Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application SITE APPLICATION AND ENGINEERING REPORT ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WWTF EXPANSION May 2017 Prepared by 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 970.945.5948 fax SITE APPLICATION AND ENGINEERING REPORT ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WWTF EXPANSION REVIEWED BY SGM Project# 1996-96059 .129C I:\ 1996\96059\A-129C-S ITEAPPLI CATIONPROCESS\E-REPOR TS\SA-FEB2017-RFWSD .DOCX Site Application and Engineering Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1-1 2.0 Planning Conditions 2-1 2.1 Service Area Features 2-1 2.2 Planning Area 2-2 2.3 208 Plan Coordination 2-2 2.4 Consolidation 2-2 2.4.1 Growth Areas and Population Trends 2-3 2.5 Wastewater Flow Forecasts 2-4 2.6 Wasteload Forecasts 2-5 2.7 Preliminary Effluent Limits 2-8 3.0 Description of Existing Facilities 3-1 3.1 Facility History and Description 3-1 3.1.1 Facility History 3-1 3.1.2 Existing Facility Layout and Performance Assessment 3-1 3.2 Headworks 3-2 3.2.1 Influent Screening 3-3 3.2.2 Grit Removal 3-3 3.2.3 Influent Measurement 3-4 3.3 Aeration Basin 3-4 3.4 Secondary Clarifier 3-5 3.5 Digester 3-7 3.6 Return and Waste Pumps 3-8 3.7 Tertiary Filtration 3-8 3.8 Disinfection Process 3-10 3.9 Natural Wetland Treatment 3-10 3.10 Existing Process Performance Assessment 3-11 3.10.1 Equipment Service Life Considerations 3-12 3.11 Compliance 3-12 Site Application and Engineering Report ii 4.0 Financial Information 4-1 5.0 Assessment of Alternatives 5-1 5.1 Description of Alternatives 5-1 5.1.1 Option 1 – Construction of an Aeromod Facility 5-2 5.1.2 Option 2 – Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) addition to the master planned campus style facility 5-2 5.1.3 Option 3 – Extend existing outfall to the Roaring Fork River 5-4 5.2 Design Criteria 5-4 5.3 Environmental Impacts 5-6 5.4 Land Requirements 5-7 5.5 Construction Problems 5-7 5.6 Operational Aspects 5-8 5.7 Cost Estimates 5-8 5.8 Advantages/Disadvantages 5-13 6.0 Selected Alternative 6-1 6.1 Justification of Selected Alternative 6-1 6.2 Technical Description 6-1 6.3 Project Implementation 6-3 Site Application and Engineering Report iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Design Criteria used as Basis of Design 1-2 Table 2-1 Projected EQR’s 2-3 Table 2-2 Wastewater Flows for Past 4 Years 2-4 Table 2-3 Peaking Factors 2-4 Table 2-4 Planning Design Flows 2-5 Table 2-5 Wastewater Design Loading Parameters 2-8 Table 2-6 Preliminary Effluent Limits 2-10 Table 3-1 Existing Secondary Clarifier Design Conditions 3-5 Table 3-2 Existing Digester Design Conditions 3-7 Table 5-1 PEL Summary Table 5-5 Table 5-2 Influent Design Parameters 5-6 Table 5-3 Effluent Design Parameters (composite sample basis) 5-6 Table 5-4 Environmental Impacts Matrix 5-6 Table 5-5 Construction Problems Matrix 5-7 Table 5-6 Cost Estimate for Preferred Alternative 5-9 Table 5-7 Merits of Alternatives 5-13 Table 6-1 Project Schedule Estimates 6-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Historical WWTF Flows 2-5 Figure 2-2 Historic Influent Organic Loading 2-6 Figure 2-3 Historic Effluent Ammonia Levels 2-7 Figure 2-4 Historic Influent TSS Levels 2-8 Figure 3-1 Master Planned Plant Layout 3-1 Figure 3-2 Schematic of Existing Facilities Process Train 3-2 Figure 3-3 Existing Headworks Plan and Sections 3-3 Figure 3-4 Aeration Basin Layout 3-5 Figure 3-5 Existing Clarifier Layout 3-6 Figure 3-6 Current Digester Layout 3-8 Figure 3-7 Filter Building Layout 3-9 Figure 3-8 Chlorine Contact Tank Layout 3-10 Figure 6-1 Proposed Process Schematic 6-2 Figure 6-2 Proposed Plant Layout 6-2 Site Application and Engineering Report iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Review Fees, Site Application Form, and Checklist Appendix B 5-mile and 1-mile Radius maps Appendix C Existing WWTF Site Map Appendix D Existing Service Area Map Appendix E Annexation Map for RE-1 and Eastbank Appendix F Preliminary Effluent Letter and Complete Set of Preliminary Effluent Limits Appendix G District WWTF Parcel Ownership Map Appendix H Proposed WWTF Site Plan, Process Flow Diagram Appendix I Geotechnical Report Appendix J Flood Insurance Rate Map Site Application and Engineering Report v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADF average daily flow BNR biological nutrient removal BOD biological oxygen demand CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System District Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District EBNR enhanced biological nutrient removal EQR equivalent residence FTE full-time equivalent gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute IFAS integrated fixed film activated sludge IR internal recycle MGD million gallons per day MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids MMF maximum month, 30-day average flow NWCOG Northwest Colorado Council of Governments O&M operation and maintenance ORP oxidation reduction potential OWTS on-site wastewater treatment system PAO phosphorus accumulating organism PDF peak daily flow PEL preliminary effluent limit ppd pounds per day RAS return activated sludge RFSD Roaring Fork School District SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition sf square feet SWD sidewater depth TIN total inorganic nitrogen TP total phosphorus TSS total suspended solids UV ultraviolet WAS waste activated sludge WWTF wastewater treatment facility Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (the District) is submitting this application for the amendment of an existing site location approval for the existing wastewater treatment facility. This report will address all of the elements and guidelines of the Regulation No. 22 Guidance Document for the Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works. Specifically, this report addresses section 22.8 for an Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval. This executive summary will provide a brief description of the District’s history, demographics, design criteria, proposed process expansions and improvements. The District currently owns and operates a 0.107 million gallons per day (MGD) mechanical campus-style activated sludge facility with tertiary filtration. The facility was designed in 1994 and was initially master planned to have three equal phases of 107,000 gallons per day (gpd) capacity totaling 0.321 MGD. Currently, the WWTF is experiencing flows in the range of 60% to 80% of capacity and all NPDES discharge limitations are being met. The District does not have an inflow or infiltration problem. Demographic projections during the initial planning of the District resulted in a WWTF flow buildout scenario of 321,000 gpd, to be attained via three equal phases of 107,000 gpd. The WWTF was completed in 1994 with no flows and therefore it has taken 23 years for flows to reach slightly less than the 80% of permitted capacity. Assuming the next 20 years approximates the historic growth, a plant expansion to 214,000 gpd is appropriate to serve the 20-year planning horizon. The District is proceeding with the plant expansion for several reasons. Firstly, the 30-day average influent flows are approaching 80% of the permitted capacity. Secondly, in 2016, the District annexed an out-of-District parcel that will include a new school: the RE-1 elementary school, which is projected to be open in August of 2017. The addition of those flows will increase capacity closer to the 80% capacity trigger which requires planning and permitting to begin. Finally, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 85 for the control of nutrients from domestic wastewater treatment effluent requires discharges to meet a total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) and phosphorous limit. The District facility has been exempt from compliance because the facility capacity is below 2.0 MGD, although that exemption may sunset in 2022. Therefore, the District would like to expand the facility to include processes that will meet the TIN limits. This project will provide the District with a facility that meets the new regulations and continues to serve the community for the 20-year planning horizon. The table below summarizes the influent and effluent criteria used as the basis of design for the facility expansion. The influent values represent the total flows and loading to the facility that requires treatment. The effluent values represent the expected residuals in the treated effluent. Please note that all effluent design values are below the expected regulatory limits presented in the received Preliminary Effluent Limits dated August 31, 2016, with the exception of TIN. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 1-2 Table 1-1 Design Criteria used as Basis of Design Criteria Units Influent Effluent Max. Month Average Flow MGD 0.214 Maximum 30-day Average Flow MGD 0.214 Peak Hour Flow MGD 0.642 BOD5 mg/L 252 10 TSS mg/L 240 10 TKN mg/L 50 5 Ammonia mg/L 32 0.3 Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) mg/L 30 10 Total Phosphorus mg/L 5 0.9 Alkalinity mg/L 200 70 Maximum Water Temperature °C 25 Minimum Water Temperature °C 10 Site Elevation ft. 5960 The proposed facility will employ a biological nutrient removal process for nitrogen reduction. The selected process will utilize aerobic and anoxic environments for biological treatment. Proposed work will expand upon the existing facilities and will include the construction of new aeration, anoxic, and secondary clarification process tanks. In anticipation of required compliance with future phosphorus effluent limits under Regulation 85, a proposed footprint and facility design will be included for future inclusion of an enhanced biological nutrient removal (EBNR) process for phosphorus reduction. Upgrades are not required for the existing pretreatment facilities, tertiary filtration or final disinfection processes, all of which will remain. The project will also include expansion of the biosolids treatment through expansion of the existing aerobic digestion process. Currently, the existing plant does not have sludge thickening or dewatering aside from a small decant basin. Biosolids dewatering will be considered as an alternative bid item. If the budget allows, the District would like to include that process in this phase. Appendix H shows a schematic of the proposed site plan. Construction is planned to begin in April 2018 with completion in the spring of 2019. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-1 2.0 Planning Conditions 2.1 Service Area Features The District was formally organized and created as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District by order of the District Court, Garfield County, entered on May 5, 1994, in Civil Action No. 94CV29. The Service Plan for the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District (the "Service Plan") was approved by the Garfield County Commissioners on January 31, 1994 in Resolution No. 94-008. The District's name was changed to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District by Order of Court entered on July 13, 1998. The Service Area for the District is generally described as the Roaring Fork Valley floor between Carbondale’s and Glenwood Spring’s municipal service area boundaries. The District was formed during the land use entitlement process for The Aspen Glen development to provide municipal level water and wastewater service to this area which prior to 1994 did not have any municipal or district providers. Appendix D shows the service area for the District. The original “Service Area” can be generally described to include the following: 1) the Crystal River Ranch, presently undeveloped and lying southwesterly of Aspen Glen, 2) the Coryell Ranch and Midland Point subdivisions lying immediately south of Aspen Glen, 3) the Burry Property, undeveloped, and lying generally to the east of Aspen Glen and 4) the Aspen Glen Subdivision. Originally, the "Extended Service Area" was described to include the following: 1) the Ironbridge PUD which lies to the north of Aspen Glen, 2) the Sanders Ranch (Now Called Rivers Edge) presently undeveloped land lying to the east of Aspen Glen, and 3) the developed property lying to the north and east of Aspen Glen which is identified as "mid- way" in the Wastewater Management Study and generally lies within an approximate one- half mile radius of the southerly intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 154. In 2016 the District amended the Service Plan to include the RE-1 School District Eastbank School site and adjoining land totaling 170 acres. The RE-1 School District is building a new elementary school and requested service from the RFWSD. The expanded service area is shown in Appendix E. This is an area on the Western Slope composed of primarily residential subdivisions. Maps of the service area, 5-mile vicinity and 1-mile vicinity are included in Appendix D and B, respectively. The land upstream of the WWTF, including Aspen Glen, Coryell Ranch and Midland Point, is served by an interceptor sewer and lift stations. Land downstream of the facility, which includes the Ironbridge subdivision, is served by a series of lift stations and force mains which traverse through Ironbridge and Teller Springs to the main interceptor sewer that enters the WWTF headworks facility. The expanded service area will be served by a single lift station owned and operated by the District; this lift station has received site application and design approvals from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE). Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-2 The treatment facility currently operates under the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Permit Number CO0044750 issued through the CDPHE. The plant receives domestic wastewater with no known hazardous constituents of concern. The service area is comprised of low density residential subdivisions. The influent is primarily residential wastewater. There are currently no industrial or commercial contributors to the facility, however, the anticipated utilities connections of the RE-1 Eastbank School and adjacent areas will result in modest commercial contributions to the facility. Any potential industrial waste producer will be required to have a pretreatment program. The need for improvements and expansion of the WWTF is due to the compliance schedule for TIN in the recently-issued CDPHE permit. The facility is currently permitted as follows: · Flow – 0.107 MGD (30-day average) · Influent BOD5 of 225 pounds per day (ppd) (30-day average) · Effluent BOD5 – 30 mg/L (30-day average) · Effluent TSS – 30 mg/L (30-day average) 2.2 Planning Area There are currently properties within the Service Area that do not receive water and wastewater service from the District. Those areas primarily include properties along Highway 82 at the Cattle Creek intersection and the CMC turnoff intersection. The District has a policy that requires those seeking service to first seek a Pre-Inclusion Agreement followed by a petition for inclusion. The District is master planning wholesale infrastructure including water transmission and storage facilities, and wastewater interceptors and lift stations to accommodate these areas in the future. The District has a policy that both water and sewer service is required for all customers. 2.3 208 Plan Coordination Previous Site Applications for the existing wastewater treatment facility have been reviewed and approved by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCOG). This application will not expand the service area but will double the current treatment capacity to serve previously approved Service Plan Amendments that were approved by Garfield County. 2.4 Consolidation The RFWSD was initially created in 1994 to prevent the proliferation of water and wastewater facilities in the valley floor between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The District has in fact served the new growth in this area, including Aspen Glen, Midland Point, Coryell Ranch, Ironbridge and now the RE-1 and Eastbank developments. The District has a pre-inclusion agreement with the proposed 700 EQR Rivers Edge Project should they proceed with the land use process. The annexation of the RE-1 School is an example of consolidation. Without the District facilities the RE-1 School District would have constructed standalone water and wastewater facilities. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-3 2.4.1 Growth Areas and Population Trends Development within the District’s service boundary is regulated by the local land use agency which is Garfield County. The District has no direct control over development type or growth rate. The District is strictly a water and wastewater provider. For master planning purposes the District has developed scenario projections in EQR’s for undeveloped land within the Service Area. These projections as shown in Table 2-1 have been used to size future infrastructure needs. Scenario 5 would represent an ultimate buildout scenario for all developed and undeveloped properties within the Service Area and Extended Service Area. 3220 EQR’s or 11,270 people is projected as an ultimate buildout scenario. The most likely development scenario for the near term planning horizon is Scenario 4 which results in 2163 EQR’s or 7570 people. Based upon the rate of growth experienced over the past 23 years, an expansion of an additional 107,000 gpd of capacity will provide adequate service for the next 20 year planning cycle. Table 2-1 Projected EQR’s Development Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Coryell Ranch 30 80 80 80 80 Aspen Glen 262 643 643 643 643 Iron Bridge 145 325 325 325 325 Cattle Creek Crossing/Rivers Edge 0 0 0 750 750 Crystal River Ranch 0 0 320 0 320 CMC Turnoff 0 0 0 0 200 West Carbondale 0 0 18 0 18 Burry 0 0 10 0 10 Midway Area 0 0 0 0 122 H Lazy F 0 0 0 0 110 Teller Springs 0 0 22 0 22 Cattle Creek Intersection 0 0 0 0 50 Mountain Meadows Mobile Home Park 0 0 0 0 20 Western Mobile Gravel Pit 0 0 150 0 150 Wayne Rudd/Cattle Creek 0 0 0 0 30 Miscellaneous Infill (1%) 0 0 0 0 11 RE 1 School District and Eastbank 365 359 Total 437 1048 1568 2163 3220 Note: Pre-Inclusion agreement with Rivers Edge allowed for 375 EQR for both CI and GCCI Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-4 2.5 Wastewater Flow Forecasts Table 2-2 Wastewater Flows for Past 4 Years The current plant capacity is 107,000 gpd. Table 2-2 shows the history of flows to the facility from the year 2013 to current. The average month flows for the most current year ranged from 65,500 gpd in May to 82,655 in July. This represents 64% to 81% of plant capacity. The District will continue to see new growth through normal taps derived from the existing developments. Further the Eastbank School is projected to be completed in August of 2017 will add approximately 27 EQRs’. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show peaking factors and planning design flows. Table 2-3 Peaking Factors HISTORIC DESIGN FLOW PER EQR 126 280 PEAK DAY FACTOR 1.3 2.0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1.5 2.5 MAX. MONTH FACTOR 1.26 1.5 2013 AVG DAILY % of capacity Date Reading 2014 AVG DAILY % of capacity Date Reading 2015 AVG DAILY % of capacity Date Reading 2016 AVG DAILY % of capacity 70,103 69% 1/31/ 2014 156134 000 64,816 64% 1/30/ 2015 178619 000 65,711 65% 1/29/ 2016 201227 000 75,290 74% 57,179 56% 2/28/ 2014 157922 000 63,857 63% 2/26/ 2015 180183 000 57,926 57% 2/29/ 2016 203456 000 71,903 71% 51,786 51% 3/31/ 2014 159796 000 60,452 59% 3/26/ 2015 181757 000 56,214 55% 3/30/ 2016 205532 000 69,200 68% 59,114 58% 4/29/ 2014 161496 000 58,621 58% 4/30/ 2015 183818 000 58,886 58% 4/27/ 2016 207438 000 68,071 67% 55,345 54% 5/30/ 2014 163196 000 54,839 54% 5/29/ 2015 185502 000 58,069 57% 5/31/ 2016 209665 000 65,500 64% 59,414 58% 6/26/ 2014 164917 000 63,741 63% 6/30/ 2015 187387 000 58,906 58% 6/30/ 2016 211810 000 71,500 70% 73,333 72% 7/29/ 2014 167088 000 65,788 65% 7/31/ 2015 189463 000 66,968 66% 7/29/ 2016 214207 000 82,655 81% 68,500 67% 8/28/ 2014 169162 000 69,133 68% 8/31/ 2015 191481 000 65,097 64% 8/31/ 2016 216857 000 80,303 79% 69,733 69% 9/30/ 2014 171293 000 64,576 64% 9/29 /2015 192728 000 43,000 42% 9/28/ 2016 219036 000 77,821 77% 60,235 59% 10/28/ 2014 172869 000 56,286 55% 10/30/ 2015 194784 000 66,323 65% 10/31/ 2016 221303 000 68,697 68% 54,815 54% 11/25/ 2014 174441 000 56,143 55% 12/3/ 2015 196978 000 64,529 63% 11/30/ 2016 223302 000 66,633 66% 64,536 63% 12/23/ 2014 176122 000 60,036 59% 12/29/ 2015 198893 000 73,654 72% 12/27/ 2016 225282 000 73,333 72% Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-5 Table 2-4 Planning Design Flows DESIGN FLOW (MGD) ADF 0.169 MMF 0.214 PDF 0.220 PEAK HOUR 0.535 MMF = Max. Month, 30-day average flow PDF = Peak Day Flow Expansion planning is required when the 30-day average flows reach 80% of the permitted capacity; construction must begin when flows reach 95% of permitted capacity. Due to the projected flows from the Expanded Service Area, the District has started the planning and permitting process for facility expansion. Figure 2-1 below illustrates historical flows at the WWTF. Figure 2-1 Historical WWTF Flows 2.6 Wasteload Forecasts Permitted plant flow is based on the maximum 30-day average flow. Using the planning values, the expanded facility will be designed for a maximum month hydraulic flow of 0.214 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECFlow Rate (gpd)Historic WWTF Flows 2016 Flows 2015 Flows 2014 Flows 2013 Flows 2012 Flows 2011 Flows 2010 Flows 2009 Flows Current Capacity 107,000 gpd Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-6 MGD. Historic data suggests that the expanded facility should be designed for an organic load of 450 pounds BOD5 to serve for the 20-yr panning horizon. Table 2-5 presents the design loading parameters used for this evaluation. The information below is based on analysis of data for the last 6 years (2011 to present). Figure 2-2 Historic Influent Organic Loading 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecInfluent BOD (mg/L)Influent BOD Trends (2011 - 2016) 2011 Influent BOD 2012 Influent BOD 2013 Influent BOD 2014 Influent BOD 2015 Influent BOD 2016 Influent BOD 30-day Avg. - Current Permit Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-7 Figure 2-3 Historic Effluent Ammonia Levels 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTotal Ammonia as N (mg/L)Ammonia Trends (2015 - 2016) 2016 Effluent 2015 Effluent 2014 Effluent 2013 Effluent 2012 Effluent 2011 Effluent LIMIT Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-8 Figure 2-4 Historic Influent TSS Levels Table 2-5 Wastewater Design Loading Parameters CONDITION INFLUENT BOD5 450 LBS/DAY = 252 MG/L @ MMF INFLUENT TSS 250 MG/L (446 LBS/DAY) INFLUENT AMMONIA 32.5 MG/L PH 6.0 – 9.0 TEMP. 10.0 C ALKALINITY >200 MG/L 2.7 Preliminary Effluent Limits The first step in the planning/engineering/permitting of a WWTF expansion is to request Preliminary Effluent Limits from the Water Quality Control Division (Division). These effluent limits are necessary to plan the processes for the new facility and are a requirement 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTSS (mg/L)TSS Trends (2015 - 2016) LIMIT 2015 2016 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-9 as a submittal for Site Approval. The District applied for Preliminary Effluent Limits in 2016 for the increased WWTF capacity. The request was for a hydraulic design capacity of 0.214 MGD at the present outfall location to the natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River. This segment is identified as stream segment COUCRF03a. The PEL’s were issued on 8/31/2016. The PEL number is PEL200472. The Preliminary Effluent Letter received from the WQCD is shown in Appendix F. Table 2-6 summarizes the numerical effluent limits. The newly-issued limits are similar to the existing discharge permit limits with the exception of a total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) limit of 10 mg/l. The current effluent TIN readings for 2013/14 ranged from 22.9 to 32 mg/l. Therefore, this next plant expansion will require process additions and modifications to meet the proposed limit of 10.0 mg/l. The existing plant processes treat effluent to levels that exceed all other PEL’s. It is anticipated that the exemptions that have been issued by Regulation 85 will sunset in the year 2022, approximately 5 years away. Plants smaller than 2.0 MGD are currently exempt. Regulation 85 contains a provision for a delayed implementation of effluent limits for site application, and design approvals in CDPS permits prior to May 31, 2022. The policy states: “Any existing permitted DWWTW with a design capacity of less than or equal to 2.0 million gallons per day will be exempt”. Regulation 85 also contains phosphorous limitations of 1.0 mg/l which may be a requirement after 2022. However, the present PEL’s do not contain a phosphorous limitation. Further, it is unclear at this time if this limitation will be required in 2022. If it is required it will be a part of the discharge permit cycle which would delay implementation until as much as 5 to 10 years after 2022. Therefore, because of the uncertainty of the implementation, this plant expansion will not include a specific phosphorous removal process. However, it will include buried utilities and footprints to allow these processes to be included in the future. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 2-10 Table 2-6 Preliminary Effluent Limits PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR EVALUATION UNDER THE SITE APPROVAL PROCESS DISCHARGE TO AN UNNAMED NATURAL WETLANDS TRIBUTARY TO THE ROARING FORK RIVER AT A DESIGN FLOW OF 0.214 MGD BOD5 (mg/L) 45 (7-DAY AVERAGE), 30 (30-DAY AVERAGE) BOD5 (% REMOVAL) 85 (30-DAY AVERAGE) TSS, MECHANICAL PLANT (mg/L) 45 (7-DAY AVERAGE), 30 (30-DAY AVERAGE) TSS, MECHANICAL PLANT (% REMOVAL) 85 (30-DAY AVERAGE) OIL & GREASE, (mg/L) 10 (MAXIMUM) PH (S.U.) 6.5-9.0 (MINIMUM-MAXIMUM) OTHER POLLUTANTS MAX. LIMITS OR WBQELS NILS E. COLI (#/100 mL) 252 (7-DAY GEOMEAN), 126 (30-DAY GEOMEAN) NA TRC (mg/L) 0.019 (DAILY MAX.), 0.011 (30-DAY AVG.) NA TOTAL INORGANIC NITROGEN AS N (mg/L) 10 (DAILY MAXIMUM) NA TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/L) REPORT (DAILY MAX), REPORT (30-DAY AVERAGE) NA TOTAL AMMONIA WQBELS (mg/L) NIL (mg/L) NH3 AS N, JANUARY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, FEBRUARY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, MARCH 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, APRIL 15 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, MAY 15 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, JUNE 17 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, JULY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 2.8 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, AUGUST 15 (DAILY MAX.) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, SEPTEMBER 15 (DAILY MAX.) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, OCTOBER 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, NOVEMBER 13 (DAILY MAX.), 3.9 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, DECEMBER 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-1 3.0 Description of Existing Facilities 3.1 Facility History and Description 3.1.1 Facility History The original RFWSD WWTF was built in 1996 with a capacity of 0.107 MGD. By the order of the Garfield County District Court, the District was formally organized and created as the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District in 1994 and was required to be planned as a regional facility. In 1998, the District’s name was changed to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The WWTF was originally planned to be built in three phases, each incrementally adding 0.107 MGD capacity, to achieve an ultimate build-out capacity of 0.321 MGD. The original design of the facility as a campus layout identified and allocated space for future process requirements. Figure 3-1 shows the current facility layout along with the master planned expansion layout. Figure 3-1 Master Planned Plant Layout 3.1.2 Existing Facility Layout and Performance Assessment The WWTF is an activated sludge facility with screening, aerated grit removal, influent flow measurement, extended aeration, secondary clarification, tertiary filtration, chlorine Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-2 disinfection, and aerobic digestion of biosolids. Effluent discharges to wetlands adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The facility has met all current discharge permit limitations. Influent flows have recently ranged from 65,000 to 82,000 gpd (60% to 77% of capacity). The District does not have measureable inflow or infiltration contributions. The current facility is over 20 years old and is generally in excellent condition. Many of the processes were originally designed for the full build-out scenario of 0.321 MGD. Much of the original process pumps, piping and valves are original and have not reached useful life. Building HVAC equipment has been upgraded and building roofs have recently been replaced. Process additions will be required in this next phase to meet all effluent limits imposed in the current discharge permit. These additions will be located to the extent possible within the footprint in the master plan of the WWTF. During the original planning of the WWTF, odors were a concern because of the close proximity of future development. All of the processes are covered and an activated carbon odor control system was installed. District operators have discontinued the use of the carbon odor filters because odors have not been present immediately adjacent to the WWTF. A schematic of the process flow through the existing facilities is provided below. Figure 3-2 Schematic of Existing Facilities Process Train 3.2 Headworks Influent (raw sewage) enters the existing pretreatment facility through a 12-inch gravity interceptor, which empties into a 12-inch wide concrete channel that conveys the influent through the following primary treatment processes: influent screening, grit removal, and influent flow measurement. The pretreatment facility was sized for the full build-out of 0.321 MGD. Figure 3-3 shows the layout of the pretreatment facilities. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-3 Figure 3-3 Existing Headworks Plan and Sections 3.2.1 Influent Screening Screening is accomplished using an automatic mechanical bar screen installed in a 1’-0” wide concrete channel parallel to a 1’-0” wide concrete bypass channel. The original manual bar screen was replaced in 2010 with an automatic mechanical bar screen, which is considered adequate for current operations. Trash from the bar screen is discharged to an existing washer compactor. The mechanical screen and washer compactor are controlled by manufacturer-supplied control panels, which are linked to the plant supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. Influent then can continue either to the aerated grit chamber, or can bypass the grit chamber en route to the aeration process. No additional improvements to the influent screening process are recommended at this time. 3.2.2 Grit Removal Influent enters the aerated grit chamber and is kept moving via coarse bubble diffusers in the basin. The diffusers receive air from blowers in the control building that are set on timers. Air levels can be manually adjusted by a blast gate. Heavier grit and other inorganics settle out and fall to the bottom of the grit chamber for subsequent removal; floating organics and liquids are discharged to the 1’-0” Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-4 discharge channel and flows to the existing Parshall flume for flow measurement. Accumulated grit is pumped by a grit pump on a timed basis (set by the operator) to the grit washer. Pumped grit slurry is transported to the grit classifier where the slurry is reduced in organics, moisture content and volume. Wash water with organics is returned to the head of the grit chamber through a floor drain, and cleaned grit drops into the adjacent trash receptacle. The existing aerated grit chamber was sized for the final buildout of 0.321 MGD and is adequate for current and proposed operating conditions. The air diffuser system, grit pumps and grit classifier are all in adequate working condition for current flows. No changes are proposed for this process. 3.2.3 Influent Measurement Influent flow leaving the aerated grit chamber exits to the 1’-0” concrete channel and is measured by a 3-inch Parshall flume equipped with an ultrasonic level sensor. The Parshall flume with totalizer will remain in use. Existing design conditions for the flume include minimum and maximum flow rates of 0.03 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 2.90 cfs (0.019 MGD to 1.87 MGD), respectively. It is not anticipated that the existing flume will cause flow to back up in the plant due to the maximum flow it can handle compared to the designed WWTF peak flow. No changes are proposed for this process during the Phase II expansion. 3.3 Aeration Basin The main secondary process at the facility consists of an extended aeration activated sludge aeration basin designed for 0.107 MGD and a 24-hour detention time for average daily flow. The aeration basin is divided into two concrete chambers, each 54’-0” (long) x 13’-3” (wide) x 10’-0” (side water depth). Current design includes 2’-4” of freeboard. Fine bubble membrane diffusers are placed in the bottom of the existing basin. Air for the diffusers is supplied through centrifugal blowers located in the administration building. The aeration basin tankage is concrete with a fiberglass enclosure. All of the concrete, piping and diffusers are in good shape, although the fiberglass enclosure may require some maintenance by adding a new exterior coating. The existing blowers also serve the digester and aerated grit chamber. Figure 3-4 depicts the current aeration basin layout. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-5 Figure 3-4 Aeration Basin Layout 3.4 Secondary Clarifier After the aeration process, flows proceed to the existing secondary clarifier sized for the Phase I capacity of 0.107 MGD. The WWTF has one 20-foot diameter circular clarifier with a sidewater depth of 10 feet. Design criteria for the existing secondary clarifier are summarized in the table below: Table 3-1 Existing Secondary Clarifier Design Conditions CONDITION CAPACITY 0.107 MGD SIDEWATER DEPTH 10 FT OVERFLOW RATE 340 GPD/SF DETENTION TIME 5.27 HRS WEIR LOADING RATE 1702 GPD/FT (AT ADF) The existing secondary clarifier is oversized for the current flow rate of 0.107 MGD, due to limitations on tank sizes available at the time of construction in 1994 (the smallest diameter tank available was greater than that required to meet CDPHE design criteria for overflow rate). Therefore the capacity is in excess of 0.107 gpd. Scum flows to a dedicated scum vault located at the side of the clarifier. A progressive cavity-type pump removes scum from the vault and conveys it to the existing digester for final disposal. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-6 Suspended solids performance is a function of many processes within the facility, but is primarily a function of the secondary clarifier. The District’s effluent for suspended solids has been well below the discharge limit (30 mg/L, 30-day average), as recent years’ data indicates effluent TSS averaging less than 5 mg/L. The clarifier drive mechanism has been replaced within the last 10 years, and the clarifier has performed reliably with the exception of times of higher instantaneous flows disrupting the sludge blanket. These higher flows were as a result of high instantaneous flows from main line lift stations. This problem was resolved by modifications to pumping rates. No upgrades to the existing clarifier are recommended at this time, although the addition of another 0.107 MGD clarifier will bring the facility into compliance with other CDPHE design criteria standards explained further in Section 5. Figure 3-5 depicts the current clarifier layout. Figure 3-5 Existing Clarifier Layout Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-7 3.5 Digester The facility has one aerobic digester with a capacity of 0.107 MGD. Design characteristics of the existing aerobic digester are summarized in the table below. Table 3-2 Existing Digester Design Conditions CONDITION CAPACITY 0.107 MGD NO. OF BASINS 2 DIMENSIONS SIDEWATER DEPTH 10 FT LENGTH 30 FT WIDTH 15 FT DETENTION TIME 40 DAYS A concrete divider wall separates the digester into two basins. The water level in the digester is set by a fixed weir; when waste activated sludge (WAS) is pumped to the digester, digested sludge will flowover this fixed weir into the sludge thickening tanks at the end of the digester tank. Internal coarse bubble air diffuser grids are located along the bottom of each of the two digester basins. Air is supplied by existing blowers in the control building. The digested sludge in the sludge thickening tank is allowed to settle, and supernatant is returned by manual manipulation of a telescoping valve that carries decant to a decant wetwell. A baffle surrounding the telescoping valve harbors foam and scum within the thickening tank and prevents foam and scum from entering the decant wetwell and recirculating throughout the WWTF. Liquid decant can be directed back to the pretreatment facility. Digested sludge is piped to the mechanical room within the control building, where it can be pumped to, and disposed of by, a sludge truck. This plant addition will also provide improvements to the digester decant process. Figure 3-6 depicts the current digester layout. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-8 Figure 3-6 Current Digester Layout 3.6 Return and Waste Pumps The two existing return (RAS) pumps and the one waste (WAS) pump are located in the mechanical/control building. The existing RAS and WAS pumps are WEMCO 2x11s model E torque flow pumps with a 20 gpm output and 2 hp motors. RAS pumps were sized for flows between 75% and 150% of design flow. The waste pump draws from the bottom of the existing secondary clarifier and wastes to the digester. The existing WAS pump and was sized for 20 gpm based upon a sludge production of 825 gpd of 1% solids. The existing RAS and WAS pumps are functioning well and do show any signs of reaching useful life. Additionally, with the plant capacity increasing to 0.214 MGD in this phase, with an eventual capacity of 0.321 MGD, a design goal is to have a designated pump per clarifier and a minimum of two pumps per phase for redundancy. Ultimately, three RAS pumps rated for 150% of design flow are recommended. 3.7 Tertiary Filtration The District installed a tertiary filter with the first phase because of commitments made by the Developer of Aspen Glen to build a tertiary wastewater treatment facility. The current mixed media tertiary filter consists of a 20-square foot Microfloc GF-40-2 gravity filter, housed in the chlorination/filtration building. The filter has two filter beds, each with a surface area of 20 square feet (sf). The unit has a design loading rate of 5 gpm/sf. Actual Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-9 current loading rates to the filter range from 1.86 gpm/sf to 3.72 gpm/sf. With the new expansion the loading rate is expected to be 3.72 gpm/sf which is less than the design loading rate of 5 gpm/sf. Space has been provided in the building layout for an additional filter unit to accommodate flows for phase 3. An existing 16,000 gallon clearwell between the clarifier and the tertiary filtration system provides additional equalization of clarified effluent prior to filtration. A 5-horsepower (hp) submersible pump currently pumps from the flow equalization tank to the filter. A 10-hp submersible backwash pump currently supplies backwash water to the filter unit from the end of the chlorine contact chamber. The backwash pump pumping rate provides a backwash rate of 15 gpm/sf over the existing 20-square foot filter. Each backwash cycle creates 4,500 gallons of backwash water that is stored in the surge tank and then pumped back to the head of the plant. The water elevation in the clearwell is always at least seven feet below the outlet of the tertiary filter. The backwash pump, surface wash pump, backwash water holding tank and the backwash water surge tank were all sized for the ultimate plant size of 0.321 MGD and are not recommended for replacement. Figure 3-7 shows the layout of the filter building. Figure 3-7 Filter Building Layout Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-10 3.8 Disinfection Process Currently, disinfection is provided by gas chlorination and a chlorine contact chamber. The existing chlorine contact chamber is a concrete channel located at the end of the plant and was sized for a detention time of 30 minutes at peak hourly flow with a peaking factor of 1.5 times the average day design flow. For a minimum allowable detention time of 30 minutes, the chlorine contact chamber is capable of treating a maximum flow of 0.628 MGD. Interior baffle walls create five individual channels within the contact chamber, and excess volume was provided for backwash water. Chlorination is provided by 150-pound chlorine gas cylinders designed for a dose of 5 mg/L at a flow rate of 0.107 MGD. There is currently storage provided for four 150-pound cylinders in the chlorine room. Figure 3-8 shows the layout of the chlorine contact tank. Figure 3-8 Chlorine Contact Tank Layout 3.9 Natural Wetland Treatment Flow from the chlorine contact chamber is discharged to a natural wetland area that is located between the WWTF and the RF River. This wetland provides further wetland treatment through natural processes to reduce nutrients, residual chlorine, and suspended solids. In turn the wetlands benefit from this source of water. Flood Irrigation practices and irrigation return flows provided much of the historical water sources for the wetlands. As these sources diminish in the future the flow from the WWTF will keep the wetlands viable. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-11 3.10 Existing Process Performance Assessment The facility has performed well and has met discharge requirements. The mechanical equipment has been well maintained. The District has a dedicated source of revenue that is targeted toward replacing aging infrastructure. These funds will be used to continually fund replacement of mechanical and electrical equipment. As can be expected of facilities similar to this age, there are technological improvements and process refinements that would be beneficial to current and future operations. These improvements include both performance and energy reduction. As processes and equipment reach the end of their service life and need replacement, it will be in the District’s best interest to consider investment in upgrades that offer energy savings and/or performance improvements. A general review and assessment of individual treatment processes is presented below. · Headworks: In our opinion, the headworks area requires only minor improvement. The headworks area consists of influent screening, screenings washing, aerated grit removal, grit washing and flow measurement to the facility. o The mechanical screen was replaced in 2010 and is not in need of repair or upgrade, and the aerated grit chamber was designed for the full 0.321 MGD build-out capacity. · Biological Treatment: The existing facility is designed for activated sludge treatment for reduction of organics and utilizes fine bubble aeration. o The existing aeration basin is oversized for current flows, although an additional basin is recommended for addition to comply with CDPHE design guidance for process redundancy and to meet proposed design flow rates. · Secondary Clarification: o An additional clarifier will be required to meet the expanded plant capacity. Further, this plant addition will design a larger clarifier rated for 0.214. A add/deduct process will be used during bid phase. If the bids come in within the District’s budget for the entire facility it will consider the larger clarifier. · Effluent Filters o No additional work will be required for the effluent filter. · Disinfection: o No additional work will be required for the chlorine contact chamber and chlorine gas chemical feed system. · Digesters: o Digester capacity will be increased to .214 MGD by adding a second digester adjacent to the existing digester. Improvements to the decant system will be proposed. · Biosolids Dewatering: o Currently liquid sludge is removed from site by a private sludge hauler and taken to an approved landfill for disposal and or composting. The District will include in this design sludge dewatering equipment. If the District’s budget allows for the added expense to add the dewatering and it has a reasonable payback period the District will install a sludge dewatering system. If not the District will continue the current private hauler contract which is in compliance with all CDPHE requirements. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 3-12 3.10.1 Equipment Service Life Considerations The plant facilities and equipment have been well maintained. All mechanical and electrical equipment will be inspected and maintenance records will be reviewed to determine if replacement is warranted with this plant expansion. The District has an aggressive repair and maintenance schedule and has a dedicated annual fund that is targeted toward equipment replacement and repair. 3.11 Compliance This plant expansion has been triggered by flows reaching 80% of capacity and the need to comply with the CDPHE Water Quality Control Commission Regulation #85 Nutrients Management Control Regulation. Specifically, the new regulation imposed effluent limits for Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) on wastewater dischargers. Regulation 85 has a phased implementation, and the District has an exemption status under the Regulation due to its size. It is anticipated that the exemptions for nutrient effluent limits for site application which have been issued by Regulation 85 for plants smaller than 2.0 MGD will sunset in the year 2022. This suggests that any improvements or modifications will need to be complete and online by 2021 in order to document compliance by 2022. The existing facility regularly achieves permit compliance for flow, BOD5, TSS and Ammonia. However, it cannot meet the pending TIN requirements and biological treatment processes will be needed in order to meet the pending nutrient limits. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 4-1 4.0 Financial Information The District is a special district organized in the State of Colorado under the Special District Act. Revenues are derived from service fees, tap fees, developer contributions and property taxes through a mill levy assessment. Specific funds have been in place since the District’s inception to allow for accrual of funds for capital expenditure on plant expansion and for ongoing replacement and repair of existing facility infrastructure. The Plant Expansion Fund was set up specifically to fund the next phase of facility expansion. The Sewer Reserve fund was set up to fund the repair and replacement of WWTF and conveyance infrastructure. Together, the Plant Expansion Fund and Sewer Fund are projected to total nearly $3M by the end of 2017. The District also has reserve funds in the Water fund, which is projected to be in excess of $1M at the close of 2017. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-1 5.0 Assessment of Alternatives 5.1 Description of Alternatives The existing treatment process meets all PELs with the exception of the proposed TIN effluent limit of 10 mg/L. Due to the current exemption status of the District with respect to the Regulation 85 requirements and the expected delay in implementation of phosphorus effluent limits, process modifications and additions will be implemented for only nitrogen removal at this time. Nitrogen removal, or more properly inorganic nitrogen removal (i.e. Ammonia, Nitrate and Nitrite), can only be accomplished through biological means. Instead of being incorporated in new cell mass like phosphorus, nitrogen reduction occurs after a stepped biochemical processes wherein the nitrogen is released to the atmosphere as nitrogen gas. The first step in the process is ammonia conversion to nitrite and nitrate, which occurs under highly aerobic conditions. The last step is the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas, which occurs under anoxic conditions where there is no free oxygen so the bacteria pull oxygen from the nitrate. When properly controlled, there are no odors created during the denitrification process. Denitrification that occurs before aerobic treatment processes, known as pre- anoxic denitrification, uses influent BOD as the carbon source. When denitrification occurs after the aerobic process it is referred to as post-anoxic denitrification and it requires a supplemental carbon source such as methanol. SGM always prefers maximizing biological treatment and minimizing chemical usage. The following treatment alternatives were evaluated: 1. Construction of an Aeromod facility for 0.214 MGD and the full 0.321 MGD capacity. This alternative was considered in 2008 because at that time the District was growing at an accelerated rate. A large PUD known as Rivers Edge was going through Garfield Counties land use process and had planned on breaking ground as soon as approvals were granted. Further nutrient removal was being studied by CDPHE however regulation 85 was not promulgated at this time. Therefore planning for nutrient removal was being anticipated. The Aeromod process was considered because it did contain nitrification processes and allowed for modular construction. 