Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application§ 2k §a k� z� 0<I - C.) W )ce § _1w 5o kk I O.I- I— o O. wk _1 k§ / )2 ri z§CO 01 oozg } z. �4/1 �§ O cc ■°!A Cl I- .3 « a. §a2 o >,o R% a2 o,uw ))B0 PHONE: (970) 285-7630 APPLICANT: Parachute, CO 81635 CITY, STATE, ZIP: (303) 293-8107 ) co\ 3 Consult in Consulting Engineer: 17th Street,_ Suite 710 cn • As B k C w wastewater tr \ 415 § E 2 a Proposed Location (Legal Description): Garfield { G \ co ƒ Flume, bar screen, disinfection Dual Power Multi -cell lagoons, } 2 2 oo co f co 0 cn ƒ % Industrial: 20 % Domestic: 80 Design PE: 2005 Present PE: ) 0 co co 03 0 M. kcn} \\ o 03 in a av owo / \\/\ fei CD a \\\c IC 0 oco oc ]as /3a eel Drainageway to Colorado River Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse Subsurface disposal: 4-4 \ ca H co \ CC k / ;® / i/ 0 /\ ƒ \{ } }( ) ®% e \ / } § k Cu / } \ ) ok / 13 / ( k / k a0 d coIa. Fecal Collie / \ 0 0) BODS 30/45 mg/I to \ CO \ a) 0 07 a) a) \ ) // )d ) P CDCU \• ) as ci Industrial Present zoning of site area? icultural Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site? WQCD-3a (Revised 2/99) co N H. Z O Z -, 5 0. . Y F- W W T a a W U) re : I- ° Z a d 2 V F' N 7 co X C Z E 0 U Cu u. .c ..l M >o O a) N pa, O O Q N w E m I- co 41 d Cl CO re h W u. oG 0 O C H Q Cu M a T a. N 6 Q N a O L E ea Z O 1/40 ,.-i W o 7 N as N a O W is 6 N 0 r 9 V Q c ° a> > ° °c o a .c O N as C. w o oo Cu t N O �. E CO d N m C +%• V N N t o ?i �t0.. .. 7 O E 2 7 O N 9 Q N u ro N a wo qq 0 e. 2' w 0 a o 0. a) .L.. 0) = Cu yp 0. o` w — a y y `) 0 co T b G O L ao ° o 4 co sCdo as w 0 O F . 2 G o ) - 3 L 'as `- N C .0 r a 3 C r y a o >L > of w$.43 w $ m 4 uW £ t 2 C g Y 2 c 0 5 CO _ L3 V N E 0 a o .y i 0. o v " o o CO .. O U d a N E a W ON — a)F 1-J 0 ro a ,� 0 p 3 F 2 a) C O '.°� a Cu C O U c 0 d ''C" w d 135 ao 0 T (0 C f6 w N L O E Cu O 'p a—yi E N c s 0 VO c 0 sso 3 Cu C coC :: Cu 3 .0 Cu ca a .5 U •E O E — —CO Ny N 2 A C Cu a)0 Z r C o z t y t r- A 2 C m E — 2 3 .d.. cy0 3 C 0 00 2 a do gc g G u '° '8 m m m a Z co N t m `=7, C C r 0 °` C_ Cu a V o c >. O m C @ r-. co y C Y C y 0 O Cu a Cu ; y w 0 U O N cX N g co p o Et Cu aa) 0co -0 Cu CO C$ ro N o Cu v Cu p O y .0 T .O .0. Cuco C rn O - O. 0 O C 0 = C 03 O) Cu L O O ii E ?. WaQ ¢0 e• Co a N L �0 .-. y L >+ y - 'o a) E o c C Cu E o 0 .E oLL U 76 7 m rL-• a N L t 'E f0 .c O ° A �p o V C Cu •.��. y 7 N pro) d M H P U 4-1 v fA o L- a Cu ..0.. y w C U a co j o >. C C O Fi U •O Z CO cOE g 4 d a Cu m a a 4O N ETC N y m CC l0 Q U a it 5)20-/ 0 • 5l/<- ,' Fligrr ey.HurI unh Cem -_ 5303 6 \l • yo 0 Town of Parachute Sanitary Sewer Site Application Request Existing Wails w/In 1 mils a !t Ira @E oi@cwt !III. 1018 Colorado Avenue • Grand Junction, Colorado • 81501 (970) 242-7540 r y. Guinea _ East.. N n y' Y I L I`/�1 .1Ich 't--c)„,..4,-,,r- \ Any �, ! ' J -t 3 i / L- .n d STM," 1 � 1 t „ Oil Shale Mie r fl © DeLorme J 'D (( NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE 1 ,y 1 \. 'cam-�' I -1 I lc c—I Rullu Parachute TRAIL : d e/ r, /y oon fount' ogan .L ARE ELD C MESA C'. ND ROY RD I to as _ J • Z H Z W F X X ~ a O Z O H D ce i- Z re p U. 4 O a te d 4 W F V) K LL O H (a) J o a u c C) to C7 N N p c do w co A c 15 >. C) 9E ao V R y Ec 0 A 03 v CI c> Co 0 >` ..� as 10 0.5 m.. r w c 0 W V 9 6 a o o C o o« �w O at T O a G O arm �_ CT1 3 c > rA 43 .... 09 td •., =o m in No O O ea 2 c 0 E E C7 > o) .r ° c O W c E O a) C' U C) .c °' L� a a _ d N yL'Q, y. ` C . O O lL « °O a) a L E 'u o " C y=.c N C o0T a°m a m y 0 mwr Q O wi c yw N Oc0 c v= a c o) c omQ c -o > 4) C 3 E 10T' Eu •V 0 m °O.t o C C c al C 'y a CO a) `ma ,,,cL w 0aci co >. E c co .. Q Ol 0 C o a7 b O C) R M mcfrn o .Ly. 6 N j 0 d a().. ac — m a) ai as o °)O E 0 N a°Na a) o co 2 « "' c m a) <nC _ c a) .- o U d> E E O o N a) U) X0 C a) E 0d > p o 0 6 Z< °) al .- > .` c ¢ c v \ q ta ta \. m i �- C1 �. m 3 v lM D oo V Q 2' o ¢ £ m _;Q 25 IA C N a) C Ep ati a c 2 0 co - N o 0 L C CO .. = d a CC .c E a d av) C a1 a) E n 2' O N a0 a �m it N m C 3 and O y •oc 0. CO Q Co d Na `o yc a o r 'Olgo a)y EC Y rCD :C O U a, c m T E `) V �� cc `.5.0 m W c •�0 O a) 0 C V1 _ ••••• C E aca CO v cQ Lw co — .OE N N a -,-c Y d 0° 0) — L \= \ �, W ¢ E CC X �. 1- 2 6 d .. co 'W O co S. Etc V w a) m CO O0cts ad ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION 41- :Id o C .0 0 0 = CO 0 CO CU 0 — 3 'ama c ai a«off Q Cy U 0 m.E= maw 0E` CI) U . m y V 3 E C CO N C > L OEEco0 CO m R 0 = 0 a) 3 •.g a)0ooc « w a 0 0 0p 0 E o c« 07 c c• co 0 0 0 A)..m., 07 0 c 07 °CEm C7 c o N a `m.cv; E' a. v?�amo E ° m o �Lm. E U p N a) m 0 C - C= ap N % I ° Oy N ., Op 0 0 • o o N m CO E 0 y m Cu « Fa. 0) N m.0 a2 tdho° 0 a0 U m C ; aa1 .c 0 •y . .0t3 c 0 y C 0 c 0 m 0 E al yam a c 0EF�as3 SOB« C ca2 .0 C m C 0 0 0 m 07« : a -O a a C CO C0 0.4 E C.Ew coc O'O ` O C CO V 0O c 'a a m L 07 0 w O V Cu a 0 c ° c , E o U 0 = la0 ID a 0 ` U 0 .., 0 07 a-=a)oe =m « V y 3 y « 4,_ 0 C 0 m O!0 a� O 0 C m:° a 07 `o3:='n m 3 0 0 « 0 0 a C y V V0 0 a C ._•0 and .0:: a o o Cu m m 0 0)°v C O m 0c -.0 00 m m .Lm.. d B C O 0 0 0 Cu a C W C H m CL y 0 Cm m « N CO O (C0 0 .6 0 N la0 .S T C V C d a m 0 0 0 C G y lc0 C m C C •O . EOE 0 •.00 m o O .§ 7 C d c; V E c o Ecma;c va 8O& E E 00) 0 E:a'O 07 2 c D aa el m e y m V jui 07 0 m - ° > V O 0 am0mc E cmcm0o m m( m co c ENa.$07 5307aais. of alternative sites, and evaluation of treatment alternatives. Proposed site location, evaluatio Proposed effluent limitations as developed in coordination with the Division. Analysis of existing facilities within the service area(s). Ns - C O1 E co N O .Lm. L O C T 0 O O r N '� Z. al w .y.. m C a= C `O S— 0 = .m. N d o a y o.y o '007 rn 5' C• ',_070 o CEO. •oa r c y 0 y c� c 0�0La r 2 omo 0V CO 's O to m m W Y 0 0 0 y V 0 lO d' V N 'j a 0 7 a y o m > 0 V c m'w E «`•y'wa 0U 0 as c° y a 0 .0 a V 'O) V m t0 'r D Y m m D U N E d a7 C C 0 PS L C °« ... f0 0 la O V 3 B Cu 0 N y m O C° N O co y V o« 'y 0 a 0 O E C .0 0.N U la y 0 0 d a O L (� C 0 Lm. m E L m ami a qq co d •m :° L C n U c T CO U i7 « C {0 U O V > C 0 C c V C Y V CO O) m 2 L C m 5. L m o A~ CO U 0Eo =o min ° C`0 3nam Y $� m 0 a) t= >o °017).v o ccdc`oc 3 L.Yl0 Z° a A _ 07 O m m V m y 6.00N C y 'Z a O 0. Vi O.L.. E § m m N a A .0 C E 0 •m° «L, co as N co m • c 0 ain y y° '' cO1 ami =O a° « 2 C 0 t° C N C N Cl rt, V 'O V =« 0 �, 0 C C C S' co C o N T 3 v v m c° o o d o a° a o N E y B a y° 8 E C yF oy' 0 —lA ON«O°S_ >0 0` Cr. V0 V 0 c .a`; m c c (-) a a c > Cob y y 0 S« : E y m E to v m a o a ..= i L a 3" d`o o yEL0p0 Tm•gypy O ry>`« U aa7 m.« rnCOQ. «Cd.0C10�y'V O0Oc 07 S. EOcm3lcodr a �a cac :t'pwC>d.m„CEod �1 22a a C 00 0007 .5N� °`05 E wco co 15 �ia'yaim *5 to` Et E a°�aci 5 «« ',070_ N C_ '' co L N O a7 C C E o •O m o m Q C V 8n° y 1 > E C O O V L m T� .0.. 2 0 co „a' ° O N 7 V° 0 y OE0 CUL maNC V ;C:3 ola•Oni •0a. yy'.m�VcmNmE— O V 0 .0to , m«C m aN m « •0y am a UU aj C 0 U NVi U° C y 0 D7 V a l N . U 0 O my 07«0 17d .: a s y V ` U aONmNLNC 0 O 'U am7 U �- E y O 0 O y 0 w 0 U m L a7 0 y 0 0 0.0 a > V «p a •ie 20 V« >O N 0 N V OL CO 0 '•.m -i_ ° N E V Uw 0f a0 Ca,m °aE a�C—aOi c° $V.0 gym« aEi„0y a3Ea 3 EV C yc O E C 0. O1 y '« .0. y O C C C 0 O C O) m c 0 07 C .m, 0 CO 0 070 .0 cco0 .0 0WCa a'� 000.E-,yEw 2, Dom NEMC EC�. C 0•'L" a U °' L C — a E O' O` •C 0 E = — 0 ''- •0 ca ° f0 m f0 :y: ' U 0 ° =% ° 5 07 r m am r v c° a y°•C y m« o c o `07 3 c« E 3 >E C j °$ 3 y C O 0 0 C C m y 3 V p C m N 0 co.. a7 0 tr 0v-0 0.�-. E 0 0 O a« O O mY �' 07 C,D E V m•SC a' «C M m U CO a) U E. co a C V= 07 0 f0 m d co.= O CO 0 0« m l0 o a) 0 C— — o C c a c c m a >E a s O y U A a E 0 —' 0 m E 0 07 a R 9 o m E ° m 07 0 o m c m E 0 a :° m roe :4 °„ L a y co a io a.m•, S V C a.o c m m 07 a ...L•-• C N a S L -co > y° 0 C a o 2^ 0 C U 00 2 0 ''''n C a x E E •E Q N m W O W a N Q 0 J CO CO C V 07 id a CO w LL O m 'O C ay 0 O v WQCD-3a (Revised 2/99) WASTEWATER TREATMENT EVALUATION STUDY for TOWN OF PARACHUTE RGCE Job No. 194.0006 September 1999 Prepared by RG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 1331 17th Street. Suite 710 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-293-8107 September 9, 1999 @OGraCth u>1C ©fig Board of Trustees Town of Parachute P.O. Box 100 Parachute, CO 81635 �Cr11 ee CFS 11H denver • grand junction • trinidad RE: Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study RGCE Job No. 194006 Dear Trustees: We are pleased to submit the attached draft engineering report for the Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study for the Town of Parachute. The report summarizes our preliminary design, conclusions, recommendations, and opinions of cost for capital improvements. The report has been updated from a similar report submitted by RG Consulting Engineers, in March 1998. The report includes increased prices for the alternatives involved, as well as new information regarding the rates to be charged by Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD). In reviewing the report, you will see that if the Town constructs its own treatment plant, it will be more economical than continuing service with Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District. If the best treatment scheme is selected and implemented, the Town's cost on a present worth basis will be 66% of that for the present arrangement. For quick summary of the report and costs, refer to Section I, Executive Summary. At this time, we would like to express our appreciation for the extreme cooperation we had from Town staff during the development of this report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, RG CW4SULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Ricardo J. F. Gon9alves, P.E. President \RGCE \S I \0194\0006\WIN WORD\C VRLTR.DOC 1331 17th street • suite 710 • denver, colorado 80202 • (303) 293-8107 fax (303) 293-8106 Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Executive Summary 1 II. Introduction 5 III. Effluent Limitations 9 IV. Existing Conditions 10 V. Future Flow And Waste Loads 17 VI. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives 19 Alternative 1 - No Action 19 Alternative 2 - Aerated Lagoon System. 20 Alternative 3 - Aerated Lagoon System with Wetlands 25 Alternative 4 - Biolac Treatment System 29 Alternative 5 - Lemna Treatment System. 33 Alternative 6 - Dual Power Multi -Cellular (DPMC) System 37 Alternative 7 - Mechanical Treatment Plant, Sequence Batch Reactors (SBR) 41 VII. Evaluation Recommendation 52 VIII. Arrangements for Implementation 53 Appendix A - Weather Data Appendix B - Funding Sources Figures Figure 1, Town Limits and Planning Area Figure 2. Lift Station and Proposed Force Main - Figures 3 - 8, Alternative Footprints Tables - Tables 1 - 8, Parachute Background Information - Tables 9 - 22, Alternatives Probable Costs and Cost Summaries r RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conclusions and recommendations made from the wastewater treatment evaluation study for the Town of Parachute are summarized below. A. GENERAL 1. The driving forces behind this study are six -fold: a) annexations for subdivisions to be included in the Town will increase wastewater flows; b) potential force main breaks under the Colorado River could place a large, unexpected financial burden on the Town; c) rate increases by Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) will place a financial burden on the Town's customers; d) a fear that the resurgence in business activity that has occurred in the Town during the 1980's will be inhibited with BMMD's new customer fees; e) the Town owned and operated a wastewater treatment plant prior to the shale oil project and believes it is capable of doing it again; f) the Town's desire to control its own destiny. 2. The Town's planning area will expand as a result of the annexations. Refer to Figure 1 to see the Town's boundaries and services area. B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 1. If the Town were to construct some type of aerated lagoon system, the expected wastewater discharge permit limitations are: Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/L 30/45' Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/L 75/1,000' Fecal Coliform, count/100 ml 6,000/12,000° Total Residual Chlorine, mg/L 56 pH, s.u. 6-9` Oil and Grease, mg/L 10" BOD5, Removal Efficiency 85% a - 30-day/7-day average b - daily maximum c - minimum -maximum d - 30 -day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean C. TOWN PLANNING AREA 1. Per U.S. Census data, Parachute averaged an annual population growth rate of 2.03% between 1950 and 1990. However, Town officials questioned the 1990 census results and a recount was conducted in 1994. The results indicated more people lived in Parachute than tabulated by the 1990 census. Moreover, the results show a 46 -year annual growth rate of 2.9% between 1950-1996. This rate will be Page 1 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute the basis of growth projections for this report. 2. Based on a 2.9% annual growth rate, Parachute's population is projected to be 2005 in the year 2017. D. EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM 1. There are approximately 27,000 feet of sewer lines in the Town. A three -pump lift station pumps sewage to the BMMD WWTP. 2. Previous infiltration and inflow problems in the Town's collection system were rectified in 1995. 3. The nine-year, 1990-1998, average wastewater flow was 107,000 gpd (0.107 mgd). 4. The nine-year average flow per single family equivalent (SFE) ranged from 180 gpd/SFE to 275 gpd/SFE with the nine-year average equal to 221 gal/SFE. During 1996, 1997 and 1998, the first full years since the 1995 sewer repairs, the flows were 180, 194 and 199 gpd/SFE, respectively. E. FUTURE FLOW AND WASTELOADS 1. A statistical analysis of the nine-year wastewater flow data indicates that any future flow average will be in the 209 to 234 gpd/SFE range. There is a 99 percent probability that future average flows will be 234 gpd/SFE or less. This flow rate is the basis for forecasting flows. 2. A good design practice for sizing wastewater treatment facilities is to use the maximum monthly flow rate. The projected 2018 maximum monthly flow rate is 0.32 mgd, which is the basis for sizing the treatment schemes discussed later in this report. F. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 1. Seven treatment alternatives were generated for handling Parachute's wastewater flows for the next 20 years. These include: a) No action b) Aerated Lagoon System c) Aerated Lagoon System followed by a wetlands d) Biolac System Page 2 r RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute e) Lemna System f) DPMC System g) Mechanical Treatment System 2. The 1.a) No Action alternative above means that the present relationship with BMMD would be maintained. 3. In the last six alternatives, a treatment facility would be located on a vacant parcel of land approximately one mile west of town that the Town has recently purchased from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Additionally, there would be common improvements amongst the alternatives. These include lift station modifications, influent and effluent flow measurement, mechanical screening, disinfection, and effluent discharge to a drainage wash adjacent to the land. 4. Alternatives 2 through 7 were all more economical either on a present worth basis or on a cost/1,000 gallon basis than Alternative 1, that is, maintaining the current service contract with BMMD. The costs are summarized below. Item Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 Alternative No.5 Alternative No.6 Alternative No.7 Capital Cost $ 1,308,000 $ 1,366,000 $ 1,314,000 $ 1,779,000 $ 798,000 $ 1,426,000 Amortization/Interest * $ 104,957 $ 109,611 $ 105,439 $ 142,752 $ 64,034 $ 114,426 Avg. Annual 0 & M Costs * $ 8,699 $ 86,301 $ 75,078 $ 71,528 $ 58,613 $ 88,684 $ 93,967 Avg. Annual Costs * $ 218,034 $ 191,258 $ 184,689 $ 176,967 $ 201,365 $ 152,718 $ 208,393 Total Discounted Payments $ 3,089,762 $ 1,217,908 $ 1,064,225 $ 1,025,172 $ 841,903 $ 1,253,495 $ 1,334,216 Present Worth $ 3,089,762 $ 2,525,908 $ 2,430,225 $ 2,339,172 $ 2,620,903 $ 2,051,495 $ 2,760,216 Avg. Cost/1000 gal. $ 3.00 $ 2.71 $ 2.63 $ 2.53 $ 2.89 $ 2.15 $ 2.96 Avg. Annual Cost as % of Alt. No. 1 87.7 84.7 81.2 92.4 70.0 95.6 Present Worth Cost as % of Alt. 1 Present Worth 81.8 78.7 75.7 84.8 66.4 89.3 * Costs are over 20 year life + O&M costs discounted and payments to BMMD discounted at an annual 3.2% inflation rate. 5. Each alternative has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Advantages common to the alternatives in which the Town constructs its own wastewater treatment plant are: a) they are more economical than the present service arrangement; and b) the Town will be able to control its own destiny. Page 3 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 6. Alternative 6, the Dual Power Multicellular (DPMC) system, is the recommended alternative system. The average 20 -year cost/1000 gallons is $2.15, about three- fourths of the average 20 -year cost for continuing the BMMD relationship. On a present worth basis, Alternative 6 is only 66% of Alternative 1. 7. If Alternative 6 is implemented, the existing $23.75/tap/mo./10,000 gal. of sewage is projected to more than cover annual costs for the next 20 years. In fact, if grants or 40 -year loans are obtained, the customer sewer charge can be reduced. The following table emphasizes the differences in cost between Alternative 6 and Alternative 1. Item Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 6 Capital Cost $798,000 Amortization/ Interest * $64,034 Avg. Annual O & M Costs * $8,699 $88,684 Avg. Annual Costs * $218,034 $152,718 Total Discounted Payments $3,089,762 $1,253,495 Present Worth $3,089,762 $2,051,495 Avg. Cost/1000 gal. $3.00 $2.15 AVE. Annual Cost as % of Alt. No. 1 70.0 Present Worth Cost as % of Alt. 1 Present Worth 66.4 * Costs are over 20 year life + O&M costs discounted and payments to BMMD discounted at an annual 3.2% inflation rate. Page 4 r RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION II INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL The objective of the Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study is to identify the most appropriate means to provide reliable and economical wastewater treatment for the Town of Parachute. Currently, the Town pumps its wastewater across the Colorado River to the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP utilized the activated sludge process, but was underloaded due to the pull out of Exxon from the shale oil project in the 1980's. The plant was mothballed, and an aerated lagoon system was constructed to handle flows from BMMD and the Town. During the 1990's, development in the district grew and, as might be expected, wastewater flows increased impacting the performance of the lagoons. The District reactivated the old activated sludge facility, but a significant portion of the mothballed equipment had to be replaced resulting in high capital expenditures by the District. BMMD notified the Town in 1996 that beginning in 1997 wastewater treatment charges would increase from $1.42 to $3.69/1,000 gallons by the year 2000. The Town entered into an agreement with BMMD to set the 1998 rate at $2.10/1,000 gallons. The Town is currently negotiating with BMMD to renew its contract for 1999/2000, and it expects the 1999 rate to remain at $2.10/1,000 gallons. Beginning in the year 2000, and for each subsequent year, BMMD is proposing to increase the rate yearly based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Each year would use the previous years' rate and add the CPI increase, assuming no fixed asset additions, capital replacements or plant modifications/retrofits are needed. If any of these items were needed, an additional rate increase would be applied. Based upon this discussion, and assuming an average CPI increase of 3.2 percent for each year, (the average CPI increase over the last ten years), this would place the year 2000 rate at $2.17/1,000 gallons, and the year 2005 rate at $2.54/1,000 gallons. It is this rate structure that has been used as the basis for this report. There are six factors driving the need for this engineering report. 