
4E-C77e,/s1
1"=:, /1:2r,/
PI-0ANT"
• pi 9 44 ,1q RoN.G:'
/- '7 1•4/1- 4:;3-,1Z- •
(A_tAz r )
ac, 7, 44c.
• A a.c.A77oN),CAS/,..i CA)
"ce,c,/,‘ /4•
-