2. Construction based on the original master plan for incremental expansions of 0.107 MGD capacity. This alternative follows the original master plan of expanding the facility in 107 MGD increments in the campus style layout. This alternative duplicates the existing processes of extended aeration, secondary clarification, tertiary filtration, disinfection via chlorination and chlorine contact, followed by discharge to the natural wetlands, and bio- solids digestion through an aerobic digester. The headworks processes, filtration processes, disinfection processes, and many of the appurtenance items rooms were designed and built to a capacity of 0.321 MGD and therefore will not require additional improvements with this phase. 3. Biological nitrogen removal (BNR). This alternative includes the addition of a biological nitrogen removal process to be installed with alternative 2 as described above. This strategy involves controlling biological environments Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-2 to ensure nitrification and denitrification using anoxic and aerobic conditions. Variations of the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process and integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) process are the two leading candidates for this alternative. Phosphorus reduction is not being investigated at this time. 4. Extend existing outfall to the Roaring Fork River. This strategy involves extending the existing outfall line approximately 200 feet from the current location to bypass the wetlands of the Roaring Fork River. Under this scenario, the ammonia and TIN limitations would be eliminated. Description and discussion of each alternative for the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF is presented below. Discussions are primarily focused on process improvements needed to achieve the effluent goals. It should be noted, however, that the complete project for each alternative may have additional components that are not presented in this section as they are not germane to process selection. 5.1.1 Option 1 – Construction of an Aeromod Facility This option includes the construction of an Aeromod facility for a 0.214 MGD and a 0.321 MGD capacity. The major components of this alternative include: · Maintaining existing processes – headworks, influent pumping, aeration basin, secondary clarifiers, tertiary filtration and final disinfection. o The pretreatment area will require some upgrades to the roofing, masonry, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. · Site work – for connection of air and sludge lines to the Aeromod facility · Construct new Aeromod plant including baffles, weirs, and integral equipment. This option is not viable. Past cost estimates for the construction of an Aeromod facility were significantly higher than the comparable estimates to expand the facility as outlined in the master plan. Additionally, the codified nutrient limits under Regulation 85 eliminated prior uncertainty regarding the level of nutrient removal required at the facility. Taking into account additional equipment upgrade needs for maintained processes (i.e., aging pumping equipment, pretreatment upgrades, blower upgrades for expanded air service), we do not recommend this alternative. 5.1.2 Option 2 – Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) addition to the master planned campus style facility This option includes additional processes for biological reduction of nitrogen. Under this scenario, existing process areas are maintained, redundancy is provided in the aeration and clarification processes, and an anoxic process area is added. A Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) process will be explored which will remove TIN. Given the anticipation of future compliance schedules with phosphorus reduction, the facility design will include a footprint for future enhanced BNR process for phosphorus treatment. The two leading candidates for a BNR process include a variation of the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process and the integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) process. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-3 The MLE process is a two stage activated sludge process for the total nitrogen reduction. The first stage is an anoxic environment where bacteria reduce nitrogen in a low to no free oxygen environment using a carbon source (in the form of BOD in the raw influent). Nitrification occurs in the second stage, which is a highly aerobic zone where bacteria convert ammonia to nitrates. The nitrate-rich mixed liquor created in this stage are returned to the anoxic zone via pumping for reduction, referred to as Internal Recycle (IR). Hydraulic retention times in the anoxic zone will range from two to four hours, and internal recycle rates will vary from two to four times the influent flow. The approximate volume of the anoxic zone will be 27,000 gallons for a design flow of 0.214 MGD. One basin will be installed ahead of the existing and proposed aeration basins and will contain an internal baffle wall for a capacity of 0.107 MGD in each side. The anoxic basin will be designed for operation in series or parallel. IFAS combines activated sludge with constantly fixed film elements. This allows for a higher density of bacteria in the tanks, provides an area for nitrifying bacteria to grow, and provides an advanced level of resiliency as the bugs on the fixed film cannot be washed out by hydraulic surges. The IFAS process is typically broken into two chambers to ensure that BOD is removed in one stage and ammonia is converted in the other. The footprint for IFAS systems is smaller than conventional treatment processes. The MLE process is a proven process for nitrogen reduction. As with all BNR systems, these systems are more complex to operate than a conventional activated sludge process. Attention needs to be paid to oxygen levels, oxidation reduction potential (ORP) levels, and return rates for RAS and IR. The benefit of a conventional MLE system is the flexibility. Air flow rates can be optimized to meet the minimum oxygen demands. The control of the air flow rate translates to both energy savings (as compared to an IFAS) and better process control for nitrogen reduction. The downside of a conventional MLE process is the cost of the large tanks, although the larger tanks afford more opportunity for future modifications without physical expansion (e.g. such as potentially to an IFAS system). IFAS offers benefits for treatment of daily and seasonal load variations. IFAS also offers an advance level of resiliency, as there is both activated sludge and fixed film. Because air flow rates are high in IFAS tanks to keep the fixed-film media suspended, excess free oxygen is returned with the nitrates back to the anoxic zone, which limits the denitrification capacity of the system. Proper design must account for this to maximize system efficiency. The high air flow requirement also means higher electrical costs. Under this option, a distinct anoxic zone will be created by constructing a new concrete basin with internal baffle wall upstream of the aeration process area. The anoxic basin will be designed such that effluent can be distributed to each aeration basin individually. Aeration capacity of the facility will be increased by constructing an additional aeration basin designed to have a common wall with a future third aeration basin. Components under this alternative include: · Construction of a new anoxic basin. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-4 · Construction of an additional 0.107 MGD aeration basin, similar to the existing A- basin. · Construction of an additional 0.107 MGD secondary clarifier, similar to the existing clarifiers. · Construction of an additional aerobic digester, similar to the existing digester. · Improvements to existing mechanical pumping and filter equipment. This option is recommended for the following reasons: · BNR processes have been proven to effectively remove nitrogen; · The proposed process additions to achieve a BNR process at the facility do not require substantial changes to the current operation of the plant; · There is available footprint for process redundancy expansions; · Proposed BNR system can be expanded upon at later date to comply with anticipated future phosphorus effluent limitations. 5.1.3 Option 3 – Extend existing outfall to the Roaring Fork River The existing outfall discharges to a natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River, which requires ammonia and TIN limitations. This option would extend the outfall to bypass the wetlands and discharge directly to the Roaring Fork River, which would eliminate ammonia and TIN limits. However, the wetland area provides a significant amount of additional treatment to the effluent prior to discharge to the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are an excellent source of nutrient uptake for both nitrogen and phosphorus, and the detention time through the wetlands facilitates the settling out of any additional suspended solids. The effluent from the facility also aids in the wetland plant species’ survival: much of the historic irrigation water from flood irrigation practices has disappeared as adjacent land use practices transition from an agricultural focus to an urban focus. Although extending the outfall will eliminate the need for a TIN limitation, it is expected that a TIN limitation will be required in the year 2022 when the Regulation 85 exemptions for small facilities is phased out. Extending the outfall through the wetlands will be disruptive to the riparian habitat, as the saturated material will not hold a vertical trench wall and will result in a very wide disturbance area which will take years to recover. This option is not recommended. Taking into account the benefits of additional treatment from the wetlands, the potential disturbance to the wetland riparian habitat with an extended outfall, and the future TIN limitation requirement regardless of outfall location, we do not recommend this alternative. 5.2 Design Criteria The figure below reproduces the effluent summary table in the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) received for the facility in August 2016. The complete set of PELs is included in Appendix F and a summary is shown in Table 5-1. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-5 Table 5-1 PEL Summary Table PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR EVALUATION UNDER THE SITE APPROVAL PROCESS DISCHARGE TO AN UNNAMED NATURAL WETLANDS TRIBUTARY TO THE ROARING FORK RIVER AT A DESIGN FLOW OF 0.214 MGD BOD5 (MG/L) 45 (7-DAY AVERAGE), 30 (30-DAY AVERAGE) BOD5 (% REMOVAL) 85 (30-DAY AVERAGE) TSS, MECHANICAL PLANT (MG/L) 45 (7-DAY AVERAGE), 30 (30-DAY AVERAGE) TSS, MECHANICAL PLANT (% REMOVAL) 85 (30-DAY AVERAGE) OIL & GREASE, (MG/L) 10 (MAXIMUM) PH (S.U.) 6.5-9.0 (MINIMUM-MAXIMUM) OTHER POLLUTANTS MAX. LIMITS OR WBQELS NIL E. COLI (#/100 ML) 252 (7-DAY GEOMEAN), 126 (30-DAY GEOMEAN) NA TRC (MG/L) 0.019 (DAILY MAX.), 0.011 (30-DAY AVG.) NA TOTAL INORGANIC NITROGEN AS N (MG/L) 10 (DAILY MAXIMUM) NA TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (MG/L) REPORT (DAILY MAX), REPORT (30-DAY AVERAGE) NA TOTAL AMMONIA WQBELS (MG/L) NIL (MG/L) NH3 AS N, JANUARY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, FEBRUARY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, MARCH 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, APRIL 15 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, MAY 15 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, JUNE 17 (DAILY MAXIMUM) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, JULY 15 (DAILY MAX.), 2.8 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, AUGUST 15 (DAILY MAX.) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, SEPTEMBER 15 (DAILY MAX.) 3.0 (30-DAY AVG.) NH3 AS N, OCTOBER 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, NOVEMBER 13 (DAILY MAX.), 3.9 (30-DAY AVG.) NA NH3 AS N, DECEMBER 15 (DAILY MAX.), 4.7 (30-DAY AVG.) NA Each alternative herein evaluated is capable of meeting the design criteria listed below. The improved facility must satisfactorily treat all influent loading to permitted effluent limits. A summary of influent design parameters is presented in Table 5-2 below. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-6 Table 5-2 Influent Design Parameters CONDITION FLOW (MAX MONTH) 0.214 MGD BOD5 450 LBS/DAY TSS 240 MG/L AMMONIA 32.5 MG/L TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 7.0 MG/L PH 7.2 TEMP. 10.0 C ALKALINITY >200 MG/L While the new permit contains numerical limits for the effluent, it is good design practice to have process performance goals that are somewhat below the permitted levels to ensure reliable attainment. Consequently, we recommend the improved facility be designed to meet the effluent goals listed in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Effluent Design Parameters (composite sample basis) CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION BOD <10 mg/l TSS <10 mg/l Ammonia 0.5 mg/l TIN 10 mg/L 5.3 Environmental Impacts All improvements will be conducted within the currently facility boundary that has been disturbed and modified many times in the past. Consequently, no new environmental impacts will be created by this project. In fact, the new facility will improve effluent quality and thereby reduce environmental impacts to the receiving waterbody. A summary matrix of environmental impacts is as follows: Table 5-4 Environmental Impacts Matrix EXISTING FACILITY IMPROVED FACILITY FLOODPLAIN Outside 100-year flood plain; Outside 100-year flood plain. WETLANDS NONE NONE WILDLIFE HABITAT NONE NONE ARCHEOLOGICAL NONE NONE HISTORICAL NONE NONE The existing facility and all its lands are outside any known or delineated floodplain boundary. Attached in Appendix J is the relevant floodplain map that covers the property. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-7 5.4 Land Requirements No additional land outside the WWTF site will be required. Any additional building space required will be taken from the existing lagoon area. Any new buildings will be enclosed and have planted-type roof to maintain the current level of aesthetics. Construction will be contained within the original master planned boundary as shown in the following figure. Actual location of yard piping and basin location may vary as the final design process proceeds. The District owns approximately 11.5 acres. An ownership map is shown in Appendix G. 5.5 Construction Problems A matrix of anticipated site-related concerns and issues that could affect construction is as follows: Table 5-5 Construction Problems Matrix LEVEL OF CONCERN NOTES HIGH GROUNDWATER LOW GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED IN PHASE 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DEWATERING MANHOLES ARE STILL IN PLACE AND WILL BE USED TO LOWER GROUNDWATER TABLES. ROCK EXCAVATION NONE ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED AREAS. SOILS CONSIST OF ALLUVIAL GRAVELS. FLOODPLAIN NONE NOT IN FLOODPLAIN CONSTRUCTION ACCESS NONE EXISTING ACCESS ROAD WILL BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. STAFF ACCESS TO FACILITIES MUST BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION. STAGING NONE DISTRICT OWNED LAND WILL BE USED AS A STAGING AREA. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-8 There are no significant site-related concerns. Construction sequencing will be a key component in detail design so as to maintain discharge compliance during construction. All new construction will occur within the existing property boundaries. The construction footprint of this phase will be contained within the confines of the original master-planned area. Because this is a campus design layout, construction will occur within the confines of the land with prior disturbance. The entire site has been disturbed at some point and many buildings are in place. Consequently, the site is deemed suitable for new construction. A geotechnical evaluation is contained in Appendix I. 5.6 Operational Aspects Operational aspects of a mechanical WWTF are characterized by the following: · Requires Class B license – no change · No additional staff requirement is expected. · The future WWTF will be very similar to operate compared to the existing facility. Existing staff will likely not require extensive training for proper process understanding and operation. 5.7 Cost Estimates A cost estimate for the selected alternative of a .107 MGD expansion consistent with the master planned campus design, along with a BNR process to meet Regulation 85 is shown in Table 5-6. Cost estimates range from $2.34 million to $2.74 million. The range of costs is based upon several design scenarios that include a base bid along with bid add/deducts for non-essential additions that the District would like to explore by including them in the bid process. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-9 Table 5-6 Cost Estimate for Preferred Alternative RFWSD SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CALCULATED: LOM, BDW OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FILE RFWSD DATE FEB 14, 2017 PRELIMINARY EXTENDED AERATION ALTERNATIVE 0.107 MGD, TOTAL Capacity 0.214 MGD No. Item/Description Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price 1 NUTRIENT REMOVAL/ANOXIC BASIN EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 250 CY $40 $10,000 BOTTOM SLAB 8 CY $600 $4,800 WALLS 6 CY $900 $5,400 DIVIDER WALL 3 CY $900 $2,700 CONTROLS & ELECTRIC 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 ENCLOSURE 270 SF $100 $27,000 YARD PIPING 400 LF $200 $80,000 YARD VALVES 6 EA $1,000 $6,000 INTERNAL RECYCLE PUMP 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 INTERNAL RECYCLE PUMP VALVE AND FITTINGS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 MIXERS 2 EA $5,000 $10,000 PLANT PIPING 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL $220,900 2 AERATION BASIN EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 1000 CY $40 $40,000 WALLS 104 CY $900 $93,600 SLABS 114 CY $600 $68,400 ELECTRIC 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSERS 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 MISC GRATING 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 SPLITTER BOXES 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 MISC BAFFLES,WEIRS,CHANNEL GATES 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 PLANT PIPING 60 LF $100 $6,000 CONTROL EQUIPMENT 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 FITTINGS 5 EA $1,000 $5,000 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-10 VALVES 4 EA $1,500 $6,000 SUMP PUMP 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 HAND RAILS 120 LF $20 $2,400 ENCLOSURES 1800 SF $60 $108,000 TOTAL $449,400 3 CLARIFIER 20FT DIA EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 290 CY $40 $11,600 WALLS 45 CY $900 $40,500 SLABS 20 CY $600 $12,000 SLAB SURFACE GROUT 7 CY $925 $6,475 WESTECH EQUIPMENT (only) 1 LS $105,000 $105,000 PLANT PIPING 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 ELECTRIC/CONTROLS 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 ENCLOSURES MATERIAL 530 SF $85 $45,050 SCUM BOX AND PUMP STATION 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 TOTAL $280,625 4 DIGESTOR MODIFY EXISTING DIGESTOR 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 842 CY $40 $33,680 TOP SLAB 20 CY $1,000 $20,000 WALLS 100 CY $900 $90,000 SLABS 30 CY $600 $18,000 ELECTRIC/CONTROLS 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 COURSE BUBBLE DIFFUSER 450 SF $50 $22,500 MISC GRATING 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 MISC BAFFLES,WEIRS,CHANNEL GATES 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 PLANT PIPING 60 LF $200 $12,000 FITTINGS 5 EA $1,000 $5,000 VALVES 4 EA $1,500 $6,000 SUMP PUMP 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 HAND RAILS 60 LF $15 $900 ENCLOSURES 0 LS $20,000 $0 TOTAL $275,580 5 SITE WORK 12" LINE PRETREATMENT TO A BASIN 50 LF $150 $7,500 12" LINE FROM A BASIN TO CLARIFIER 400 LF $150 $60,000 12" LINE CLARIFYER TO FILTER BLDG 150 LF $150 $22,500 8" DECANT LINE 170 LF $100 $17,000 8" RAS LINE CLARIFIER TO CONTROL BLDG 50 LF $80 $4,000 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-11 8" WAS LINE CLARIFIER TO CONTROL BLDG 50 LF $80 $4,000 MISC FITTINGS 20 EA $500 $10,000 12" AIR LINE CONTROL BLDG TO DIGESTOR 30 LF $150 $4,500 12" AIR LINE CONTROL BLDG TO A BASIN 30 LF $150 $4,500 VALVES 6 EA $750 $4,500 ELECTRIC YARD UTILITY 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 LANDSCAPING 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 PIPE EFFLUENT PIPE TO RIVER 250 LF $150 $37,500 SPLITTER BOXES 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 DEWATERING 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 8" LINE FROM A BASIN TO THICKENER $0 STORMWATER BMPS 1 LS $150 $150 TOTAL $253,650 6 CONTROL BLDG ELECTRIC 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 PLANT PIPING COATINGS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 BLOWER 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 PIPING 40 LF $150 $6,000 VALVES 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 FITTINGS 8 EA $400 $3,200 MISC BLOWER INSTRUMENTATION 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 DO PROBE 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL $197,200 7 MISC MOBILIZATION AND GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 RAS PUMPS 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 PLANT PIPING 50 LF $150 $7,500 PLANT FITTINGS 20 EA $250 $5,000 FILTER MEDIA 1 LS $0 $0 MISC CONTROL ELECTRIC 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 VFD IMPROVEMENT TO IRONBRIDGE 1 LS $0 $0 TOTAL $217,500 PLANT TOTAL $1,894,855 25% CONTINGENCY $473,714 TOTAL (BASE) $2,368,569 OPTIONS: Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-12 3A CLARIFIER 30FT DIA EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 1018 CY $40 $40,720 WALLS 70 CY $900 $63,000 SLABS 55 CY $600 $33,000 SLAB SURFACE GROUT 15 CY $925 $13,875 WESTECH EQUIPMENT 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 PLANT PIPING 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 ELECTRIC/CONTROLS 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 ENCLOSURES MATERIAL 825 SF $85 $70,125 SCUM BOX AND PUMP STATION 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 TOTAL $425,720 1A BIOSOLIDS THICKENING EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 22 CY $40 $880 CMU BUILDING 400 SF $250 $100,000 SLUDGE PUMPS 2 EA $15,000 $30,000 SCREW PRESS (includes poly feed & ctr) 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 CONVEYORS 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 ELECTRIC/CONTROLS 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 YARD PIPING 100 LF $200 $20,000 YARD VALVES 1 EA $1,000 $1,000 CIRCLE DRIVE FOR SLUDGE TRUCKS 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 PLANT PIPING, FITTINGS, & VALVES 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 TOTAL $371,880 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 5-13 5.8 Advantages/Disadvantages The table below reiterates and expands on the pros and cons listed for each option under the individual description of each option. Table 5-7 Merits of Alternatives OPTION DESCRIPTION PRO CON 1 Aeromod facility · Modular construction, ease of operation, pre-engineered construction · NOT VIABLE not cost effective. Does not provide denitrification, requires changes from campus design to processes in one footprint 2 Existing campus master planned concept