1. Developers have initiated annexation processes for subdivisions adjacent to the Town's boundaries. Wastewater flows from the Town will increase as a result. 2. A possible break of the force main under the Colorado River, or worst case scenario, a scouring out of the force main trench which would damage all three of the force mains. These mains are in a common trench with five feet of cover. Should a failure such as this occur, sewage from the lift station would have to be trucked to the BMMD WWTP. The daily cost for trucking sewage while repairs were made could range from $2,000 per day to $2,600 per day. This assumes locally available trucks with 4,000 gallon capacity at $50.00 per hour with 1.5 hour round trip per truck. This arrangement would likely require one truck during the nighttime hours, and three to four trucks operating during peak times. This trucking arrangement would have to continue until repairs were made to the force mains, which time could be considerable. If a scouring were to occur, it would likely occur during peak flow periods in the Colorado River, which would make force main repair extremely difficult, if not impossible, until the high flows subsided. Page 5 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Therefore, trucking could continue for one to two months, or longer, incurring $60,000 to $120,000 or more in trucking costs, in addition to construction costs for the force main repairs. 3. The rate increases by BMMD will place a financial burden on the Town's customers. The town bills its customers a minimum of 10,000 gal/month or $23.75/month for sewage services. For the same quantity of sewage, in the year 2004 the monthly sewage fee will have to be raised to $24.60, and raised incrementally thereafter for each subsequent year. 4. There has been resurgence in business activity within the Town during the 1990's, which has enhanced Town revenue growth. The Town fears the rapidly escalating sewage rates may inhibit further development in the future. 5. The Town owned and operated its own wastewater plant prior to the inception of the shale oil project. The Town believes it can build and operate a plant once again at costs that are more economical than the proposed BMMD rates. 6. The Town desires to control its own destiny. B. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is to: 1. Identify and evaluate alternative wastewater treatment processes including continuing the present relationship with BMMD that could serve the Town's needs and serve future population growth. 2. Determine the estimated construction, operation, and maintenance (O&M) costs for the various alternatives. 3. Select the alternative which best addresses the needs of the Town. C. PARACHUTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT HISTORY The Town owned and operated a wastewater treatment plant up until 1981. At that time, the Exxon Corporation, which bought the shale oil project from Atlantic Richfield Company, offered to construct a mechanical wastewater treatment plant which would serve the Battlement Mesa area and the Town of Parachute. A charge of $25,000 per year was offered to the Town for its share of the wastewater loading on the new facility. As the proposed fee was less than the O&M costs the Town was incurring with its own plant, the Town elected to build a sewage lift station and pump its sewage to the new wastewater plant. and decommission its own wastewater plant. In 1985, Exxon terminated the shale oil project resulting in an exodus of people from the Parachute - Battlement Mesa area. The shutdown contributed to a parallel decrease in flows to the BMMD WWTP. The activated sludge treatment facility was expensive to operate given the amount of flow it was treating. The BMMD Board decided to mothball the facility and build a smaller, less Page 6 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute sophisticated facility, an aerated lagoon system rated at 0.4 mgd. The lagoon system was inexpensive to operate and the Town continued pumping its sewage to the District. As noted previously, the growth Colorado has incurred during the 1990's affected BMMD as well. The resulting increased loadings on the lagoon system caused the plant to violate some of its discharge permit conditions which stimulated BMMD to reenergize the old activated sludge plant. However, much of the mothballed equipment had deteriorated beyond reasonable costs of repair, requiring extensive equipment replacement. BMMD determined as a result of its new investment and the related O&M costs that it would have to substantially raise its customers sewage fees to recover its costs. Although the fee increases may be justified, the Town desires to explore alternatives to the existing BMMD relationship for treating its wastewater. D. PLANNING AREA The Town of Parachute, Colorado is located in the south-central portion of Garfield County along Interstate 70 (1-70) approximately half way between Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction. The planning area generally consists of the Town of Parachute. In recent years, Island Ranch, Smith - Templeton and the Benedict areas have been annexed into the Town. These areas will receive sewage collection services from the Town as they develop. Moreover, sewage treatment services will be provided by the Town or whatever entity ultimately provides those services. Figure 1 illustrates the Town boundaries and the general planning area. Page 7 ;, RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1 I Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION III EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Wastewater treated by the BMMD WWTP must achieve secondary treatment standards. If Parachute were to construct and operate its own wastewater treatment facility it is believed a Parachute wastewater treatment plant would have similar limitations. Although the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was not formally petitioned for limits as part of this report, a discussion with a CDPHE official indicated that an aerated lagoon system, or an aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands, would be adequate for treating sewage for direct discharge to the Colorado River. Similar facilities exist along the Colorado River. The expected limitations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Expected Discharge Permit Limitations Parameter Limit Rationale BOD5, mg/L 30/45' State Effluent Regulations TSS, mg/L 75/110' State Effluent Regulations Fecal Coliform, count/100 ml 6,000/12,000° Fecal Coliform Policy Total Residual Chlorine, mg/L 0.5" State Effluent Regulations pH, s.u. 6.0-9.0' State Effluent Regulations Oil and Grease, mg/L 10" State Effluent Regulations BODS, Removal Efficiency 85% State Effluent Regulations a 30 -day average/7-day average " Daily maximum ` Minimum -maximum 30 -day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean Page 9 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION IV EXISTING CONDITIONS A. TOWN PLANNING AREA 1. Institutions The Town of Parachute, incorporated in 1908, is responsible for planning, financing and operating its own services including streets, water and sewer lines and police protection. If the Town takes on the responsibility of constructing and operating its own wastewater treatment plant, it would obtain the necessary legal, financial, institutional and managerial resources to construct, operate and maintain its own wastewater treatment plant. 2. Economic, Demographic and Land Use Data The Town of Parachute, located in the Colorado River Valley amidst the Western Slope of the Rocky Mountains, is surrounded by ranch lands and mining related industries. Several small retail and commercial firms form the business base for the town. Parachute also serves as a bedroom community for people employed in Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, and towns in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Town's location along I- 70, it's proximity to Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs, it's affordable housing, it's proximity to area mines, excellent outdoor activities and it's fairly temperate weather are incentives for existing businesses to grow, and for new businesses to relocate. Population growth in Parachute through the years has varied considerably. The U.S. Census determined that Parachute population increased 123 percent from 1950 to 1990. This represents an average annual growth rate of 2.03 percent. Town officials questioned the 1990 census results and requested a recount which was done in 1994. The results indicated there were 1,065 residents. Some of the residents probably lived in the Town prior to the 1990 census, but were missed during the count. Therefore, the 1996 estimated growth rate from 1950 to 1990 is presumably greater than what was indicated by the 1990 census. More recently, however, the state of Colorado estimated there were 1,100 people in Parachute at the end of 1996. This would indicate a very robust annual growth rate of 8.94 percent between 1990 and 1996. Growth rates and estimates for the 1990's are given in Table 2. Page 10 ; RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 2 Parachute Population Data Year Method Population Average Annual Rate 1950 U.S. Census 295 - - - 1960 U.S. Census 245 -1.84% 1970 U.S. Census 270 0.98% 1980 U.S. Census 338 2.27% 1990 U.S. Census 658 6.89% 1991 State Estimate 667 1.37% 1992 State Estimate 658 -1.35% 1993 State Estimate 660 0.30% 1994 State Estimate 1065* 61.36% 1995 State Estimate 1092 2.54% 1996 State Estimate 1100 0.73% 1950-1990 2.03% 1950-1994 2.96% 1950-1996 2.90% *A recount of the Town's population was conducted during 1994. As can be seen in Table 2, the average annual population growth rate was 2.9 percent between 1950 and 1996. More notably, the amount of taps or single family equivalents (SFE's) between 1990 and 1998 increased from 400 to 604 which equates to an annual 5.05 percent rate of growth. The growth rate to be used needs to be determined. Since 1990, Colorado towns and cities generally have incurred rapid growth, i.e., greater than two percent. In all likelihood, the 5.05 percent annual growth in SFE's will probably not continue indefinitely. As can be seen from the Table 2 data, growth trends are cyclic. During the 46 years in which population data for Parachute was available, the Town experienced periods of slow and rapid growth and even periods of depopulation. For the purposes of this report, since the 1994 recount proved the 1990 census was low, it appears the 1950 to 1996 average annual growth rate of 2.9% will be reasonable for calculating future population estimates. A comparison of the growth rates discussed previously and their impacts on population growth are given in Table 3. Page 11 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 3 Population Estimate Year Population Historic Growth Rate 1950-1990 2.03%/Year Historic Growth Rate 1950-1996 2.9%/Year Growth Rate Based on SFE's 1990-1997 3.53%/Year 1990 658 658 658 658 1994 1065 1065 1065 1065 1996 1100 1100 1100 1100 1997 1122 1132 1139 2002 1241 1306 1355 2007 1372 1506 1611 2012 1516 1738 1917 2017 1676 2005 2280 3. Water Supply and Quality A public water system supplied by a natural spring serves the Town. The water is filtered and chlorinated prior to being distributed to the community. In reviewing water quality data dating to 1991, lead, copper, other heavy metals, trihalomethanes (THM's), volatile and synthetic organic compounds have always been below any regulated limits. Moreover, the analytical results revealed that the water supply has never incurred any coliform contamination. The water supply is of high quality and will not adversely impact any wastewater treatment operation. The Town has a back up supply from the Colorado River. Presently, this is used only during an emergency or when equipment at the spring supply must be serviced. It is not a normal supply source, but when it is used, it is filtered and chlorinated. 4. Environmental Conditions The Town of Parachute is situated in the Colorado River Valley with the river to the south and rolling hills surrounding the Town on the other three sides. Soils in the area consist generally of decomposed shale. Weather in the area varies considerably from summer to winter with precipitation being fairly low. Temperature ranges from -20° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Annual precipitation for Parachute averages nearly 14 inches. Weather data for the period 1965 to 1992 is included in Appendix A. Page 12 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute B. EXISTING COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS, WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADINGS 1. Existing Collection System The wastewater collection system serves the Town of Parachute only and consists of approximately 26,950 feet of gravity sewers ranging in size from eight to fifteen inches in diameter. Table 4 lists the pipe sizes, materials of construction and lengths of the sewer pipes. Table 4 Parachute Gravity Sewer Data Diameter Material Length (ft.) Inch -Miles 8" RCP 8,300 12.6 8" ACP 2,200 3.3 8" PVC 10,700 16.2 10" PVC 400 0.8 12" RCP 2,000 4.5 12" PVC 2,300 5.2 15" PVC 1,050 3.0 The collection system conveys the sewage to a three -pump lift station, located on the south side of Town, less than 500 feet from the Colorado River. The lift station, comprised of two wetwells, pumps sewage through one to three lines across the Colorado River to the BMMD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for subsequent treatment. At one time, the gravity collection system had serious infiltration and inflow (I&I) problems. The Town conducted an inspection program in 1994 to identify problem areas. Several I&I locations were found which were repaired in 1995. Repairs included sewer jet cleaning, mechanical root removal, rehabilitation of manholes and sewers by cured in place pipe (CIPP), and installation of drop manhole fittings at one manhole. The efforts resulted in drastic reductions in wastewater flows to the BMMD WWTP. Data confirming this fact is given later in this report. Figure 2 depicts the Town limits, the lift station and the BMMD WWTP. 2. Existing Treatment System The Town does not own, nor is it a part owner in the BMMD WWTP. The Town is a BMMD customer. It is not the intent of this report to discuss the intricacies of the BMMD WWTP. Suffice to say, it is an activated sludge facility with secondary treatment standards discharging effluent to the Colorado River. As discussed previously, the facility replaced an aerated lagoon system in recent years. Page 13 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. PREFERRED FORCE MAIN ROUTE TOWN LIMITS SCALE: 1 "=500'(APPROX.), DISCHARGE TO WASH SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD ALERNATE FORCE MAIN ROUTE - s: FORCE MAIN ROUTE BATTLEMENT MESA TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 3. Existing Wastewater Flow Wastewater flows are measured at the lift station. Average daily flows by month are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Average Daly Wastewater Flows for 1990-1998 (mgd) Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Avg. January .071 .102 .079 .134 .103 .112 .100 .088 .081 .097 February .049 .110 .080 .150 .112 .110 .085 .085 .079 .096 March .081 .101 .060 .069 .127 .083 .084 .088 .091 .087 April .086 .098 .076 .070 .120 .089 .087 .088 .064 .086 May .117 .114 .093 .111 .097 .105 .073 .095 .106 .101 June .135 .126 .092 .163 .132 .100 .076 .104 .082 .112 July .097 .131 .111 .155 .154 .115 .096 .109 .088 .117 August .109 .106 .099 .145 .132 .131 .096 .103 .104 .114 September .081 .088 .083 .167 .145 .103 .110 .126 .205 .123 October .138 .091 .097 .158 .134 .116 .102 .131 .195 .129 November .096 .071 .104 .153 .126 .107 .094 .083 .187 .113 December .107 .063 .113 .145 .110 .094 .097 .086 .159 .108 Average .098 .100 .091 .135 .125 .105 .092 .099 .120 .107 Max/Avg. 1.41 1.31 1.24 1.24 1.23 1.25 1.20 1.35 1.71 1.33 The data provides some interesting insights about Parachute's flows relevant to its growth. Average daily flows ranged from 91,000 gpd to 135,000 gpd with an nine-year average of 0.107 mgd. Maximum monthly flows were 1.20 to 1.71 times average daily flows, with the average maximum monthly flow to average flow equal to 1.33. Generally, maximum monthly flows occur in the July through October period. This may be attributed to the tourist season being at its peak. Noteworthy is the fact that average daily and maximum monthly flows have decreased since 1993 even though population and SFE's have increased. This may be attributed to the Town's 1995 sewer rehabilitation program. The repairs reduced sewage flows on a per SFE basis from 275 gpd/SFE in 1993 to a low of 180 gpd/SFE in 1996. Table 6 catalogues flow and SFE data. Page 15 ; RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 6 Town of Parachute Wastewater Flow and SFE Data Year Total Number of SFE's Annual Wastewater Flow (MG) Average Flow (mgd) FLOW/SFE/DAY (gpd/SFE) 1990 400 35.616 0.098 244 1991 409 36.531 0.100 245 1992 483 33.220 0.091 188 1993 490 49.130 0.135 275 1994 496 45.626 0.125 252 1995 508 38.478 0.105 208 1996 510 33.563 0.092 180 1997 510 36.091 0.099 194 1998 604 43.870 0.120 199 9 Yr. Avg. 490 39.125 0.107 221 The Town of Parachute, as a customer of BMMD, monitors the pollutant concentrations in its wastewater. The 1997 historical averages, as reported by Parachute personnel, are listed in Table 7. Table 7 1997 Parachute Influent Pollutant Concentrations Parameter Average Concentration Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 196 mg/I 5 -Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 218 mg/1 Temperature 62° F pH 7.7 Page 16 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION V FUTURE FLOW AND WASTE LOADS Development in the Town of Parachute will increase population, flow and waste loading to the wastewater treatment facility. Section IV.A.2. of this report discussed population estimates. Predicated on various growth rates, the population is projected to range from 1,676 to 2,280 in the year 2017. However, for purposes of this report, an annual growth rate of 2.9 percent is selected for making estimates of future flows and waste loadings. As Parachute's population grows, so will the taps or single family equivalents (SFE's). An estimate of future SFE's may be made using the average 46 -year annual growth rate of 2.9 percent. By 2018, the Town is projected to have 1070 SFE's which will be the basis for forecasting future flows. A statistical analysis was performed on the Table 5 flow data. The 108 -month flow average for the 1990 to 1998 period is 3.260 MG/month or 0.107 mgd average annual flow. When the flows are expressed on a per SFE basis, the average annual flow equals 221 gpd/SFE. Performing a normal distribution analysis and using a 98 percent confidence interval results in a projected average flow range of 209 to 234 gpd/SFE. This means there is a 98 percent probability that any future flow average will be in the 209 to 234 gpd/SFE range. Furthermore, there is a 99 percent probability that future average flows will be 234 gpd/SFE or less. This flow rate will establish the basis for forecasting flows and sizing facilities. A good design practice for sizing wastewater treatment facilities is to use the maximum monthly flow rate. Using this concept, the 234 gpd/SFE average flow, a 1.33 maximum month to average flow ratio, and 1070 SFE's previously discussed, the 2018 estimated maximum monthly flow rate is 0.33 mgd. This flow rate will be the basis for sizing treatment schemes discussed later in this report. However, for estimating sludge quantities and sludge hauling costs that are described in Section VI, a conservative five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) of 250 mg/l was used. Table 8 lists future flows and waste loadings. Page 17 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 8 Parachute Projected Hydraulic, Organic and Suspended Solids Loadings Year SFE's Q/SFE (gpd/SFE) Q (mgd) (gpd/SFE) Q/yr. (MGY) TSS (lbs/yr.)** BODS (Ibs/yr.)* 1999 622 234 0.145 53.08 100,000 111,000 2000 640 234 0.150 54.62 103,000 114,000 2001 658 234 0.154 56.21 106,000 118,000 2002 677 234 0.158 57.84 109,000 121,000 2003 697 234 0.163 59.51 112,000 125,000 2004 717 234 0.168 61.24 115,000 128,000 2005 738 234 0.173 63.02 119,000 132,000 2006 759 234 0.178 64.84 122,000 136,000 2007 781 234 0.183 66.72 126,000 140,000 2008 804 234 0.188 68.66 129,000 144,000 2009 827 234 0.194 70.65 133,000 148,000 2010 851 234 0.199 72.70 137,000 152,000 2011 876 234 0.205 74.81 141,000 156,000 2012 901 234 0.211 76.98 145,000 161,000 2013 927 234 0.217 79.21 149,000 166,000 2014 954 234 0.223 81.51 153,000 170,000 2015 982 234 0.230 83.87 158,000 175,000 2016 1010 234 0.236 86.30 162,000 180,000 2017 1040 234 0.243 88.81 167,000 186,000 2018 1070 234 0.250 91.38 172,000 191,000 **Based on 225 mg/1 average concentration *Based on 250 mg/1 average concentration Page 18 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION VI WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES A. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS EVALUATION To achieve the expected effluent limitations at the year 2018 flow rates and loading, seven treatment alternatives were considered and evaluated. The options evaluated included: 1. No Action 2. Aerated Lagoon System 3. Aerated Lagoon System Followed by a Wetlands 4. Biolac System 5. Lemna System 6. DPMC System 7. Mechanical Treatment System Descriptions of the alternatives, advantages and disadvantages, and costs for implementing the treatment schemes are provided in the ensuing sections. For the last six alternatives, a treatment facility would be located approximately one mile west of Town on an existing vacant parcel of land. This site, with an approximate area of ten acres, has recently been purchased by the Town from the Colorado Department of Transportation for this purpose. To deliver the sewage to the site, the existing lift station would be modified and a force main will have to be constructed from the station to the wastewater treatment facility at the site. Costs for the force main are itemized in each of the treatment alternatives. Treated wastewater or effluent would be conveyed from the treatment plant via a 12 -inch gravity sewer to a drainage wash just south of the proposed plant site, and then to the Colorado River via the wash. Figure 2 illustrates the location of the lift station and the force main. 1. Alternative 1 - No Action No action would involve keeping the present relationship with BMMD. There are advantages of maintaining conditions as they are. The responsibility for treatment belongs to the District and not the Town. The District is accountable for all the ramifications of treatment, i.e., chemical and sludge handling, scheduling, planning, budgeting, addressing potential odor complaints, meeting discharge permit limitations, etc. However, the District may escalate the fee it charges the Town at its discretion. With this arrangement, the Town has no control of its costs or its own destiny. In the year 2005, the Town will be paying $2.54 for every 1,000 gallons of sewage. This rate will escalate, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI will be added to the previous years' rate for each year after 1999. Over the period of the last ten years, the CPI has averaged 3.2 percent. Using this average for the CPI and projecting the rate increases over the next 20 years, in the year 2018 there will be a projected rate of $3.82 for every 1,000 gallons of sewage. Page 19 6 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 9 was generated based on an average CPI increase of 3.2 percent per year. With this information, the Town is projected to have $4.4 million in operation and fee costs, the bulk of which, $4.2 million, will be in fees to the District during the next 20 years. The present worth value of this alternative is $3.1 million. Table 9 Alternative 1 - Continue BMMD Relationship Year Q/yr. (MGY) Annual Rate ($11000 gal) Annual BMMD Cost Lift Station O&M Cost Total Annual Costs Discounted Payment (') 1999 53.08 2.10 $111,475.00 $5,266.00 $116,741.00 $116,741.00 2000 54.62 2.17 $118,379.00 $5,529.00 $123,908.00 $120,066.00 2001 56.21 2.24 $125,710.00 $5,805.00 $131,515.00 $123,486.00 2002 57.84 2.31 $133,495.00 $6,095.00 $139,590.00 $127,004.00 2003 59.51 2.38 $141,762.00 $6,399.00 $148,161.00 $130,622.00 2004 61.24 2.46 $150,541.00 $6,718.00 $157,259.00 $134,344.00 2005 63.02 2.54 $159,864.00 $7,053.00 $166,917.00 $138,173.00 2006 64.84 2.62 $169,764.00 $7,405.00 $177,169.00 $142,112.00 2007 66.72 2.70 $180,277.00 $7,775.00 $188,052.00 $146,164.00 2008 68.66 2.79 $191,441.00 $8,163.00 $199,604.00 $150,333.00 2009 70.65 2.88 $203,297.00 $8,571.00 $211,868.00 $154,621.00 2010 72.70 2.97 $215,886.00 $8,999.00 $224,885.00 $159,032.00 2011 74.81 3.06 $229,256.00 $9,448.00 $238,704.00 $163,570.00 2012 76.98 3.16 $253,453.00 $9,920.00 $253,373.00 $168,239.00 2013 79.21 3.26 $253,530.00 $10,416.00 $268,946.00 $173,042.00 2014 81.51 3.37 $274,540.00 $10,936.00 $285,476.00 $177,982.00 2015 83.87 3.48 $291,542.00 $11,482.00 $303,024.00 $183,064.00 2016 86.30 3.59 $309,596.00 $12,056.00 $321,652.00 $188,292.00 2017 88.81 3.70 $328,769.00 $12,658.00 $341,427.00 $193,671.00 2018 91.38 3.82 $349,129.00 $13,290.00 $362,419.00 $199,204.00 Total $4,186,706.00 $173,984.00 $4,360,690.00 $3,089,762.00 (') Discounted annual costs are based on a 3.2 percent annual inflation rate Present worth = $3,089,762 Alternative 2 - Aerated Lagoon System Alternative 2 would consist of constructing an aerated lagoon in accordance with state design criteria to treat wastewater to permitted levels. The lift station would have to undergo piping and pump modifications, and an eight -inch force main would have to be Page 20 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute constructed from the station to the proposed site. The pump modifications will result in less energy costs to operate the station. Sewage from the force main would be discharged into the plant and would pass through preliminary treatment before being treated in the lagoons. Flow would be measured through a parshall flume before being routed through a mechanical bar screen which would remove large debris. After screening, the wastewater would flow to the aerated lagoons. Two aerated lagoons of equal size would be provided. The lagoons would have aerators and mixers to supply the necessary oxygen and mixing for treatment. The lagoons could be operated in parallel or in series. Detention time in the aerated cells would be eight days at the design flow of 0.33 mgd. A settling pond with three days detention would allow solids to settle. All three lagoons would have a 40 -mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. Periodically, possibly every ten years, sludge would have to be removed. Effluent from the settling pond would be disinfected in a chlorine contact chamber and then directed through another parshall flume for flow measurement before being diverted to either the agricultural field or the Colorado River. Tables 10 and 11 summarize the costs associated with this alternative. Table 10 identifies the capital costs estimated for the project, while Table 11 lists the amortized capital and interest, operation and maintenance (O&M), total annual costs, cost per 1,000 gallons and the present worth over a 20 -year life. Figure 3 depicts the layout of the treatment portion of this alternative as well as pertinent design data. Page 21 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 10 Alternative 2 - Aerated Lagoon Opinion of Probable Capital Cost 1. Lift Station Modifications - VFD and Pumps 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 7,500'-8" C900 CL100 PVC @ $16.50/ft. 123,750 Two Air/Vac Valve Vaults 10,200 Dewatering @ $40.00/hr. (assume 600'/Da) 3,520 137,470 3. Headworks 3" nested in 6" parshall flumes 6,900 Flow sensor 9,300 Mechanical screen 75,000 Structure 20,600 111,800 4. Three Flow Control Structures - Influent, Lagoon, and 28,200 Effluent Diversion 5. Chlorine and Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. Aerated and Settling Ponds Silt clearing and grubbing @ $1,135/ac., 3.15 acres 3,575 Excavation, 37,760 C.Y. @ $2.05/C.Y. 77,400 Liners (40 mil HDPE) @ $0.38/ft.2, 115,600 feet2 43,900 Aerators and Mixers 4-15 hp aerators @ $12,400/ea 49,600 6-15 hp mixers @ $22,300/ea 133,800 2 control panels @ 32,000/ea 64,000 Plant Piping 1,700' of 12" SDR 35 PVC @ $16.25/ft. 27,625 11-12" GV's w/boxes @ $1,470/ea 16.170 416,070 7. Effluent Piping to Wash 750'-12" PVC @ $22.50/ft. 16,650 Clearing and grubbing 2,000 Dewatering @ $40.00/hr. (assume 200'/Da) 4,150 22.800 Subtotal Items 1-7 770,240 8. Electrical @ 15% 115,560 Subtotal Items 1-8 885800 9. Mobilization @ 7% 62,000 Subtotal Items 1-9 947,800 10. Contingencies @ 20% 189.160 Subtotal Items 1-10 1,137,400 11. Engineering @ 15% 170,600 TOTAL $1,308,000 Page 22 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 11 Alternative 2 -Aerated Lagoon System Costs Summary Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest t4 O&M Cost Annual Cost Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost t"t 1999 53.08 $104,957.00 $45,150.00 $150,107.00 $2.83 $45,150.00 2000 54.62 $104,957.00 $47,408.00 $152,365.00 $2.79 $46,028.00 2001 56.21 $104,957.00 $49,778.00 $154,735.00 $2.75 $46,760.00 2002 57.84 $104,957.00 $52,267.00 $157,224.00 $2.72 $47,585.00 2003 59.51 $104,957.00 $54,880.00 $159,837.00 $2.69 $48,401.00 2004 61.24 $104,957.00 $57,624.00 $162,581.00 $2.65 $49,293.00 2005 63.02 $104,957.00 $60,505.00 $165,462.00 $2.63 $50,165.00 2006 64.84 $104,957.00 $63,531.00 $168,488.00 $2.60 $51,016.00 2007 66.72 $104,957.00 (w$140,371.00 $245,328.00 $3.68 $109,127.00 2008 68.66 $104,957.00 $70,042.00 $174,999.00 $2.55 $52,796.00 2009 70.65 $104,957.00 $73,544.00 $178,501.00 $2.53 $53,714.00 2010 72.70 $104,957.00 $77,222.00 $182,179.00 $2.51 $54,665.00 2011 74.81 $104,957.00 $81,083.00 $186,040.00 $2.49 $55,574.00 2012 76.98 $104,957.00 $85,137.00 $190,094.00 $2.47 $56,573.00 2013 79.21 $104,957.00 $89,394.00 $194,351.00 $2.45 $57,521.00 2014 81.51 $104,957.00 $93,863.00 $198,820.00 $2.44 $58,543.00 2015 83.87 $104,957.00 $98,557.00 $203,514.00 $2.43 $59,567.00 2016 86.30 $104,957.00 $103,484.00 $208,441.00 $2.42 $60,588.00 2017 88.81 $104,957.00 (`)$ 268,091.00 $373,048.00 $4.20 $152,077.00 2018 91.38 $104,957.00 $114,091.00 $219,048.00 $2.40 $62,715.00 Totals 1411.96 $2,099,140.00 $1,726,021.00 $3,825,161.00 $1,217,908.00 Avg. 70.60 $104,957.00 $86,301.00 $191,258.00 $2.71 (a) $1,308,000 amortized over 20 years @ 5%. (b) Includes removing 1,151,000 gal. of sludge from the lagoons at $0.064/gal. (`) Includes removing 1,533,000 gal. of sludge from the agoons at $0.104/gal. (d) Discounted O&M costs are based on 3.2% annual inflation rate. Present worth = $1,308,000 + $1,217,908 = $2,525,908 Page 23 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 44 40-44 � 3 oW 1— UF- w N z cc 0 J En UQW W w W a Z W 2 m Q 2 2 0 O L Z o J En Z 0 - ¢0 In ix �j a aM x Ire � 0 oaw W (p O� \ Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 3. Alternative 3 - Aerated Lagoon System with Wetlands Alternative 3 would consist of constructing an aerated lagoon system with a wetland after the lagoons to treat the lagoon effluent to permitted levels. This option would allow downsizing the design of the aerated lagoons as describe in Alternative 2. Two aerated lagoons of equal size would be provided. However, the lagoons would have a detention time of six days at the design flow of 0.33 mgd. Aerators and mixers would aerate and mix the lagoon contents. As with Alternative 2, the lagoons could be operated in series or in parallel. The lagoons would be lined with 40 mil HDPE. Effluent from the lagoons would pass through 3.1 acres of subsurface wetlands for additional organic and nutrient removal. Modifications to the lift station and facilities for screening, flow measurement and disinfection would be the same as those in Alternative 2. Costs for Alternative 3 are listed in Tables 12 and 13. Maintenance costs include power, a part-time operator, maintenance materials, chemicals and site maintenance. Figure 4 shows the layout of the treatment plant as well as relevant design data. Page 25 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 12 Alternative 3 - Aerated Lagoons with Wetlands Opinion of Probable Coital Cost 1. Lift Station Modifications 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 137,470 3. Headworks 111,800 4. Flow Control Structures - Influent, Lagoon and Effluent Diversion 28,200 5. Chlorine & Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. Aerated Ponds Silt clearing & grubbing @ $1,135.00/ac., 5 acres 5,675 Excavation -11,435 C.Y. @ $2.58/C.Y. 29,500 Liners (40 mil HDPE) @ $0.38/ft.2•51,900 feet2 19,700 Aerators and Mixers 4-15 hp aerators @ $12,400/ea 49,600 2-7-1/2 hp mixers @ $18,600/ea 37,200 2 control panels @ 32,000/ea 64,000 Plant Piping 1,600' of 12" SDR 35 PVC @ $16.25/ft. 26,000 10-12" GV's w/boxes @ $1,470/ea 14.700 246,375 7. Wetlands Flow Control/Pressure-Reducing Sump 10,300 Wetlands 187,450 Level Sump 6,000 203,750 8. Effluent Piping to Wash 22.800 Subtotal Items 1-8 804,295 9. Electrical @ 15% 120,705 Subtotal Items 1-9 925,000 10. Mobilization @ 7% 64,750 Subtotal Items 1-10 989,750 11. Contingencies @ 20% 197.950 Subtotal Items 1-11 1,187, 700 12. Engineering @ 15% 178,300 TOTAL $1,366,000 Page 26 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 13 Alternative 3 -Aerated Lagoon/Wetlands Cost Summary Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest (a) O&M Cost Al Cost Annual Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost (`) 1999 53.08 $109,611.00 $38,850.00 $148,461.00 $2.80 $38,850.00 2000 54.62 $109,611.00 $40,793.00 $150,404.00 $2.75 $39,528.00 2001 56.21 $109,611.00 $42,832.00 $152,443.00 $2.71 $40,218.00 2002 57.84 $109,611.00 $44,974.00 $154,585.00 $2.67 $40,919.00 2003 59.51 $109,611.00 $47,222.00 $156,833.00 $2.64 $41,633.00 2004 61.24 $109,611.00 °1°$92,220.00 $201,831.00 $3.30 $78,782.00 2005 63.02 $109,611.00 $52,063.00 $161,674.00 $2.57 $43,098.00 2006 64.84 $109,611.00 $54,666.00 $164,277.00 $2.53 $43,850.00 2007 66.72 $109,611.00 $57,400.00 $167,011.00 $2.50 $44,615.00 2008 68.66 $109,611.00 $60,270.00 $169,881.00 $2.47 $45,393.00 2009 70.65 $109,611.00 $63,283.00 $172,894.00 $2.45 $46,184.00 2010 72.70 $109,611.00 $66,447.00 $176,058.00 $2.42 $46,990.00 2011 74.81 $109,611.00 ")$142,979.00 $252,590.00 $3.38 $97,975.00 2012 76.98 $109,611.00 $73,259.00 $182,870.00 $2.38 $48,644.00 2013 79.21 $109,611.00 $76,921.00 $186,532.00 $2.35 $49,492.00 2014 81.51 $109,611.00 $80,767.00 $190,378.00 $2.34 $50,355.00 2015 83.87 $109,611.00 $84,806.00 $194,417.00 $2.32 $51,234.00 2016 86.30 $109,611.00 $89,046.00 $198,657.00 $2.30 $52,127.00 2017 88.81 $109,611.00 x'"$194,586.00 $304,197.00 $3.43 $110,377.00 2018 91.38 $109,611.00 $98,173.00 $207,784.00 $2.27 $53,961.00 Totals 1411.96 $2,192,220.00 $1,501,557.00 $3,693,777.00 $1,064,225.00 Avg. 70.60 $109,611.00 $75,078.00 $184,689.00 $2.63 (a) $1,36( ,000 amortizf d over 20 years « 5%. (b) Includes removing 771,000 gal. of sludge from the lagoons at $0.0553/gal. (`) Includes removing 941,000 gal. of sludge from the lagoons at $0.0778/gal. (d) Includes removing 972,000 gal. of sludge from the lagoons at $0.104/gal. (`) Discounted O&M costs are based on 3.2% annual inflation rate. Present worth = $1,366,000 + $1,064,225 = $2,430,225 Page 27 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. A z A E-4 rt stC 1-1-1 M N \ / \ \\\ \\ W LaJ N w O \\ \\\ \\ (l] ct O Z O \ \ ~ JO, / \\ \\ Qi Q'i° d' J O Illi C�7 H 8 22?® l\W'd� 1 1 1 1 J i 1 1 '\ / ".11 i ��/'� ZW _ c 1 1 .,/ O D� II . / ' 0 C0 Q , / Q N - w I' 0 _0 In1- 3 w x w U 7 I\ 7Z LW Y : a 0 I- 0 \11 1 �O m cc, _o rn Z / 1, 11 w• � UD 0� S Z II g N V)MZ O ( `. \ V) O V) Q J a w w� i� \\ li )' �W 2m J� �NJOOJ ZQIIO Zw 1 DOJ- Wo Z p Q �� N w�!ww Er- CO O� \II 11 ~ O .4- re O 3Q0 UU Q x to / 1 j Q rc 0 O_ r \ I 00 re," _ 1 \ r�- 1 1 I L L Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 4. Alternative 4 - Biolac Treatment System Alternative 4 would comprise of a Biolac treatment system plus the ancillary facilities for influent and effluent treatment and lift station modifications as described for the previous alternatives. This alternative would not require as much area as the lagoons or lagoons/wetlands, but requires knowledge of the activated sludge process. The Biolac pond would operate in the extended aeration mode and would incorporate an internal clarifier. Sludge pumping would be provided for returning sludge to the process and wasting sludge to the sludge holding pond. Aeration would be supplied through flexible membrane fine bubble diffusers attached to floating chains. Blowers remote from the pond would supply the air. Periodically, it is estimated every three to four years, sludge would have to be hauled from the holding pond. Effluent from the Biolac system would be routed to either the Colorado River or the agricultural field. Opinions of cost for Alternative 4 are defined in Tables 14 and 15. Maintenance costs include power, a part-time operator, maintenance materials, chemicals and site maintenance. Figure 5 shows the treatment portion and design data of this alternative. Page 29 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 14 Alternative 4 Biolac System Opinion of Probable Capital Costs 1. Lift Station Modifications 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 137,470 3. Headworks 111,800 4. Effluent Flow Control Structure 9,400 5. Chlorine and Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. Aeration and Sludge Holding Silt clearing and grubbing @ $1,135.00/ac., 1.5 acres 1,700 Excavation -4,610 C.Y. @ $4.15/C.Y. 19,100 Liners for basins 8,500 Yard piping 65,000 Biolac system 275,500 Concrete for clarifier and air piping @ $515.00/C.Y., 104 C.Y. 53.600 423,400 7. Blower Building, Lab, Office 200 ft.2 @ $77.00/ft.2 15,400 8. Effluent Piping to Wash 22 800 Subtotal Items 1-8 774,170 9. Electrical @ 15% 116,130 Subtotal Items 1-9 890,300 10. Mobilization @ 7% 62,300 Subtotal Items 1-10 952,600 11. Contingencies @ 20% 190.400 Subtotal Items 1-11 1,143,000 12. Engineering @ 15% 171,000 Subtotal Items 1-12 1,314,000 TOTAL $1,314,000 Page 30 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 15 Alternative 4 -Biolac System Summary of Costs Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest (a) O&M Cost Annual Cost Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost 1999 53.08 $105,439.00 $39,220.00 $144,659.00 $2.73 $39,220.00 2000 54.62 $105,439.00 $41,181.00 $146,620.00 $2.68 $39,905.00 2001 56.21 $105,439.00 $43,240.00 $148,679.00 $2.65 $40,601.00 2002 57.84 $105,439.00 °°$64,076.00 $169,515.00 $2.93 $58,299.00 2003 59.51 $105,439.00 $47,672.00 $153,111.00 $2.57 $42,029.00 2004 61.24 $105,439.00 $50,056.00 $155,495.00 $2.54 $42,762.00 2005 63.02 $105,439.00 $52,558.00 $157,997.00 $2.51 $43,508.00 2006 64.84 $105,439.00 ")$77,878.00 $183,317.00 $2.83 $62,469.00 2007 66.72 $105,439.00 $57,978.00 $163,417.00 $2.45 $45,064.00 2008 68.66 $105,439.00 $60,877.00 $166,316.00 $2.42 $45,850.00 2009 70.65 $105,439.00 '$90,184.00 $195,623.00 $2.77 $65,816.00 2010 72.70 $105,439.00 $67,116.00 $172,555.00 $2.37 $47,463.00 2011 74.81 $105,439.00 $70,472.00 $175,911.00 $2.35 $48,291.00 2012 76.98 $105,439.00 "$104,387.00 $209,826.00 $2.73 $69,313.00 2013 79.21 $105,439.00 $77,695.00 $183,134.00 $2.31 $49,990.00 2014 81.51 $105,439.00 $81,579.00 $187,018.00 $2.29 $50,862.00 2015 83.87 $105,439.00 °$120,849.00 $226,288.00 $2.70 $73,008.00 2016 86.30 $105,439.00 $89,940.00 $195,379.00 $2.26 $52,650.00 2017 88.81 $105,439.00 $94,437.00 $199,876.00 $2.25 $53,569.00 2018 91.38 $105,439.00 $99,159.00 $204,598.00 $2.24 $54,503.00 Totals 1411.96 $2,108,780.00 $1,430,554.00 $3,539,334.00 $1,025,172.00 Avg. 70.60 $105,439.00 $71,528.00 $176,967.00 $2.53 (a) $1,314,000 amorti;.ed over 20 years @ 5%. m> Includes removing 372,000 gal. of sludge from the holding pond at $0.0502/gal. (`) Includes removing 372,000 gal. of sludge from the holding pond at $0.0610/gal. (d) Includes removing 372,000 gal. of sludge from the holding pond at $0.0706/gal. (`) Includes removing 372,000 gal. of sludge from the holding pond at $0.0817/gal. 1° Includes removing 372,000 gal. of sludge from the holding pond at $0.0946/gal. " Discounted O&M costs are based on 3.2% annual inflation rate. Present worth = $1,314,000 + $1,025,172 = $2,339,172 Page 31 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. \ 1 I I I ' J Q O X CC I I , / 1Wj Z rn CT III It��' O0yXSO 0~ I J0000ONW IJiW I V1 0 0aro O \\\ I- Lij Z c l I I W II 0 U J (n \ I �w cn ¢ 11W M CC 0 CD W Ln Cn W F z 0 F z W wo 0-0 010 J II o i0 Y I— W 2 0 \ 0 1 Z O / II I O Z Q W_ O X Q Z W II II �� ZM CO Q (ppW OCO m 1 1 I• Q Jz�(n30. JQ 1 j It 2v) ��MON 00 i W 1 II = }_E_ OOJ rI 1 I 1 I L Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 5. Alternative 5 - Lemna Treatment System Alternative 5 would consist of a Lemna treatment system. The patented LemTec Biological Treatment Process is a lagoon based wastewater treatment facility. The LemTec Biological Treatment Process consists of a series of aerobic treatment cells separated by hydraulic baffles and followed by an anaerobic settling zone. The aerobic and anaerobic cells are covered by the LemTec Modular Cover System, a patented floating modular cover comprised of individual casings of closed -cell insulation sealed between two sheets of durable geomembrane. This cover system provides an insulated environment for heat retention to enhance biological reaction rates and also shields sunlight to prevent algae growth. This warmer environment, along with the other components of the aerobic and anaerobic cells, provides conditions conducive to the reduction of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The LemTec system would consist of two ponds. Pond 1 would be aerated and be divided into two cells. Cell 1 would be aerated with flexible membrane, fine bubble diffusers with fixed floating laterals and mechanical mixers. Cell 2 would be partially mixed and have a reduced air supply, but have mixers. Pond 1 would provide four days detention at the design flow. Pond 2 would be the settling pond. Each pond would be lined and have 40 mil high-density polyethylene geomembrane covers. Because of the covers, heat is retained which enhances treatment and biodegradation of sludge, thereby reducing sludge hauling to an estimated once every six years. Lift station modifications, influent and effluent treatment, would be the same as those described for Alternatives 2 through 4. Tables 16 and 17 summarize costs for Alternative 5. Maintenance costs include power, part-time operator, maintenance materials, chemicals and site maintenance. Figure 6 displays the treatment plant and design data for this alternative. Page 33 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 16 Alternative 5 - Lemna System 0 uinion of Probable Capital Costs 1. Lift Station Modifications 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 137,470 3. Headworks 111,800 4. Effluent Flow Control Structure 9,400 5. Chlorine and Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. Aeration and Settling Ponds Silt clearing and grubbing @ $1,135.00/ac., 2.0 acres 2,270 Excavation - 24,900 C.Y. @ $2.05/C.Y. 51,000 Liners for basins @ $0.38/ft2, 111,000 feet2 42,200 Lemna Equipment 569,700 Yard Piping 47.500 712,670 7. Effluent Piping to Wash 22,800 Subtotal Items 1-7 1,048,040 8. Electrical @ 15% 156,960 Subtotal Items 1-8 1,205,000 9. Mobilization @ 7% 84,000 Subtotal Items 1-9 1,289,000 10. Contingencies @ 20% 258,000 Subtotal Items 1-10 1,547,000 11. Engineering @ 15% 232,000 TOTAL $1,779,000 Page 34 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 17 Alternative 5 Lemma System Capital and Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest O&M Cost Annual Cost Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost (e) 1999 53.08 $142,752.00 $32,550.00 $175,302.00 $3.30 $32,550.00 2000 54.62 $142,752.00 $34,178.00 $176,930.00 $3.24 $33,118.00 2001 56.21 $142,752.00 $35,886.00 $178,638.00 $3.18 $33,696.00 2002 57.84 $142,752.00 $37,681.00 $180,433.00 $3.12 $34,284.00 2003 59.51 $142,752.00 °'$74,068.00 $216,820.00 $3.64 $65,300.00 2004 61.24 $142,752.00 $41,543.00 $184,295.00 $3.01 $35,490.00 2005 63.02 $142,752.00 $43,620.00 $186,372.00 $2.96 $36,109.00 2006 64.84 $142,752.00 $45,801.00 $188,553.00 $2.91 $36,739.00 2007 66.72 $142,752.00 $48,092.00 $190,844.00 $2.86 $37,380.00 2008 68.66 $142,752.00 $50,496.00 $193,248.00 $2.81 $38,032.00 2009 70.65 $142,752.00 x`)$79,284.00 $222,036.00 $3.14 $57,862.00 2010 72.70 $142,752.00 $55,672.00 $198,424.00 $2.73 $39,370.00 2011 74.81 $142,752.00 $58,456.00 $201,208.00 $2.69 $40,057.00 2012 76.98 $142,752.00 $61,378.00 $204,130.00 $2.65 $40,755.00 2013 79.21 $142,752.00 $64,447.00 $207,199.00 $2.62 $41,466.00 2014 81.51 $142,752.00 $67,670.00 $210,422.00 $2.58 $42,189.00 2015 83.87 $142,752.00 Ka$106,244.00 $248,996.00 $2.97 $64,185.00 2016 86.30 $142,752.00 $74,606.00 $217,358.00 $2.52 $43,674.00 2017 88.81 $142,752.00 $78,336.00 $221,088.00 $2.49 $44,436.00 2018 91.38 $142,752.00 $82,253.00 $225,005.00 $2.46 $45,211.00 Totals 1411.96 $2,855,040.00 $1,172,261.00 $4,027,301.00 $841,903.00 Avg. 70.60 $ 142,752.00 $58,613.00 $201,365.00 $2.89 (a) $1,779,000 amortized over 20 years Q 5%. m) Includes removing 651,000 gal. at :60.053/gal. (c) Includes removing :372,000 gal. at $0.0706/gal. (d) Includes removing 372,000 gal. at :60.0946/gal. (e) Discounted O&M costs are based on a 3.2% annual inflation rate. Present worth = $1,779,000 + $841,903 = $2,620,903 Page 35 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. • • • kr) W W E., U) `\• CDB., -Wz Cb ��a 1 )r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i w F z 0 I z w 00 U0 J � <'c 0 J �• .............. DU W i t -- 11 -- – Q t 1 .3r.� 1 1 m\ la / 1 ' N Q // II1 '1 O W Y Z CC O 0 W I—UJ OU 0 O®�"O ! ` i Z z ¢ •N N J / O 1 La D D co J Q w O Z X ll.l ��1 zw xm ANN / Is_ Pi .1 M �w Xo / �N11 QpN1n- F- 1 1 —� L - 1 II 1y 1 DOJ 11 rte— — 1 L 0 apt- z_w iZ 03M.( _— Z UU xN Ls.Q w� L cn Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 6. Alternative 6 - Dual Power Multi -Cellular (DPMC) System Alternative 6 would consist of a Dual Power Multi -Cellular (DPMC) System. This process, also known as the Rich System, is a lagoon based wastewater treatment facility. However, the difference between this alternative and Alternative 2 is the design detention time is minimized. Another concept of the DPMC system requires lagoons to be at least ten feet deep. The theory is that lagoons with long detention times release phosphorous which stimulates algae growth. Furthermore, shallow lagoons allow light penetration, thereby, enhancing algae production. Excessive algae growth in lagoons often leads to discharge permit suspended solids violation. Shorter detention times minimize production of anaerobic conditions, which causes phosphorous to be released. This process has been quite successful for operation up to 2.5 mgd in the southern states. Generally, southern wastewaters are warm, i.e., above 50° F, which enhances algae growth. The lowest and highest temperatures of Parachute's wastewater during 1997 sampled before discharging into the BMMD WWTP, were 55° F and 70° F respectively. Parachute wastewater temperatures are, therefore, comparable to those experienced in warmer climates. If this process was implemented in Parachute, it should operate successfully. Design and equipment requirements for the DPMC system are similar to those for the Alternative 2 aerated lagoon system, but on a reduced scale. Design detention time would be seven days. One lagoon would be constructed with baffle curtains installed to separate the complete mix, partial mix and settling zones. Lift station modifications and influent and effluent treatment would be the same as those described for the previous four alternatives. Tables 18 and 19 detail costs for Alternative 6. Maintenance costs include power, part- time operator, maintenance materials, chemicals site maintenance and annual sludge hauling. Figure 7 displays the treatment portion and pertinent design data for this alternative. Page 37 rg RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Page 38 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 18 Alternative 6 - DPMC Opinion of Probable Capital Costs 1. Lift Station Modifications 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 137,470 3. Headworks 111,800 4. Effluent Flow Control Structure 9,400 5. Chlorination and Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. Aeration and Settling Ponds Site clearing and grubbing @ $1,135.00/ac., 2.0 acres 2,270 Excavation - 14,500 C.Y. @ $2.05/C.Y. 29,700 Liners for basins @ $0.38/ft2, 54,000 feet2 20,500 3 Aquajet Aerators 44,400 Plant Piping 21,675 Curtains 16.000 134,545 7. Effluent Piping to Wash 22,800 Subtotal Items 1-7 469,915 8. Electrical @ 15% 70,085 Subtotal Items 1-8 540,000 9. Mobilization @ 7% 38,000 Subtotal Items 1-9 578,000 10. Contingencies @ 20% 116,000 Subtotal Items 1-10 694,000 11. Engineering @ 15% 104 000 TOTAL $798,000 Page 38 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 19 Alternative 6 - DPMC Lagoon System Cost Summary Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest ' O&M Cost(s) ro' Annual Cost Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost 1999 53.08 $64,034.00 $46,431.00 $110,465.00 $2.08 $46,432.00 2000 54.62 $64,034.00 $49,333.00 $113,367.00 $2.08 $47,804.00 2001 56.21 $64,034.00 $52,417.00 $116,451.00 $2.07 $49,217.00 2002 57.84 $64,034.00 $55,693.00 $119,727.00 $2.07 $50,671.00 2003 59.51 $64,034.00 $59,173.00 $123,207.00 $2.07 $52,169.00 2004 61.24 $64,034.00 $62,872.00 $126,906.00 $2.07 $53,711.00 2005 63.02 $64,034.00 $66,801.00 $130,835.00 $2.08 $55,298.00 2006 64.84 $64,034.00 $71,143.00 $135,177.00 $2.08 $57,066.00 2007 66.72 $64,034.00 $75,590.00 $139,624.00 $2.09 $58,753.00 2008 68.66 $64,034.00 $80,503.00 $144,537.00 $2.11 $60,632.00 2009 70.65 $64,034.00 $85,534.00 $149,568.00 $2.12 $62,423.00 2010 72.70 $64,034.00 $90,880.00 $154,914.00 $2.13 $64,268.00 2011 74.81 $64,034.00 $96,788.00 $160,822.00 $2.15 $66,323.00 2012 76.98 $64,034.00 $103,079.00 $167,113.00 $2.17 $68,444.00 2013 79.21 $64,034.00 $109,779.00 $173,813.00 $2.19 $70,633.00 2014 81.51 $64,034.00 $116,915.00 $180,949.00 $2.22 $72,891.00 2015 83.87 $64,034.00 $124,514.00 $188,548.00 $2.25 $75,222.00 2016 86.30 $64,034.00 $133,230.00 $197,264.00 $2.29 $77,992.00 2017 88.81 $64,034.00 $141,890.00 $205,924.00 $2.32 $80,486.00 2018 91.38 $64,034.00 $151,113.00 $215,14700 $2.35 $83,060.00 Totals 1411.96 $1,280,680.00 $1,773,677.00 $3,054,357.00 $1,253,495.00 Avg. 70.60 $64,034.00 $88,684.00 $152,718.00 $2.15 (a) $798 000 amortized over 20 years @ 5%. (b) Each year sludge will be removed from the lagoons. Due to low volumes, i.e. 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year, sludge hauling costs are estimated to cost $0.12/gal beginning in 1998 and escalating 5%/yr. thereafter. Present worth = $798,000 + $1,253,495 = $2,051,495 Page 39 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. NN it It Z w W 2 F I- Vl Z I ›-4 O En Pm Z W CC L Z W O ov) 7 Oo N F C-' o O N W z 1 cc< <a o tg 1:4 pJO FOs Gz+dA 1 1 i_ 1 1 r - / F- w Q O I I lWi d' p ?i L. W QO Q rn 2 ZEt Z / 1 1 3 H W p IU_ til / I 1 O W Y J Q :E 2 CC II II Zfr OZ I---• -IWM I j W 7 - p p W J OII ¢ W 2 U Q W te~ Ice I _ 11/ � m/ O� Q /• ,-, I f i a — W I-II _ L g la- l II -� COJI I 1 1 I- 1 1 I I I. L Vm�ii11 _/- w ,� 6-'• -\ v, I _ i ' w....„./ - 0 -• / Q/. ' Z CO Q -/- Z x� O� NLO -> 4 Z - 0 Li N m W M wQ Co Q J ar_,...-7 c. dW o J J Z H U co ce X O a� } = a1/) CC X 03 X CV 0 H � O ` W CC OQ 0 C Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 7. Alternative 7 - Mechanical Treatment Plant, Sequence Batch Reactors Alternative 7 would provide a mechanical treatment plant utilizing biological treatment. Sequence Batch Reactors (SBR's) would treat wastewater employing activated sludge technology. SBR's provide a high degree of treatment beyond what will probably be required for the treatment plant. SBR's aerate, mix and settle solids and decant clarified effluent from one tank. Separate aeration and clarifier tanks are not needed as in conventional activated sludge technology facilities. Additionally, land requirements for constructing the treatment facility would be far less than the lagoon based alternatives. Two SBR's would operate in parallel streams and excess activated sludge wasted to an aerobic digester. Periodically, possibly weekly, sludge would be hauled away for disposal. Aeration would be supplied through flexible membrane fine bubble diffusers attached to fixed heaters at the bottom of the SBR's. Blowers remote from the SBR's and housed in a small building would provide the air. Sludge pumping would be needed for returning sludge to the process and wasting sludge to the digester. Effluent would be directed to the Colorado River or the adjacent agricultural field. Ancillary facilities for influent and effluent treatment would be the same as those described for Alternatives 2 through 6. Opinions of costs for Alternative 7 are enumerated in Tables 20 and 21. Maintenance costs include power, part-time operator, maintenance materials, chemicals site maintenance and periodic sludge hauling. Figure 8 exhibits the treatment portion and relevant design data for this alternative. Page 41 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Page 42 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 20 Alternative 7 - SBR Opinion of Probable Capital Costs 1. Lift Station Modifications 21,675 2. 8" Force Main 137,470 3. Headworks 111,800 4. Effluent Flow Control Structure 9,400 5. Chlorination and Effluent Metering Stations 32,225 6. SBR's Site clearing and grubbing @ $1,135.00/ac., 1.0 acre 1,135 Excavation - 3,500 C.Y. @ $4.15/C.Y. 14,500 Concrete - 400 C.Y. @ $515/C.Y. 206,000 Air header piping, air lateral piping, valves, diffusers, mixers, decanter, blowers and headers, sludge pumps, hoist control panel, SBR equipment, start-up 230,000 Miscellaneous yard piping 38.200 489,835 7. Blower Building, Lab, Office - 200 ft.2 @ $77/ft.2 15,400 8. Effluent Piping to Wash 22,800 Subtotal Items 1-8 840,605 9. Electrical @ 15% 125.395 Subtotal Items 1-9 966,000 10. Mobilization @ 7% 67,000 Subtotal Items 1-10 1,033,000 11. Contingencies @ 20% 207,000 Subtotal Items 1-11 1,240,000 12. Engineering @ 15% 186,000 TOTAL $1,426,000 Page 42 pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 21 Alternative 7 - SBR Cost Summary Year Annual Flow (MG) Amortization & Interest (a) O&M Cost(s) (b) Annual Cost Cost per 1000 gals Discounted O&M Cost 1999 53.08 $114,426.00 $51,712.00 $166,138.00 $3.13 $51,712.00 2000 54.62 $114,426.00 $54,685.00 $169,111.00 $3.10 $52,990.00 2001 56.21 $114,426.00 $57,830.00 $172,256.00 $3.06 $54.300.00 2002 57.84 $114,426.00 $61,155.00 $175,581.00 $3.04 $55,641.00 2003 59.51 $114,426.00 $64,824.00 $179,250.00 $3.01 $57,151.00 2004 61.24 $114,426.00 $68,552.00 $182,978.00 $2.99 $58,563.00 2005 63.02 $114,426.00 $72,665.00 $187,091.00 $2.97 $60,152.00 2006 64.84 $114,426.00 $76,843.00 $191,269.00 $2.95 $61,638.00 2007 66.72 $114,426.00 $81,454.00 $195,880.00 $2.94 $63,311.00 2008 68.66 $114,426.00 $86,137.00 $200,563.00 $2.92 $64,875.00 2009 70.65 $114,426.00 $91,306.00 $205,732.00 $2.91 $66,635.00 2010 72.70 $114,426.00 $96,784.00 $211,210.00 $2.91 $68,443.00 2011 74.81 $114,426.00 $102,591.00 $217,017.00 $2.90 $70,300.00 2012 76.98 $114,426.00 $108,746.00 $223,172.00 $2.90 $72,207.00 2013 79.21 $114,426.00 $115,271.00 $229,697.00 $2.90 $74,166.00 2014 81.51 $114,426.00 $122,187.00 $236,613.00 $2.90 $76,179.00 2015 83.87 $114,426.00 $129,519.00 $243,945.00 $2.91 $78,246.00 2016 86.30 $114,426.00 $137,290.00 $251,716.00 $2.92 $80,369.00 2017 88.81 $114,426.00 $145,527.00 $259,953.00 $2.93 $82,549.00 2018 91.38 $114,426.00 $154,259.00 $268,685.00 $2.94 $84,789.00 Totals 1411.96 $2,288,520.00 $1,879,337.00 $4,167,857.00 $1,334,216.00 Avg. 70.60 $114,426.00 $93,967.00 $208,393.00 $2.96 (a) $1,426,000 amortLed over 20 years @ 5%. (b) Sludge will be routinely removed from the aerobic digester. Sludge hauling costs are based on a 1998 hauling cost of $0.04/gal. Present worth = $1,426,000 + $1,334,216 = $2,760,216 Page 43 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. • • \\ \\ \\ \ ,i t It 1 I 1I IAS -/'` wo -�- 0-/` rQ f - VI N f K i %it oW It Y N oW a ,- �w oz m Z zct I It �Z tin oo N �V) / 1 1i I �atti • ¢ LL =m Zw Lai w� 2 LL — W — l--- 1 11 �i o0 W C7 O O a r i— r — . It i L a 0 H d 2 w p x z Ix O z NH Ui 2 4e4 wco CO E W 2- dU an CCW o0 • 44 to o E4Cr fa CWFD L--�1 ten, Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS In the preceding costs, various alternatives for handling Parachute's wastewater and capital and annualized costs were described. Table 22 summarizes the costs including capital, amortization/interest, O&M, annual discounted future payments and present worth costs as well as the average cost per 1,000 gallons. It should be noted that the long-term costs of maintaining the BMMD relationship does not include potential costs and environmental damage associated with a potential break in the force mains that cross the Colorado River. In reviewing the data, it appears Alternative 6, the DPMC system, is the most cost effective treatment with Alternative 4, the Biolac system, being the second lowest cost alternative. All alternatives in which Parachute would treat its own wastewater, Alternatives 2 through 7, would be more economical than sending the water to BMMD for treatment. Some important issues regarding the cost development and comparison of alternatives must be made here. Alternative 6 O&M costs were based on the equipment manufacturers recommendation of removing sludge annually. However, a telephone survey conducted of six DPMC operations revealed that the facilities rarely remove sludge, with the plant ages ranging from nine to twelve years old. The twelve year old plant never has removed sludge while the others remove sludge from once every three to four years to as long as once every ten years. This indicates that probably the Alternative 6 O&M costs and $2.15/1,000 gallons treated will be less than indicated. Moreover, the Town will begin paying the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase each year, beginning in the year 2000. With O&M costs for the lift station, the Town's average annual cost for Alternative 1 will average $3.00/1,000 gallons treated. For sake of ease and understanding, and to eliminate conjecture, the average cost/1,000 gallons for each alternative was compared to Alternative 1, based on the CPI increase each year for 20 years. The DPMC system and ancillary facilities is projected to cost only about two-thirds of what is projected for maintaining the existing relationship with BMMD, based on average cost per 1,000 gallons. On a present worth basis, Alternative 6 will cost about 66 percent of that for Alternative 1. Alternative 7, the SBR system, is estimated to be the most expensive Parachute treatment alternative, but its present worth is only 89 percent of that of Alternative 1. Page 45 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute Table 22 Alternatives Cost Summary Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Capital Cost $1,308,000 $1,366,000 $1,314,000 $1,779,000 $798,000 $1,426,000 Amortization /Interest $104,957 $109.611 $105,439 $142,752 $64,034 $114,426 Avg. Annual O&M Cost $8,699 $86,301 $75,078 $71,528 $58,613 $88,684 $93,967 Avg. Annual Costs * $218,034 $191,258 $184,689 $176,967 $201,365 $152,718 $208,393 Total Discounted Payment + $3,089,762 $1,217,908 $1,064,225 $1,025,172 $841,903 $1,253,495 $1,334,216 Present Worth $3,089,762 $2,525,908 $ 2,430,225 $2,339,172 $2,620,903 $2,051,495 $2,760,216 Avg. Cost/ 1000 gal $3.00 $2.71 $2.63 $2.53 $2.89 $2.15 $2.96 Avg Ann. Cost as % of Alt 1 87.7 84.7 81.2 92.4 70.0 95.6 Present Worth Costs 81.8 78.7 75.7 84.8 66.4 89.3 * Costs are over 20 year life +O&M costs discounted and payments to BMMD discounted at an annual 3.2% inflation rate. B. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVES In considering an alternative, it is important to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages as well as the costs. This section describes the advantages and disadvantages of each option in Parachute's perspective. 1. Alternative 1 - Maintaining BMMD Relationship a. Advantages 1) Treatment is the responsibility of others. 2) BMMD, with its new facility, should easily achieve effective treatment. 3) Do not have to hire or dedicate personnel for treatment. Page 46 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute b. Disadvantages 1) Have no control on the setting of customer fees. 2) Fees can escalate beyond expectations. 3) Possible force main break under the Colorado River. 4) Have no control of own destiny. 2. Alternative 2 - Aerated Lagoon System a. Advantages 1) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Ease of operation. 3) Long detention times help protect against shock loads. 4) Provides effective organic treatment, some nitrification and usually suspended solids removal. 5) The design will provide operational flexibility. 6) Only a part-time operator, about an average eight hours per week, will be needed. 7) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages 1) Size of the lagoons requires more mixing, and thereby, power costs. 2) Land intensive. 3) Most of the land purchased for the treatment plant will be usurped by the lagoons. 4) Should the plant require future expansion, more land will be needed for more lagoons. 5) Long detention times during the summer often leads to algae blooms, which may lead to discharge permit suspended solids violations. Chemical treatment of the lagoon may be needed to kill the algae. Page 47 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 3. Alternative 3 - Aerated Lagoons Combined with Wetlands a. Advantages 1) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Easy and simple operation. 3) Aerated lagoon is downsized and settling pond is eliminated. 4) Effective organic, suspended solids and nitrate -nitrogen removal. 5) Power and all O&M costs are less for this alternative than for an aerated lagoon system. 6) Wetlands provide wildlife habitat. 7) Only a part-time operator, about an average eight hours per week, will be needed. 8) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages I) Land intensive. 2) Sometimes during wetlands start-up plants die necessitating replanting. 3) Wetlands plants are expensive to replace. 4) Inefficient treatment from the lagoons and algae can clog subsurface wetlands requiring cleaning of the underbed. 5) More land will be needed if this alternative is continued in future expansions. 4. Alternative 4 - Biolac System a. Advantages I) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Reduced land requirements. 3) Less O&M costs than those for Alternatives 2 and 3. Page 48 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 4) High degree of treatment can be attained including organic and suspended solids removal, nitrification and denitrification. 5) Only a part-time operator, about an average of 20 hours per week, will be needed. 6) Depending on the shock load, can be quite effective in handling the load. 7) Easily expandable. 8) No algae problems. 9) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages 1) More sophisticated operation requiring knowledge of activated sludge technology. 2) More process control is required to manage the operation. 3) Somewhat of a treatment overkill for the expected discharge limits. 5. Alternative 5 - Lemna System a. Advantages 1) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Easy and simple operation. 3) Lagoons are downsized because of the lagoon covers. 4) Effective organic and suspended solids removal. 5) Algae is eliminated. 6) Lagoon cleaning may be required only every six years. 7) Low O&M costs. 8) Only a part-time operator, about an average eight hours per week will be needed. 9) The proposed site should allow for one future expansion. Page 49 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 10) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages 1) Fairly land intensive, but not as much as Alternatives 2 and 3. 2) Energy costs are less than those for Alternatives 2 and 3, but more than that for Alternative 4. 6. Alternative 6 - DPMC System a. Advantages 1) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Easy and simple operation. 3) Effective organic and suspended solids removal. 4) Algae growth is minimized. 5) Lowest present worth cost and cost/1,000 gallons of all alternatives. 6) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages 1) Fairly land intensive, but proposed site should allow at least on future expansion. 2) Sludge hauling may be more frequent than other lagoon based alternatives. 7. Alternative 7 - SBR's a. Advantages 1) Will have control of own destiny. 2) Reduced land requirements. 3) High degree of treatment can be attained including organic and suspended solids removal, nitrification and denitrification. 4) Only a part-time operator, about an average of 20 hours a week, will be needed. Page 50 rRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute 5) Easily expandable. 6) No algae problems. 7) Depending on the shock load, can be quite effective in handling the load. 8) No concern of force main breaks under Colorado River. b. Disadvantages 1) More sophisticated operation requiring knowledge of activated sludge technology. 2) More process control is required to manage the operation. 3) Treatment overkill for the expected discharge limits. Page 51 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION VII EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION A. RECOMMENDED ACTION Predicated on the cost analysis and the criteria evaluations, the Town should prepare and submit a site application to CDPHE for constructing its own wastewater treatment plant alternative. Alternative 6, or the DPMC system, is the recommended alternative for the Town to implement its own treatment facility. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN The proposed treatment site will be constructed at a vacant prairie field approximately one mile west of Town. The Town has recently purchased the site, with an approximate area of ten acres, from the Colorado Department of Transportation for this purpose. Groundwater contamination will not occur from the treatment site. The lagoons will be lined with 40 mil HDPE, guaranteed for a minimum 20 -year life. DPMC system will provide effluent to secondary treatment standards suitable for land application. Property adjacent to the proposed site is vacant. I-70 is on the west side of the site. Homes are far enough away that homeowners should not notice any appreciable odors. Temporary adverse environmental effects, specifically dust, may result during construction. The excavation quantities are considerable, may result in dust blowing onto the highway, and could reach the Town. However, proper mitigation measures can minimize the dust during construction. Page 52 rRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute SECTION VIII ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION A. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Town of Parachute, which operates its own collection system and lift station, will have the legal authority and financial responsibility to operate the treatment plant. Moreover, it currently has the legal authority to impose fees on its citizens for services rendered by BMMD. The Town will continue to have the legal authority to raise the necessary revenues to construct and operate the proposed wastewater treatment plant. B. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS The recommended implementation plan is as follows: 1. Publish notices of a public meeting to receive comments on the Draft Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study (draft plan). 2. Schedule public hearings on the draft plan. 3. Revise Draft Facility Plan to address public meeting comments and publish Final Plan. 4. Obtain financial commitments for constructing the project. 5. Submit Facility Plan and Site Application to CDPHE. 6. Receive authorization form CDPHE for engineering design of proposed treatment facility. 7. Submit completed engineering plans and specifications to the State along with applications for all necessary permits for construction to the appropriate agencies. 8. Receive CDPHE approval for construction. 9. Advertise for construction bids, receive bids, award contract, and begin construction. 10. Complete construction. C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE An operation and maintenance plan will be prepared providing for staffing, management, training sampling and analysis. Therefore, a State certified operator would be required on a part-time basis. Page 53 RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute The operation and maintenance plan will be submitted before the end of construction. D. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS The estimated annual financing costs to be borne by the Town have been calculated based on repaying a loan with duration of 20 years at an annual interest rate of five percent. The loan may be repaid by revenue from a combination of sources including increased tap fees, developer impact fees, increased monthly service charges, and mil levies. There are several combinations of grant and loan funds that may reduce the amount of the loan required to complete the project. There are several different funding sources. Water and Power Authority (WPA) provides loans and grants. Current loans for wastewater improvements are for 20 years at a four- percent interest rate. The WPA application process requires reviews by WPA, local Council of Government (COG) and CDPHE. WPA requires two opinions that Tabor requirements have been met. Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) furnishes Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Energy Impact Assistance (EIA) either in the form of grants or loans. Maximum CDB grant is $250,000 and requires an environmental assessment be prepared and Davis -Bacon be enforced. EIA loans are for 15 years at five- percent interest. A combination loan/grant may be obtained up to $250,000. U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development supplies loans and grants with loans at 4.875 percent up to 40 years. If a combination loan/grant is obtained, the loan must be for 40 years. Grant approval depends on the applicants water and wastewater rates, debts and per capita income. CDPHE can fund projects up to 80 percent of the project cost. If CDPHE uses federal funds, then an environmental assessment will be required. This is some of the funding that is available. Descriptions of the various funding sources are provided in the Financial Assistance pamphlet included in Appendix B. The present residential sewer charge is $23.75 per month per service for the first 10,000 gallons of sewage. Thereafter, the rates are $2.05/1,000 gallons for the next 3,000 gallons and 2.20/1,000 gallons for flows above 13,000 gallons. Most of the Town's customers do not generate more than 10,000 gallons of sewage per month. Assuming all 604 existing taps produce less than 10,000 gallons of sewage per month, the revenue projected for 1999 (622 SFE's) would be $177,270 which is more than the 1999 estimated cost of $110,465 as identified in Table 19. In fact, applying the $23.75/mo./SFE rate to 1070 SFE's in year 2018 reveals the $304,950 in revenue is projected versus an estimated annual cost of about $215,000. It appears if Alternative 6 is approved, the Town will not have to raise their sewer rates for the next 20 years assuming low inflation rates are maintained. It appears the Town's current sewer charge is more than adequate to pay for loans and O&M costs. Excess funds could be dedicated to emergency repairs of the collection system, or reserved for future plant improvements. If the Town were to obtain some grants or 40 -year loans, the annual debt and O&M costs would be less than those indicated in Table 19. Consideration could be given to lowering the sewer charge. Page 54 p RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute APPENDIX A re RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Combined data for GRAND VALLEY and PARACHUTE, 1965 - 1992 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Monthly mean temperature. 1 ! I 1 1 1 CO 0)r <r 0) in 0 co N V' (f) r -r 0) IMonthly mean maximum temperature. _ I O (D co N 00 co N W r 0) M(0r O CO r 0) !Monthly mean minimum temperature. O MOmO�r M 0) M CO r CO M U) O) !Number of days with min. temp. <= 0 deg.F. 1 'Cr N00)o 0 N V r 0 0 Oro)N 0 N rr V; CO O a) r [O r O Ori r N N r W M 0) (D O 00th CO N 00 �N N (D 4 I 22.9 O m r M N�N CO N M 0Oo O rod CO r, O+ O W 0) r V' N CO M (O 7 (O O N M 0) r 221 (0 N r r N N O r 0 V' N r r N N 0) c.j N r O Ma) )f) c0 d' co r u') r N N r O 0+ r O r O} O Q) r �r N 50.81 00 , N (O co a 44.1 1969 N N 0) r co 74.71 (f) (D 0) 56.31 0) (D 0) N N 33.8 38.5 r 0) N NCD (D N N 0 O 0 O + O) r 0.0 + 0) r 1 24 63.5 cc00 03 m 57.6 1965 N r ccoo CO cci 0) °? N r (c7 °) N r V CO iD O °) r CO Cr)N N O O O+ O W O+ O Orth) <r N O M r r a0 r M c0 ^) O 00 r CO (p N N cO r 01 N N D1 in O m r 4 00 00 O 07 221 54.4 M+ 0) 0 M 00 rn r N (O 7 O r W N N O O O ON + m 0 r 0.0 + 0) 0) r CO V r 78.8 O SS m 72.6 1973 21 r m r QOi co Cn 89.6 (O C r N (0 (OD O c) (O W 52.1 CO r N O O O O + 0) O O+ O Q) 0) CO N (0 00 (O (D M r r r W CO LO M O O a) 23 (O r 00 M M O r r m 80.1 LO CO W CO N CO 6 V O N N O O) Cn r 4 V' cf) r CD CO N O O O O } r O+ O r V N (D O )D r N co 0) (O O (O cD CO V7 CO N 03 )D r r O 1974 r . r M O co N co • V 1 43.8, co M • r(0 M u] co N O O O O + NI 0) O O 1 1992+ 25 CO Co 4 54.71 r 0o O) O O cj rN V O) N 65.01 73.3 r co 0) 58.41 O rN Cr) N (f) N M r r MCr) (O aD 00 00r N N 22 O OO O + N OOi r 0.0 } N m 1— 24 r r . d' V O d' O 00 W O} (xi r CO (II r N (O N N (f) M o 1972 O) 0) O r r N (O O N V ch M CO O W O O r r r r N O O O O + N Q) 1 0.0 + N M N d' N co N O V' O 00 m V r N r M N r (O V a M (D O r W M O) M V' r W M N r a0 00 O N (D O m LO 7 1 1974 M N in r 0 O) '7 r O O+ O N O) T M N N a N t V M r O M 0) u] r r 241 a r M N0) 0) 0 co 0) 28.61 r T d' NO O ; M N co 0) r O 0) 1 24 co co0 O r O) O O+ O O 00 m 24 > m a` )) c aa)) ICount I > ca a) ._ a !Count 1 > (0 aa)) —c aa)) !Count > m aa) co` c aa)) >- Count w ate) E 03 u v Q U 0 a a? 07 0) 0 al o N U a) L w O w 0 O alm 0. Combined data for GRAND VALLEY and PARACHUTE, 1965 -1992 Annual n CC) 0 O N 0 n CA r 0 M r m Q) r 0 N t. F. 1 CO 0 O CO n n a) o rY CA 2 0 N j.F. I V W O COO nNiMN 0 0 r•N r•- 0 'Total monthly precipitation. a eiM CO to Ca r n r n nr QI a U W C) (0 ai N O+ M an) O r 0 O N 0 0) V N 0 O O+ O T- O Tm O+ O r. a r Tr N 0 CO 0 n r r r 0 O S9 r N N r r M0 CO r 0 O CO N- M N > O Z <= 32 deg.F. 25.71 (j co 0 n a) r O+ r O a) 241 O O + Q) a r O + a) Cr)r N O N O a O r OO) r N N M CMO a) r 0 N a) r N Oct 0) r 23.0 1975 4.0 O r V N O O O+ O 0) a r O+ O 0) a r N r O O N r r O+ O a) r 24 c0 r CI N 0) r r 0 co a) r 24 CD r 7.0 1971 O+ O O 0) 7 N 5.21 O 'd' a) 0 O O co co CD V N 0 O 0+ O O 0) 0.01 + 0 0) 24 CO r V V' CO Q) r O O a rW 1 23 6ny O O 0 + O 0) r O+ ON O W r CO M O N O . M N cm O O CO CO N 0 G O+ O a) r O+ O m r CO N O O O N M OD N O 0 CO N O O 0.0 1991+ p r CD Tm N (O (1') N O+ CO CO a) r O N r 0 M N 00+0+0) C7 O r O) r O j r 0) Tm N O r a) N 0 r O N CO N c r O 0+ N r an) r O+ 0 m r V N N r 27.0 n a) 0 r 0 cn r 7 N 00+0+'t O O a a r O CA r N CP O CO M O) r 0.0 + 0) r 1 24 May 1 O) N O+ O^ CA r 0.01 + CO 0 r (0 N N00+ O n 0) r O CD a r N N O O O+ O CD a r O+ O 0N) a) r N N CO r 2.8 M CD CO r O+ OI"- a r 24 a 14.71 24.0 1975 100 + c0 a) 241 0 O 0+ O T a O+ O 0 0) V N O O O+ O 0 a r O+ O 0) a r 7 N N r • n M N co r N O n m r C`7 N Mar ' 25.3 O+ O 0 0(V co n r rn N a) a) r) N O cj O ci + N 0) a) O+ o N a) a)rn CO N 0.2 O of (0 CO a) 0.01 + N a) M N CO r O OS 1985 0.0 N r- a) CO N L LL N. N 29.0 1976 17.0 0) O 23 O O O O N O a 0.01 + a) (P 231 N r O O CO O r O O N m CD CO 0.8 3.0 OO a) r O 0 W 0) r CO fa -) W M O+ O+ O M M M n M rn 241 0 O 0+ O N m a 0.01 + N a a N CO ad 22.01 19741 0'0 CO CO V N 0) O CO M O W O O N r- CO N W > )C W_ N W- W 'Count i W > X N o c W- C0 W 'Count W > x o N W c -- O W Count 1 W > X c0 c0 a) c = N W C r o W C .. • L U vi r W E u Q U � O a .W+ O V O C U W O L U. r N O o E • vi W W c N d 75 O ;: a O L cn O N W m A CL Combined data for GRAND VALLEY and PARACHUTE, 1965 - 1992 Dec Annual Total monthly snowfall. - CU) co N U) 0o O U) U7 r (O r 0) r M r INumber of days with >= 0.5 inches precipitation. 0 N 0 (O U) ro O 0 r I- r a) r 0) r !Number of days with >= 1.0 inches precipitation. 1 00 O 0 V' U) m O r 0 O + O O Q) r 0) r 'Number of days with snowdepth >=1 inches. t N 0 W CA n 0) 0 N I"- m CD 0) N .- N rc N 0 Ca r O+ O0 Cn 0) r CO N U) O O+ N O r) 0) O+ O O a) O) CO N r O 0 r (O m r O+ O O r — CO t� r 0 M CO O r 0 O• 0 N ' O Z r Ni N N N 0) O+ O co O) N N (O 2.01 + 0) O+ O CA r I 241 r O O+ r CA r O+ O CA 7 N M (V O o0 CA O+ CP N N V Q CO O O M r 0) O+ O O) r N N O) O O 'V' 1985 O+ O W r N r O 0N0+ r a O cn CA r d' N r CJ O r r a O+ a CA r N N CL W O , O 0 N N C O r 0+ Or 0) 241 cr O+ r N CA r O+ O CA 241 r O 0 r + CA O+ O 0) cr N r O 0 r U) 0 r O+ O 0 Cr) cr N m Q 00 O O + O) CD O+ CJ m 0) M N U) C7 2.0 0 I,- 0 O + 0) CD 0 N 0 O 0+ O 0) m O+ O 0) 23i 0 0 0+ 0 a) 0) 0.0 + m 0) M N j O O O CJ + zi, 0) O+ O 0) CO N M O O NO U) r O+ O) CO N O O O in co r 0.0 + W CA CO N 0 0 0+ 0; O) 0.0' + cn 0) co N unr 00 O O + y Cn r O+' O y Cn r N U) O O M d' co r O+'7 6 r cn 0 r N r O 0 r O) CD r O+ C7 0) r t N 0 O 0 O + r CA r O} O 0) r U) N May j CJ r N CP 1� O r 0.0 + 0 N 0) ) r M N 0.51 O+ r 0) r O+ O N O a)r r I 251 r O 0 ren O r O+ 0 N 0 O) r N N 0.01 0 O + N O 0) r 0 O + N O 0) r 0 N ` o, Q N O r� U) G r 0 O + O rn r M N V O O V N O r O O +. N cn rn r N r O 0 r + co m r 0 0 +'I' cv 0 m r N 0.0 0.0 + O rn r 0.0.1 + O CD r N N Mar 1 N NMON N U) r O+ C r cr O O 4, U) r O+ O cal 01 CO O O 0 ONONN + W 0 + 0 CO O r O M r O) N. r O+ O N O) CA rcom d y LL O V CO N N CA r Cn O O V M O) N N N CJ 2.01 19801 O+ m 0 M N O CJ O r N M T r O} N co a) 23 r O r, 29.0 � 00 (A r 0.01 + 01 0) N N C r 28.71 O) N mal 0.0I N CD M N 0.2 O el 0) UJ O} CJO oar- r 231 r O CA co cn r O+ a N rn rn M N 00 O+ ' CO CA CD Cn O Q N f• -•N cn r N IAve co 2 aX mi r 2 o al Y @ o 0 > ¢ 2> o •c 2. ami r (Count 1 > a 2> a`0i 2} a19i o U > ¢ m 2 `0) a r - o 2 a ` )) >- 0 I- cC.. L U CU w R U E u =Q • e o r aC) • w O « O 0 o U _ m O L • O O E w m N C O 0 0 o -- CD -ia CI L cn 0 0 M CO C) CO a. •Total Monthly Precipitation Town of Parachute Climatic Data Monthly Mean Temperature O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0) m N- co U) v �o •dwal O O M O O N O N C z a a) 0) m Q L C 0 O C >. co Town of Parachute Climatic Data Wastewater Treatment Evaluation Study Town of Parachute APPENDIX B pRG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Water and Division of Local Government 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-2156 Arse V tla CA CA Cit CI) N .0 to .-.. C y y a ,. -0 .^ C V id O C V W Cw 7' Vi – C .b U C w 00O m"y p co >> ! y . b ° a C •a 'in .0 Q 'd at uL.; 'O O w 4, 723 u H .. — CC d O E •^ Et O O Y 0 'Coq O a en c- o i. • cn v o,v a� 3 4. v W U .5 '« C cd .� y .+ N io wy' is q 7 C. y o O ov rnp A 0vi a U>E COC y S a°. PA-C'c, y.2y• to UCw tAen O y 4 C CoVs 'p Ca v t .°bp�O 9,y p c w o °°5y > Een •;.no> TIN xo c o A �.a °q °= °'a . q,° E c C co •Uus 0y0 • Gt- q cvd o N N O o Lv, .z O Debra Downs/Alamosa (719) 589-6099 Kent Gumina/Sterling (970) 522-6600 ext. 714 Jack Kirtland/Denver (303) 866-3688 Mark Lowrey/Pueblo (719) 544-6577 Don Sandoval/Loveland (970) 679-4501 Tim Sarmo/Grand Junction (970) 248-7310 Cathy Shipley/Silverthorne(970) 468-0295 ext. 118 .r y ^' en V C h0 p " 0 Eco O © ° C7 ° ate",: w u o_4 "cal ell CU � g U ron" sz qcn o v; O U C w N C ? > OR O 0 U O c7 p o M € " OP >, c c.- 0 --# E.... a CIn CE yOct ° o u U v > w QNv Q C O C E c b Vo cc co .y M — CI. ow°a >Q qo Q 11,1 CZ O E fYyUy y N xC C as o 5 fA oeel • O • D ❑ 0 : . c :c 0 g 4)01.4 „? Cw 0) o H o d C° c c a g .n NN •O U P. y a 9 d C d ' _C zp F .t U W CCD O L 6) ••.-9..b FS „U d •O vai d ° dLa bio _i n , "--'0a5-cNai P. C „„ C • W �o• „ C„ °'°30°: AzGe _„ • °' •3 ❑�C O p U 6. � ro w 7 ° Co 2 0 o Tal 1:4 6. O N N y et N 3 G N ch • 'C W •O N A; W O 0 In Q 4.)› 0 3 a cps 0 N q aci Z a o F z ” c C O M W w 6. N ti ti 4 'li• 3 ro o OS a) m 0 v • •y n•' c d • c U to a; c o° o 73 ro I. • CL q.2 w 3 U. - an d °�° .= Uw° Uq y U W oD x o o•=�y a O-< acro w H Y U R N w d W q -. q” WATER AND SEWER NEEDS LISTS 1' ° td �ccd- ccd N '•c-> . N w C O U >O ...c 01) N .� 0 1-1 r° N N N Y C �U _[ o _N 2 acd'Y 41 U C O V. td a cd w s „ „ •y „ „ „ ., ° 0. „Y C•° c C'C aao ' > 'c.° W 6.lu go.U>o .,='0d C C • •9 .D c C • 4- m � "° CD CO.0 cd 7 a 73 co Z 1.4 ao[ •v 7p E .ct Uow cn ovi F• 33Q a TU .z Da d „ Cu > U .0 "'b0e4 t" d d'az C c„ 8rto C Cy 'Cofl C O ..d d„N„ V ° '> 2 N �"C O 0 N C .� C „ p N „ � HiwgoW „ W a A a 8.5 m.0 C0 O •C d 2y.' b YO o 'C „[ aCi C CI of) C7 ti • m C 6. ani'F2•' >,::.0 c „ E a N .> .a ) $ ' a > 0 ea ai C q 3 m w ,,,,,A. -500g.§ ld N„•2H„.2O Ear F” H 2. o _� v C w c d o 3 3 o ro m y o o„ "o ; ai 'N .' c cif) p, LI .a›., 000 k 3 3 cd g g >W oD t ° cNw-O 431 `C Oa3 cd CO ❑V1 OO GN vi CN > yO, 4)pid. a„ c 14 - '.4>N_l 09 PEn) Z E at ii (go Z Uz a E > g a C�C ° a' Q o v v ca 7b wt NzTTs �ea « d c arc.c .• 0 � v.C d r/] • d7 ca U CU„U n ° a 66° b a C „ d „ oD. v)O a C C 4 „C.n 8 - Analyze needs and establish priorities - Develop capital improvements programs O W N 44, Cd O OD.° O as a' „ (7. c. a' N '' ° .a • C O O 3 U ° i u C 0 Z Z 2 I—J MO —1 w eft, UJ < Z O U Water Quality Control Division O U 1. C U R1 C N C CO —L .4 N A N vi N .23 �Uc^ L'— RO°.O.R•C^m• •L ^ aCC 03CO E .RTy .-1RC CN 'C R•la..> p .° j`° N`O0. N,_Ct. N .1)•CWI 4pC—.m S tE. uRRQ.m .= `e . t,_- ¢ v m z�° n ' E bA"N °oten 3 Co>- i 'u3.om U°sw C a c .°'U CI 9 _in Q s o V7 oCscfi R V o d ° ' o L! --1U N C— I. •U Ca(3.L 'L 0 0 o0•CD R y ' Nr C. L ca0Nu=O°aa..C\ y Qy,E bC R..0 .y it L CCCR R • C O 4uCR N •a."y V°c C°o o CO N .Q G •'• Ne • p to ti . -- Z L00.x•E ;o •L U C- N p`O Y ^O p . F ,•, a vio L 'L ,oN > O «N •E a.o m tR do nR - ........•a C ,° o .. R " C E U L C4.+ U =U Rc h) L.. R R o R U . C C r-1 R co GN ^' yL Qa° ^ Lw ° m E -a ° C c^ '= E o >;0 0 o �.- 'y- UG_C.-4O- 'ONU• U C' ,.. uC O y LLO N 71) 6) ^ p, . CO .0 •• 'A C:y v; N 1/31 o E 0.y O C ° R W •_ ° o j y° b0> cs Ua3 ycoFNQNA•N C y o R () G O A" N N^c,JC U ,Cy-aRy U y E ¢' O R ca�_❑ L Us' yC= N ..ai .° nmE .•°N.� Ea n. H c° nmr 23Q F = al ;sr: m V HU m i° VC.FA 0OCC R A ALs= m= 2 0 .zw ^ H � oa vc E - c v v 4 c aS°aCa .n y a c3 U U6N h�' - O tad o > t 0 'O ,.EC4)°vO o U . V. „p o 2 CS N CO m. =. 4: N ,v Fa C. 2 N69OR 0 - GoC°HO'C y YC 0 oti ... N U N 'roL ° Lobv\ . Oti O y^ 0 = ... .0 y N> (O U dRU CO U O L N ca JL L O O 0 C 3U R U C''NECr .0N LL o A vR o ER O UO .O C°C''ZO�'�NC 0.2 a^> N›N = °G >, yd > O CO N L.„ 3 p ca O o°'C ..1 .16: ..y C H°', -N4 -°p 4, N C . C"'= <3 0 yC. >, n acme A° - h. oco oMpC 'n vOOVy C ,C^°? Wd0—.rO.N C O b O O to Y y C, 71 tty 0 17 It..C b9 'rice.. C. yC Y y c -° '„ O = E R=CO-4.° CO -,p m _ Ery 69 bq > 1:N 3 OOnpG 'Q2 i.•v E N 4.. ° '1 ' b N°= U y CO , UOCa' > a) C C) •^Uc^ C O O ` 44 c., .1.--3 '=NR U 53 N O ^ h_ ` 61 .. CO C Z^�t:1.) . > : N 4. ` CLR .E :. ) .c v c. i , L 4.. TA °C.n °° °AoNyA C .`4,0 o> ' CI .y 0 I. 0 m_c C. 0 VI= 3 N C 'a c, y 7 •� ,� b y - m° o¢ c o co O- v yO y,- 02 O O ,-cal ..o vm O Ov �UO � 7 U G ._o v m O ro'-a - co .o U F 0 m N a.F o v 13. • L. 0 y -0 y 0 v t Y• T '_ O F co ..pn �^ Co O N N cn 3 .- '�..1' — 3 y t? v w o N 0 a AG o u > => o v 'o o >U v LEEo f =v D a) .0 )^ 0 v = • - O ' O '. m N • 0. - 0, ..^ F _ _ 'I...L 33 U ' 3 y y ? ,m >� rd ¢l •-vi ., a� �. • 'O -L, �a r o 99 o - 5 eo °° a>i o 'o o .N o N o a ..l a v a o. m v L = v^ o ,n o o` `a, 3 c .a a A a al cn = o J A] .© ._ = t-° v o ¢ Y T >, F 03at> 18 v 03 3 .r N on ? h V m O" v 0 0 N 0 „v. ev,. ,v, ,U ,�v, 2 U L.'y y G N0 a v , -• L ^ v SU 7 O N vo=o oWn v ^do o o .Gy��N c. CD3°O =OF L "3m F�^Q > 0 QoO m U ^ CZ T - 0c ,. OUa.L W O y U E O0 v_ .D t 'O v -17 72.0 = Cn U 'F v ' ?'_o5N Euoo Q W is I y. U o N Cl a ' ,--at . .`_T' 0 • 0 - F o a, .U.. SI w„ - E `m .0 ^ .: L. N J] 8 63 = ^ 3=m N t0N G>, a.-o�iy mo^` -° ia°°` d'd3 oo - m _ona S -T' LUUWoyi=d-.o-'oWo@ > n G L CataR = O •o v v L G v a) 0 P .=a, o G a.E La== C. Pa.O'2-a Lav,¢ L 7 H O F O U L- v r c O y co .. A, O O r - .. G .0 v U— F On v .� N L O ... - -- t co '7. O _N U d „5 U '- U ' -,0 0a= -•- U . -o5= ` % 0 0- ^ a9 a F .° F.Pml D'O N N .. • N U a= - v y� ". C- U� a) U .r...03 o �r . a 2 (, o f 0.)o o =) 0 — 5. O aN 3F • •- o . .on F • . E o - 0000- aw5 O oWUpaF '=-OG- - = O —^ o- 3 .. co c n U o .= H ' o 3 Q 0 U nnnent Agencies Eligible Gov Structure and Security. °¢ , i F Y> i=oY�,cl r.v N -�tl .- •o N F O a) Oo _ y c —- G C w o O L o CO .Dv _d m > yoco • •E ,2 N O . O O y m L O ^ > ? — N F U 0 0 0. 0' G ` — N O O "'V O v ^ G N tel E a O= v E w 0 ap m r.+ O L x Lr.- Lu 2° c9 0v _ ? E E ao L L W 2 0_ 2 0 ,N o •C > E G G L F ¢i°— . Fc-co EE >a>.a F E m?� o G ` ;v G O F U .D Q5. O Y c On U U^ °' ---a > EaaA =r.a O0vd N H= NO F 'aoE='UN°LN-W.vm>L cN v F N GnFa) 0 ai?�• G y 0 -0 0 >' O F N-0 O m O V— oa) v 33 T L -oU O p m a G• � m ro E° 0 0 a0) v [-7 .0 ,- y ? �' 'Q "o F — .F .O y 5 'o N V. F O. as _c a on'p _y .a 8 2 o U a G .a a) 3" v 3 m 0 .. TmnoQ ='o � =G y Q .o v yo v 0UL 9.- t - m y -29 6. 7, 3 ° o.= Ea 8 - c. STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Grand Junction Regional Office 222 5. 6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2768 Fax (970) 248-7198 August 13, 1997 David Rousseau Town Administrator Town of Parachute P. O. Box 100 Parachute, CO 81635-0100 RE: Town of Parachute feasibility study for a new wastewater treatment plant Garfield County. Dear Mr. Rousseau: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment We have reviewed the feasibility study prepared by R. G. Consulting Engineers, Inc. Based on this study, it appears alternative #2 (disconnect from Battlement Mesa and construct a new aerated lagoon) is more cost effective than alternative #1 (remain connected to Battlement Mesa). In Mr. Keil's letter of March 31, 1997 to Mr. Akers, he states, "it appears reasonable to proceed with a preliminary engineering study." He further states "During this investigation, our scope will broaden to confirm area demographics and include actual cost data in lieu of EPA curves to either confirm or disprove our feasibility results." I assume the Town will choose to authorize the engineer to prepare the preliminary engineering report and submit the Site Application for an aerated lagoon system. We will review the preliminary engineering report and site application when submitted. The new information in the preliminary engineering report and all other pertinent data will be reviewed in accordance with the site application regulations. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Richard H. Bowman Western Slope Supervisor RB/lb cc: Battlement Mesa Metro Dist. Garfield County - Mark Bean Dave Akers Dwain Watson R. G. Consulting Engineers 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. amoan0ceng mighe January 8, 1997 Mr. David Rousseau, Town Administrator Town of Parachute P.O. Box 100 Parachute, CO 81635-0100 RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation Study RGCE Job No. 194004 PAGE 02 We are pleased to submit this letter report summarizing results of our preliminary analysis of the Town of Parachute's request to determine whether it should maintain its present relationship with Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) or construct its own wastewater treatment plant. Predicated on the life cycle costs generated for various treatment techniques versus maintaining the status quo, it appears separating from BMMD and constructing a new wastewater treatment plant would save the Town $166,000 to $173,000 per year. Descriptions of the alternatives and how the costs were calculated are described herein. Four alternatives were developed for the preliminary analysis. Alternative No. 1 would continue the present arrangement of pumping wastewater to BMMD for treatment. Alternative Nos. 2 through 4 would require serving the BMMD relationship and constructing wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Alternative No. 2 includes sizing and building an aerated lagoon plus ancillary facilities to provide all the wastewater treatment. Alternative No. 3 consists of erecting a mechanical treatment plant. The fourth alternative would comprise a reduced sized aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands. A complete description of the facilities associated with the alternatives is given in Table 1. In developing the capital costs for each alternative which is listed in Table 2, several assumptions were made. Three sites for a potential treatment plant were reviewed by you and our staff. All of the sites are located downstream approximately 4500 to 6500 feet of the existing lift station. Costs for conveyance facilities are shown only for Site Nos. 1 and 3, the closest and farthest from the lift station. The purpose for doing this was to provide a range of costs for constructing a force main to the treatment plant. Force main costs to Site No. 2, located 5500 feet downstream of the lift station, would be in the $171,000 to $232,000 range. Although reviewing the 1962 USGS map for the area indicates the three potential sites are lower in elevation than the lift station, the analysis shows a force main for conveying wastewater in lieu of a gravity sewer. Based on field observations of the site by our staff, it appeared the sites were at the same 1018 Colorado avenue • grand junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 242-7540 • fax (970) 241-7025 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 03 elevation or slightly higher than the lift station. A field survey conducted during a Phase 2 of the engineering study can confirm which is the optimum conveyance method. Additionally, costs for the force main include using the existing lift station with some minor modifications. Land costs are based on purchasing five acres at $10,000 per acre. Again, land costs will be confirmed during the Phase 2 study. We used population estimates developed by BMMD in their service Plan Amendment and current flow rates to establish flow rates and facility sizing for a 20 year? period. Using this approach, wastewater flows will average 240,000 gpd (.24 mgd) by the year 2017. The capital costs calculated for Table 2 are used in developing Table 3. Table 3 lists the life cycle costs for the four alternatives. It is projected that the Town will be paying BMMD $343,000/year in the year 2017 assuming the rate of $3.69/1000 gallons, charged in the year 2000 remains steady for that long. Constructing a mechanical treatment plant, Alternative No. 3, would be as expensive as Alternative No. 1. However, either constructing an aerated lagoon or an aerated lagoon with a. wetlands would reduce the Town's projected operating costs by approximately 50%. An aerated lagoon while a combined system is projected to cost $2.13 to $2.19/1000 gallons. EPA curves are the basis for most of the facility costs. Current construction costs for the Colorado area will be used during Phase 2 of the study. Tables 4, 5, and 6 reflect costs assuming the wastewater treatment plant is constructed in two stages. In the first stage, 75% of the 20 year flow average or .18 mgd will be constructed. The plant would be expanded during the second stage to .24 mgd. Tables 5 and 6 indicate the cost/1000 gallons based on the projected five and ten year flow rates. Unit costs for these rates for Alternative Nos. 2 and 4 are much more economical than pumping sewage to BMMD. In our opinion, it appears based on the preliminary analysis, the Towns desire to separate from BMMD and to construct and operate its own wastewater treatment plant is a viable option. We, however, recommend a more detailed study to substantiate the conclusions reached in Phase 1 of the study. We will be glad to meet with you if you desire to discuss the findings described in this brief report. furthermore, we will wait for additional direction before proceeding. Sincerely, ULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Ricardo J.F. Goncalves, P.E. President RJG:ts cc: Stuart Gardner Ken Keil 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 04 Table 1 Description of Alternatives Alternative No. 1, Continue pumping wastewater to Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD). Alternative No. 2 Discontinue relationship with BMMD and construct an aerated lagoon to treat the wastewater. Other treatment facilities would include mechanical screening, flow measurement and chlorina- tion for disinfection. Construction of a force main from the existing lift station to the treatment plant site located at one of the potential sites downstream of the lift station would be necessary. ,Alternative No. 3 Discontinue BMMD relationship and construct mechanical treatment plant. Facilities would include an oxidation ditch, clarifier, pumps, building, laboratory, sludge drying beds, mechanical screening, flow measurement, chlorination and aerobic digestion. The same facilities described in alternative No. 2 for conveying wastewater to the treatment plant site would be required. Alternative No. 4 Discontinue BMMD relationship and construct a reduced sized aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands. Mechanical screening and chlorination facilities would be included. Wastewater conveyance facilities would be same as described in Nos. 2 and 3. 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. /G.t0 Table 2 Capital Cost Development for Alternative Nos. 2 to 4 Item Alterative #2 I Alternative #3 Alternative #4 0o o 'Pi 49 00 o R h O 0. 0 CO 49 v 69 v1 0 01 0 010.00 69 v Q 69 vvopiJl�� NI 0 0 0 1c0%i 0 0 N i 0 o ri N 69 0 0 in, 49 0 0 (li 49 P 49 49 a 69 N NI C H o 64 O 44 q O 040 OI O tH Oil 69 $ 1,078,0001 0 O 69 0 0 ... G0 ntl «tVVVIII O rn — 69 0 44 a 0 01 O OI O 49 00 V 44 (VI 0 40 OOCII rL 0 0 0 Cpp0! CN o N 69 p0000 WI 49 O 0 N 49 0 0 n 49 0 0 N 43 0 g 69 p 124,000 N p 7 OO N 0 7-- 44 o E9 q 0 01 v a o 4, 69 O n voiN el Ery 0 0 n R 69 0 0 — 0 0 C 4-, 0 oG 0 0 ^ '0 69 o 49 01 o 01 0 01 0 69 O 0 n '47 .-� 69 po11 �J o 0 DS 4C/ — 0 0 v (n 202,000 [ 0 0 N N N 69 0 0 O ul 44 TOTAL $ 858,000 $ 919,000 0 n v '7 44 0 0 — 0 v '^ 0 r", 0 44 0 0 a O, 64 0 0 -00 O, 9-N 0 0 N� 0 0 7- 69 o 64 a o 01 o a o00 61 44 III. Treatment Facilities 25% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal #1 112. Force Main to #1 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. II 20% Contingencies II 15% Engineering Subtotal 112 II3. 6500' Force Main to 113 Site IModifications to Lift Sta, 20% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal #3 4. Land (5 ac.) PAGE 05 Wetlands costs based on recent d d 8 ti C) qC C R m v 3 N CIOU CO C N C EC.o U rV U Q 4 ati W * m 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 06 Table 3 Comparison of Life Cycle Costs (20 year life) Item Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 3 Alternative No. 4 a. Payment to BMMD $ 323,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 b. Lift Station O&M Cost $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 c. Amortization/Interest #1 Site° $ 0.00 $ 74,800.00 $ 170,000.00 $ 94,000.00 d. Amortization/Interest #3 Site° $ 0.00 $ 80,100.00 $ 176,000.00 $ 99,000.00 e. WWTP O&M $ 0.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 163,000.00 $ 88,000.00 Annual Cost $ 343,000.00 Annual Cost to #1 Site $ 169,800.00 $ 338,000.00 $ 187,000.00 Annual Cost to #3 Site' $ 175,100.00 $ 344,000.00 $ 192,000.00 Cost/1000 gal. S 3.92 Cost/1000 gal. #1 Site $ 1.94 S 3.86 $ 2.13 Cost/1000 gal. #3 Site $ 2.00 $ 3.93 $ 2.19 ' Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, c & e. ' Annual cost is calculated by adding I em's b, d & e. 0 6% Interest fora 20 year life. 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 G.E.D. PAGE 07 Table 4 Capital Cost Development for Alternative Nos. 2 to 4 (75% construction of 20 Year Buildout) I Alternative 111 0 0 r o to 69 634,000 II 0O 117 1--. N 49 0 49 OI 0 0I 0 0I 49 $ 143,000 II O 0 h N G O 'C o O O C el�O $ 232,00011 69 O0-- O 49 o 69 O 0 44 a 69 124,000 a' e c�GvJII cW - 69 o 49 a o a o a o 69 Vi $ 950,000 rnC/ Q N O 69 N I1,280,000 O 00 o N ? 69 O 69 of O OI O Cl O 44 $ 143,000 o 0 N'0 o 0 — O v c 1 o N 0 N 000111 0 0 CO O ccn N 49 000��o1 o1III II Co. o o h N 49 0 CO) i v N 1,280,000 $ 1,472,000 00 P 69 0 N 149,000 0 VN $ 171,000 o 69 of o of o d 0 69 0oO yj b4 Alterative 1/2 69 ‘0., �I `-�NVI N Co) 0 69 01 0 Cl O O 0 49 0 Cri— 49 pl cyjl� CO — e NI O N 0 $ 232,000 49 Cl N c`i N 69 0. 99 NI N N CD; pO�J�I - ((VV�� 0 69 0 49 d O OI O d O CO OI' 69 $ 763,000 E y 11 I. Treatment Facilities * 25% Contingencies II 15% Engineering Subtotal 11 2. 4500' Force Main to 111 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. 20% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal 112 13. 6500' Force Main to 113 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. 20% Contingencies 15% Engineering Col cdO `n N 4. Land (5 ac.) ' 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 0B Table 5 Comparison of Life Cycle Costs Staged Construction 75°/ 5 Year (.14 mgd) Item Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 a. Payment to BMMD $ 189,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 b. Lift Station O&M Cost $ 20,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 c. Amortization/Interest #1 Site° $ 0.00 $ 66,500.00 $ 148,000.00 $ 83,000.00 d. Amortization/Interest #3 Site° $ 0.00 $ 71,800.00 $ 153,000.00 $ 88,000.00 e. WWTP O&M $ 0.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 98,000.00 $ 53,000.00 Annual Cost $ 209,000.00 Annual Cost to #1 Site' $ 122,500.00 5 248,000.00 $ 138,000.00 Annual Cost to #3 Site' $ 127,800.00 $ 253,000.00 $ 143,000.00 Cost/1000 gal. $ 4.09 Cost/I000 gal. #1 Site $ 2.40 $ 4.85 $ 2.70 Cost/1000 gal. #3 Site $ 2.50 $ 4.95 $ 2.80 Annual cost is calculated by adding 1 em's b, c & e. ' Annual cost is calculated by adding I em's b, d & e. 0 6% Interest for a 20year life. 02/04/1997 09:49 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 09 Table 6 Comparison of Life Cycle Costs Staged Construction 75% 0 Year (.168 mgd) Item Alternative No.1 Alteroative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 a. Payment to BMMD $ 226,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 b. Lift Station O&M Cost $ 20,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 c. Amortization/Interest #1 Site° $ 0.00 $ 66,500.00 $ 148,000.00 $ 83,000.00 d. Amortization/Interest #3 Site° $ 0.00 $ 71,800.00 $ 153,000.00 $ 88,000.00 e. WWTP O&M $ 0.00 $ 68,000.00 $ 122,000.00 $ 66,000.00 Annual Cost $ 246,000.00 Annual Cost to #1 Site' $ 138,000.00 $ 273,500.00 $ 152,500.00 Annual Cost to #3 Site' $ 143,300.00 $ 278,500.00 $ 157,500.00 Cost/1000 gal. $ 4.01 Cost/1000 gal. #1 Site $ 2.25 $ 4.46 $ 2.49 Cost/1000 gal. #3 Site $ 2.34 $ 4.54 $ 2.57 ' Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, c & e. ` Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, d & e. ° 6% Interest for a 20 year life. 02/04/1997 09:49 -s'�_ 1-970-241-7025 Q.E.D. PAGE 10 6 LIFT STATION v (7=`• _�( BMMD WWTP ,. " 18 • of Vis' — ^a r f �r- ©oEORLIMug @uaaru@gm, o�c� February 6, 1997 Mr. David Rousseau, Town Administrator Town of Parachute P.O. Box 100 Parachute, CO 81635-0100 RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation Study RGCE Job No. 194004 We are pleased to submit this letter report summarizing results of our preliminary analysis of the Town of Parachute's request to determine whether it should maintain its present relationship with Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) or construct its own wastewater treatment plant. Predicated on the life cycle costs generated for various treatment techniques versus maintaining the status quo, it appears separating from BMMD and constructing a new wastewater treatment plant would save the Town $386,000 to $391,000 per year by the year 2017. Descriptions of the alternatives and how the costs were calculated are described herein. Four alternatives were developed for the preliminary analysis. Alternative No. 1 would continue the present arrangement of pumping wastewater to BMMD for treatment. Alternative Nos. 2 through 4 would require serving the BMMD relationship and constructing wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Alternative No. 2 includes sizing and building an aerated lagoon plus ancillary facilities to provide all the wastewater treatment. Alternative No. 3 consists of erecting a mechanical treatment plant. The fourth alternative would comprise a reduced sized aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands. A complete description of the facilities associated with the alternatives is given in Table 1. In developing the capital costs for each alternative which are listed in Table 2, several assumptions were made. Three sites for a potential treatment plant were reviewed by you and our staff. All of the sites are located downstream approximately 4500 to 6500 feet of the existing lift station. Costs for conveyance facilities are shown only for Site Nos. 1 and 3, the closest and farthest from the lift station. The purpose for doing this was to provide a range of costs for constructing a force main to the treatment plant. Force main costs to Site No. 2, located 5500 feet downstream of the lift station, would be in the $171,000 to $232,000 range. Although reviewing the 1962 USGS map for the area indicates the three potential sites are lower in elevation than the lift station, the analysis shows a force main for conveying wastewater in lieu of a gravity sewer. Based on field observations of the site by our staff, it appeared the sites were at the same elevation or slightly higher than the 1331 17th street • suite 710 • denver, Colorado 80202 • (303) 293-8107 fax (303) 293-8106 lift station. A field survey conducted during a Phase 2 of the engineering study can confirm which is the optimum conveyance method. Additionally, costs for the force main include using the existing lift station with some minor modifications. Land costs are based on purchasing five acres at $10,000 per acre. Again, land costs will be confirmed during the Phase 2 study. We used population estimates developed by BMMD in their service Plan Amendment and current flow rates to establish flow rates and facility sizing for a 20 year period. Using this approach, wastewater flows will average 240,000 gpd (.24 mgd) by the year 2017. The capital costs calculated for Table 2 are used in developing Table 3. Table 3 lists the life cycle costs for the four alternatives. It is projected that the Town will be paying BMMD $674,000/year in the year 2017 assuming the rate of $3.69/1000 gallons, charged in the year 2000, increases 4% per year thereafter. Constructing a mechanical treatment plant, Alternative No. 3, would be as expensive as Alternative No. 1. However, either constructing an aerated lagoon or an aerated lagoon with a wetlands would reduce the Town's projected operating costs by approximately 50%. An aerated lagoon, combined with a wetlands system, is projected to cost $3.40 to $3.46/1000 gallons. EPA curves are the basis for most of the facility costs. Current construction costs for the Colorado area will be used during Phase 2 of the study. Tables 4, 5, and 6 reflect costs assuming the wastewater treatment plant is constructed in two stages. In the first stage, 75% of the 20 year flow average or .18 mgd will be constructed. This facility would be able to handle the five year flow, .14rugd, and the ten-year flow, .168 mgd. The plant would be expanded during the second stage to .24 mgal. Tables 5 and 6 indicate the cost/1000 gallons based on the projected five and ten year flow rates. Unit costs for these rates for Alternative Nos. 2 and 4 are much more economical than pumping sewage to BMMD. In our opinion, it appears based on the preliminary analysis, the Towns desire to separate from BMMD and to construct and operate its own wastewater treatment plant is a viable option. We, however, recommend a more detailed study to substantiate the conclusions reached in Phase 1 of the study. We will be glad to meet with you if you desire to discuss the findings described in this brief report. Furthermore, we will wait for additional direction before proceeding. Sincerely, RG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Qic Q cc(ct r-:C4C2.6,1-0,L on 4 Ricardo J.F. Goncalves, P.E. President RJG:ts cc: Stuart Gardner Ken KelY-a r:%194031 \wpKUm\wipcval.tbi \''�L,` 1,;(...4,4•"'r March 31, 1997 denver • grand junction '. Mr. David Akers Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment WQCD-PE-B2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80222-1530 :111H' eau+rl /N �@ 2 E ir, I APR 1 1, ids/ ill 1 [CLQ WQC3 - HELD SERViCES u,!„C,.•...C,i..::N::SECTii il r c . DJ .D 1 Re: Town of Parachute Feasibility Study for a New Wastewater Treatment Plant RGCE Job No. 194004 Dear Mr. Akers: Per your request, this correspondence provides a present worth analysis of the feasibility of constructing a new wastewater treatment for the Town of Parachute. Additionally, copies of the January 8, 1997 and February 6, 1997 letter reports to our client on the referenced subject are enclosed with this letter. Table 1 compares the present worth of each alternative. Predicated on the analysis, it appears Alternative No. 2, constructing an aerated lagoon, is more economical than continuing the present relationship with Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD), Alternative No. 1. Alternative No. 4 would involve building an aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands and it, also, is more economical than No. 1, but slightly more costly than No. 2. The results are the same as what we had concluded in our previous reports which were based on life cycle costs. Please note EPA curves were used for developing cost data. Tables 2 and 3 show how the present costs were calculated for the alternatives. It appears reasonable, predicated on the results of the analysis, to proceed to the preliminary engineering study. During this investigation, our scope will broaden to confirm area demographics and include actual costs data in lieu of EPA curves to either confirm or disprove our feasibility results. We would appreciate receiving any comments you may have regarding the preliminary engineering study and the Town seceding from the District service area. In fact, your input is crucial as to whether the Town will proceed to the preliminary engineering study. Sincerely, RG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Kenneth L. Keil, P.E. Environmental Engineering Manager KLK:ts cc: Stuart Gardner Rick Goncalves D. Rousseau R' \ 1?NMA \\WHJDOs\ FEASSTDY. LTR 1331 17th street • suite 710 • denver, Colorado 80202 • (303) 293-8107 fax (303) 293-8106 Table 1 Description of Alternatives Alternative No. 1 Continue pumping wastewater to Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD). Alternative No. 2 Discontinue relationship with BMMD and construct an aerated lagoon to treat the wastewater. Other treatment facilities would include mechanical screening, flow measurement and chlorina- tion for disinfection. Construction of a force main from the existing lift station to the treatment plant site located at one of the potential sites downstream of the lift station would be necessary. Alternative No. 3 Discontinue BMMD relationship and construct mechanical treatment plant. Facilities would include an oxidation ditch, clarifier, pumps, building, laboratory, sludge drying beds, mechanical screening, flow measurement, chlorination and aerobic digestion. The same facilities described in alternative No. 2 for conveying wastewater to the treatment plant site would be required. Alternative No. 4 Discontinue BMMD relationship and construct a reduced sized aerated lagoon followed by a wetlands. Mechanical screening and chlorination facilities would be included. Wastewater conveyance facilities would be same as described in Nos. 2 and 3. Table 3 Alternative Nos. 2-4 Present Worth Analysis Alternative 2: Aerated Lagoon, Screening, flow measurement, and chlorination Lowest Capital Cost = $858,000 Highest Capital cost = $919,000 Lift Station O&M Cost = $5,000/yr. WWTP O&M Cost = $90,000/yr. Total Annual Costs = $90,000 + 5,000 = $95,000 Assume 4% annual inflation for 21 years 7: Present worth with lowest capital cost = $95,000 x 14.029 + $858,000 = $2,190,755 Present worth with highest capital cost = $95,000 x4.02 + $919,000 = $2,251,755 2, gco Alternative 3: Mechanical Treatment Plant Lowest Capital Cost = $1,953,000 Highest Capital cost = $2,014,000 Lift Station O&M Cost = $5,000/yr. WWTP O&M Cost = $163,000 Total Annual Costs = $163,000 + 5,000 = $168,000 Present worth with lowest capital cost = $168,000 x 14.029 + $1,953,000 = $4,309,872 Present worth with highest capital cost = $168,000 x 14.029 + $2,014,000 = $4,370,872 Alternative 4: Aerated Lagoon with Wetlands Lowest Capital Cost = $1,078,000 Highest Capital cost = $1,139,000 Lift Station O&M Cost = $5,000/yr. WWTP O&M Cost = $88,000 Total Annual Costs = $88,000 + 5,000 = $93,000 Present worth with lowest capital cost = $93,000 x 14.029 + $1,078,000 = $2,382,697 Present worth with highest capital cost = $93,000 x 14.029 + $1,139,000 = $2,443,697 Table 1 Present Worth Analysis Comparison of Alternatives Item Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 Capital Cost (Range) 0 $858,000 to $1,953,000 to $1,078,000 to $919,000 $2,014,000 $1,139,000 Lift Station (O&M) $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 WWTP (O&M) $90,000 $163,000 $88,000 Discounted Payment to BMMD $3,034,468 0 0 0 Present Worth $3,315,048 $2,190,755 to $4,309,872 to $2,382,697 to $2,251,753 $4,370,872 $2,443,697 Table 2 Alternative 1 - Present Worth Analysis Year Rate per 1000 gal. BMMD Payment* Discounted Payment Lift Station O&M Cost 1997 $1.89 $80,712 $80,712 $20,000 1998 $2.37 $104,671 $100,641 $20,000 1999 $2.96 $136,130 $125,866 $20,000 2000 $3.69 $175,090 $155,655 $20,000 2001 $3.69 $181,825 $155,424 $20,000 2002 $3.69 $188,559 $154,977 $20,000 2003 $3.69 $195,293 $154,340 $20,000 2004 $3.69 $202,028 $153,521 $20,000 2005 $3.69 $210,109 $153,527 $20,000 2006 $3.69 $216,843 $152,354 $20,000 2007 $3.69 $224,924 $151,959 $20,000 2008 $3.69 $234,352 $152,235 $20,000 2009 $3.69 $242,433 $151,424 $20,000 2010 $3.69 $250,514 $150,459 $20,000 2011 $3.69 $259,942 $150,117 $20,000 2012 $3.69 $269,370 $149,581 $20,000 2013 $3.69 $280,145 $149,569 $20,000 2014 $3.69 $289,573 $148,667 $20,000 2015 $3.69 $300,348 $148,252 $20,000 2016 $3.69 $311,122 $147,659 $20,000 2017 $3.69 $323,244 $147,529 $20,000 Total $3,034,468 * BMMD Payments are projected by the rate structure and the estimated population growth. BMMD estimated an annual 3.66% rate of growth in a 1990 report. Assume 4% annual inflation for 21 years for calculating the present worth of the lift station O&M costs. Present Worth of Lift Station O&M Costs = $20,000 x 14.029 = $280,580 Present Worth = $3,034,468 + $280,580 = $3,315,048 Table 2 Capital Cost Development for Alternative Nos. 2 to 4 Alternative #4 0 0 C' 49 0 ci 7 c o I` 0 c� N $ 857,0001 o 69 cl o a o cl o 69 $ 143,0001 25.000 168,000 34,00011 202,000 0 ci r 0 0 N 69 c 0 OO 49 0 0 CC cm 69 0 0 'O � V 69 149.000 0 0 V1 OO0O00 O1 N 0 O N 0C' cc 69 0 C 44 25.000 0 d' N 01 V; N 149,000 22.000 0 N 69 0 69 01 0 01 0 CI 0 E9 $ 50,000 I 0 cO c N O 69 Alternative #3 0 O ^ 69 OJ OJ 1,506,000 Oco0 0 69 0 69 OI 0 01 0 CI 0 69 $ 143,000 I cI 0 OI 202,000 30.000 I O O N 69 O OI O 69 O 0 N 69 $ 1,205,000 OO O Cl O 0 O O� N $ 1,732,000 0 0 C' 69 25,000 124,000 01 O N 0 0 7 _22,000 $ 171,000 0 69 OI 0 01 0 CI C 69 p O� O 64 $ 1,953,000 Alterative #2 I$ 443,000 0001 01 00 o c 01 o 69 0 69 Cl 0 OI 0 OI O 69 $ 143,000 O CII 168,000 34.000 I 0 N' 0 J 0I 0 0 69 0 Oo 49 0 0 CC ca 69 $ 443,000/ 0J 0 0I 0 69 0 69 0I 0 0I 149,000 22.000 00 69 O 69 CI O Cl 0 OI 0 69 00, 69 $ 858,000 C I. 1. Treatment Facilities * 25% Contingencies a U C C tv kr Subtotal #1 2. 4500' Force Main to #1 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. 1 20% Contingencies anC N CW e 1 Subtotal #2 3. 6500' Force Main to #3 Site I Modifications to Lift Sta. I 20% Contingencies I I 15% Engineering Subtotal #3 4. Land (5 ac.) TOTAL Wetlands costs based on recent N C aa: a) a) C) N CC G) U w C V N V a) A CC R c U L C C V L W N N C. U y CC C o • V c CC 73U C ca CC a.- 3 3 Q U * F Table 3 Comparison of Life Cycle Costs (20 year life) Item Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 a. Payment to BMMD o $ 630,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 b. Lift Station O&M Cost 0 $ 44,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 c. Amortization/Interest #1 Site° $ 0.00 $ 74,800.00 $ 170,000.00 $ 94,000.00 d. Amortization/Interest #3 Site° $ 0.00 $ 80,100.00 $ 176,000.00 $ 99,000.00 e. WWTP O&M 0 $ 0.00 $ 197,000.00 $ 357,000.00 $ 193,000.00 Annual Cost in 2017 $ 674,000.00 Annual Cost to #1 Site in 2017' $ 282,800.00 $ 538,000.00 $ 298,000.00 Annual Cost to #3 Site in 2017 * $ 288,100.00 $ 544,000.00 $ 303,000.00 Cost/1000 gal. in 2017 $ 7.69 Cost/1000 gal. #1 Site in 2017 $ 3.23 $ 6.14 $ 3.40 Cost/1000 gal. #3 Site in 2017 $ 3.29 $ 6.21 $ 3.46 • Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, c & e. * Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, d & e. ° 6% Interest for a 20 year life. 0 4% Inflation rate per year from 2000 to 2017 for Alternative No. 1. 0 4% Inflation rate per year from 1997 to 2017. Cost in the year 2017. Table 4 Capital Cost��evelopment for Alternative Nos. 2 to 4 l (75% onstruction of 20 Year Buildout) Alternative #4 00 0 O 69 127.000 II 634,000 °CI 0 C $ 729,000 II 0 69 OI 0 CI 0 OI 0 49 00 0 6t 69 00� 0 N 168,000 II 34.000 II 202,000 c O r+1i $ 232,000 II ci c CC V1 49 000`110`1 $ O o 0 In 69 127.000 634,000 COI 0 $ 729,000 OCI0c0 C O 69 o N N — N 7 -.. 22.000 0 O N .-, 49 0 69 OI 0 OI O 01 0 69 0 0 cO kt-1i 69 $ 950,000 Alternative #3 $ 1,024,000 256,000 o o 0 WN N O 0 0 C1 0 0 0 7 64 0 69 0lOOC OIOOC OIOOo 69 0 0 7 69 O N 0 \O C M C 1 O N 000`0£ o N - 01 N 69 $ 50,000 0 V1 N 69 $ 1,024,000 C O N— O 0 C� 8 O 0 69 0 U 69 25,000 N 25,000 7 22,000 69 00 69 001I Co OCJI Oo OI 00 44 co t 64 00 O CT 49 Alterative #2 $ 377,000 94 000 1 471,000 71,000 o 0 7 )/1 69 0 69 01 0 01 0 OI $ 0 $ 143,000 O C� N 168,000 CI 01 M 0 0 0 N 30,000 I 0 0 M N 69 1000 OS $ $ 824,000 $ 377,000 OI 0 CT 0 0 N 0 O N $ 542,000 $ 99,000 25,000 0 0 N 25.000 149,000 22.000 $ 171,000 0 $ 01 0 CI 0 01 O 69 $ 50.000 0 0 N 64 E 1. Treatment Facilities * 25% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal #1 2. 4500' Force Main to #1 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. II20% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal #2 3. 6500' Force Main to #3 Site Modifications to Lift Sta. II 20% Contingencies 15% Engineering Subtotal #3 II 4. Land (5 ac.) TOTAL Wetlands costs based on recent co] C Cl a) k a) N a) U W C C) N a. a) n N 3 Cl C G U L cnC C Q CM w C U vi C C C Q U E 0 7,0 y U L C C C Ii a. N ti C. i * Cl Table 5 Comparison of Life Cycle Costs Staged Construction 75% 5 Year (.14 mgd) Item Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 a. Payment to BMMD 0 $ 204,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 b. Lift Station O&M Cost o $ 24,000.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 c. Amortization/Interest #1 Site° $ 0.00 $ 66,500.00 $ 148,000.00 $ 83,000.00 d. Amortization/Interest #3 Site° $ 0.00 $ 71,800.00 $ 153,000.00 $ 88,000.00 e. WWTP O&M 0 $ 0.00 $ 66,000.00 $ 119,000.00 $ 64,000.00 Annual Cost in 2002 $ 228,000.00 Annual Cost to #1 Site in 2002 * $ 134,900.00 $ 269,400.00 $ 149,400.00 Annual Cost to #3 Site in 2002 + $ 140,200.00 $ 274,400.00 $ 154,400.00 Cost/1000 gal. in 2002 $ 4.46 Cost/1000 gal. #1 Site in 2002 $ 2.64 $ 5.27 $ 2.92 Cost/1000 gal. #3 Site in 2002 $ 2.74 $ 5.37 $ 3.02 • Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, c & e. + Annual cost is calculated by adding Item's b, d & e. ° 6% Interest for a 20 year life. 0 4% Inflation rate per year from 2000 to 2002 for Alternative No. 1. Cost in the year 2002. 0 4% Inflation rate per year from 1997 to 2002. Cost in the year 2002. STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Grand Junction Regional Office 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2768 Fax (970) 248-7198 May 6, 1997 Mr. David Rousseau Town Administrator Town of Parachute P. 0. Box 100 Parachute, Colorado 81635-0100 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment RE: RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. - Town of Parachute Feasibility Study for a New Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Rousseau: We have reviewed your engineer's feasibility study for a new wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) and offer the following comments: 1. Our experience, based on annual WWTF inspections statewide, indicate that a charge of $3.00 to $5.00 per 1000 gallons of sewage treated is not out of line for a mechanical wastewater treatment plant. 2. Construction of a new treatment plant for the Town of Parachute and costs derived therefrom are not for a 20 year design lifespan, but are for a phased treatment plant for 10 years. The study does not present the full 20 year O&M and capital construction costs. Required expansion at 10 years hence is not calculated in this study. Typically, treatment plants are designed and built for at least the 20 year planning period. 3. Inflow and Infiltration (MI) will have to be addressed no matter who or where the sewage is treated. Building a new WWTF does not alleviate the need to address I&I. The 0&M surcharge from BMMD was designed to provide a financial incentive to correct deficiencies in Parachute's collection system. Cost estimates for new construction do not include repairing and rehabilitation of the collection system. The alternative of staying connected to BMMD and eliminating the RI in order to reduce the surcharge has not been addressed. David Rousseau May 6, 1997 Page 2 4. Construction of a new plant involves land acquisition at an estimated $10,000 per acre. This estimate seems low. Available parcels and sizes are not identified. Any such parcel near the river will most likely be in the flood plain and would be required to be flood proofed. Flood proofing for lagoon systems is not inexpensive. 5. Our experience with current construction estimates on other proposed wastewater treatment plants in the same area have been significantly underestimated in the early stage of planning, for example: City of Rifle South Plant: Rifle Correctional Center Engineer's Estimate -$400,000 Contractor's Lowest Bid -$675,000 Engineer's Estimate -$360,000 Contractor's Courtesy Bid -$1.01 million We recommend your engineer use a 20 year construction and O&M cost to recalculate the cost projections. 6. The sizing of any proposed wastewater treatment plant should be based on existing demographics and proposed development in your service area. 7. Your engineer should check with our discharge permit people in Denver for preliminary effluent requirements for the size of the proposed wastewater treatment plant. If your discharge is proposed in the area of the existing Battlement Mesa WWTP discharge, one or both treatment plants may have to meet more stringent effluent standards. 8. I would strongly recommend the town explore the option of obtaining funds to reduce I&I in your collection system, and continue to be served by Battlement Mesa. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Dwain Watson at 970/248-7150. Sincerely, Richard H. Bowman, P.E. West Slope Unit Leader Water Quality Control Division RHB:raw David Rousseau May 6, 1997 Page 3 cc: RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dave Akers Dwain Watson Peggy Galligan COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division Int�e}rr-Office Communication TO: Dick Bowman, Dave Akers FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dwain P. Watson May 6, 1997 Comments regarding Town of Parachute Feasibility Study. Background: The Town of Parachute contracts with Battlement Mesa Metro District for treatment of their sewage. BMMD has recently raised their rates and is considering a rate surcharge for future escalation to address inflow and infiltration from the Town of Parachute. In response, the Town of Parachute is considering de -regionalizing, abandoning their arrangement with BMMD and building their own WWTF. Hence comes the subject proposal. I have reviewed the subject proposal and have the following comments: 1. The average costs of treatment of $3 to $5 per 1000 gallons of sewage is in the ballpark for treatment at a mechanical wastewater treatment facility. 2. Construction of a new treatment plant for the Town of Parachute and costs derived therefrom are not for a 20 year design lifespan, but are for a phased treatment plant for 10 years. The study does not present the full 20 year costs for capital construction. Required expansion at 10 years hence is not calculated in this study. Typically, treatment plants are designed and built for at least the 20 year planning period. Of course, phased construction costs 10 years hence could not be estimated at present worth. 3. Inflow and Infiltration will have to be addressed no matter who or where the sewage is treated. Building a new WWTF does not alleviate the need to address I&I. The O&M surcharge from BMMD was designed to provide a financial incentive to correct deficiencies in Parachute's collection system. Cost estimates for new construction do not include repairing and rehabilitation of the collection system. The alternative of staying connected to BMMD and eliminating the I&I in order to reduce the surcharge has not been addressed. 4. Construction of a new plant involves land acquisition at an estimated $10,000 per acre. This estimate seems low. Available parcels and sizes are not identified. Any such parcel near the river will most likely be in the flood plain and would be required to be flood proofed. Flood proofing for lagoon systems is not inexpensive. 5. Does Parachute really want their own WWTF? Or is this proposal a bargaining chip to get costs reduced with BMMD? Will Parachute get an approval for a site application from us and then use that site application to force a re -negotiation and subsequent lowering of costs with BMMD. 6. Current construction estimates on other proposed wastewater treatment plants in the same area have been significantly underestimated in the early stage of planning, for example: City of Rifle South Plant: Engineer's Estimate - $400,000 Contractor's lowest bid - $675,000 Rifle Correctional Center Engineer's Estimate - $360,000 Contractor's Courtesy Bid - $1.01 Million 7. According to Mark Bean, Director of Planning for Garfield County, there is some 600 acres immediately adjacent to the Town of Parachute to the West (1.5 to 2.0 miles downstream) that is currently being considered for high density development. Do we encourage this development to tie into BMMD? The new Parachute WWTF? Allow them to build their own? C OO Crt1 anDia ]i C @[n1COD ee T Mu May 19, 1997 denver • grand junction Mr. Richard H. Bowman, P.E. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Grand Junction Regional Office 222 South 6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO 80501-2768 Sit WQCD - FIELD SERVICES & MONITORING SECTION GRAND JUNCTION RE: Town of Parachute Feasibility Study for a New Wastewater Treatment Plant RGCE Job No. 194004 Dear Mr. Bowman: On behalf of our client, the Town of Parachute, we would like to express our appreciation to you for taking the time to identify your concerns in a May 6, 1997 letter regarding the referenced subject. In reference to your letter, however, we would like to clarify some of your comments. You indicated that you felt that a charge of $3.00 to $5.00 per 1,000 gallons of treated sewage is not out of line. While there may be communities that charge fees in this range, it does not appear to us to be necessary to charge this high. We contacted several cities and districts that provide wastewater treatment services. Results of our telephone survey are listed in Table 1. You will see that sewage fees range from $1.36 to $3.93/1,000 gallons. There appears, based on your and our experience to be a wide range of wastewater treatment fees. Building a wastewater treatment plant that allows for more economical fees is one alternative to Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District's (BMMD) escalating fees. You stated that our economic analysis is for a phased treatment plant for 10 years. In our January 8, 1997 letter, we did show life cycle costs based on projected five and ten year flows, Tables 5 and 6. However, Table 2 lists capital costs for three kinds of treatment facilities based on a 20 year design flow. Table 3 of the same letter compares 20 year life cycle costs for payments to BMMD and for the three treatment facilities. Per Dave Akers request, we rewrote the report using a present work analysis for 20 year life. The present worth analysis was forwarded to Mr. Akers in a March 31, 1997 letter. Past infiltration and inflow (I & I) problems with the collection system have been addressed. In 1994, the Town contracted with the Tele Environmental Systems to perform a television inspection of all its sewers. Results of the inspection disclosed that the condition of the pipes and manholes ranged from good to poor with several areas in serious need of repair. During 1995, the Town contracted with 1331 17th street • suite 710 • denver, colorado 80202 • (303) 293-8107 fax (303) 293-8106 Mr. Bowman May 19, 1997 Page 2 Western Slope Utilities (WSU) to make repairs. Of the 25,900 feet of sewers, 1334 feet of sewer were repaired with cured -in-place pipe (CIPP). Various manholes, taps, joints and manhole drop fittings were repaired as well. The Town paid WSU over $63,000.00 for its services and spent over $13,000 for engineering and in house services for assisting the contractor. It is apparent from the results in Table 2 that the program was successful. From a high of 278 gpd/SFE in 1993, the Town has reduced its wastewater generation approximately 38% to 173 gpd/SFE through the first quarter of 1997. Many cities and districts incur wastewater flow rates from 220 to in excess of 300 gpd/SFE. Parachute has taken the initiative to cure its I and I problems and it appears it has succeeded when comparing its wastewater production rate to typical wastewater flows. We estimated land acquisition costs for a wastewater treatment plant to be $10,000 per acre. Given the brief time we had to complete the feasibility study, we used what we believed was a conservative figure based on our experience with development projects on the Western Slope. Should we proceed to the preliminary engineering study, we will obtain additional real estate cost data local to the Parachute area for projecting capital costs. Moreover, we realize that if a wastewater treatment plant is constructed in a floodplain that it would have to be diked. Costs for diking the plant would be incorporated into the cost analysis. While your concern that engineer's estimates often significantly underestimate contractor's bids for wastewater treatment plants in the area is valid, we intend to provide more detail in the preliminary engineering study. The Town wanted to know if there was any possibility that constructing their own wastewater treatment plant would be more economical than the fees paid to BMMD. If the initial analysis indicated that it may be more economical, then the Town would commission us to proceed to Phase 2 of the study. For the feasibility study, we utilized EPA curves which usually are very conservative. During the preliminary engineering study we will use construction, operation and maintenance costs for recently constructed similar facilities for conducting the present worth analysis. Town Administration is well aware that the results of a preliminary engineering study utilizing hard costs may contradict those of the earlier analysis. We agree that any proposed wastewater treatment plant should be sized predicated on existing demographics and proposed development in the area. Prior to completing the feasibility study, we contacted Dave Akers regarding potential discharge requirements. Mr. Akers indicated secondary effluent standards would probably be imposed on a facility of the proposed magnitude of .24 mgd. He did not foresee a need for ammonia and nitrate - nitrogen limits. We realize if the project were to proceed to a site application, we would have to formally request effluent limits. We believe to provide our client a complete and accurate preliminary engineering study, we need to make the formal request during the study itself. The Town of Parachute has no urgent desire to become involved with the wastewater treatment business, but believes it is being forced into this direction. The Town considers the proposed wastewater fees to be excessively high and initial evidence appears to confirm their claim. The Town Mr. Bowman May 19, 1997 Page 3 fears not only the impact the fees will have on its populace, but the effects the fees will have on the economic development that has been occurring in recent years. As can be seen in Table 2, there has been a resurgence in commercial activity since 1990. Commercial taps have grown 322% since 1990 and now account for nearly 23% of all taps whereas in 1990 commercial taps were less than 7% of the total. This development has occurred naturally as the Town has not stimulated this business resurrection. The Town recalls all too easily Exxon pulling out of the shale oil project during the 1980's and the resulting economic vacuum placed on the Town. Parachute does not want to risk jeopardizing its future. Our client has had numerous discussions with BMMD to try to ameliorate the pace of wastewater rate increases, but to no avail. We were requested to determine if there are other alternatives to the present service relationship. The feasibility study indicated constructing and operating a wastewater treatment plant is a viable option. The Town is willing to pursue other alternatives, but until other options are discussed, the Town is asking to proceed to a more complete engineering study. The results of which will either confirm or disprove the conclusions of the earlier study. We look forward to meeting you on Friday, May 23, 1997. Sincerely, RG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Kenneth L. Keil, P.E. Environmental Engineering Manager KLK:nm cc: D. Akers D. Beasley S. Gardner R. Gongalves D. Rousseau R:1194004 WP6ODOS TOPFSFAN.LKK Mr. Bowman May 19, 1997 Page 4 Table 1 Wastewater Treatment Fees City or District Type of Wastewater Treatment Plant and Effluent Standards Customer Fees 1. Broomfield 2. Grand Junction 3. Loveland Activated sludge with secondary effluent standards Activated sludge with secondary effluent standards Primary clarifiers, trickling filters, and activated sludge with secondary effluent standards 4. Parker Water and Activated sludge and advanced Sanitation District wastewater treatment facilities with tertiary effluent standards 5. Stonegate Village Activated sludge and advanced Metro District wastewater treatment facilities with tertiary effluent standards $8.40 for base of 4,000 gallons plus $2.08/1,000 gal. thereafter. $11.42/mo. which is based on 2SOgpd/SFE. This equals $1.36/1,000 gal. Within City limits: $2.31 base plus $1.78/1,000 gal. Outside City limits: $3.46 base plus $2.67/1,00) gal. $29.00/mo/SFE. This equals $3.93/1,000 gal. based on average flow of 1 mgd during 1996. $1.50/1,000 gal. R:1194004\WP6ODOS\TOPFSFAN.LKK Mr. Bowman May 19, 1997 Page 5 Table 2 Town of Parachute Wastewater Flow and Tap Data 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Residential Taps 361 369 359 365 372 373 373 375 Commercial 27 26 106 107 104 114 114 114 Public 12 14 12 12 14 15 15 15 Total # of Taps 400 409 477 484 490 502 504 504 Wastewater Flow (MG) 35.616 36.531 33.22 49.13 45.626 38.478 33.563 7.841 * Flow/Tap/Da. 244 245 190 278 255 210 182 173 * (gpd/SFE) * First quarter flow results only R:\ 194004\WP6ODOS\TOPFSPAN.LICK