with BNR · Will comply with Regulation 85 · Consistent with master plan · Utilizes existing processes designed for 0.321 MGD · Cost Effective · Campus style allows existing plant to remain in service during construction of phase 2. · Requires BNR addition to meet Regulation 85 3 Extend outfall to Roaring Fork River · Avoids a TIN effluent limit in the near term · Eliminates ammonia limitations by avoiding wetland discharge · Requires disturbance of natural wetland · Requires expense of installing outfall line across wetland area · Requires 404 permit Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 6-1 6.0 Selected Alternative 6.1 Justification of Selected Alternative Several treatment alternatives were evaluated to meet the pending nutrient removal requirements. Each, however, has its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages, be it construction related, capital cost, life-cycle cost or operational complexity. In the end, the selected alternative must have the greatest total value to the District. The major goals and criteria considered in the District decision process include the following: 1. Alternatives need to consider meeting all effluent limits; 2. Alternatives must accommodate ease of Phase 3 expansion; 3. Alternatives must meet Regulation 85 requirements and must be constructed accounting for future process additions; 4. Alternatives must be economically feasible; and 5. Operations must be user friendly. Of the options reviewed, it is our opinion that Option 2 (addition of the BNR process to the master planned campus design layout to meet Regulation 85 requirements) meets the District’s goals. EBNR improvements outlined in Option 2 offer the most value to the District. The benefits of this option include: Reasonable capital and long-term operational costs. History of reliability and performance. Operational flexibility. Construction sequencing and ability to treat flows during construction. Re-use of existing structures. Future adaptability. Consistent with all prior approvals for master planned phases of 0.107 MGD 6.2 Technical Description The preferred alternative is a BNR process. This configuration is a controlled progression through anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic environments. Schematic layouts are as follows: Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 6-2 Figure 6-1 Proposed Process Schematic A conceptual plan for the facility is outlined below in Figure 6-2. It is expected that there will minor modifications and revisions to this plan as detailed design progresses. Facility design criteria are listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Unit processes will be designed in accordance with criteria listed in CDPHE Water Quality Control Commission Policy WPC- DR-1. Figure 6-2 Proposed Plant Layout Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report 6-3 6.3 Project Implementation The project will be constructed in a single phase. A project implementation schedule is presented below. Table 6-1 Project Schedule Estimates ITEM PROJECTED DATE PROJECT INITIATION DONE PELS ISSUED DONE SITE APPLICATION MAY 2017 PROCESS DESIGN REPORT (PDR) JULY 2017 CDPHE DESIGN REVIEW JANUARY 2018 CONSTRUCTION START APRIL 2018 – APRIL 2019 DRAFT O&M JUNE 2018 DISCHARGE PERMIT DECEMBER 2020 FINAL O&M MAY 2019 WWTF STARTUP SPRING 2019 COMPLIANCE DATE APRIL 2020 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix A Appendix A Review Fees, Site Application Form, and Checklist Revised October 2012 Fee Information Request Form Page 1 of 3 Water Quality Control Division Engineering Section Site Location or Design Review – Fee Information Request Form Regulation 22 - Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works Directions: Please submit site location or design review request via email to the Division Unit Manager responsible for the County in which the project is located. Fill out form as completely as possible; please note all information with an asterisk (*) is required. A. Project and System Information System Name* Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Project Title* Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion County* Garfield County For existing domestic wastewater treatment works, please indicate original site location approval number and date #4133, 1994 Send Invoice to: Design Company Applicant Design Company Name SGM, Inc. Design Engineer Brandyn Bair CO License Number 42640 Address 118 W. 6th St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Email brandynb@sgm-inc.com Phone 970.384.9024 Fax Applicant / Entity* Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Representative Name/Title* Tonya Uren, District Administrator Address (include City, State, Zip Code)* 3790 County Road 109 Carbondale, CO 81623 Email* info@rfwsd.com Phone 970.945.2144 Fax B. Type of Review Requested (check all that apply) Treatment Facility Lift Station New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works (Section 22.4 of Regulation 22) New Lift Station (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) Existing Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works – Increasing or Decreasing Capacity (Section 22.5 of Regulation 22) Expansion of Existing Lift Station (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) Amendment to Existing Site Location Approval Interceptors Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval – Disinfection Changes Only (Section 22.8(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation 22) Interceptor Sewers Not Eligible for Certification (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval – All other Amendment Requests (Section 22.8 Regulation 22) Certification for Eligible Interceptors(Section 22.6 of Regulation 22) Other Reviews and Special Cases New outfall for existing domestic wastewater treatment works Site Approval Extension Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) C. Project Information Location (existing or proposed site) Proposed Project Capacity Address (include City, State, Zip Code)* Carbondale, CO 81623 Hydraulic Capacity: Maximum Month Average in million gallons per day (MGD) 0.214 MGD Legal Description (e.g., Township, Range) NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of S13, T7S, R89W and part of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of S18, T7S, Hydraulic Capacity: Peak Hour in million gallons per day (MGD) 0.642 MGD 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, B2 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 CDPHE.WQEngReview@state.co.us 303-692-6298 Revised October 2012 Fee Information Request Form Page 2 of 3 R88W County Garfield County Latitude 39.45200N Organic Capacity (lbs. BOD5/day) – Treatment Facility Only 450 lbs. BOD5/day Longitude 107.26879W Estimated Project Cost $2.5M Funding Process Will a State or Federal grant or loan be sought to finance any portion of the project (e.g., State Revolving Fund)? No Yes If yes, please list project number D. Brief Project Summary and Major Project Work Description (e.g., new treatment facility, addition of a new aeration basin, request for re-rating of organic capacity where no construction is proposed, addition of larger pumps in an existing pump station) The expansion of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFWSD) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) will include the following: 1. addition of one 107,000 gallon-per-day (gpd) aeration basin; 2. addition of an anoxic process, including pumps and piping necessary for recycling mixed liquor from the aeration basin to the anoxic basin; 3. design of a treatment plant, necessary footprint, and piping for future enhanced biological nutrient removal (EBNR) for phosphorus removal; 4. addition of another secondary clarifier to meet the CDPHE design criteria requirements for redundancy; 5. an analysis of influent flows to determine the need for flow equalization or pump system modifications to keep pretreatment facilities and clarifiers from exceeding their design capacity. Additional blower capacity and digester capacity will be considered, including an improved decant system and thickening capabilities. FOR DIVISION USE ONLY Treatment Facility Amendment to Existing Site Location Approval New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works (Section 22.4 of Regulation 22 Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval – Disinfection Changes Only (Section 22.8(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation 22) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.1 & 45.1) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.9 & 45.9) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.2 & 45.2) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.10 & 45.10) 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.3 & 45.3) 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.11 & 45.11) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.4 & 45.4) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.12 & 45.12) Existing Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works – Increasing or Decreasing Capacity (Section 22.5 of Regulation 22) Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval – All Other Amendments (Section 22.8) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.1 & 45.1) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.13 & 45.13) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.2 & 45.2) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.14 & 45.14) 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.3 & 45.3) 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.15 & 45.15) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.4 & 45.4) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.16 & 45.16) Lift Station Interceptors New Lift Station (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) Interceptor Sewers Not Eligible for Certification (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) (Subcategory 44.19 & 45.18) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.5 & 45.5) Certification for Eligible Interceptors(Section 22.6 of Regulation 22) (Subcategory 44.20) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.6 & 45.6) Other Applications and/or Reviews 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.7 & 45.7) Individual Sewage Disposal System (Subcategory 44.17 & 45.17) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.8 & 45.8) Site Application Extension (Subcategory 44.18) Expansion of Existing Lift Station (Section 22.7 of Regulation 22) Outfall Sewers (Subcategory 44.21 & 45.19) Less than 100,000 gals/day (Subcategory 44.5 & 45.5) 100,000 gals/day to 999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.6 & 45.6) 1,000,000 gals/day to 9,999,999 gals/day (Subcategory 44.7 & 45.7) 10,000,000 gallons/day or more (Subcategory 44.8 & 45.8) Revised October 2012 Fee Information Request Form Page 3 of 3 Revised December 2013 Section 22.5: Application Form Page 1 of 6 Revised December 2013 Section 22.5: Application Form Page 2 of 6 Project and System Information Project Title Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion System Name Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District County Garfield County CDPS Permit No. CO0044750 CDPS Permit Expiration Date December 31, 2020 Original site location approval number and date #4133, 1994 Treatment Facility Information 1. Existing Facility Process Overview a) Please describe the existing wastewater treatment facility process(es) The existing WWTF is an activated sludge facility with secondary clarification, tertiary filtration, chlorine disinfection, and aerobic digestion of biosolids. Influent passes through the existing pretreatment facility, which consists of flow measurement and screenings and grit removal equipment. Effluent is discharged to the wetlands adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. b) Existing Facility Approved Capacities Existing Hydraulic Capacity: Maximum Month Average: 0.214 million gallons per day (MGD) Peak Hour: N/A million gallons per day (MGD) Existing Organic Capacity: Maximum Month Average 225 lbs of BOD5/day c) Existing Facility – Current Flow and Loading Current Flows: Maximum Month Average: 0.060 - 0.088 million gallons per day (MGD) Percent of Existing Capacity: 57% - 82% Peak Hour: N/A million gallons per day (MGD) Percent of Existing Capacity: N/A Current Organic Load: Maximum Month Average: 127 lbs of BOD5/day Percent of Existing Capacity: 57% 2. Proposed Facility Process Overview a) Please describe the proposed wastewater treatment facility process(es) and any existing treatment process(es) or equipment being retained. The expansion of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFWSD) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) will include the following: 1. addition of one 107,000 gallon-per-day (gpd) aeration basin; 2. addition of an anoxic process, including pumps and piping necessary for recycling mixed liquor from the aeration basin to the anoxic basin; 3. design of a treatment plant, necessary footprint, and piping for future enhanced biological nutrient removal (EBNR) for phosphorus removal; 4. addition of another secondary clarifier to meet the CDPHE design criteria requirements for redundancy; 5. an analysis of influent flows to determine the need for flow equalization or pump system modifications to keep pretreatment facilities and clarifiers from exceeding their design capacity. Additional blower capacity and digester capacity will be considered, including an improved decant system and thickening capabilities. Site Information 3. Vicinity maps of facility location which includes the following: a) 5 mile radius map: all wastewater treatment facilities, lift stations and domestic water supply intakes b) 1 mile radius map: habitable buildings, location of public and private potable water wells, an approximate indication of the topography, and neighboring land uses 4. Site Location Zoning a) Present zoning of the site location? Revised December 2013 Section 22.5: Application Form Page 3 of 6 PUD b) Zoning within a one (1) mile radius of the site? PUD, Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density, Agricultural/Industrial, Commercial General, Commercial Limited 5. Floodplain or Natural Hazard Area a) Is the facility located in a 100-year floodplain or other natural hazard area? If so, what precautions are being taken? No. No precautions necessary. b) Has the floodplain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other agency? If so, please list agency name and the designation. FEMA. Plant site is above the floodway and flood plain; designation is not applicable. 6. Land Ownership a) Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Please attach copies of the document(s) creating authority for the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site. RFWSD 7. Nearby Facilities a) Please list all municipalities and water and/or sanitation districts within 5-miles downstream of the proposed wastewater treatment facility site. No municipal or District WWTFs are located within 5-miles downstream. The following are privately owned systems: H-Lazy-F Mobile Home Park, Mountain Meadows MHP, El Rocco MHP. Treatment Facility Effluent Information 8. Effluent disposal method (please check all that apply) Surface Discharge to watercourse (enter watercourse name below) Groundwater Discharge Land application Treated Effluent Reuse (Regulation 84) Evaporation Other (describe below) Natural wetlands tributary to Roaring Fork River, stream segment COUCRF03a. 9. Preliminary Effluent Limits (please attach a copy in Engineering Report) a) Preliminary Effluent Limits date: August 31, 2016 b) Preliminary Effluent Limits expiration date: December 31, 2020 10. Downstream Distances a) Downstream distance from the discharge point to the nearest domestic water supply intake? Name of supply? Address of supply? Distance: 9 miles Name of Supply: City of Glenwood Springs Address of Supply: 806 Cooper, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 b) Downstream Distance from the discharge point to the nearest other point of diversion? Name of user? Address of user? Revised December 2013 Section 22.5: Application Form Page 4 of 6 Distance: 17 miles Name of User: Town of New Castle Address of User: P.O. Box 90, New Castle, CO 81647 Project Information 11. a) What entity is financially responsible for the construction of the facility? RFWSD 12. a) What entity has the financially responsibility for owning and long term operating expense of the proposed facility? RFWSD 13. a) What entity has the responsibility for managing and operating the proposed facility after construction? RFWSD Additional Factors 14. Please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your site location application. An existing WWTF already exists at this site and is functioning well within its discharge permit. The original service plan and site application contemplated this expansion, and a pre-inclusion agreement with the parties involved in the Expanded Service Area has accounted for additional utility service needs achievable within the proposed capacity. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division Engineering Section 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, 82 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 CDPHE.WQEngReview@state.co.us 303-692-6298 Applicant Certification and Review Agencies Recommendation Section 22.5 of Regulation 22: Increasing or Decreasing the Design Capacity f E. . W T tF T o an x1stmg astewater reatmen ac11ty A. Project and System lnfonnation System Name Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Project Title Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion County Garfield County 1. A licant Certification I certify that I am familiar with the requirement of Regulation 22 -Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works , and have posted the site in accordance with the Regulations . An engineering report , as described b the re ulations, has been re ared and is enclosed. Applicant Legal Representati ve (e.g., Public Works Director Date T ed Name The system legal representative is the legally responsible agent and decision-making authority (e.g. mayor, pres ident of a board , public works director, owner). The Consulting Engineer is not the legal representative and cannot sign th is form . 2. Recommendation of Review Agencies As required in Section 22.5(4) and referencing the procedure in Section 22.4(2), the app li cation and the engineering report must be submitted to all appropriate local governments, 208 planning agencies and State agencies for review and comment prior to submittal to the Division . By signing below, the entity or agency: 1) acknowledges receipt of the proposed site location application , 2) has reviewed the proposed site location application and may elect to provide comments , and 3) has provided a recommendation concerning the application to the Division. The recommendation should be based on the factors outlined in Section 22.4(2); for example , on the consistency of the proposed site location application with the local comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality and any adopted water quality management plans(s). Please note: Review agencies are encouraged to provide projec t co mments; however, if a review agency does not recommend approval then the agency must attached a letter describing the reason for their de cision or comment on the ne xt p age. Skinature of ManaQement AQency, if different from other entities listed below I Role Date Typed Name I Agency Signature .. .. -- Recommend Aooroval? I Yes I D I No I D Signature of County, if proposed facility is located in unincorporated areas of a county Role Date Typed Name I AQencv SiQnature ------ Recommend Approval? I Yes I D I No I D Signature of City or Town, if site is located within three miles of the City/Town boundary (if multiple, attach additional sheets as needed) Role Date Typed Name I Agency SiQnature Carbondale , CO Glenwood Springs, CO Recommend Approval? I Yes I D I No I D SiQnature of Local Health Authority Role Date Typed Name I AQency SiQnature Board of County Commisioners of Garfield County Recommend Approval? I Yes I D I No I D Re vi sed December 201 3 Section 22 .5: Applicati on Form Page 5 of 6 Revised December 2013 Section 22.5: Application Form Page 6 of 6 Signature of 208 Planning Agency Role Date Typed Name / Agency Signature Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Recommend Approval? Yes No Signature of Other State or Federal Agencies, if facility is located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency. Role Date Typed Name / Agency Signature -- -- -- Recommend Approval? Yes No Signature of Other Basin Water Quality Authority, Watershed Association, Watershed Authority, etc., if facility is located in a Water Quality Control Commission Watershed Protection Control Area. Role Date Typed Name / Agency Signature -- -- -- Recommend Approval? Yes No Review Agency Comments: Revised October 2012 Section 22.5: Completeness Checklist Page 1 of 2 Water Quality Control Division Engineering Section Regulation 22 Application Completeness Checklist Section 22.5 of Regulation 22: Increasing or Decreasing the Design Capacity of an Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Project and System Information Project Title Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion System Name Roaring Fork Water & Sanitatin District County Garfield Applicant to fill out Regulation 22 Citation Submittal Requirements Included/Addressed in Site Location Submittal? Yes/No/NA Location in Submittal (page) 22.5(1) Site Application Forms including: - Signature of local authorities and 208 planning agency (see 22.5(4)) - Signature of responsible party of the proposed facility Yes App. A Engineering Report including Yes Service Area Definition Service Area Changes including:Yes - Changes to existing service area Yes Section 2, App. B, App. D, App. E, App. G - Population changes Yes Section 2, App. B, App. D, App. E, App. G - Staging or phasing Yes Section 2, App. B, App. D, App. E, App. G 22.5 (2)(a) - Flow and loading projections Yes Section 2, App. B, App. D, App. E, App. G Preliminary Effluent Limitations Preliminary Effluent Limits:Yes - Summary of PELs including issuance and expiration date Yes Section 2.7, 5.2, App. F22.5 (2)(b) - Pretreatment program or enforceable mechanism description, if applicable N/A Existing Treatment Works Analysis of the existing treatment works, including:Yes 22.5 (2) 22.5 (2)(c) - Loading Yes Section 2.5, 2.6, Section 3, App. C 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, B2 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 CDPHE.WQEngReview@state.co.us 303-692-6298 Revised October 2012 Section 22.5: Completeness Checklist Page 2 of 2 - Capacities Yes Section 2.5, 2.6, Section 3, App. C - Performance Yes Section 2.5, 2.6, Section 3, App. C Alternatives Analysis (including Consolidation) Analysis of Alternatives Means to Treat, including: Yes Section 2.4, Section 522.5 (2)(d)- Consolidation Analysis Yes Section 2.4, Section 5 Selected Alternative Selected Alternative Description, including:Yes Section 5, Section 6 - Treatment system description Yes Section 5, Section 6 - Design capacities Yes Section 5, Section 6 - Operational staffing needs Yes Section 5, Section 6 Recommended - Process Flow Diagram Yes App. H Financial information Financial system changes which will result from the proposed increase or decrease in design capacity, including Yes Section 422.5 (2)(e) - Rate structure changes N/A Implementation plan and schedule Implementation plan and schedule, including:Yes Section 622.5 (2)(f) - Estimated construction time Yes Section 6 22.5 (2)(f) continued - Estimated date upon which the modified plant will be in operation Yes Section 6 Geotechnical site conditions evaluation material Yes App. I 22.5 (3)Soils Report in design phase which states the selected site will support the proposed facility Yes App. I 22.5 (4) Site Application Review and Comments from: (a) Management Agency (b) County (c) City or Town (d) Local Health (e) 208 Planning Agency (f)Other state or federal agencies Yes App. A Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix B Appendix B 5-mile and 1-mile Radius maps !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V ") Map by:Date:RFWSD WWTF Vicintiy MapGarfield County, Colorado Projection: ESRI, CDOT, BLM, RFWSD, Garfield County, SGMData Sources: File:I:\1996\96059\A-111 GIS Mapping\GIS\MXDs\RE-1 Figures\CDPHE_Vicinity_Map.mxd The information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations.®RKK NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N ")WWTF !V Wells RFWSD - District Boundary 5 Mile Radius from WWTF 96059A Ph.129C05/08/2017 Transverse Mercator 1Map: Coordinate System: Job No.0 5,500 11,000Feet 1 inch = 5,500 feet !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V!V !V !V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V !V!V!V !V!V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V !V!V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V !V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V!V !V !V !V !V ") Map by:Date:RFWSD WWTF Vicintiy MapGarfield County, Colorado Projection: ESRI, CDOT, BLM, RFWSD, Garfield County, SGMData Sources: File:I:\1996\96059\A-111 GIS Mapping\GIS\MXDs\RE-1 Figures\CDPHE_Vicinity_Map.mxd The information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations.®RKK NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N ")WWTF !V Wells !Residential Buildings RFWSD - District Boundary Parcels 1 Mile Radius from WWTF 96059A Ph.129C05/08/2017 Transverse Mercator 1Map: Coordinate System: Job No.0 1,100 2,200Feet 1 inch = 1,100 feet Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix C Appendix C Existing WWTF Site Map .c: i::: l.:J ~ ~ '>:: ~ ~ ~ ..... CJ ~ CQ ..... ~ i::i ~ .,.,, .,.,, Cl Cl. t .,..; :::i Cl & -...J ~ ,.._, Vi Preliminary Not For Construction -·"••H•~ . " __ ........ -.. -._ .. "'"'"" .. ·--................. -LEX. / ............. - / --.-.-... .-. -.----.-.-... ---.,.---.-...-__ ......... •H-. ••HHH .. HH " .-·· ··~ -... _H• >H ""'"'" .-.-.. --·'"HH'"'"··--/ \ \ .\ ' f \ ' EX. ·---- HEAD WORKS BUILDING -+---- ··-·-···-·-·· ill" ' •H• •.-"'•" I l --.. ----· ·-· .... _ .. ··--.... /"-..... / '·, . .r-· ......... ··..-' ........... .... , ..... ........ __ ·--. ! / -. .. -.... , ... ,/ --···· f ! ' , .. /·-·· H ... -\ ;---· I .-/ -------............. ....... ....... ....... ------·--."---...... ___ ... __ .. --_..-----........... ... / ...... ________ ............. --·· --·-·----··"----. ............. .......... __ ·------------.... ·-·-. ·---. ___ ..... ---.................... ____ _ ·--·--·--· ------\ \ --··- _. .--_ ........ --."---...... --__ ... ...... ...... . ·-·----·----·---· -·--........... -.-.. - f f ' / \ H '••H ___ _ --, '-.... __ /.- / I / / / EX AERATION BASIN .:~-·--·-- / / ./_/,,.-~ l / i ,.../·-[ / .. / ! ... \. / \\ I I ---·,··---.. , __ ----. ___ ___· 1 ;-~1 ~ I _ _../ ..1' ..... \ \ _,._,.. ... ) ! / I .... ---- ............... ---· ·"·-"'" ----"-i .. ::--·-.. ··-t; ··-----1--------·" ''-... ,_ '-.. • H._ H --.......... --.• -..... ----------------..... ... =------.-· .-.-· ~ ._ .. ::.:~: :~ ----.. --· -.... _ ---. --.. _ .. __ .... -s -·-~ \ //···1 / I ; ,r· -. --------------:~. ;-.;---<·· \ ~· , -......... /.// / . ··-;'\ .. \ ; \ "'·. i i 1 _! ( EX DIGESTOR 1 / </,'/// ! f / l.. ...... __ i ! ' I · .. l... __ ,..._/ii;, -....... _ ........ -----·---"" . . l . ···--...... ..... __ -... ---.. --. ---.---.----..... ----..... _,,--_·_/_;' I , • ' --··--··-.... ......._.... _ .. ---H --.... j l ' f I -..._ ....... , .... ..... ... _ ·-.---· --··--·-....-' .-.. / I ·-...... -·------·--. .---,....--.. : ; ' .... ••• H ... HH ·-... __ ........... _ .... -.--·-·'"'" -"" •• H H - ___ , .... -· _. ......... -... -.. .__ ·-·~·~ ........ -- .... __ -_,,...--... -(,...-· '· -------<~_-, ........ ----·---··--· ....... -----_-_.·.--.-_-_ ..... ------·/ ,/ ,·/p_-/_// --........... ___ _ ............... .---' _.--,.-_ .. /: ... .-·- '-..---------~.:.=-------·-----_./ ,/ / ______ ..... / . / ........ -·-_... , - -· _ ... ---·--··-.-...... _ .. --· .-.. ._ ----· --.............. ---···-""· .... ·-.... -...... ..... .t' i i _......--·-·--.... ----,. ... -.-.. --.--.--·-·---·--·--...... ...--.......... i \ _. _...--• H .HH.HH " >H•->.-, __ .. ___ .. --• >H ......... \ ... ............ ....-.... --.......... _........... ... .... --· --. .--_...,. , . .-· ----.. -~ '_1 . . -..•. -·'"_.-_.--.--_... ...... -·-· .... ----.--···---__ . __ ....... -- '~ -~, ~ EX. CONTROL !; BUILDING \ \. ' ......... j ... __ ..-·- \. \ \ DD EX FILTRATION I BUILDING D D D D D DD ' . .-· --·--............ --.-..... -.... ··--··-..................... __ .. __ _. ·-· ··--........ -... .-----...... -... --H _.- __ ..... .---_ ..... -___ ..... ,H•HH"•-'" ••OHH'•-'"•• ---.... _ --• .H HH>H.-• .-., -• ' ! ,_ ....... __ ............ - ·-··--~ ..-._., .............. •· __ ... .,............ _. .... __ .... ----·---.. ._ ··-.. _ ............. .----. ... -.... -........ _......... _ .......... - -.• / .... ----.. ____ __, , ........ . _. .. ........-·--···"·-·-._ ................ --. ,// _____ ,,.. ---·--··-----·-· ------------------____ .. --·· __ '\. ·-. .• " •• _ ..... ---..-_ _..•' _./ ...... ,.--.---! . . . ,-·-· ,./ ....... ----~----··-, ..... ·""" .. _, .... --· ----·--.. ---·--· -.-.. -----... _ -- "··"-...... -· ..... --··----.--·-· ..... _ ..... ---.. ._ --·- / ·--~ ·--. -·-__ ... _, ... ,. ... -· .. · -,.--· ---......... --·-................... _ .... ---· .... ..... -.... -....... --...... ···-.. ----,. .. -··---· -·-... ----..• ·-' ---·- S SGM 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm·inc.com .. -· -· EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE· 1 " = 20' RFWSD WWTF Expansion Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District # Revision J ' ! ' Date By ........ -------.... ------- \ \ ' ,..__.-- ---- ------,.....- __ ... -~ .. ----__ -: ..... --.--·--· / "'.--·--·----·--· ·-· --.. ---""·" --··----·-- .-__ .. -.. - __ ......... --·-· --_.. ... ___ ... -----...... --· / ---· _.---·--·-- ............... ...-· _ ...... -..... ---· ...----.-_......--·' -.-----· _ ... -·-_ ... _.- -.--·-... -·:_ . .....--·-- _ .. --· _ ..... -· --,.....-· .--·--·_. --......... ..... ----·--·-· ,,.. .... - .-· ___ .. ... _··--·- ........... -·----.. --''"•·--... _ .. ·-... -.... __ ........... -----~-------------------· ----............ _ ............... -- Job No. 96059A-l 29 Drawn by: ECL Existing Site Layout Dote: 03/07/2017 Site Layout QC: PE: t----....1....-----1 Of File: Gl3 00 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix D Appendix D Existing Service Area Map RFWSD - District Boundary Parcels Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix E Appendix E Annexation Map for RE-1 and Eastbank Map by:Date:RFW SD RE-1 Inclusion Garfield County, CO Projection: I:\1996\96059\A-111 GIS M apping\GIS\M XDs\R E-1 Figures\Exhibit G.mxd Data Sources: File: The information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations.®05/23/2016 RKK96059CJob No. Coordinate System:Transverse M ercator Exhibit G NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N ESRI, Garfield County, SGM RE-1 Inclu sion RFWSD - District Bound ary Parcels 0 2,500 5,000Feet 1 inch = 2,685 feet EASTBANK LLC218535415002 L & Y JAMMARON FAMILY LLLP218535200023 ROARING FO RKRE-1 SCHOOL DISTRIC T MACGREGOR,ROBERT DUNCAN218535304002 EASTBANK LLC218535415002 JAMMARO N,GLEN L. & LYNNE218535200021 JAMMARO N,KENNETH V.& KAREN A.218535200022 EASTBANK, LLC218535315003 SHANE & BRU CE'SLTD. LIABILITY CO218535400025 WAREHOUSEINVESTMENTPARTNERSHIP218535200015 SHANE &BRU CE'S LLC218535400024 Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix F Appendix F Preliminary Effluent Letter and Complete Set of Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 1 of 2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Louis Meyer, PE, District Engineer Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District 3790 County Road 109 Carbondale, CO 81623 TO: Louis Meyer FROM: WQCD Contact: Tristan Acob, 303-692-6398, tristan.acob@state.co.us DATE: 8/31/2016 Re: PEL200472, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limit The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has prepared, per your request, the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) for the rehabilitation and expansion of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility (RFWSD WWTF). These effluent limits were developed as detailed in the attached document, for use as one of the submittals in your application for Site Approval. With a hydraulic design capacity of 0.214 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge into a natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River, which is identified as stream segment COUCRF03a, the RFWSD WWTF will require an individual permit. PELs developed for this facility are based on the water quality standards for the receiving stream identified in the PEL application, and/or on technology based limitations established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62). The water quality standard based limitations presented in this PEL may be incorporated into a CDPS permit contingent on analyses conducted during permit development. The technology based limitations will also be incorporated into the permit unless a more stringent limitation is applied. As explained in the attached document, these limitations have been developed based on the current and/or next effective water quality standards for the receiving stream, the ambient water quality of the receiving stream, the calculated low flows, the stated design flow of the facility, technology based limitations established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62), applicable federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), and where necessary the antidegradation regulations, mixing zone policies, and any designation of a receiving stream by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish. A determination of which PELs ultimately apply in a permit will be dependent on decisions made by the permittee regarding treatment facilities, discharge type, industrial contributions, receiving streams, design flows, or other information presented to the Division at the time of permit application. Table 1 contains a summary of the limitations that have been developed in this PEL, for which the proposed treatment facility will be evaluated against, under the Site Approval Process. This evaluation will include a determination of whether the proposed treatment facility as designed, can meet these limitations. A new wastewater treatment facility will be expected to meet the limitations for these parameters upon commencement of discharge. Page 2 of 2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Table 1 Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation under the Site Approval Process Discharge to an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River at a Design Flow of 0.214 MGD BOD5 (mg/l) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) BOD5 (% removal) 85 (30-day average) TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) TSS, mechanical plant (% removal) 85 (30-day average) Oil and Grease (mg/l) 10 (maximum) pH (s.u.) 6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum) Other Pollutants Max. Limits or WQBELs NILs E. coli (#/100 ml) 252 (7-day geomean), 126 (30-day geomean) NA TRC (mg/l) 0.019 (daily maximum), 0.011 (30-day average) NA Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (mg/l) 10 (daily maximum) NA Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) Report (daily maximum), Report (30-day average) NA Total Ammonia WQBELs NILs NH3 as N, (mg/l) Jan 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Feb 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Mar 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Apr 15 (daily maximum) 3.0 (30-day average) NH3 as N, (mg/l) May 15 (daily maximum) 3.0 (30-day average) NH3 as N, (mg/l) Jun 17 (daily maximum) 3.0 (30-day average) NH3 as N, (mg/l) Jul 15 (daily maximum), 2.8 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Aug 15 (daily maximum) 3.0 (30-day average) NH3 as N, (mg/l) Sep 15 (daily maximum) 3.0 (30-day average) NH3 as N, (mg/l) Oct 15 (daily maximum), 4 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Nov 13 (daily maximum), 3.9 (30-day average) NA NH3 as N, (mg/l) Dec 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) NA Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 1 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Preliminary Effluent Limitations A natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District; Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Tristan Acob August 30, 2016 Table of Contents II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 III. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................. 4 Narrative Standards ................................................................................................... 4 Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides........................................................... 4 Salinity and Nutrients ................................................................................................ 5 Nutrients ................................................................................................................ 5 Temperature ........................................................................................................... 6 Segment Specific Numeric Standard ............................................................................... 6 Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations ............................................................... 7 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List ................................................................................ 7 IV. RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 7 Low Flow Analysis ..................................................................................................... 8 Mixing Zones ........................................................................................................... 8 Ambient Water Quality ............................................................................................... 9 V. FACILITY INFORMATION AND POLLUTANTS EVALUATED .................................................................. 9 Facility Information ................................................................................................... 9 Pollutants of Concern ................................................................................................ 10 VI. DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (WQBELS) ......................................... 10 Technical Information ............................................................................................... 10 Calculation of WQBELs .............................................................................................. 11 VII. ANTIDEGRADATION EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 13 Introduction to the Antidegradation Process .................................................................... 13 Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution ....................................................... 14 New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs) ................................................. 14 Calculation of Loadings for New or Increased Impact Test .................................................... 15 Calculation of Non-Impact Limitations ........................................................................... 16 VIII. TECHNOLOGY BASED LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 17 Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines .......................................................................... 17 Regulations for Effluent Limitations .............................................................................. 17 Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations .................................................................... 18 IX. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 2 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd I. Preliminary Effluent Limitations Summary Table A-1 includes summary information related to this PEL. This summary table includes key regulatory starting points used in development of the PEL such as: receiving stream information; threatened and endangered species; 303(d) and Monitoring and Evaluation listings; low flow and facility flow summaries; and a list of parameters evaluated. Table A-1 PEL Summary Facility Information Facility Name Permit Number Design Flow (max 30-day ave, MGD) Design Flow (max 30-day ave, CFS) Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF PEL200472 0.214 0.33 Receiving Stream Information Receiving Stream Name Segment ID Designation Classification(s) a natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River COUCRF03a Undesignated Aquatic Life Cold 1 Recreation Class E Agriculture Water Supply Low Flows (cfs) Receiving Stream Name 1E3 (1-day) 7E3 (7-day) 30E3 (30-day) Ratio of 30E3 to the Design Flow (cfs) a natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River 0 0 0 0:1 Regulatory Information T&E Species 303(d) (Reg 93) Monitor and Eval (Reg 93) Existing TMDL Temporary Modification(s) Control Regulation No Aquatic Life (provisional) None None As(ch) = hybrid; expiration date of 12/31/2021 Regulation 39 Pollutants Evaluated Ammonia, E. coli, TRC, Nitrate, Temp, salinity II. Introduction The Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PEL) of an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River near the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility (RFWSD WWTF), located in Garfield County, is intended to determine the assimilative Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 3 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd capacities available for pollutants found to be of concern. This PEL describes how the water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) are developed. These parameters may or may not appear in the permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as reasonable potential analysis, evaluation of federal effluent limitati on guidelines, implementation of state-based technology based limits, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species listing, or other requirements as discussed in the permit rationale. Figure A-1 contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL. FIGURE A-1 The RFWSD WWTF discharges to a natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River, which is stream segment COUCRF03a. This means the Upper Colorado River Basin, Roaring Fork Sub-basin, Stream Segment COUCRF03a. This segment is composed of the “Mainstem of the Roaring Fork River, from a point immediately below the confluence with Hunter Creek, to a point immediately below the confluence with the Fryingpan River. All tributaries to the Roaring Fork River, inclu ding wetlands, from a point immediately below the confluence with Hunter Creek to the confluence with the Colorado River, except for those tributaries included in Segment 1 and specific listings in Segments 3b-10.” Stream segment COUCRF03a is classified for Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation Class E, Water Supply, and Agriculture. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 4 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the RFWSD WWTF and the Division. The data used in the assessment consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of this PEL analysis. III. Water Quality Standards Narrative Standards Narrative Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(1) of the regulations, and apply to any pollutant of concern, even where there is no numeric standard for that pollutant. Waters of the state shall be free from substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source discharges in amounts, concentrations or combinations which: for all surface waters except wetlands; (i) can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses. Depositions are stream bottom buildup of materials which include but are not limited to anaerobic sludge, mine slurry or tailings, silt, or mud; or (ii) form floating debris, scum, or other surface materials sufficient to harm existing beneficial uses; or (iii) produce color, odor, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or harm existing beneficial uses or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic species or to the water; or (iv) are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life; or (v) produce a predominance of undesirable aquatic life; or (vi) cause a film on the surface or produce a deposit on shorelines; and for surface waters in wetlands; (i) produce color, odor, changes in pH, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or harm water quality dependent functions or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic species of the wetland; or (ii) are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life of the wetland. In order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements for any parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits. Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides Radionuclides: Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(2) and (3) of The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water to protect the waters of the state from radionuclides and organic chemicals. In no case shall radioactive materials in surface waters be increased by any cause attributable to municipal, industrial, or agricultural practices or discharges to as to exceed the following levels, unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. Standards for radionuclides are shown in Table A-2. Table A-2 Radionuclide Standards Parameter Picocuries per Liter Americium 241* 0.15 Cesium 134 80 Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 5 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Table A-2 Radionuclide Standards Parameter Picocuries per Liter Plutonium 239, and 240* 0.15 Radium 226 and 228* 5 Strontium 90* 8 Thorium 230 and 232* 60 Tritium 20,000 *Radionuclide samples for these materials should be analyzed using unfiltered (total) samples. These Human Health based standards are 30-day average values for both plutonium and americium. Organics: The organic pollutant standards contained in the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals Table are applicable to all surface waters of the state for the corresponding use classifications, unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. These standards have been adopted as “interim standards” and will remain in effect until alternative permanent standards are adopted by the Commission. These interim standards shall not be considered final or permanent standards subject to antibacksliding or downgrading restrictions. Although not reproduced in this PEL, the specific standards for organic chemicals can be found in Regulation 31.11(3). In order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements for radionuclides, organics, or any other parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits. The aquatic life standards for organics apply to all stream segments that are classified for aquatic life. The water supply standards apply only to those segments that are classified for water supply. The water + fish standards apply to those segments that have a Class 1 aquatic life and a water supply classification. The fish ingestion standards apply to Class 1 aquatic life segments that do not have a water supply designation. The water + fish and the fish ingestion standards may also apply to Class 2 aquatic life segments, where the Water Quality Control Commission has made such determination. Because the unclassified natural wetlands tributary is classified for Aquatic Life Cold 1, with a water supply designation, the water + fish and aquatic life standards apply to this discharge. Salinity and Nutrients Nutrients Total Phosphorus and Total Inorganic Nitrogen: Regulation 85, the Nutrients Management Control Regulation has been adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission and became effective September 30, 2012. This regulation contains requirements for phosphorus and Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) concentrations for some point source dischargers. Limitations for phosphorus and TIN may be applied in accordance with this regulation. Salinity: Regulation 61.8(2)(l) contains requirements regarding salinity for any discharges to the Colorado River Watershed. For industrial dischargers and for the discharge of intercepted groundwater, this is a no-salt discharge requirement. However, the regulation states that this Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 6 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd requirement may be waived where the salt load reaching the mainstem of the Colorado River is less than 1 ton per day, or less than 350 tons per year. The Division may permit the discharge of salt upon a satisfactory demonstration that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt. See Regulation 61.8(2)(l)(i)(A)(1) for industrial discharges and 61.8(2)(l)(iii) for discharges of intercepted groundwater for more information regarding this demonstration. For municipal dischargers, an incremental increase of 400 mg/l above the flow weighted averaged salinity of the intake water supply is allowed. This may be waived where the salt load reaching the mainstem of the Colorado River is less than 1 ton per day, or less than 366 tons per year. The Division may permit the discharge of salt in excess of the 400 mg/l incremental increase, upon a satisfactory demonstration that it is not practicable to attain this limit . See Regulation 61.8(2)(l)(vi)(A)(1) for more information regarding this demonstration. In addition, the Division’s policy, Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops, may be applied to discharges where an agricultural water intake exists downstream of a discharge point. Limitations for electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio may be applied in accordance with this policy. Temperature Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deemed deleterious to the resident aquatic life. This standard shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S. Segment Specific Numeric Standards Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. The standards in Table A-3 have been assigned to stream segment COUCRF03a in accordance with the Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning Region 12). Table A-3 In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COUCRF03a Physical and Biological Dissolved Oxygen (DO) = 6 mg/l, minimum (7 mg/l, minimum during spawning) pH = 6.5 - 9 su E. coli chronic = 126 colonies/100 ml Temperature June-Sept = 17° C MWAT and 21.7° C DM Temperature Oct-May = 9° C MWAT and 13° C DM Inorganic Total Ammonia acute and chronic = TVS Chlorine acute = 0.019 mg/l Chlorine chronic = 0.011 mg/l Free Cyanide acute = 0.005 mg/l Sulfide chronic = 0.002 mg/l Boron chronic = 0.75 mg/l Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 7 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Table A-3 In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COUCRF03a Nitrite chronic = 0.05 mg/l Nitrate acute = 10 mg/l Chloride chronic = 250 mg/l Sulfate chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000 or 250 mg/l Metals Dissolved Arsenic acute = 340 µg/l Temporary Modification: As(ch) = hybrid, expiration date of 12/31/21 Total Recoverable Arsenic chronic = 0.02 µg/l Dissolved Cadmium acute for trout and Dissolved Cadmium chronic = TVS Total Recoverable Trivalent Chromium acute = 50 µg/l Dissolved Trivalent Chromium chronic = TVS Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Copper acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Iron chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000, or 300 µg/l Total Recoverable Iron chronic = 1000 µg/l Dissolved Lead acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Manganese chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000, or 50 µg/l Dissolved Manganese acute and chronic = TVS Total Recoverable Molybdenum chronic = 160 µg/l Total Mercury chronic = 0.01 µg/l Dissolved Nickel acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Selenium acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Silver acute and Dissolved Silver chronic for trout = TVS Dissolved Zinc acute and chronic = TVS Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations As metals with standards specified as TVS are not included as parameters of concern for this facility, the hardness value of the receiving water and the subsequent calculation of the TVS equations is inconsequential and is therefore omitted from this PEL. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List While part of this stream segment is on the Colorado Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, the portion where this facility discharges to the stream segment is not listed on the Division’s 303(d) list of water quality impacted streams and is not on the monitoring and evaluation list. IV. Receiving Stream Information Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 8 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Low Flow Analysis The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality based effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute low flow, referred to as 1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on an acute standard. The 7-day average low flow, 7E3, represents the seven-day average low flow recurring in a 3 year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a Maximum Weekly Average Temperature standard (MWAT). The chronic low flow, 30E3, represents the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a chronic standard. Consistent with the WQA written for this facility in September 2015 (CO0044750); although there is periodic flow in the unclassified natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River upstream of the RFWSD WWTF, the 1E3 and 30E3 monthly low flows are set at zero based on WQCD standard procedure. For this analysis, low flows are summarized in Table A-4. Table A-4 Low Flows for an Unnamed Natural Wetlands Tributary to the Roaring Fork River at the RFWSD WWTF Low Flow (cfs) Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1E3 Acute 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7E3 Chronic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30E3 Chronic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The ratio of the low flow of an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River to the RFWSD WWTF design flow is 0:1. Note that since the low flow has been determined to be zero, the ambient water quality discussion is unnecessary and has therefore been deleted in this PEL. This is explained in more detail under the Technical Information discussion in Section VI. Mixing Zones The amount of the available assimilative capacity (dilution) that may be used by the permittee for the purposes of calculating the WQBELs may be limited in a permitting action based upon a mixing zone analysis or other factor. These other factors that may reduce the amount of assimilative capacity available in a permit are: presence of other dischargers in the vicinity; the presence of a water diversion downstream of the discharge (in the mixing zone); the need to provide a zone of passage for aquatic life; the likelihood of bioaccumulation of toxins in fish or wildlife; habitat considerations such as fish spawning or nursery areas; the presence of threatened and endangered species; potential for human exposure through drinking water or Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 9 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd recreation; the possibility that aquatic life will be attracted to the effluent plume; the potential for adverse effects on groundwater; and the toxicity or persistence of the substance discharged. Unless a facility has performed a mixing zone study during the course of the previous permit, and a decision has been made regarding the amount of the assimilative capacity that ca n be used by the facility, the Division assumes that the full assimilative capacity can be allocated. Note that the review of mixing study considerations, exemptions and perhaps performing a new mixing study (due to changes in low flow, change in facility design flow, channel geomorphology or other reason) is evaluated in every permit and permit renewal. If a mixing zone study has been performed and a decision regarding the amount of available assimilative capacity has been made, the Division may calculate the water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) based on this available capacity. In addition, the amount of assimilative capacity may be reduced by T&E implications. Since the receiving stream has a zero low flow as calculated above, the WQBELs w ould be equal to the WQS, and therefore consideration of full or reduced assimilative capacity is inconsequential. Ambient Water Quality The Division evaluates ambient water quality based on a variety of statistical methods as prescribed in Section 31.8(2)(a)(i) and 31.8(2)(b)(i)(B) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 31 , and as outlined in the Division’s Policy for Characterizing Ambient Water Quality for Use in Determining Water Quality Standards Based Effluent Limits (WQP-19). The ambient water quality was not assessed for the unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River because the background in- stream low flow condition is zero, and because no ambient water quality data are available for the unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River upstream of the RFWSD WWTF discharge. V. Facility Information and Pollutants Evaluated Facility Information The RFWSD WWTF is located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of S13, T7S, R89W and part of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of S18, T7S, R88W; 3790 CR 109 in Carbondale, CO; 39.45200° latitude North and 107.26879° longitude West in Garfield County. The current design capacity of the facility is 0.214 MGD (0.33 cfs). Wastewater treatment is proposed to be accomplished using a mechanical wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses that follow include assessments of the assimilative capacity based on this design capacity. An assessment of Division records indicate that there are several facilities discharging to the same stream segment or other stream segments immediately upstream or downstream from this facility. However, the RFWSD WWTF is the sole known point source contributor to a natural wetland tributary to the Roaring Fork River. Due to the in-stream low flow of zero, the assimilative capacities during times of low flow are not affected by nearby contributions. Therefore, modeling nearby facilities in conjunction with this facility was not necessary. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 10 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Pollutants of Concern Pollutants of concern may be determined by one or more of the following: facility type; effluent characteristics and chemistry; effluent water quality data; receiving water quality; presence of federal effluent limitation guidelines; or other information. Parameters evaluated in this PEL may or may not appear in a permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as a reasonable potential analysis, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species listings or other requirement as discussed in a permit rationale. There are no site-specific in-stream water quality standards for BOD5 or CBOD5, TSS, percent removal, and oil and grease for this receiving stream. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for these parameters. The applicable limitations for these pollutants can be found in Regulation No. 62 and will be applied in the permit for the WWTF. The following parameters were identified by the Division as pollutants to be evaluated for this facility:  Total Residual Chlorine  E. coli  Ammonia  Temperature  Nitrate Based upon the size of the discharge, the lack of industrial contributors, dilution provided by the receiving stream and the fact that no unusually high metals concentrations are expected to be found in the wastewater effluent, metals are not evaluated further in this Preliminary Effluent Limitations. According to the Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of the Upper Colorado River, stream segment COUCRF03a is designated a water supply. An evaluation of the Division of Water Resources Colorado’s Decision Support System indicates that there are alluvial wells and/or surface intakes that are used for water supply located downgradient from the facility discharge location. Although nitrate was not evaluated in previous WQAs, nitrate will be evaluated as a part of this PEL in order to implement changes made to Regulation 31. During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional parameters were identified as pollutants of concern. VI. Determination of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) Technical Information Note that the WQBELs developed in the following paragraphs, are calculations of what an effluent limitation may be in a permit. The WQBELs for any given parameter, will be compared to other potential limitations (federal Effluent Limitations Guidelines, State Effluent Limitations, or other applicable limitation) and typically the more stringent limit is incorporated into a permit. If the WQBEL is the more stringent limitation, incorporation into a permit is dependent upon a reasonable potential analysis. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 11 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd In-stream background data and low flows evaluated in Sections II and III are used to determine the assimilative capacity of the unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River near the RFWSD WWTF for pollutants of concern, and to calculate the WQBELs . For all parameters except ammonia, it is the Division’s approach to calculate the WQBELs using the lowest of the monthly low flows (referred to as the annual low flow) as determined in the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is the standard procedure of the Division to determine monthly WQBELs using the monthly low flows, as the regulations allow the use of seasonal flows. The Division’s standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the Division to calculate the WQBELs, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a pollutant at the existing quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water quality standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as: 2 1133 2 Q QMQMM Where, Q1 = Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3) Q2 = Average daily effluent flow (design capacity) Q3 = Downstream flow (Q1 + Q2) M1 = In-stream background pollutant concentrations at the existing quality M2 = Calculated WQBEL M3 = Water Quality Standard, or other maximum allowable pollutant concentration When Q1 equals zero, Q2 equals Q3, and the following results: 32MM Because the low flow (Q1) for an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River is zero, the WQBELs for an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River for the pollutants of concern are equal to the in-stream water quality standards. A more detailed discussion of the technical analysis is provided in the pages that follow. Calculation of WQBELs Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section VI, the acute and chronic low flows set out in Section IV, ambient water quality as discussed in Section IV, and the in - stream standards shown in Section III, the WQBELs for were calculated. The data used and the resulting WQBELs, M2, are set forth in Table A-5a for the chronic WQBELs and A-5b for the acute WQBELs. Where a WQBEL is calculated to be a negative number and interpreted to be zero, or when the ambient water quality exceeds the in-stream standard, the Division standard procedure is to allocate the water quality standard to prevent further degradation of the receiving waters. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 12 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Chlorine: There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile of the RFWSD WWTF. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels of residual chlorine are detected only for a short distance below a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed to be zero. E. coli: There are no point sources discharging E. coli within one mile of the RFWSD WWTF. Thus, WQBELs were evaluated separately. For E. coli, the Division establishes the 7-day geometric mean limit as two times the 30-day geometric mean limit and also includes maximum limits of 2,000 colonies per 100 ml (30-day geometric mean) and 4,000 colonies per 100 ml (7-day geometric mean). This 2000 colony limitation also applies to discharges to ditches. Temperature: The 7E3 low flow is 0, so the discharge is to an effluent dependent (ephemeral stream without the presence of wastewater) water; therefore, in accordance with Regulation 31.14(14), no temperature limitations are required. Table A-5a Chronic WQBELs Parameter Q1 (cfs) Q2 (cfs) Q3 (cfs) M1 M3 M2 E. coli (#/100 ml) 0 0.33 0.33 1 126 126 TRC (mg/l) 0 0.33 0.33 0 0.011 0.011 Table A-5b Acute WQBELs Parameter Q1 (cfs) Q2 (cfs) Q3 (cfs) M1 M3 M2 E. coli (#/100 ml)* 252 TRC (mg/l) 0 0.33 0.33 0 0.019 0.019 Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (mg/l) 0 0.33 0.33 0 10 10 *The acute WQBEL for E. coli is twice the chronic WQBEL. Ammonia: The Ammonia Toxicity Model (AMMTOX) is a software program designed to project the downstream effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities available to each discharger based on upstream water quality and effluent discharges. Ammonia is presen t in the aqueous environment in both ionized and un-ionized forms. It is the un-ionized form which is most toxic, but the ionized for is also toxic. The proportion of total ammonia present in un- ionized form in the receiving stream is a function of the combined upstream and effluent ammonia concentrations, and the pH and temperature of the effluent and receiving stream, combined. To develop data for the AMMTOX model, an in-stream water quality study should be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions, particularly the pH and corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year. Facility data for pH were obtained from discharge monitoring reports for the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF from July 2011 through July 2015. There were no pH or temperature data available for the unclassified natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River or temperature data for the Roaring Fork Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTF that could be used as adequate input data for the AMMTOX model. Therefore, the Division standard procedure is to rely on statistically-based, regionalized data for pH and temperature compiled from similar facilities and receiving waters. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 13 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd The AMMTOX model may be calibrated for a number of variables in addition to the data discussed above. The values used for the other variables in the model are listed below:  Stream velocity = 0.3Q0.4d  Default ammonia loss rate = 6/day  pH amplitude was assumed to be medium  Default times for pH maximum, temperature maximum, and time of day of occurrence  pH rebound was set at the default value of 0.2 su per mile  Temperature rebound was set at the default value of 0.7 degrees C per mile. The results of the ammonia analyses for the RFWSD WWTF are presented in Table A-6. Table A-6 AMMTOX Results for an unnamed natural wetlands tributary to the Roaring Fork River at the RFWSD WWTF Month Total Ammonia Chronic (mg/l) Total Ammonia Acute (mg/l) January 4.7 15 February 4.7 15 March 4.7 15 April 4.7 15 May 4.3 15 June 3.8 17 July 2.8 15 August 3.1 15 September 3.5 15 October 4.0 15 November 3.9 13 December 4.7 15 VII. Antidegradation Evaluation As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Section 31.8(2)(b), an antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving water is designated as “Use Protected.” Note that “Use Protected” waters are waters “that the Commission has determined do not warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation review process” as set out in Section 31.8(2)(b). The antidegradation section of the regulation became effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are applicable to this PEL analysis. According to the Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning Region 12), stream segment COUCRF03a is Undesignated. Thus, an antidegradation review is required for this segment if new or increased impacts are found to occur. Introduction to the Antidegradation Process The antidegradation process conducted as part of this Preliminary Effluent Limitations is designed to determine if an antidegradation review is necessary and if necessary, to complete the required Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 14 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd calculations to determine the limits that can be selected as the antidegradation-based effluent limit (ADBEL), absent further analyses that must be conducted by the facility. As outlined in the Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural Guidance (AD Guidance), the first consideration of an antidegradation evaluation is to determine if new or increased impacts are expected to occur. This is determined by a comparison of the newly calculated WQBELs verses the existing permit limitations in place as of September 30, 2000, and is described in more detail in the analysis . Note that the AD Guidance refers to the permit limitations as of September 30, 2000 as the existing limits. If a new or increased impact is found to occur, then the next step of the antidegradation process is to go through the significance determination tests. These tests include: 1) bioaccumulative toxic pollutant test; 2) temporary impacts test; 3) dilution test (100:1 dilution at low flow) and; 4) a concentration test. As the determination of new or increased impacts, and the bioaccumulative and concentration significance determination tests require more extensive calculations, the Division will begin the antidegradation evaluation with the dilution and temporary impact significance determination tests. These two significance tests may exempt a facility from further AD review without the additional calculations. Note that the antidegradation requirements outlined in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water specify that chronic numeric standards should be used in the antidegradation review; however, where there is only an acute standard, the acute standard should be used. The appropriate standards are used in the following antidegradation analysis. Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution The ratio of the chronic (30E3) low flow to the design flow is 0:1, and is less than the 100:1 significance criteria. Therefore this facility is not exempt from an AD evaluation based on the dilution significance determination test, and the AD evaluation must continue. For the determination of a new or increased impact and for the remaining significance determination tests, additional calculations are necessary. Therefore, at this point in the antidegradation evaluation, the Division will go back to the new or increased impacts test. If there is a new or increased impact, the last two significance tests will be evaluated. New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs) To determine if there is a new or increased impact to the receiving water, a comparison of the new WQBEL concentrations and loadings verses the concentrations and loadings as of September 30, 2000, needs to occur. If either the new concentration or loading is greater than the September 2000 concentration or loading, then a new or increased impact is determined. If this is a new facility (commencement of discharge after September 30, 2000) it is automatically considered a new or increased impact. Note that the AD Guidance document includes a step in the New or Increased Impact Test that calculates the Non-Impact Limit (NIL). The permittee may choose to retain a NIL if certain conditions are met, and therefore the AD evaluation for that parameter would be complete . As Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 15 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd the NIL is typically greater than the ADBAC, and is therefore the chosen limit, the Division will typically conclude the AD evaluation after determining the NIL. Where the NILs are very stringent, or upon request of a permittee, the Division will calculate both the NIL and the AD limitation so that the limitations can be compared and the permittee can determine which of the two limits they would prefer, one which does not allow any increased impact (NIL), or the other which allows an insignificant impact (AD limit). The non impact limit (NIL) is defined as the limit which results in no increased water quality impact (no increase in load or limit over the September 2000 load or limit). The NIL is calculated as the September 2000 loading, divided by the new design flow, and divided by a conversion factor of 8.34. If there is no change in design flow, then the NIL is equal to th e September 2000 permit limitation. If the facility was in place, but did not have a limitation for a particular parameter in the September 2000 permit, the Division may substitute an implicit limitation. Consistent with the First Update to the AD Guidance of April 2002, an implicit limit is determined based on the approach that specifies that the implicit limit is the maximum concentration of the effluent from October 1998 to September 2000, if such data is available. If this data is unavailable, the Division may substitute more recent representative data, if appropriate, on a case by case basis . Note that if there is a change in design flow, the implicit limit/loading is subject to recalculation based on the new design flow. For parameters that are undisclosed by the permittee, and unknown to the Division to be present, an implicit limitation may not be recognized. This facility was in place as a discharger prior to September 30, 2000, and therefore the new or increased impacts test must be conducted. As the design flow of this facility has changed, the equations for the NIL calculations are shown below. For total residual chlorine and total ammonia, the limitations as of September 2000 were used in the evaluation of new or increased impacts. For E. coli, data from this timeframe were used to determine an implicit limitation. In accordance with the Division’s practice regarding E. coli, an implicit limit for E. coli is determined as 0.32 times the permit limit for fecal coliform. For Total Inorganic Nitrogen, data prior to 2000 were not available. Therefore data from March 2013 to December 2014 were determined to be adequate and were used to determine the implicit limitations. These data were available from sampling reports submitted by the facility for Regulation 85. Calculation of Loadings for New or Increased Impact Test The equations for the loading calculations are given below. Note that the AD requirements outlined in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water specify that chronic numeric standards should be used in the AD review; however, where there is only an acute standard, the acute standard should be used. Thus, the chronic low flows will be used later in this AD evaluation for all parameters with a chronic standard, and the acute low flows will be used for those parameters with only an acute standard. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 16 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Previous permit load = Mpermitted (mg/l) × Qpermitted (mgd) × 8.34 New WQBELs load = M2 (mg/l) × Q2 (mgd) × 8.34 Where, Mpermitted = September 2000 permit limit (or implicit limit) (mg/l) Qpermitted = design flow as of September 2000 (mgd) Q2 = current design flow (same as used in the WQBEL calculations) M2 = new WQBEL concentration (mg/l) 8.34 = unit conversion factor Table A-7 shows the results of these calculations and the determination of a new or increased impact. Calculation of Non-Impact Limitations The design flow of this facility as of September 30, 2000 was 0.107. The new design flow of this facility is 0.214. To determine if new or increased impacts are to occur, the September 2000 permit concentrations need to be adjusted for this new design flow. The equations are shown below. September 2000 permit load = Mpermitted × Qpermitted × 8.34 Non Impact Limit (NIL) = September 2000 permitted load  New Design Flow  8.34 Where, Mpermitted = September 2000 permit limit or implicit limit (mg/l) Qpermitted = September 2000 design flow (mgd) Q2 = new or current design flow (mgd) 8.34 = Unit conversion factor Table A-7 shows the results of these calculations and the determination of a new or increased impact. Table A-7 Determination of New or Increased Impacts Pollutant Sept 2000 Permit Limit Sept 2000 Permit Load (lbs/day) NIL New WQBEL New WQBEL Load (lbs/day) New or Increased Impact E. coli (#/100 ml) 1920 1713 960 126 225 No TRC (mg/l) 0.038 0.034 0.019 0.011 0.02 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l), Jan 10 8.9 5.0 4.7 8.4 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l), Feb 10 8.9 5.0 4.7 8.4 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Mar 10 8.9 5.0 4.7 8.4 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Apr 6 5.4 3.0 4.7 8.4 Yes NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) May 6 5.4 3.0 4.3 7.7 Yes Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 17 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Table A-7 Determination of New or Increased Impacts Pollutant Sept 2000 Permit Limit Sept 2000 Permit Load (lbs/day) NIL New WQBEL New WQBEL Load (lbs/day) New or Increased Impact NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Jun 6 5.4 3.0 3.8 6.8 Yes NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Jul 6 5.4 3.0 2.8 5 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Aug 6 5.4 3.0 3.1 5.5 Yes NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Sep 6 5.4 3.0 3.5 6.2 Yes NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Oct 10 8.9 5.0 4 7.1 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Nov 10 8.9 5.0 3.9 7 No NH3, Tot as N (mg/l) Dec 10 8.9 5.0 4.7 8.4 No Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (mg/l) 38.9 35 19 10 18 No Note that loading for E. coli cannot be calculated; but, for comparison purposes, the approach is sufficient. As shown in Table A-14, there are no new or increased impacts to the receiving stream based on the new WQBELS for E. coli, TRC, and ammonia (except April through June and August), and Total Inorganic Nitrogen; and for these parameters, the AD evaluation is complete and the WQBELs are the final result of this PEL. For ammonia (April through June and August), there are new or increased impacts and in accordance with regulation, the permittee has the option of choosing either the NILs or ADBACs. Because the ADBACs are generally more stringent than NILs, the Division assumes that the permittee will choose NILs rather than ADBACs, and therefore the Division will stop the AD evaluation at this point and assign the NILs to the permit . For those parameters where there is not a NIL (either implicit or explicit) the AD Guidance allows for the collection of data to determine an implicit limitation. Therefore, the permittee will be required to conduct “monitoring only” for those parameters. The permittee may request ADBAC limits. If the permittee does request ADBAC limits, the Division will proceed with the completion of this Antidegradation Analysis. VIII. Technology Based Limitations Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines The Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines for domestic wastewater treatment facilities are the secondary treatment standards. These standards have been adopted into, and are applied out of, Regulation 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations. Regulations for Effluent Limitations Regulation No. 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations, includes effluent limitations that apply to all discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agricultural return flows. These regulations are applicable to the discharge from the proposed discharge. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 18 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Table A-8 contains a summary of the applicable limitations for pollutants of concern at this facility. Table A-8 Regulation 62 Based Limitations Parameter 30-Day Average 7-Day Average Instantaneous Maximum BOD5 30 mg/l 45 mg/l NA TSS, mechanical plant 30 mg/l 45 mg/l NA BOD5 Percent Removal 85% NA NA TSS Percent Removal 85% NA NA Total Residual Chlorine NA NA 0.5 mg/l pH NA NA 6.0-9.0 s.u. Oil and Grease NA NA 10 mg/l Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations WQCC Regulation No. 85, the new Nutrients Management Control Regulation, includes technology based effluent limitations for total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus that currently, or will in the future, apply to many domestic wastewater discharges to State surface waters. These effluent limits for dischargers are to start being implemented in permitting actions as of July 1, 2013, and are shown in the two tables below: Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(a)(iii) For all Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works not identified in subsections (a)(i) or (ii) above (in Reg. 85) and discharging prior to May 31, 2012 or for which a complete request for preliminary effluent limits has been submitted to the Division prior to May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits shall apply: Parameter Parameter Limitations Annual Median 1 95th Percentile 2 Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/l 2.5 mg/l Total Inorganic Nitrogen3 15 mg/l 20 mg/l 1 Running Annual Median: The median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months. 2 The 95th percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months. 3 Determined as the sum of nitrate as N, nitrite as N, and ammonia as N. Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(b) For New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works which submit a complete request for preliminary effluent limits to the Division on or after May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits shall apply: Parameter Parameter Limitations Annual Median 1 95th Percentile 2 Total Phosphorus 0.7 mg/l 1.75 mg/l Total Inorganic Nitrogen3 7 mg/l 14 mg/l 1 Running Annual Median: The median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months. 2 The 95th percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 19 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd 3 Determined as the sum of nitrate as N, nitrite as N, and ammonia as N. Requirements in Reg. 85 also apply to non-domestic wastewater for industries in the Standard Industrial Class ‘Major Group 20,’ and any other non-domestic wastewater where the facility is expected, without treatment, to discharge total inorganic nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations in excess of the numeric limits listed in 85.5 (1)(a)(iii). The facility must investigate, with the Division’s approval, whether different considerations should apply. All permit actions based on this PEL will occur after the July 1, 2013 permit implementation date of Reg. 85. Therefore, total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus effluent limitations potentially imposed because of Reg. 85 must be considered. However, also based on Reg. 85, there are direct exemptions from these limitations for smaller domestic facilities that discharge less than or equal to 1 million gallons per day (MGD), or are a domestic facility owned by a disadvantaged community. Delayed implementation (until 5/31/2022) is also specified in Reg. 85 to occur for domestic WWTFs that discharge more than 1 MGD, and less than or equal to 2.0 MGD, or have an existing watershed control regulations (such as WQCC Reg.’s 71-74), or where the discharge is to waters in a low-priority 8-digit HUC. For all other larger domestic WWTFs, the nutrient effluent limitations from the two tables above will apply, unless other considerations allowed by Reg. 85 at 85.5(3) are utilized to show compliance with exceptions or variances to these limitations. The RFWSD WWTF is an existing WWTF, as the previous facility was discharging and permitted prior to May 31, 2012. Also, since the proposed design capacity of the RFWSD WWTF is 0.214 MGD, the facility is not currently required to address the new technology based effluent limits as of 7/1/2013. However, the Division does not intend these results to discourage this new WWTF from working on nutrient control with the other dischargers within the Colorado River watershed. These dischargers upstream and downstream of the RFWSD WWTF have the potential to create future nutrient issues in the Colorado River. The Division encourages these entities to all work together to create the most efficient and cost effective solutions for nutrient control in the Colorado River watershed. Supplemental Reg. 85 Nutrient Monitoring Reg. 85 also requires that some monitoring for nutrients in wastewater effluent and streams take place, independent of what nutrient effluent limits or monitoring requirements may be established in a discharge permit. The requirements for the type and frequency of this monitoring are set forth in Reg. 85 at 85.6. This nutrient monitoring is not currently required by a permitting action, but is still required to be done by the Reg. 85 nutrient control regulation . Nutrient monitoring for the Reg. 85 control regulation is currently required to be reported to the WQCD Environmental Data Unit. IX. References Regulations: The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Regulation 31, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective June 30, 2016. Appendix A Preliminary Effluent Limits Page 20 of 20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning Region 12), Regulation No. 33,Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective June 30, 2016. Colorado River Salinity Standards, Regulation 39, CDPHE, WQCC (last update effective 8/30/97). Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, July 30, 2012. Nutrients Management Control Regulation, Regulation 85, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective September 30, 2012. Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, Regulation 93, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective March 30, 2012. Policy and Guidance Documents: Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, December 2001. Memorandum Re: First Update to (Antidegradation) Guidance Version 1.0, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, April 23, 2002. Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of Segments of the Colorado River, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective October 29, 2002. Policy Concerning Escherichia coli versus Fecal Coliform, CDPHE, WQCD, July 20, 2005. Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective April 2002. Policy for Conducting Assessments for Implementation of Temperature Standards in Discharge Permits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-23, effective July 3, 2008. Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-24, effective March 10, 2008. Policy for Characterizing Ambient Water Quality for Use in Determining Water Quality Standards Based Effluent Limits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-19, effective May 2002. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix G Appendix G District WWTF Parcel Ownership Map ") 29 28 20 1 19 17 9 25 3 2 6 10 5 8 11 1322 23 15 12 7 14 21 27 24 18 26 16 30 4 Map by:Date:RFWSD WWTF Parcel MapGarfield County, Colorado Projection: ESRI, CDOT, BLM, RFWSD, Garfield County, SGMData Sources: File:I:\1996\96059\A-111 GIS Mapping\GIS\MXDs\RE-1 Figures\WWTF_ParcelsMap.mxd The information displayed above is intended for general planning purposes. Refer to legal documentation/data sources for descriptions/locations.®RKK NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N ")WWTF Garfield County Parcels (1/1/2017) RFWSD - District Boundary 96059A Ph.129C05/10/2017 Transverse Mercator 1Map: Coordinate System: Job No.0 450 900Feet 1 inch = 450 feet MapID PARCEL OWNER OWNER ADDRESS ACRES1239318400104BURRY RANCH LLLP 9175 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 84.342239513101017SCHOLL, ROBERT G & CYNTHIA L 0050 LARIAT LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 5.983239318201068HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT ASPEN GLEN 0080 BALD EAGLE WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 6.544239513100003WESTERN MOBILE NORTHERN, INC.PO BOX 3609 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 0.005239513101014CLASSEN, ROBERT C & GAIL L 103 SPUR DRIVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9656 5.096239318200416ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT PO BOX 326 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 5.427239513101013PIRZADEH, KERRI KAY 110 SPUR DRIVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 4.268239513102065ASPEN GLEN WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 9929 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-9682 6.069239513101012REICHARDT, CLAY E 152 SPUR DRIVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 7.1110239318201067HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT ASPEN GLEN 0080 BALD EAGLE WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 7.2411239512401011DEER, JOHN M & HARRINGTON, RITA RUSH PO BOX 2090 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 7.0312239512402001HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT ASPEN GLEN 0080 BALD EAGLE WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 6.9413239512400005SHERICK, GEORGE W & JERI L 2550 COUNTY ROAD 109 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 7.2014239512401008KUHL, STEVEN D & LAURA S P O BOX 387 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 7.1515239512401007STEINDLER, MARIANGELA C TRUST PO BOX 387 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 7.0116239512401006MERRIAM, JOSEPH G & SHELLY L 1800 COUNTY ROAD 109 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 5.9817239512401021YORK, RONALD A & DENISE D 18091 RIV ER CHASE COURT ALVA, FL 33920 10.9918239512401005CARLSON FAMILY TRUST 1752 COUNTY ROAD 109 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 5.0019239512401022TELLER SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 720 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-2071 31.4120239501400161GARFIELD COUNTY COMMERCIAL INV ESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 17330 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72222 79.4521239512401010VANDEVANDER, DON A & FEINBERG, L KATHLEEN 904 CEDAR CREEK CARBONDALE, CO 81623 7.1022239512401009ADGATE, THOMAS L & SUSAN O 2070 COUNTY ROAD 109 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 7.0123239513101018SAUNDERS, DIANA K REV OCABLE TRUST DATED 4-5-01 126 LARIAT LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 7.5724239513101016LAIRD, STEPHEN P & REBECCA E 0037 SPUR DRIVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 6.1625239513101019PLIMPTON, CHARLES G & LEE B PO BOX 61 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-0061 9.8526239513101015CARTER, STEVE & LAURA S 221 LARIAT LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 5.0127239513101020VILLIERE, TIMOTHY P & SUSAN 280 LARIET LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9657 5.7628239318300366GLEASON, WALTER M ESTATE OF PO BOX 3609 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 90.4329239307300033CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 17330 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72222 85.9230239512400008CLAASSEN, TERRENCE C & LARA GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 3.26 ' -:r '_l . • . • \ ' ' ' , j ' LIN£# LJ Li' L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 LB L9 LJO Lll Lli' L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 LJB L19 Li'O Li'l L22 L23 L24 L44 L45 L46 L47 L48 L49 LSO 1-55 B£ARING s 89.52'09' £ s 32'39'14' £ s 32'39'14' £ s 46'44'01' £ s 58'33'08' £ s 58'00'02' £ s 67.42'09' £ s 56'02'54' £ s 48'44'16' £ s 86.54'40' £ N B3.12'17' £ N 48'46'15' £ s 54'12'24' £ s 65.43'26' £ s 59'30'17' £ S 57.18'29' £ s 5B'15'43' £ s 69'19'37' £ s 63.33'32' £ s 52'49'53' £ s 52'18'07' £ s 51'46'39' £ s 50'09'46' £ s 89'40'00' £ N 70.02'14' V s 58'26 '2 7' "' s 09'32'34' "' s 01 '02'09' "' s 13.27'35' "' s 00·01'53' £ s OB'13'18' kl s 46.44'0!' c IJISTANC£ 103.76' 63.7B' 6E.43' lOJ.92' 103.32' 64.Bl' 113.94' 86.09' 94.31' 90.38' 112.38' 165.45' 91.37' 93.55' 6B.30' GE.Bl' 56.2B' 71.02' BO.Sc' 56.67' 96.50' 13L35' 6452' 75.86' 94.06' 53.98' lSE.33' 243.11' 125.20' 524.04' 139.78' 57.B2' ---------------------------------- Ho#ce: Future Fzlzng (#07' A PA.1?7' OF 7'H/S F/L/HC) According lo~ law, !/Ml must~-­ any Jeual action 6ased upon any W/11cl in Us'is survey 'Ulithin lhni11 lfttar.Y qi/er lftnJ first dtscovar such deftcl. fn 11b gvgnf mav any legal actitm 6a.sttd 'tf.Pon any dB/eel in this SW"WY 611 communc8d mqrq Hum ftm years from IM da/q <>/ tlw C8rlf/'kll&n .Mown '/wruon. Sll'fifZ'YORS 'C . .fi'H?".!H.fi'SRS VG I SCHUll'SS.fi'fi M CO.H.!JOH USY!i'..R Hole: 7'he Public River Park and !Yastewater 7'realment Plant Site as depicted hereon are sub/ect to a /loatzng easement /or underground utility lz'nes /or the bene.J'lt o/ the Aspen Clen !Yater and Sanitation .lJz'strict and those with whom the .lJz'strlct has a contract to provz"de water and wastewater services. Feller Springs Subdz'vz"sz'on 0' f OtJ' W' • rD@ Bii Lil 11 II Seale: t" SCH.!l/l/./JS.fi'R COR./JOIV il/.fi'Y.fi'R /IVC. 118 ;r. flth Street, S'uzce 1?00 CleriwotJd Spn?w~ Co/oradt) 111801 (303) !J4o-I004 (FAX) !J4o-o.948 Aspen, ColoradtJ (303) .91?$-871?7 .:?tJO' , = f{)O /eet StJO' Aspen \\\ C,,,Z .l?OB£'J?7'SO.tV LJ/7'CH ~\ IO' lf'ASlf'Ulf'.tV7' \~ I I I I 11 f / I I \~. , 11 ~~ \ \ ,VO, rH PNC £07' 26 SEcm:w 12 !IWness Corn.er L24 OPE# SPACE 8..943 Acres .f-/-'. SAS?' UH£ ,t().1' Jl-1, SSC.1'/0H 12 \ \ ' \\ ~ \\ \\ ~ \\\\ < \\ \\ C,/Z .l?OAJ?/HC FO.li'K R/f/lf'.l? __________ ,.,__L_l __,~~ .tV0.1?7'H11'.t?ST CO.l?.tV.t?R ~ I -t I I~!~/ A=3J.78~ R~4Q.OO' D=45•31;07' D=N 34•06~11' E ---e-fJ0.95'-- - T=J6.78' £07' 1 S.t?C7'/0.tV 13 ~ S5 .Hatch Sheet 5 Cl en COY' COllRS'fi' LJ&t/HAtJfi' .&'/S.E'Kfi'N7' ~ /~Iii, m ,,..,,-....... ~ ~.e?,.. ... i.?. :-?a.. v '51: - I "'-< -~ :;;> ..... > .. "' .¥tJ' Utiiily. .casement '<f'6"~ ,,.,.. ~ • I / // ~ "-. "--"-. ff'astewater J"reatment Plant Sz'te/ I ~ ... ,,.. Sf/ <s ~ -.......__ -.......__ l/nderground l/tzlzly Easement ~'-fV'V'. j/ · -.......__ 4' ~ fl. 080 Acres +/-~ "' -:.,·~ "-. . ;=-.. <>> 11 ~....._,. '-"."~<";--... "-. I 1 -~-...,,,., ........__ I ~........__ ........__........__ 11 <0,.-.......__ ~........__ I &~ ........__ I I I ~~-.......__ ":! I ~ "'./ '.';I ACC.E'SS M'D t/7'/U?'Y .E'ASfi'Kfi'Hr ~~Ll.JJe_ ___ ::::.L::.:11-..- 1 BOOK -107, PA/7.E' #3 AND <::: ' I BOOK$()!, PAt:fi' 26'3 A£0Nl7 ' / -</-8\ I RtMD AS BU//,7' /N PMC'.E' !.PO/Hr O,<' B.!'a/'NN/N/7 ".,.,..,..~ ~-. -9' I, <") "RYC'.E'PJ"/ON ..V(J 2 ~ ~ ~~-S~~'lO'r ·' Sfi'/77'/tW 13 D&f.HS c ltj 111 ) lN 817'09'2¢°' IY 346'9.81 ~<./'. s-I EXCEP.l'/0.# .!VO. 2 210.86' ~ 5.41? Acres +/- ' , < s 49'03'06" w ~ . ""o-H0.7' A PARJ" OF J"H/S' PLAJ" 88_68 , ~ 11 s1 I ~<,.> < 11 I I ~<'.~~-9 11 ( I .,<<'l I ~ I I I .IJJU/.tVACC, U7'/.lJ7'Y AHLJ PU.BLJC ACClf'SS ffAS.t?Uff.tV7' < 11~ I ~ 111 I ~-~< I C,,,Z .l?OB.t?.1?7'SOH LJ/FCH ~<:'> 1o' I I II 1 1 £ease Agreement Parcel I 10' .t?AS.t?U.t?Hr ~ -/,.~ BOOK 7()1 P.ACS 781 ~ ~ HOJ" A PA.RF OF J'H/S' PLAF I I I I 11 ~I I I I I I tir·~ I 11~ F/SHE.RHA.!V'S .ROA.IJ I I I I I ltjll1 : , ~ 11 J I IQ~ 11 -~ °' . I ~;::,; I < 11 ~ I I I I NUM- BER REVISION DATE BY Job No. .93 O,f/8 Drown by: H.F. Dote: 1,f//0.9/P.f ... Final Plat Appr. by: .K. Ir. 27 File: FP-1930.f!O Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix H Appendix H Proposed WWTF Site Plan, Process Flow Diagram Preliminary Not For Construction ' J -... ___ ·-------...... --··--.. ----··-- -----·--.. --·- _., ..... ---... _ ___ ... ,../,.,,..---· _/ _..,.,.. ... ·----------..... ·-............. --· ·-·--·-·-...... - --·-·-··-·-. -·----·-·-... /' -... __ _ ----- EX. HEADWORKS BUILDING -+---- / _,. .......... - / ......... - _____ .... ..------· ------ ------ ----··-· __ ........... -····- ---------- ------ .•. ----· .--...... __ ---· ·--.. ___ .... --· -------·- -··-·-··---··---__ ....... __ ....... -- --··-· -- ----/ \ ./ __ __. .... / --·-.... ---· ··--------__ ,· EX. AERATION BASIN --·- --/_, .-'"· / / ".. ...... ..-· I -1 ~·--·t ;"MI --·~ __ ,.r• --"~ --"~ --Hl"MI l : I ~ j ......... / ··~ /·I ·... . I ~~~--"-~~~- '~ ·~, \ \ . \ / , -· ............. m·-.. ·-· ··-•.. - I l ' ,/ --···· .. --.. ·-·-··-·-·· --·· ·--· _______ / ! f I PRO. ri LJ [Zl ri LJ ri LJ l LJ ;·····---.. --.. --· ·----·---...... o ~~1~t:;~x;~1·-, f ' j j \ ' D _ _..... _/ ~ D /// / I I D» , i.::;::=i \ i -------------,-t / -... -.... , ------......... "'·--... _ --------· ·-· ·-·--·- l------+-1/ / · 11 ··--... .... _ ... / _/--FUTURE AERATION BASIN /•-..... / '·, ,r--......... · ........ .......... __ '· ' 6" ~PIPE ................ '•, I -.......,....._. I r-\ ' ' j ..... \ .V"" ANOX/C-A£1>'7/0N 7fl<NSml PIP£ / ./' \ f ! ' PRO. ANOXIC BASIN ! ---... _ ,,,,..-L!:::==::;z=::::=:=:2!i<"'====:::!J / · .... , ,,/ .. ' .. ~--- ·-.-..... -.. , ________ .... .------I ............ ..., -........ /-· -------............. ....... ....... ........ --------------.......... ______ .. --•..• --........... .., __ ./ ...... ________ .--·····-·· --·· .,. ... /---· --·· --··-"··--... __ ·--~-- __ ... .,..-- -... _ ·--~ -........ ·-----·-----. ------------............ "'··-·-··-- --··-----.... __ .... _.,./_/-(,...---------------..... --, --·~. ----·---.-··----·--· ................ .. ·--·--·--· -------· -\ \ ...... --..---·---·----...... --__ ..... _.,,.. ....... . --·--'"·----·---· ...... --........ -..-.... .-·- _, --··----....... -· ....... --....... ·--. _ .. __ ... __ ..... ...... -· , .. / .... -·" __ .. --·-----.............. -· ... · -.... --- _. .. ----·--........ _ ..... ---.. ____ . ..- S SGM 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm·inc.com ---- --- SITE PLAN SCALE· 1" = 30' RFWSD WWTF Expansion Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District D D D D ... \_ ~ EX. CONTROL !; BUILDING j # \ \ DD LEX. EX. FILTRATION I BUILDING D D Revision D D D DD Date By _ ..... -----__. .... ------- \ ,../ ..... .------::::~_::~----: ..... -·--· --· --.-------:;/ --------·-------· ·-· --_____ _..- --··----·------.-__ .. ----____ ...... ----· --...... -· ___ .... ------...... --· / "'"--· ----·--·- ,,..,, .................. -.......... ,,..-·-..... ---· ........ ..-... ....... ..... - -..... --· -··--.-_ ..... _..- -.--·-··--·:_ ........ , . ..- _____ . -----· --,....--· _______ .... --/ .-· ----· . ·--· ·--·- .... ..----" ·-----. --''"•·---·· ""···--··-- ./,.... .-----~ -------__________ .. ... ..... - ......... -· _ .......... ""'-- Job No. 96D59A 129 Drawn by: CH Site Layout Dote; 03/07/2017 QC: PE: t----....1....-----1 Of File: Site Layout Gl2 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J: ~ Ji ~ !£ G -~ " ! < ·"' ~ <; -"' .~ "" § ! Jl 0: < -~ ~ "' ~ ~ 7 Existing Manhole Existing 12" Influent 12" Interceptor from Town Pretreatment Area Manual Bar Screen Mechanical Screen & Washer Compactor ~l-'===;00~ Biosolids to Landfill Grit Classifier Aerated Grit Chamber (j) Parshall Flume ..,. From Grit '--+---AIR--.... ---Bio werS Grit Pumps To Anoxic Process From Screw Press -31 From Digesters --1N 03a From RAS Pumps --sit --II~ From Headworks ---1--~ i Preliminary 6 SG M Roaring Fork Water And Sanitation District # Proposed Anoxic & Existing and Proposed Aeration Process Areas @ Anoxic Basin @ AX1 (jJ {Vo!=O.xxx MG) @ AX2 CiJ{Vo!=O.xxx MG) @ AX3 (jJ (Vol=O.xxx MG) Revision Date ML.SS:---~ By M,~,,,,.W,t,,.\~",L)l.L~WM,W;~\', M~\'o.'N>la.\"»J:rli."."'"-""'-"W»>..W-0~ ,,_..,,,,.,._...,,.\_..,,,.~W< ,,......,,,,.....,,.\_~~ ,,.....,.,..'M,\--W.~~ ,,...,,,,. ... ...,,...,,,,. ......... ...,.,,,.,,,,...,,,,., AA~""-'W>l\\"'»»."."11.h~~\b.~'\'b..~ ~ ,,...,,,,.,.,...,,.\_..,,,...,.,,.,,,,..,..,..____.,_ ,,.....,.,..'M,\-~\~ A01 ~ ®N~=======ll (Total Vol=O. 107 MG) :::::~~===~~ ,,....,,. ...... ...,,.\.,..,..,,. __ ,,,,,.,.,,,.,,. M\ttJiMM\.'N>."'1."1L"'~"·"li.",.,~\; ».~"». .... \~~~ .... M'W»».,,,,.'W>.t..'\~W>MW."tM»>.'ll. M"l»>.\b.,,,,_'Nlo.\~\i.».'W'A\W..~'\W""'il't o:: M'Y»>H>.\'o,'N>."-\"~1"'t-,\:\,1>1'b~\~ ld!il:l:li'--'----''*"""r~d D A02 '!VII==============! ® ,,.....,.,..w,,, ____ ,~ M'Wt»>.,,,,.~t..\~W>MW.'i:o»».'lf. . ,,....,,. ...... ...,,.,.,..,..,,....,,....,,.,,,,,.,.,,,.,,. MW\W.\'o,'N-."-\"~~i..•:is,i.~~"<\. AA.~"»-''~~~ .... M.~""''W>.t..'\~W>MW."tM»>.'ll. MW'>-\b.,,,,_W1".\~\i.».W"A\W..~'\~ M.'tAA.'».\'b.'NNJ."~""'(.·"11."1"'~\~ h-<;J~»».''M'\ ____ , ....... ""'>;r:c;;jd Future A03 Job No. Drown by: Date: To Clarifier 1---H•splitter Box 96059A129 GS ECL 03/07/2017 ~ Not For 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District ~·l .... ~:~~~~~~--------------------------.l __ ..2:G~le[n~w~o~od~S~pr~in:g~s,~C~0~8~1~6~0~1~!.._JL.. ____________________________________________________________ ..[:::I::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. ______ .l. ____ .l. __ .J. ________________________________ ..i.:;::;. __________ .;.;,;;;;;;;;;;;,i. ____________ _, ~ onstruction 970. 945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Process Flow Diagram QC: PE: BB Of 00 File: Process Flow From Existing & Proposed Secondary Clarification ® Process Area ~ ® -~I 11==::11 Clarifier SC#I - //--;~~ ' ~ I I ~ Ul Scum fl\ E Vault Ii:../ g "' Ul To Existing Control Building To Aerobic Digesters ' .. Di'gester Blowers \. #1 To Grit -4----1 Chamber"" Aeration .,.,.. ___ _ Process ' ' " Aeration Basin Blowers To Anoxic Basin RAS Pumps -RAS•--RAS- RS-I RS-2 RS-SP ~~J: F i:ti F ~-3DOn1S 3DO lSI-- Grit Blowers To Digesters ' .. (/) " ~ I (/) " ~ I ~ (/) " ·, [-© WAS Pumps _J I Aeration _ __.._ .. 1 11---C' • • Clarifier SC/2 Ill-_--sL~E:--+--i~";----+-3~an1s:---·I AS'--WASl----11~-WAS (/) " ~;:(::( t Process Preliminary Not For Construction Clarifier Splitter Box . "' .F. ~ ' ~-3DOnlS 3DO lS rl ......... =~ .... ~ ~ .. c ~Scum. IE ! Vault 8 g g "' "'"'"' • J 11 SC/3 '·-.s• "'----t-J ~ • c rl • scu;.; scu: .. scu:., ... -. . ~ .. scu·· scu·· scu·· s • -. '===r 'f l_ ~: ~ s u:.~ Filtration/ scu1--- Disinfection Processes From Clarifiers t "' I I r·-C "' I I "' " 13--~\fl~ ~ I "" · / ~.J.J3--~\ ~)---~lil8·--~\fl)-­ £xisling Filler Clearwell Exi'sting Gravity Filler . ~ . ® (/) " I (/) " Scum Pumps l -[D • ··- SC-I -JI] ' ··- scu~ f-H:Xl---scu~ <:C-< I Existing Filtration Building ~ ~ t:;;:\Chlorine Contact L" ~ Chamber ... --EFF---1~= © "==i11c:::=::::::JF~~ .. LAR-~~--r.:LAR EFF Wetlands Tributary to Colorado River 6 SGM 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970. 945.1004 www.sgm·inc.com Roaring Fork Water And Sanitation District Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District # SYN ... p ~ ~ r Fill I ..., I IY SU ..., I SU. AD! @({) ft f Aerobic IJigestion t:;;:,. Process Area \/..9 SYM 6 SYM .YM 1 r Fill 'r L .._ AD2 ~ p~ r r r SYM - ~ r Ft!/ Overflow SUJP----7--ti.il l, SU. IP--'-1-----SUIP-;--7--ti.il Supernate AD.3 ~ p~ r r r r,..·///J//// //,, / J A r////V/////Y/.//,,J 1////1//////Y////I ~ ·~ 0 0 6 0 ' ' .. j " To Thickening/ ~ De watering ...... --souo _ _,J'---souos _ __, ,..__ _ __,_ ____ ..f]'---_ __J Bldg ' .. From Digester Blowers Solids Thickening/IJewatering © Building Dewatered Cake Conveyor Screw Press Polymer Skids --~__.l I I I I From WAS Pumps Decant Pumps ' Ir ' r 1 r To ; noxic Basin l/r----<11..;;l-~~~~~3--1-..;;--sou is--From Aerobic I I Digesters • )-----, L ____ ..J (\(\ (\(~ .._,, ..__. .._.. .._,, .._,, Bioso!ids to Landfill Revision Centrate Return (7\ to Anoxic Basin 0 Date By Process Flow Diagram Job No. 96059A129 Drown by: ECL G6 Date: 03/07/2017 QC: ···· I PE: BB Of 00 File: Process Flow Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix I Appendix I Geotechnical Report HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 303 945-8454 Phone 303 945-7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ASPEN GLEN DEVELOPMENT GARFIBLD COUNTY, COLORADO. JOB NO. 193 174-5 JUNE 9, 1994 PREPARED FOR: THE ASPEN GLEN COMPANY ATTN: JIM WOODS 555 EAST DURANT, SUITE 4A ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. June 9, 1994 The Aspen Glen Company Attn: Jim Woods 555 East Durant, Suite 4A Aspen, Colorado 81611 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 303 945-8454 Phone 303 945-7988 Job No. 193 174-5 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant, Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado. Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed treatment plant at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed development area consist of 1/2 to 4 feet of topsoil and soft silt above dense sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders. Weathered siltstone bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite was encountered at 10 to 14 feet. Groundwater was encountered in the borings between 1 1/2 and 5 feet below the ground surface. The water is likely perched on the bedrock and fed by the upslope irrigated fields and the Glenwood Ditch. The proposed plant facilities can be founded on spread footings or structural slabs placed on the natural gravel or siltstone and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Pre-excavation dewatering will probably be required. An intercept trench drain should be constructed around the uphill side of the facilities and the Glenwood Ditch should be lined to reduce the long term groundwater impact on the project. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our fmdings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Rev. By: DEH SLP/ro cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer -Attn: Jeff Simonson TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . SITE CONDmONS . . GEOLOGIC SETTING . FIELD EXPLORATION . SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS . DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . FOUNDATIONS . . . . . FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS . FLOOR SLABS . . . . . . UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM . SITE GRADING . . . . SURFACE DRAINAGE. LIMITATIONS ....... . FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 -GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS . 1 . 1 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 . 5 .7 .7 . 8 . 8 .9 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed waste water treatment plant to be located near the Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to The Aspen Glen Company, dated January 20, 1994. A previous subsoil study for the treatment plant was conducted by Chen-Northern under Job No. 4-112-92, dated May 28, 1993. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine engineering characteristics of the on-site soils and rock. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The waste water treatment plant site will cover an area of about one acre. The proposed treatment facilities will include relatively small buildings and below grade structures such as aeration basin, aerobic digester, clarifier and chlorine contact tank. Excavation depths are expected to range between 10 to 15 feet. Foundation loadings should be relatively light and carried by structural slabs for the below grade structures. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. - 2 - SITE CONDffiONS The site consists of an irrigated grass field on a flat topographic bench. The terrace slopes are about 6 to 8 feet high on the downhill east side and 10 to 20 feet high on the uphill west side. Existing out buildings are located along the top of the downhill terrace slope. The Glenwood Ditch, which is earthen and was flowing at the time of our field work, borders the toe of the uphill terrace slope. Elevation difference across the plant area is about 4 feet. A marshy linear depression about 1 to 2 feet deep is located just north of the plant area. The ground surface was soft which made access difficult with the truck drill rig. The Roaring Fork River is located a few hundred feet northeast of the site and about 12 to 15 feet lower in elevation. A gravel quarry is located on the next bench above the site to the southwest. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the first gravel terrace deposit above the modem valley alluvium of the Roaring Fork River. Shale consisting of siltstone and gypsum of the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the site at about 10 to 15 feet based on the borings. The rock contains lenses and layers of gypsum and other anhydrites that are know to have dissolved and caused surface subsidence under certain environmental conditions. The borings did not encounter voids in the subsoils or rock. Sinkholes were not observed on the property. The shallow depression to the north of the plant site could represent a broad area subsidence but appears to be inactive. The potential for future sinkhole development at the site appears low. The excavations for the structures should be closely observed for signs of voids. H-P GEOTECH - 3 - FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 25, 1994. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8-inch l.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils and bedrock at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils and rock. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The three previous borings which were drilled by Chen-Northern in the area are also shown. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDmONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 112 to 4 feet of topsoil and soft sandy_ silt overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Below the gravel alluvium at depths of 10 to 14 feet, weathered siltstone was encountered to the maximum depth drilled of 40 feet. The rock contains harder and softer zones but generally appears to be medium hard. No indications of voids were encountered. The rock is typically fractured and broken and of poor quality. H-P GEOTECH -4- Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, gradation analyses and liquid and plastic limits. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 112-inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 4. The liquid and plastic limit tests indicate the upper silt and siltstone are low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. Free water was encountered between 1 112 and 5 feet in the borings and the subsoils were highly moist to wet. The water level can likely rise to near the ground surface from the uphill field irrigation and ditch leakage. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS The subsoils consist mainly of dense gravel terrace deposits which should support moderately loaded spread footing or mat foundations. The underlying siltstone is weathered with the consistency of a hard clay or silt and also suitable for footing or mat support provided the foundation excavations are kept dry. Pre-excavation dewatering should be provided for all below grade structures. An area trench drain that perimeters the uphill side of the excavations or sumps that extend into the bedrock should be possible dewatering methods. Extensive underdraining will be needed to protect the structures against hydrostatic pressures. The Glenwood Ditch may also need to be lined to help control groundwater impact. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the structures be founded with spread footings or structural slabs bearing on the natural granular soils or on bedrock. H-P GEOTECH - 5 - The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or bedrock should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3, 000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The topsoil, silt and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils or bedrock. Water seepage should be collected outside of the footing area so that the excavation bottom is dry. We should observe the adequacy of the dewatering before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a H-P GEOTECH - 6 - lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Silt and topsoil should not be used as backfill except for the top 2 feet. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressure recommended above is for a drained condition behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. If the water level behind the wall is allowed to rise, the total unit lateral pressure imposed on the wall (soil plus hydrostatic) should be taken as 95 pcf. Underdrains would be needed to control hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. We have assumed relatively free-draining granular soils such as the on-site gravels for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill can be incorporated into the underdrain system. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. Granular wall backfill should contain less than 15% passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 6 inches. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.5 for gravel and 0.3 for siltstone. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 200 pcf. The coefficient of friction H-P GEOTECH - 7 - and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength and a submerged condition. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural gravel soils below the topsoil and soft silt are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, non structural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered near the ground surface. Seasonal fluctuations in the water level can be expected. We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and tanks or basins, be protected from hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The designers may elect to design the structures to resist hydrostatic uplift forces. H-P GEOTECH - 8 - The underdrain system should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1/2 % to a suitable gravity outlet. The underslab gravel should connect to the perimeter drain. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should extend to within about 2 feet of final ground surface. The invert level of the drains will likely be controlled by the gravity daylight elevations since the flood level of the river is only about 10 feet below the site. SITE GRADING We recommend pre-excavation dewatering for all below grade structures. Slope stability and poor bearing conditions will be a concern if the dewatering is not adequate. The contractor should provide us a plan for dewatering and excavation before starting construction. We expect that an intercept trench drain and/or sumps that extend into the underlying bedrock can be used for area dewatering. Additional trenches and sumps will likely be needed inside the excavations. Sheet piling may be feasible to provide temporary excavation slope bracing. The piling should be driven into the bedrock. Driving conditions will be difficult in the gravel and shallow refusals may be encountered. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the facilities have been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. H-P GEOTECH - 9 - 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 3 of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 903 of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our fmdings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our H-P GEOTECH -10 - information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our reco=endations, and to verify that the reco=endations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the reco=endations presented herein. We reco=end on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. SLP/ro H-P GEOTECH Approximate Scale 1" = 80' . .. . . . . '\.. ".. ( \\ . (' . ) ... " \\ : I (I~~ ..... ~ ~">::·:· ~;.°':. >~----... \\\\ · . Existing ~ / --· · · · '." \ fu :\ I!( r Gravel Road ( . \ ' \ \ \\ Glenwood r, \ \ Roaring Fork ·.. Ditch ". Shallow \ J 1 . . 11 __ :, \ \ \\ River ± 300' \' \ '.i -: ~\\\ \ \ \\ ( Depression \ \ I \ \ \ \ "" Bo~ing B-11-93 \ · '----._:''''\Existing · .. \\ ( \ DI,.._/~) '. :--:Ii\ ( ...., \ Boring 3 ) ·. · (Y \ \ \ \ 1 n (!) 1 --\ ; I 1 ~ " Qw\ ",I ~\ \ / / 7 .\ 6\ " Proposed Treatment 0 ' ..,, 1 ' / ' \\ ~' "\ J Facilities (typ.», ~ :M [t ".,~ ~ \ 1 / \\ \\ ( D 0 GJBoring2 \ \ 1\ '\\ [ \ o Boring B-10-93 / \ \ ~~\ ~ -~ \ . \\\;: !'---// Gravel Quarry \ Boring 1 \ r- 1 i\ \\ I \ \ U 1Ji 11 LEGEND: \\ ( \ 2 /J :i e Exploratory Boring Drilled for This Study 0 Exploratory Boring Drilled by Chen-Northern, Inc., Job No. 4 112 92, Dated May 28, 1993 193 174-5 HEl'WORTH-PAWLAK <irOTECHNICAL, Inc. 0 Boring B-9-93 Location of Exploratory Borings Fig. 1 Roring 1 Boring 2 Borin~ 3 B-9-93 8-10-93 B-11-93 :Olev=5965' Elev=5963' Elev= 963' Elev=5964' Elev=5963' Elev=5964' 0 0 I 1 2 .JC=20 48/12 -200=56 W~=a LL=24 20/1 + - 7 Pl=4 -0 =9 35/12 5 43/8,20/0 +4=61 -200=7 20/5, 10 20/0 46/12 10 l~C=9.6 -200=44 LL=21 +-' QJ Pl=6 QJ w... 70I12 15 .,;;; +-' Cl. QJ 0 20 20 25 30 35 40 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 193 174 -5 BIOfECHNICAL, Inc. Logs of Exploratory Borings Fig. 2 +-' QJ QJ w.. .,;;; +-' Cl. QJ 0 LEGEND: 20/12 - T TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt, dark brown. SILT (ML); clayey, sandy, soft, wet, brown. GRAVEL (GM-GP); sandy, cobbles with boulders, dense, wet, brown, rounded rock. WEATHERED SHALE-SILTSTONE AND GYPSUM; clayey, variable, firm to medium hardness, moist, grey, Eagle Valley Evaporite. 1 1 /2" PVC pipe installed to depth shown. Hatched part is slotted. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT). 1 3/8-inch l.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1 586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 20 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches. Depth at which free water was encountered and number of days after drilling measurement was taken. Depth at which boring 'caved when checked on June 8, 1994. Practical refusal on boulders. NOTES: 1. The exploratory borings was drilled on May 25, 1994 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of the exploratory borings was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of the exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under conditions indicated. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Moisture Content (%) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit (%) Pl = Plasticity Index (%) 193 174-5 HEPWOftTH-PAWLAK 0!01'ECHNICAL, Inc. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 I HYDROMETER ANAL YSlS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 24,HR. I IME HEAUINUS I U.S. Sl ANUAHU SE.IUES I CLEAU SUUAIU.i. U._,ENINUS I 7 HR. . .. '45 MIN 15 MIN. RO MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1MIN. """' ., ... '50 'An ·10 .,. ., ., ~-y,-, . ..,-:r s-lf" "''" 100 0 90 10 ... 20 _..__ 70 JO " i'l 60 w .. z ;;; " ~ .. < w ~,. -,.~ ~ ~ % -" w '" ~ •o f".O~ w •• ~ ~ JO 70 ,. "" 10 "' ~ 0 9.52 ... .001 ·"'" .005 .009 .tJl9 ·""' .0/<( .149 . 20/ .500 1.19 '·"' 4.16 19.1 J8.1 • 76.2 121 200 ... 2.0 l!.2' I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS I SAND I GflAVl!l ;caeOLES CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM COAUSE FINE I COAu~;E GRAVEL 65 "' SANO 31 % SILT ANO CLAY 4 "' ... LIQUID LIMIT PLASTJCJTY INOi:X "' SAMPLE OF sandy gravel FROM Boring 1 @ 4' & 9' Combined HYOnOMETEA ANAi. YSIS I SIEVE /\Nl\L YSIS I 24 1 1-111 TIME HEAUINGS I U.S. ::; I ANOAllO Sf:111ES I Cl.EAR SOUAHE OPENINGS I 1HR. ... 4!1MIN 15MIN 6fl MIN. 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN . ,,,. ., ... ·~n •.tn ·:in .,. '., • • ~-... l'h-,.. . s-r;-8" 100 90 IO 80 ,. 70 ----t-~ JO I __, ' " = a i ;; 50 _,_ -.-' "0~ l ~ 'i i ~ < ·•· --t->- I ~ .,. ~so '""' % ~ w .. -z I ~<10 w oou w " ~ •• I ~ JO 70 --20 00 10 90 n 100 .00• .002 ·""" .... .019 .ua1 .014 .t•9 .297 I 590 1.19 q.>a 4.16 O.S:! 19.1 JO.I 76.2 127 1 i:N I ... 2.0 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SANO GflAVEL :COBBLES I FINE ' MEDIUM ICOAOSE rTHE I COAnse GRAVEL 61 .... SAND 32"' SILT AND CLAY 7 .... LIQUID LIMIT .,. Pt..ASTICITY INDEX .,. SAMPl.EOF sandy gravel FROM Boring 2 @ 5' & 8 1/2' Combined 193 174-5 HE?WORTH-PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS GEO TECHNICAL, Inc. Fig. 4 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JOB NO. 193 174-5 TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RES UL TS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED BORING DEPTH MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING UOUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR ffeetJ CONTENT DENSITY {%1 {%1 NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE {%1 lpcfJ SIEVE {%1 {%1 IPSF) 1 4&9 65 31 4 sandy gravel (combined) 2 5 & 8 1 /2 61 (combined) 32 7 sandy gravel 3 10 9.6 44 21 6 weathered siltstone-claystone Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District WWTF Expansion May 2017 Site Application and Engineering Report Appendix J Appendix J Flood Insurance Rate Map Approx.WWTF location J c JOINS PANEL 1855 13 ZONE B ZONE B {J RM17 s: s: 0) co co 00 a: a: 17 ZONE C 19 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 0 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) PANEL 146 5 0 F 19 0 0 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) COMMUNITY"PANEL NUMBER 080205 1465 B MAP REVISED: JANUARY 3, 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov