HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Site Application(970) 94s-1004
FAX (970) 94s-5948
ENGINEERS
-S,-
-M--scdnuEsEB :='
GORTX],NTEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 6, 1996
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Director
of Community Development
1O9 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Site Application for Riverbend Wastewatsr Treatment Plant
Dear Mark:
Enclosed for your review is a Site Application for the Wastewater Treatment Plant at
Riverbend. This plant is currently operating under Site Application #4134. Discharge
Permit #COG-584O06 has been issued for this facility. The allowed capacity under
those two permits is 19,950 gallons per day. This application is for an increase in
capacity to 24,7OO gallons per day.
Facilities at this plant have recontly been upgraded. New lagoons, which have an
increased volume over previous lagoons, have been built. The plant has been changed
from a nondischarging facility to a facility which discharges to the Colorado River,
and chlorination has been added. All of these improvements ancr€as€ the capacity of
the plant.
This application would serve to increase the capacity under the permits to the capacity
which has been created by virtue of the new facilities.
Please forward this application to the Garfield County Planning Commission and the
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for their review and approval.
A copy of this permit is being forwarded to the State Health Department, the Colorado
Geological Survey, and the Town of New Castle for their concurrent review.
lf you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 945-1OO4.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
D *lb,* D,,/o,-JDebbie Duley
cc: Dwain Watson, Colorado Department of Health
Steve Rippy, Town of New Castle
James M. Soule, Colorado Geological Survey
ENGINEERS---'---- suavEYons
(970)94S1004
FAX (970) 945-5948 -S^
*M--
*,INUESER .-118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 6, 1996
Mr. Steve Rippy
P.O. Box 90
New Castle, CO 81647
RE: Site Application for Riverbend Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Rippy:
Enclosed for your review is a Site Application for the Wastewater Treatment Plant at
Riverbend. This plant is currently operating under Site Application #4134. Discharge
Permit #COG-584OO6 has been issued for this facility. The allowed capacity under
those two permits is 19,950 gallons per day. This application is for an increase in
capacity to 24,7OO gallons per day.
Facitities at this plant have recently been upgraded. New lagoons, which have an
increased volume over previous lagoons, have been built. The plant has been changed
from a non{ischarging facility to a facility which discharges to the Colorado River,
and chlorination has been added. All of these improvements increase the capacity of
the plant.
This application would serve to increase the capacity under the permits to the capaciW
which has been created by virtue of the new facilities. lt is being forwarded to you for
your review and approval.
A copy of this permit is being forwarded to the State Health Department, the Colorado
Geological Survey, and Garfield County for their concurrent review.
!f you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 945-1OO4.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DAj,. Du tj
Debbie Duley
cc: Dwain Watson, Colorado Department of Health
Mark Bean, Garlield Planning Department
James M. Soule, Colorado Geological Survey
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
ENGINEEBS
75..*M-_
*n*luESER :
GORDON
'IEYEB
-
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 6, 1996
Mr. Dwain Watson
Colorado Dept. of Health
222 South 6th Street, Suite 232
Grand Junction, Co 81501
RE: Site ApCication for Riverbend Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Watson:
Enclosed for your review is a Site Application for the Wastewater Treatment Plant at
Biverbend. This plant is currently operating under Site Application #4134. Discharge
Permit #COG-584006 has been issued for this facility. The allowed capacity under
those two permits is 19,950 gallons per day. This application is for an increase in
capacity to 24,700 gallons per day.
Facilities at this plant have r€cently been upgraded. New lagoons, which have an
increased volume over previous lagoons, have been built. The plant has been changed
from a nondischarging facility to a facility which discharges to the Colorado River,
and chlorination has been added. All of these improvements increase the capacity of
the plant.
This application would serve to increase the capacity under the permits to the capacity
which has been created by virtue of the new facilities. lt is being forwarded to you for
your review and approval.
A copy of this permit is being forwarded to the Town of New Castle, the Colorado
Geological Survey, and Garfield County for their concurrent review.
lf you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 945-1OO4.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
D*lb,- D"rA
Debbie Duley
cc: Steve Rippy, Town of New Castle
Mark Bean, Garfield Planning Department
James M. Soule, Colorado Geological Survey
(e70) e45-1004
FAX (970) 945-5e48
ENGINEERS
-Sr-
-M--
scniluEsEr =:
GONDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 6, 1996
Mr. James Soule
Colorado Geological Survey
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Co 802O3
RE: Site Application for Riverbend Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Soule:
Enclosed for your review is a Site Application for the Wastewater Treatment Plant at
Riverbend. This plant is currently operating undsr Site Application #4134. Discharge
Permit #COG-584OO6 has been issued for this facility. The allowed capacity under
those two permits is 19,950 gallons per day. This application is for an increase in
capacity to 24,7OO gallons per day.
You rsview the previous Site Application in Septemb€r, 1993, and a copy of your
letter regarding that application is attached for your reference.
Facilities at this plant have recently been upgraded. New lagoons, which have an
increased volume over previous lagoons, have been built. The plant has been changed
from a nondischarging facility to a facility which discharges to the Colorado River,
and chlorination has been added. Atl of these improvements increase the capacity of
the plant.
This application would serve to increase the capacity under the permits to the capacity
which has been created by virtue of the new facilities. !t is being forwarded to you for
your review and approval.
A copy of this permit is being forwarded to the State Health Department, the Town of
New Castle and Garfield County for their concurrent review.
lf you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me 8t 945-1OO4.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DAlr* Or/fl
Debbie Duley
cc: Dwain Watson, Colorado Department of Health
Steve Bippy, Town of New Castle
Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department
gbr,onloo DErARTMENT oF HEALTH
!I-ater Quallty Control Dlvlclon
43OO GIERRY CREE( DRrVE SC[M{
rDenver, Colorado 80222-1530
qN oR EXPAITSION OFs
A) DO}TESTIC }IASTEWATEE, TREATME}rI WORI(S (rNCr.UOrUG TREATMEI.IT PI.A}ITS,oIJTFATL sEI,rERs, AlrD Lr.FT srATroNs) orinn i,ooo cpD cepeiiri]
B) INTERcEpToRs (Ir REQUIRED By c.R.s. 25_9:702 (3))
APPLICA}IT:
ADDRESS I
Conaultlng Englneerfs and Addreae:
A. Sunma of lnforuatlon lng new
1.Propoeed Locatlon:(Lega1 Descrlptlon)
Hydraullc
Presenr pE /S s
3. Locatl.on of faclllty:
treatDent
/,Ll 4, 4[t//ySf!L/4, Sectlon
TownehLV i ;j5 . , Range , ?4 e) ,
( ir .t:a counry.
2,Type and capaclty of treatnent faclltty propoeed:Proces gea v ""d_La_eJ 3 -r: r-,,/,/
4,
Dealgn pE_.& /"Z DonesrlcJj?gz Z Industrlal
Attach I Dap of the area whlch lncludee the followlng:(a) 5-n11e radlusl alL Bewsge treattrent planta, r.lft statl.ons, and domeetlc
water euppJ.y Lntakes.(b) 1-n11e radlua: habltable bulldl.ngs, locatlon of potable ?rater werls, and
an approxloate indlcatton of the topography.
Effluent dlsposal:
Subsurface dlaposal
Evaporation 0ther
Statewaterqua11tyc1aeal.flcattonofrece1vJ.ngwatercouree(a)
Propoaed Effluent Llnitatlona developed ln conJunctlon wl.th planalng and standardesectlon, ,QCD: BoD*&< ,e/L ss%2o ^e/t Fecal cotttornae./r,tqbno ntTotal Reeldual chlorlne, '5 ogl] en,,oii.aafu!? ng/t oth.r&.i"5-:zct
w111 a state or Federal graut be aought to flnance any portlon of rhle prolect? Z<:tPreaent zonlng of slte area? p- / n
Zonlng wlth a l-ulle radlue of elte?
l.lhat le the dlstance downatreao ftron the nearegt dotregtlc watereupply lntake?
Sur{ace dlacharge to watercour""
5.
6.
7,
rl,vv
Addrese of
What ls the dtetance downstream from the
dlverelon?
SuppLy)
dlecharge to
Faur . .v/ Ze-s Jo
the nearest other polnt of
-1-
[IQCD-3 (Revlsed B-83)
:8.
g.
Who has the responslblll ty for operatlng the proposed faclllty? M
Who the land upon whlch
10.
11.
the faclllty wlll be conetrucrcd?
(Please@rreao,e aEEacn cople' 0f ttre docu6ent_ creattng-aGhoEsconstruct the pr.oposed facillty at thls Blre:)thls slre. )
ln the appllcanE to
dEstlmated proJect "o"r,lJha .la C{----r-!r-- --*oj flnancially reaponalble for the eonatruitloa and operatlon of the faclllty?
and/or sanltatlon dle'trlcte wlthln 5 miles
treatloent faclllty elte.
Names and
downstrean
addresses of
of proposed
all water
lras tewa ter
a separate PaPer necessary.
L2.
13.
Ie
If
the faclllty ln a 100 year flood plaln or other naturar. hazard ^r.r?&_sor what precautlons are belng tdrer.t i,/r/r+
Hae the flood
Departroent of
Va-*ro rt
If eo, what le
Please lnclude
Dlvlslon
plaln been deslgnated
Natural Resou;ces or8o*d
by the Colorado l.later Coneervatlon Boa rd ,other Agency?
(Agency Name
that deglgnation?
aL1 addltlonal factors that
make an lnforned decleion on
olght help the l.Iater
your applLcatlon for
Quallty Conrrol
slte approval.
B. Informatl.on regardl.ng llft statlons:
1. The propoeed llft atatlon when fu1ly developed
loadl peak Hydraulic (MCD)
Ie the elte located ln a 100
If yea, on I separate eheet
Descrlbe etrergency eyatem ln
yegr flood plaln?
of paper deecribe the protectlve rDeaaurea to be taken.
case of Btatlon and/or polrer fallure.
wlll generate
P.E. to be
the followlng addtrlonal
eerved
2,
3.
4.Name and addrese of faclllty provldlng treattrent:
5.The propoeed lift
EreatEent plant to
when fully developed wlll
of hydraullc and z
Lncreaae the loadlng of the
of organlc capaclty and
Btatlon
z
gree8 to treat thle waetewater? yes
-Dat-a._--
-2-
wqCD-3 (Revlaed 8-S3)
No
gnature
8 slEe thaE le orned or osnsged by athls appltcaElon.
D. Recou&endat{o' of governoentar al,thorrtles: t
Pleaee addreee che follorl'ng leeuea ln four s6q6oneadatlon declar.on. Are the ptoposedfrcllLtlel conaretent Hlth the cooprehenslve plan and any orher plans.for the area,lncludlng the 201 Feclllty Pran or 208 t{ater Quallty Hanageuenr plsn, aE rhey effece }raEerquallty? rf you have eny further cotrtrent' 0f questlonar pleaee call 320-g333r ExEenElon527 2,
Reconaend RecOrnaend NoDeIs__ aqgrgIeJ,.-Dlatpttoval .eepeenq
12,'{)0,,08 FRI 13:1J FAlri 1 (170
, C.^ If the .faclllry wlll be
I'ederal or State agencyl
045 5948 SCE}ITiESER GORDON NEYER
locaEed on or edjecent to
send the ageney a copy of
algneturl of the Stete GeologleE t6 not
all elgrretutes. )
@ rlor
requlred, AppllearLons for
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
--alte ig lnslde boundary or wlitin-ttr..ol1es) and Sanlration DlstrlcEg.
-
(For ltft aratl,ona, the
Ererttrent planta requl.re
r certlfy thet r ao faolllar rrlrh the requtretrent' of theFor Dopeatlc l{aatetatef Trcatoent l.lorkar, ind have poe Eedregulatlona. An caglneerlng report, aa deocrlbed by rheeucloged.
"Regulatlons for Slte Appllcatlorrs
rhe alte tn accordance wlth the
regulaElons, haa been prepared and is
P,,rurd-e+,|
RB Lurf"r"v&,,(,, Cp
-1-
I{QCD-3 (Rsvlaed B-83)
IDPITICjIEIOII trOR SIIE IPPITICLEXOX
nfVtRBE[D SUBDIYISIOX, GaRFIELD COLImY
This application is for an increase in capacity for the
waEtewater treatment plant currently serving Riverbend PUD in
Garfield County, Colorado. the plant is currently operating under
Site Application #4L34. Discharge Pernit # COG-584005 has been
issued for this facilitY.
The site is located approximately three miles east of New
Caet1e in the northeast one-quarter southwest one-quarter and the
northwest one-guarter of the southeast one-quarter of Section 34,
Township 5 South, Range 90 West in Garfield County, Colorado.
This application would increase
its current level of 191950 gallons
day.
capacity of the Plant from
day to 24r7OO gallons PerPer
Eigtory
The first filing of Riverbend PUD was approved by Garfield
County in Lg76. Subseguent to that approvalr Eh application for
site approval and Discharge Pernit Application were submitted to
the Colorado Department of Health for approval. The Site
Application was approved, and Discharge Permit No. CO-0O33152 was
issued in October L976. The facility was constructed as a two-
lagoon, non-discharging treatment system, and it was put into
service in approxinately L978. However, the system was only
1
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
partially constructed
Department of Health
in conformance with the plans approved by the
at that time.
In 1993, it becane apparent that the existing facility ras
seriously out of compliance rrith current regulations- At that
time, the owner of the system, R.B. Water and Sewer Company, began
the proce6s of bringing the wastewater treatuent facility into
compliance. A Site Application was required by the Colorado
Department of Health in order to nake the necessary repairs to the
Iagoons.
An additional filing of Rj.verbend was being contemplated at
the tine and the owner waa aware that additional capacity would be
needed. However. because of the urgency of the condition of the
existing system, a decision was made to apply for an Anended Site
Application, rather than a new Site Application which would
increase capacity. The expectation sas that the review process for
the increased capacity would take longer, thereby postponing the
beginning of the repairs on the existing system.
The desilm of the system ultinately included two new aerated
lagoons and a settlement pond which replaced the existinq lagroons.
These new components were designed and constructed to handle the
additional capacity needed for the proposed nen units. The
application which follows is a request to increase the allowable
capacity under the Site Application from 191950 gallons per day
2
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
(gpd) to 24,7OO gpd. This capacity agrees with the desigrn
parameters under which the new lagoons were constructed.
Construction of the system has been completed as per plans
previously approved by the Colorado Department of Health, and
includes the following:
Construction of two new cells in their entirety adjacent
to the two existing cells and abandonment of the two
existing cells.
Conpletion of the piping between the cells and aeration
in the two cells.
C. Construction of a settling pond.
D. Construction of disinfection facilities.
E. Construction of an outfall sewerline.
Service lrea
The service area for the Ifi{TF is the Riverbend SuMivision.
There are currentJ-y 4a units being served by the existing WWTF.
AdditlonaL units are planned between the existing subdivision and
the treatment Plant.
3
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
A.
B.
Based on an estimated population of 2.77 persons per unit, and
an estimated wastewater flow production of 1OO gpd per capita, the
total estimated population of the service area for 83 units is 230
people, with a total wastewater flow projection of 23,OOO gpd.
projected flows of that magnitude are within the capacity of
the plant as designed and constructed. The demographics of this
subdivision, which consist prinarity of working couples with school
age children, contributes to a much lower actual flow than 277 gpd
per unit. Flow rates are being recorded for the effluent fron the
48 units currently being served by the treatuent facility. FIow
rates ranging between 15O and 22O gallons Per unit per day have
been documented as the normal flow.
FIow rates for the new lots, which will be added to the
system, are expected to follow similar patterns. Therefore, if
flow rate projections are made based on an existing flow rate of
22O gpd times 83 units, the total flow would be L8,26O gallons
well below the capacity of the plant. It is not expected that the
flows wi}l exceed the capacity of the plant.
Exhibit A is a map of the area showing the relationship of
this wwTF with surrounding facilities.
4
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Proposed Effluent Liuitatioug
Exhibit B is a previously issued Discharge Permit (COG-584005)
for this facility. The effluent limitations in that pernit, and as
proposed herein are as follows:
EFFLUENT LIMITS
Flow. MGD 0.o1995t Design Capacity
BOD", mg/l 3o/45b state Effluent Regulations
TSS, mg/l 75/1 oob State Effluent Regulations
Totat Ammonia, mg/l N/A Water Ouality Standards
Fecal Coliform, nolllO0 ml 6000/12,000"Fecal Coliform PolicY
Residual Total Chlorine, mg/l 0.5c State Effluent Begulations
pH, s.u. (minimum'maximum)5.-9.0d State Effluent Regulations
Oiland Grease, mg/l 10.State Effluent Regulations
c
d
3day average
3o-day averagetT'day average
Daily Maximum
Minimum-Maximum
3o-day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean
Analysig of Existiug
The nearest downstream private WWTF is the Burning Mountain RV
park. The facility is on ISDS systems and is about 2.3 niles fron
the Riverbend facility on the south side of the Colorado River.
This facility cannot be erqlanded beyond its current capacity'
5
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
The Apple Tree Trailer Park WWIF is located between five and
six miles downstrean from the Riverbend Subdivision on the sane
side of the Colorado River. This is a private facility which has
been designed and constructed to serve the Apple Tree Mobile Home
park and Mountain Shadows Subdivision only. The owner does not
have excess capacity available and is not interested in expansion
of the facility into a larger, area-wide facility. The nearest
downstream municipal WI{TF is the Town of New Castle. That faci}ity
is 1ocated on the other side of the Colorado River from the
Riverbend faciIitY.The Tosrn of New Castle is currently
undertaking a tr2olm Facilities Planning Study to evaluate the
future expansion of their wastewater treatment plant. That study
included a detailed cost/benefit analysis of service to future
development surrounding the existing Town. That study initially
included all the property within a three-mile radius of the
existing WI{TF. The study area was then trinrmed to include only
suitable areas of potential growth, and was further divided into 12
subareas for further analYsis.
Feasibility of interconnection with other nearby towns and
com'nunities was explored. Intra-regional connections of the
various entities were evaluated in detail. AIso, the ability of
each of the various entities to continue to collect and treat
wastewater from its service area was evaluated.
Intereonnection with other nearby towns and communities l'as
6
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
rejected because of the long distances, sparse population and high
costs involved.
Five major possibilities for regionalization were evaluated.
Riverbend Subdivision would be served by a conbination of two
alternatives B-2 and B-3 as discussed in the new Castle rr201x
Facilities Planning Study. The portions of that study which
address the Riverbend area are included for reference as Extribit C.
Alternative B-2 evaluates the cost of extending service to outlying
areas surrounding the existing town. It would not include
connections to the existing subdivisions such as Riverbend.
Alternative B-3 extends the service area included in Alternate B-2
to include Riverbend and other existing subdivisions. Ttre analysis
includes population and wastewater flow projections as well as cost
estimates for each alternative. The cost of collector mains was
prorated by the anticipated loading from each service area which
would benefit from the collector. Thus, relative costs per unit
can be determined for each area if growth uere to proceed in a
logical manner from the center of Town out. These calculations
yield a relative cost of $4r981.57 per unit for Riverbend
Subdivision.
However, it must be noted that growth has not occurred in this
type of logical seguence. Riverbend Subdivision was created in the
late L97Ots, and is located approximately three miles east of the
Town of New Castle. The only other development in that three-mile
7
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
stretch is Burning lrtountain RV Park which is served by an existing
ISDS systeu.
In order to connect Riverbend to the New Cast1e WI{1[F, several
of the future extensions anticipated under the 2O1 PIan trould have
to be conetructed at once. Those increments, as defined in the 2O1
Plan, include the Riverbend lateral, the NCIG lateral, the Pepsi
Iateral, the Farm lateral and the Lower Farm lateral (see cost
estimates attached as Exhibit D). Cost estimates for all four
segrments total $1r2891918.40. It is clearly not economically
feasible to serve Riverbend with grravity sewer at this tine'
fhe only reasonable alternative is to reguest an increase in
capacity under the approved Site Application for Riverbend
Subdivision. As previously stated, when the new three-cell lagoon
system was designed and constructed, the increase in capacity was
provided.
Floodtrlal.n and Natural f,azard halvgLs
Please see Floodplain Study attached as Exhibit E. The
treatment facilities are outside the Colorado River Floodp1ain. No
other natural hazards exist.
8
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Se1ected Alternatives
The selected alternative is the existing systen which is being
constructed under Site Application No. 4L34. The system consists
of a three-cell aerated lagoon with chlorination.
Operational needs viII include a part-time licensed operator.
Susan Sa lrons, a C1ass D operator, License #0300, is directly
responsible for this systen. She reports to Steve Boat of R.B.
I{ater and Sewer Company.
Institutional/ltanagenent /Fiaancial Considerations
R. B. I{ater and Sewer Company is the owner and operator of the
WWEF and provides service to the residents of Riverbend
Subdivision. Each individual homeowner is billed $55 per month on
a monthly basis for wastewater treatment and collection services.
Additionally, tap fees have been established at $5rooo per single-
fanily residential unit. Tap fees have been collected over the
last several years as new units have gone on line and will continue
to be collected for any future development within the project.
9
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
900200B05
.t:. "'j \
!:t.)';'
i;i:,
ll"t
4
J"
)ru
r---'!t:iF
Ki."'
]VIAP
,t \^l "r>li, )
a,t.'
!Iol\|
I
tto
cl1t!/\r)ri
-d
E><H I Elt -l- A I=IEG I Or{ A l_
)}1.-ttJ f ;pil_b-I[ r i. /^. | / _ )+;r, -l
4 os,to
q oxoo
STATEOFCOLOMDO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEATTH
Dedicated to prota,ing and improvingthe health nd
environmentof the paple of Calorado
43fl) Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Building
Denver, Coiorado S0222-1 530 421 0 E. 1 1 th Avenue
Phone603)Gg2-20fxJ Denver,Coloradoao22o-3716
(303) 691 -4700
May23,1994
RB Water & Sewer ComPanY
ATTN: Steven J. Boat
Box 1989
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Roy Rorner
Carcrnq
Patricia A tldan, MD, MPH
txecutir,e Dre<ror
i
Re: Site APPlication #4134
Garfield CountY
Dear Mr. Boat:
The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed and evaluated your site application and supporting
documentation for a domestic wastewater treatment works to be located in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/a ot
Section 94, TSS, R90W to serve Riverbend SuMMsion ard to discharge to the Golorado River.
prior to the operation of the facility, a discharge permit will be required which will specrfy the final
conditions and limitatlons of the opeEtions of the facility. Enclosed is an application for the permit.
We find your application to be in conformance with the Water Quality Control Commission's'Regulations
for Site Appticatibns for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works". Therefore, the site application is
approved with the following conditions listed below.
1. Based upon application information, the system design will be for:
Average Daily Ftow Capactty - 19,950 gpd
Organic Loading Capacity - 33 lbs. BODr/day
Treatment Processes to be used - Lined 3 cell aerated lagoon with chlorination
2. Preliminary Effluent Parameter Values:
BOD' - 3o/a5 mg/l
Suspended Solids - 75/1fi mg/l
Chlorine Residual - 0.5 mg/l
Fecal Coliform - 6,000/12,000 organisms/100 ml.
Design for values in excess of those contained in conditions 1 and 2 above or failure to comply with any
othei conditions contained herein will render this approval void and another site application will have to
be processed.
g. This site approval will expire one year from the date of this letter if the construction of
the projeci has not commenced by that date. lf expiration occurs, you must apply for a
new site approval. Construction is defined as entering into a contract for the erection or
physical placement of materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or building which are to
be a part of a domestic wastewater treatment works'
4. The design (construction plans and specifications) for the treatment works must be
approved by the Division prior to commencement of construction and all construction
ci1ange orders initiating variances from the approved plans and specifications must be
Page Two
May23,1994
RB Water & Sewer Company
approved by the DMision.
5. The applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the
commencement of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in conformance
with approved plans, specifications, and change orders.
6. At such time as seruice by a regional wastewater treatment facility becomes available to
this property, use of this system shall be discontinued and connection made to the
regional system.
ln accordance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission regulations, this approval is subject to
appeal as stated under Section 2.2.5 (7) of 'Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Works'.
This approval does not relieve the owner from compliance with all county regulations prior to
construction nor from responsibility for proper engineering, construction, and operation of the facility.
Water Quality Control Division
JDH :tlb:cm/Siteapp.5-71,72
cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc. - Attn: Dean W. Gordon
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
Garfield County Health Deptment
Thomas Bennett, Sr. Planner, WQCD+ Dwain Watson, District Technician,WQcD - Grand Junction
Dave Akers, Permits & Enforcement, WQCD
Sharon Ferdinandsen, Operator Certification, WQCD
Sincerely,
RATIONALE FO R CERTI FI CATION
RIWRBEND SUBDTWSION WASTBWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CDPS PEPJT'IIT NaMBER COCnSUOOO
FACILIW NUMBER COCn584006, GARFIBLD COANTY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TYPE OF PERMIT I
il. FACILITY INFORMATION . I
ilL. BECEIVINGSTREAM ....... 2
N. FACILTTIESEVALAATION ......... 4
V. PERFORTIANCEEISTORY. .........5
W. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PENUIT 6
WI. REFERENCES ....... ErI
L TWE OF PERMIT NEW
il. FACIUTY INFORMANON
A. Facitity Ilpe: Domestic - Mfuor MwiciPal' Lagoon
Fee C.ategory: Category 20, SubcateSory I
C-ategory Flow Range: 0 gpd to 49,99 gpd
Anrual Fee: $243 (Wuer gulity Control Act)
B. Lcgal bnUct: Diane R. Boat, President R. B. Water & Sewer, Inc.
P.O. Box 1989
Glenwood Springs, CO 81il2
(303) 98+3421
C. Facility Contact: Ralph Couner
Aqwtech
P.O. Box 1989
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(303) 98470s11
D. Facitity Location: NE 1/4, SW 1/4, and NW l/4, SE 1/4, Section 34, T5S, R90W, 6th P.M.,
9433 County Road 3i5, New Castle, CO 81647
E. Discharge Point: 001A, after chlorination and prior to enteing the Colorado River.
COI.OMDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTTI AND EI,IVIRONMENT, WATCT QIIhIiIY C.ONTTOI DiViSiON
Ruionale - Page 2, Permit No. CO40584006
ru. RECENING STREAM
A. Idefiirtcafion, Classificuion and Standards:
1. Idenrificarton: The wastqwater treatnunt worlcs disclwrSes to the colorado River, stearn segment I of the
Lower Colorado River Basin-
2. Ctassirtcation: The Colorado River is classifiedfor the following ttses: Recreation, Class l; Aqualic Life,
Ctass I (CoM); Wuer Supp$ and Agriculture'
3. Nwuric Standards: The foltowing nurncric statdards, which have been assigned in accordance with the
above classificaions witt be used to develop effluent limilaiorc.
Plrysical and Biological
D.O.
pH
Fecal Coliforrns : 2N Per 100 ml
Inorganic
Unionked Anmonia (NH), Chronic
Unionked Ammonia (NH), Acwe
Resifinl Chlorine (Cl), Chronic
Resi&nl Anorine (Cl), Acwe :
Clanide ([ree)
Sulfid.e as HlS
Boron (B)
Mtrite (NO)
Nttrate (NOl
Chloride GA
Su.lfate as SO,
Metals
: 6.0 mgll (7.0 mg/l sPawning)
: 6.5 - 9.0
Acwe and Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Acute and Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Acute and Chronic
Acute
Acute
Chronic
Acute and Chronic
Standard
50
TVS-tout
TVS
TVS
50
TVS
3N ug/l
1N0 ug/l
TVS
50 ug/l
1000 ug/l
0.01 ug/l
TVS
10
TVS
TVStrout
TVS
Anabtical Mahod
Total Recoverable
TVS
TVS
Total Recoverable
Total Recoverable
TVS
Dissolved
Total Recoverable
TVS
Dissolved
Total Recoverable
Total Recoverable
TVS
Total Recoverable
TVS
TVS
TVS
= 0.02 mg/l: A.$/FT/FPH/2 mg/l: 0.011 mgll
0.019 mg/l: 0.005 mg/l: 0.AO2 mg/l undis
= 0.75 mg/l: 0.05 mg/l: 10.0 mg/l
= 250.0 mg/l
= 250.0 mgll
Metal Crtteia
Arsenic (As) Aatte
Cafuniurn (Cd) Acwe
Cadmiun (Cd) Chronic
Chromium, hex (Cr W) Chronic
Chromium, ti (Cr III) Chronic
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Iron (Fe)
IEod (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Silver (Ag)
Zinc @n)
(fVS : Table Value Standards)
il1.
COIOMDO DEPARIMENT OF PABUC H&IL|'H AND ENWRONMENT, WATCT QNIitY COATOI DiViSiON
Ratiorule - Page 3, Permit No. CO4o584006
RECETWNG STREAM
A. Identifi.cation, Classificalion and Standards :
3. Nwneric Standards:
Menls - (Cowinued)
Based rEon tlu size of ttu disclurge, the lack of ittdustrial contributon, dilution provided by the receiving
strean and the faa iot * urr^*tty high nunts ancenlrations are expected to be fouttd in tlu wastewater
efrlucnt, it is wtikety ttat ttu disctarge will couse a vblotion of the stream standar& for meah.
Therefore, * *"nit efilueru limits oi monitoring conditions will be specified in the permit and ru funher
disctusion of the metals standards is necessary.
B. Receiving Water Characterkaion:
I. ,Tlu Basic Standards and Metlwdotogies for Surface Water', 3.1.0, outlincs the nse of 9c11e and ctronic
flows to determirc warer quatity tasia elfiuent i^itotio*. TheJtows wffich are nsed ticalcttlate aate and
-ctronic
efilturu limituiorc are the on" day in three year tow flow (183) aild tlu i0 doy in three year low
Jtow (30i3), respectivety. Theseflows were estimated at 1,170 cfs QE3) and 940 cls (3083) by thc Water
Otta$ Controt Division, @lorado Department of Pnblic Heahh and EnvironnuA.
2. Itu fustream total resi&ul chlorilu (IRC) concentration in the Cotorado River above the facility b
assuttud to be zero because of the targe flow in the rtver, and the rapid dissipation of TRC in well aerated
streams.
Irctreanfeml coliform levels below thcfacility ,ave indicated a 92/100 ml geometric meanfor the period
from Janrmry tgil nru August 1994 at State of Colnrado Sampting Station #47, which is located on the
Colorado River at a site on the west ettd of New Castk.
The fottowing tablc presents average instrean total arunonia concentrations above the facility based on data
colkaed a Snfion #47for the period of record.
Toble III - 7 - Downstrearn Total Anmonia Concentrations
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
0.084
0.075
0.09s
a.106
0.09s
0.099
lul.
Aug.
sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
0.490
0.097
0.078
0.M6
0.070
0.085
Impacts on Downstream Water Supplies or Other Receiving Waters:
Compliance with Colorado River standards witt result in compliance with the standards for all downstream
waters.
N.
-...,,_:. .. . :t:. ,*:':: -
COI,OMDO DEPARIMENT OF PUBUC HfuILTTI AND EI,TWRONMENT, WATCT QUAIiIY CONTTOI DiVbiON
Rationale - Page 4, Permit No. CO4O5840M
FACIUNES WALUATTON
A. Infiltraion/Inflow (I/I)
No infiltruion/inflow problems have been documented in the semice area.
B. Ufi Stations
Ihere are no lift statiors in tlu service area.
C. Treatment FacilitY:
I. Bac*ground atd History: This facitity is to replaces an existing lagoon system which hos rw surface
dkclurge and is not permitted. The aisting facitity does not lwve suficienl capacity to treat waste waler
for all of the planed lots in the subdivision.
On May 23, 1994 Riverbend was graaed site approvalfor a lined 3 cell lagoon with chloriration.
2- C-Wacit.v Evatrution - The Division's evaluation of the capacity of the treatfiunt facility is on fik afid is
surnnarized in Table N-2.
Tablc N-2 - Evaluation of Treatnent
':.i:Uai,ii,wi;E&
0.a05 - 0.303 MGDInfluent Flow Measuring Device and
Recorder
Aeration Basins
CcA #I
CeU #2
Aeration
Cell #l
Cell #2
Clarifier
Chloine Contact Chnmb er
Effluent Flow Measuring Device and
2' Parslull flume w/ recorder
Volwne : 178,720 gal
Ta : 9 daYs
25.4 lbs. BOD/day Removed
Volume : 178,720 gal
Ta : 9 days
5 -8 lbs. BODs/day Removed
2 - 3 hp "Tornadoo aerators
l80lbs.d/day
2 - 3 hp "Tornado" aeralors
180lbs.C/day
Volume : 50,365 gal
Ta: 2.5 daYs
Volume :667.3 gal
Ta: 48'2 min'
2" ParshnllJlume
0.01995 MGD
36lbs BODldaY
(combined)
240lbs BODldoy
(combined)
0.0321 MGD
0.00s - 0.303 MGD
Recorder
coLoMDo DEPARTI\LENT OF \UBLIC HEALTH AND ETWIRONMENT, Water Quality corurol Division
Rationale - Page 5, Permit No. CO-005840O6
N. FACILITIES EVALUATION
C. Treatment Facility (Continued):
The evaltution on the previous page shows that the facility is capable of teating 19,950 gpd and 33 lbs
BOD/day. These are the capacities approvedfor thefacility under site approval #4134. The lrydraulic
capacity of 0.01995 MGD wilt appty to Part I, Section 8.2. of the general permit and will also be thc Jlow limit
for the facility.
D. Biosolids Treatment and Disposal:
Since the treamcru facitity consists of aeraed lagoors, biosolids removal will probably be infrequent (once
every 5 to l0 years) and only take place d the ponds are drained and cleaned. If biosolids are removed from the
lagoons for any reason they must be disposed of in accordance with local, State and Federal regulations-
E. Ittdustial Waste Managemenl Requirements
Due to the tack of identified industrial users in the service area, and the fact that the permittee.does tnt accept
hazardous waste for treatm€nt, the permittee k not required to maintain a formal pretreatment program.
However, standard industial waste management conditions will apply as descibed in the general permit.
F. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing (Biomonitoring)
Based upon the lack of identified industial users and a review of other available information, and pursuant to
the aquatic life bionanitoing requiremcnts in Section 6-9.2(2)(a) of the "Regulntions for the State Disclarge
Permit System", 6. I .0, the Division does not find that there k a reasonable potential for whole effIuent toxicity
Wn) in the efrluent. Therefore, biomonitoring will not be a requirement of the permit at this time.
V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY
Since this is a new facility, no perfonnance history is available for consideration because no monitoring
requirements hnd p revious ly b e en e s tablished.
coLoMDo DEqAKIMENT OF \UBUC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Qrulity corurol Division
Rationnle - Page 6, Permit No. CO-M584O06
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
A. Effluent Limitations:
The Riverbend Subdivision wastewater treatment facility is a lagoonfacility. For lagoonfacilities, the efiluent
limitations shown in Tabte VII-2 wilt apply. Ihey are consistent with those required at Part I, Section 8.6.b. of the
general permit.
Table VII-L - Effluent Limits
Flow, MGD
BODt, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
Total Ammonia, mg/l
Fecal Coliform, no/100 ml
Residual Total Chloine, mg/l
pH, s. u. (minhrum-maximwn)
Oil and Grease, mg/l State
' 304ny average d Mini.mum-Maximum
b 304ay average/7-day average' 30-doy geometric mean/7-day geometric mean
' Daity Maximam
The Jlow timit of 0.01995 MGD, which is equal to the design capacity defined in Section N.B. of this raionale, will
apply under Pan.I.B.6.b. of the general permit.
Section N.A.3. of the Rationale for the General Permit includes a discussion of maximum allowable background
concentrations for total anmonia which were calculated using a "mass balance" equation. Because none of the
background total ammonia concenlrations shown in Tabte III-1 exceeded allowable total ammonia concentrations
there is no total ammonia limit for the facility.
Section N.A.3. of the Ratiorwle for the General Permit ako discusses maximam allowable background
concentrations for fecal coliform which were calculated using a 'moss balance' equation. Becatue the backgromd
fecal cotiform concentration shown in III.B.2. of this ralional is less that the maximam allowable background
concentration, fecal colifurm limits are established using the Fecal Colifurm Policy.
B. Monitoring:
l. Intluent and Wuent Monitoring: For lagoonfacilities with designflows of less thnn or equal to 0.5 MGD
the inltuent and effluent monitoing requirements, shown in Tabtes VI-2 and VI-3, are consistent with those
outlined in the general permit at Part I, Sections C.l.a. and C.2.a., respectively.
0.01995'
30/45b
75/1 10 b
N/A
6,0N/12,000'
0.5'
6.5-9.0 d
t0'
Design Capacity
State Effluew Re gulatioru
State Efrluent Re gulntions
Waer Qualiry Starydprds
Fecal Coliform Policy
State Efrluent Re gulations
State Effluent Re gulations
COI,OMDO DEPAKIMENT OF PUBUC HEALT'H AND EI,TWRONMENT, WATET SUfuIitY CONTTOI DiVbiON
Rationole - Page 7, Permit No. CO-005840M
W. TERMS AND CONDWONS OF PERMIT (cowinued)
B. Monitoring:
1. Influent and Efilucru Monitoing (Coainued)
Table W-2 - Influea Monitoring Requiremcnts
l,t:!lt:! , ll:l::
Raw Water Total Dissolved Solids, TDS, mg/l
Intluew Flow, MGD
Influent BODt, mg/l (lb/doy)
Quanerly
Continuous
Monthly
Monthly
Grab
Recorder
Composite
Solids,
Efrluent Flow, MGD
Effluent BOD,, mg/l
Effluent Tonl Suspended Solids, mg/l
Efltluent Total Residwl Chlorine, mgll
Efrluznt pH, s.u.
Effluent Total Ammonia as N, mg/l
Efliluent Fecal Colifurm, no./100 ml
Efrluent Oil & Grease, mgll
Continuous
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
N/A
Monthly
Weekly
Qwnerly
Recorder
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
N/A
Grab
Wual *
GrabToal Dissolved Solids, TDS,
* If a visible sheen is rwted, a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for oil and grease. The results are to be
reported on the DMR under paramcter 00556-
2. Biosotids Monitoring: For aerated lagoons, biosolids monitoing requirements are outlined in Part I'
Section C.4.a. of the general permit-
C. RePoning:
Signntory Requirements: Signatory requirements for repons and submittals are discussed in Pan I, Section
E.1. of the permit.
Discharge Monitoring Repon: The permittee must submit a Dischnrge Monitoring Report (DMR) monthly to
the Division. This report will contain the test results for parameters shown in Part I, Section B- of the
general permit. The DMR form shntl be completed and submitted each month in accordance with Part I,
Section 8.2. of the permit.
1.
COLOMDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND EIIVIRONMENT, WATCT QUAIiT CONTTOI DiViSiON
Ralionale - Page 8, Permit No. CO-0O584006
W. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
C. Reponing (Continued):
3. Annual Repon: The permittee will be required to submit an annual report which summarizes the past year's
operating history of ihe facility and relevant appurterurnces. The report shall review additiors to the service
area, projections offiiture toadings, biosolids disposal practices, and other items. An outline ofthe topics
to be covered in the report is included in Part I, Section E.3. of the general permit.
4. Special Repons : Special reports are required in the event of a spitt, bypass, or other noncompliance.
Please refer to Pan I, Section E.4. of the general permit for reponing requirements.
D. Reopener, Permit Renewal, and Fee Information:
t. Reopener: The permit nuy be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in pan duing its term for any
reason outlined in Pan II, Section 8.8. of the general permit.
2. Renewal: Requirements for permit renewal are discussed in Pan II, Section 8.9. of the ge.neral permit.
3. Fee Information: Permit fee requirements are outlined in Pan II, Section B.l l. of the general petmit. An
annualfee must be paid to the Water Qunlity Contol Division to maintain the status of the permit-
WI. REFERENCES
A. Colorado Departmcnt of Heahh Files, Including:
t. January 23, 1994 memo establishing low streamflows.
2. May 23, 1994 site approval letter.
B. "Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water", 3.1.0, Colorado Water Quahty Control Commission,
effective January 31, 1994.
C. "Classification and Numeric Standards for the Lower Colorado River Basin", 3.8.0, Colorado Water Quality
Contol Commission, effective October 30, 1993.
D. "Pretreatmcnt Regutations", 4.i.0, Colorado Water }u^atity Control Commbsion, effective June 30, 1994-
E. "Biosolids Regulation", 4.9.0, Colorado Water Quatity Control Commission, effective August 30, 1994-
F. "Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System", 6.1.0, Colorado Water Qunlity Control Commission,
effective November 14, 1994.
G. 'Regulations for Effluent Limitations", 10.1.0, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, ffictive
June 30, 1994.
H. "Colorado River Salinity Standnrds" (5 CCR 1002-10), January 15, 1990.
I. "Regulations Pertaining to Sotid Waste Disposat Sites and Facilities", Colorado Department of Health, Revised
January 30, 1994.
Lynn Kimble, P.E.
March 8, 1994
Permits No. coG-584000
Facility No. COG-584005
Page 1
CERTIFICATION
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TRIATMENT FACTI,ITIES
WITE A CHRONIC LOW FLOW/DESXGAI FLOVI RATIO OF 100/1 OR GREATER
This permig specifically authorizes the Riverbend Subdivision to discharge, from their
wastewater treatment facilities
located in NE L/4, SW L/4, and NW 1/4, SE L/4, Sectsion 34, T5S, R90W, 5tsh P.U.,
9433 Couotsy Road 335, New CaEtle, Co
to the Colorado River
as of 04/0L/95, L994.
CerEified Letster No. P 319 472 381
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS
1. The hydraulic and organi.c capacities for this faciliEy, as applicable Eo Part I,
Section 8.2. on page 5 of this permit, are 0.01995 MGD and 33 l-bs. BODt/day,
respectivelY.
2. The effluent limitations applicable to Ehis facility are those found at Parts I,
Sectsion B.6.b. on page 8 of this permit. The effluent flow limit for this facility as
applicable to ParC r, Section B.6.b. is 0.01995 MGD.
3. The influents monitsoring requirements applicable to tshis facility are tshose found at
Part f, Sectsion C.1.a. on page 13 of this permit.
4. The effluent monitoring requirements applicable to tshis facllity are Lhose found at
Parts I, Seclion c.2-a. on page 15 of tshis permit-
5. The biosolids monitoring reguirements applicable Lo this facility are those found at
Part I, C.A.a. on page 16 of this permiE.
6 - The salinity monitoring requirements applicable to Ehis facility are those found at
parts I, Sectj-on C.3- on page 17 of this permit. Raw water salinj-ty and wasEewater
effluenE salinity sha1l be measured guarterly.
7. There is no effluent total ammonia limit for this facility, in accordance with Part I,
Section 11.5.b. of this permit. Total ammonia moni.tsoring, in accordance witstr Part I,
C.2.a. of this permit, is not reguired.
Corrected:. 03/3a/95
6.2.2 Attemative B - tntra-planni4q Area Reqional Svstems. Five major possiblities for
regionalization within the New Castle planning area (lntra-Regional Systems) were evaluated.
They are as follows:
B-1. -- Extension of service intercept lines into the town's cunent service area as
graphically described in Map #2 (in appendix). A written description of this service
area is that area, inclusive of the existing town, which has been committed by the town
to serve through the local land use process. ln essence, it is not only those cunent
areas of town which have service, but atso those areas which have been "platted" but
not developed. The wastewater treatment plant would be expanded to accommodate
the future growth or "build out" of this service area.
B-2. - Extension of service intercept lines into the secondary growth areas of the
planning area as graphically described in Map #3 (in appendix). A written description of
this altemative provides for service to the secondary growth areas, both north/west of
town into the Elk Creek drainages and east of town toward Rivefiend and Canyon
Creek areas. Note that Altemative B-2 does not include tying the existing "built out"
developments onto the town's system, but does provide for modification in plant
capacity and service laterals such that future groMh can be accommodated.
B-3 .. Extension of service intercept lines, not only into the secondary growth areas of
the planning area, but also tying those areas which are "built out" onto the town's
system. Treatment of wastewater would then be at a single location for all areas within
the town's secondary growth areas. This altemative and service boundary is
graphically shown on Map #4 in the appendix.
B-4 -- Connection of the New Castle and Mountain Shadows/Apple Tree Park
wastewater systems together with treatment occuring at the New Castle wastewater
treatment plant location. This alternative and service boundary is graphically shown on
Map #5 in the appendix.
6-6
B-5 - Connection of the New Castle and Mountain Shadows/Apple Tree Park
wastewater systems together with treatment occuring at a new location down river from
both New Castle and Appte Tree. This altemative models this new plant location on the
Delany property located west of, and downstream of Apple Tree. This altemative and
service boundary is graphically shown on Map #6 in the appendix.
6-7
6.2.2.2 lntra-reqional Altemative B-2. This plan would involve extensions of collector lines
into tne town's secondary service or grovth areas. The secondary service or growth areas are
those areas that could be served by the Town's wastewater treatment plant under chiefly
gravity flow. lt should be noted, however, that those areas of higher densi$, built out and
whicn have existing adequate facilities for wastewater treatment, such as Elk Creek
Subdivision, 3-Elk Run, Cedars Subdivision and Riverbend are not considered for service
under lntra-regional Altemative B-2. ln lntra-regional Altemative B-2, some pumping would be
required (as in the case of those areas south of the river). The service areas in lntra-regional
Altemative B-2 are also bounded by the 3-mile planning area for the town. Future densities
and therefore, flows, have been determined given review and consideration of the Town's
comprehensive plan. The specific service areas as shown on Map #1 (appendix) that are
served are listed as follows, and are further graphically represented on Map #3 (appendix).
Table B-2-1
Service Areas in Alternative B-2
Service Area l.D. Existing units Proposed units Population
West Elk 6
Upper Main Elk 3
Main Elk 8
Upper East Elk 20
East Elk I
West Faas 1
East Faas 2
Upper Colorado 3
Upper NCIG 0
NCIG 2
The Farm I
lndustrial Park 5
11
10
94
94
202
2595
758
50
70
169
905
22
47
36
283
316
584
7191
2105
147
194
474
2529
75
Map #3 (appendix) defines the extensions necessary to serye those areas discussed above.
Detaited cost estimates of the work are provided in the appendix.
Table B-2-2 identifies the anticipated flows to the New Castle W.W.T.P. from each of the
service areas as well as associated costs.
Tabtes B-2-3 through B-2-5 summarize, in various forms, the costs to extend service to the
various service areas in lntra-regionalAlternative B-2.
Table 8-2-6 summarizes the total costs for extensions and treatment of waste for the various
service areas.
Table B-2-7 defines the costs from a per unit.
6-9
Table B-2-2
Associated Wastewater Treatment Costs by
Service Area in Altemative B-2
Service Area l.D. Population
(persons)
Flowto WWTP Associated Cost
(gpd) (at WWTP)
3525 $14,452.502700 $11,070.0021,225 $87,022.5023,7AO $97,170.00
43,800 $179,580.00539,325 $2,211,232.50157,875 $647,287.5011,025 $45,202.5014,550 $59,655.0035,550 $145,755.00189,675 $777,667.505,625 $23,062.50
1,049,575 $4,299,157.50
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrial Park
Totals:
Work Activity
SchoolLateral
Lower Elk Creek Lateral
Lower Main Elk Creek Lateral
Main Elk Lateral
Upper Main Elk Lateral
West Elk Lateral
Lower East Elk Lateral
Upper East Elk Lateral
Pepsi Lateral
The Farm Lateral
Upper Farm Lateral
Upper Colorado Lateral
Upper NCIG Lateral
Lower Farm Lateral
NCIG Lateral
West Faas Lateral
East Faas Lateral
lndustrial Park Lateral
Table B-2€
Work Ac'tivities Summary in
lntra-reqional Alternative B-2
47
36
283
316
584
7191
2105
147
194
474
2529
75
13,981
Associated Gost
$85,734.00
$214,398.00
$194,011.20
$435,556.80
$295,464.00
$391,195.20
$194,664.00
$549,370.80
$534,974.40
$377,329.20
$206,155.20
$323,329.20
$93,260.40
$102,368.40
$81,504.00
$200,598.60
$259,070.40
$210,013.20
6-10
Table B-24
Work Activities/service Areas Benefitted in
lntra-reqional Alternative B-2
Lower Main Elk Creek Lateral $194,011.20
Work Activity
School Lateral
Lower Elk Creek Lateral
Main Elk Lateral
Upper Main Elk Lateral
West Elk Lateral
Lower East Elk Lateral
Upper East Elk Lateral
Pepsi Lateral
The Farm Lateral
Upper Farm Lateral
Upper Colorado Lateral
Upper NCIG Lateral
Lower Farm Lateral
NCIG Lateral
Seruice Areas Benefited
East Elk,Main Elk,West Elk
Upper Main Elk, UPPer East Elk
(1032 units served)
East Elk,Main Elk,West Elk
Upper Main Elk, UPPer East Elk
(1032 units served)
25o/o of East Elk,Main Elk
West Elk, UPPer Main Elk
(185 units served)
Main Elk, West Elk
Upper Main Elk
(132 units served)
Upper Main Elk
(13 units served)
West Elk Lateral
(17 units served)
25o/o of East Elk
UpPer East Elk
(167 units served)
Upper East Elk
(114 units served)
West Faas, East Faas, The Farm,
Upper Colorado, UPPer NCIG, NGIG
(4563 units served)
The Farm, UPPer Colorado,
Upper NCIG, NCIG
(1207 units served)
337o The Farm, UPPer Colorado,
Upper NCIG
(424 units served)
Upper Colorado, UPPer NCIG
(123 units served)
UpPer NCIG
(70 units served)
33% The Farm, NCIG
(472 units served)
NCIG
(171 units served)
Associated Cost
$85,734.00
$214.398.00
$435,556.80
$295,464.00
$391,195.20
$194,664.00
$s49,370.80
$5U,974.40
$377,329.20
$206,155.20
$323,329.20
$93,260.40
$102,368.40
$81,504.00
6-1 1
Table B-24 - Continued
Work Activitieslservice Arcas Benefitted in
lntra-,reoional Altemative B-2
Work Activity
West Faas Lateral
East Faas Lateral
lndustrial Park Lateral
Associated Cost
$200,598.60
$259,070.40
$210,013.20
Table B-2-5
Combined Costs per Service Area in
!ntra-reoional Alternative B-2
Service Areas Benefited
West Faas, East Faas
(3356 units served)
East Faas
(760 units served)
lndustrial Park
(27 units served)
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Percent of
Work Ac'tivity
1.60lo School Lat.
1.60/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
9.2o/o ol Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
12.9o/o of Main Elk Lat.
100o/o of West Elk Lat.
Upper Main Elk 1.3o/o of School Lat.
1.3o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
7o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
9.9olo of Main Elk Lat.
100o/o of UPPer Main Elk Lat.
Main Elk 12.8o/o of School Lat.
12.8o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
71.4o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
10}o/o of Main Elk Lat.
Upper East Elk 11.1o/o of School Lat.
11.1o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
68.3% of Lower East Elk Creek Lat.
lOOo/o of UPPer East Elk Lat.
Associated
Activity Cost
$1,371.74
$3,430.37
$17,849.03
$56,186.83
$391,195.20
$1,114.54
$2,787.17
$13,580.78
$42,895.75
$295,464.00
$10,965.98
$27,421.50
$138,429.61
M35,556.80
$9,516.47
$23,798.18
$132,955.51
$549,370.80
TotalCosts
(Extensions)
$470,033.17
$355,842.24
$612,373.89
$715,640.96
6-12
East Elk 2o-5o/o School Lat. $17,575'47
2O.5o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat. $43,951.59
28.7o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat. $55'681.21
31.7o/o of Lower East Elk Lat. $61,708.49
Service Area !.D. Percent of
Work Activity
West Faas 56.99o of PePsi Lat.
77.4o/o of West Faas Lat.
East Faas 16.7Yo of PePsi Lat.
22.60/o of West Faas Lat.
100Yo of East Faas Lat.
UpperColorado 1.2o/oot Pepsi Lat.
4.4o/o of The Farm Lat.
12.5o/o of UPPer Farm Lat.
43.1Yo of UPPer Colorado Lat.
Upper NCIG 1.5o/o ot PePsi Lat.
5-8o/o of The Farm Lat.
16.5Yo of UPPer Farm Lat.
56.97o of UPPer Colorado Lat.
loOo/o of UPPer NCIG Lat.
NCIG 3.80/o of PePsi Lat.
14.2o/o of The Farm Lat.
36.20/o of Lower Farm Lat.
lO9o/o of NCIG Lat.
The Farm 20%ot PePsi Lat.
75.6Yo of The Farm Lat.
71o/o of UPPer Farm Lat.
63.80lo of Lower Farm Lat.
lndustrial Park 1A0o/o of lndustrial Park Lat.
Table B-2-5 -Continued
Combined Costs per Service Area in
lntra-reoional Alternative B-2
Associated
Ac'tivity Cost
$304,400.43
$155,263.32
$89,340.72
$45,335.28
$259,070.40
$6,419.69
$16,602.48
$25,769.40
$139,354.89
$8,024.62
$21,885.09
$34,015.61
$192,7U.20
$93,260.40
$20,329.03
$53,580.75
$37,057.36
$81,504.00
$106,994.88
$285,260.88
$146,370.19
$65,311.04
$210,013.20
TotalCosts
(Extensions)
$178,916.76
$459,663.75
$393,746.40
$188,146.46
$349,889.92
$192,471.14
$603,936.99
$210,013.20
6-13
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrialPark
Totals:
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrial Park
Totals:
Extension Costs
(Table B-2-5)
$470,033.17
$355,842.24
$612,373.89
$715,640.96
$178,916.76
$459,663.75
$393,746.40
$188,146.46
$349,889.92
$192,471.14
$603,936.99
$210,013.20
$4,730,674
Total Costs Per
Service Area
$484,485.67
$366,912.24
$699,396.39
$812,810.96
$358,496.76
$2,670,896.25
$1,041,033.90
$233,348.96
$409,sil.92
$338,226.14
$1,381,6M.49
$233,075.70
$9,029,842
Table B-24
Total Cost per Service Area in
lntra-reqional Altemative B-2
W.W.T.P. Costs
(Table B-2-2)
$14,452.50
$11,070.00
$87,022.50
$97,170.00
$179,580.00
$2,211,232.50
$647,287.50
$45,202.50
$59,665.00
$145,755.00
$777,ffi7.50
$23,062.50
$4,299,168
Table B-2-7
Total Cost per Unit per Seruice Atea in
lntra-reo ional Alternative B-2
Total Cost per
Service Area
$484,485.67
$366,912.24
$699,396.39
$812,810.96
$358,496.76
$2,670,896.25
$1,041,033.90
$233,348.96
$409,554.92
$338,226.14
$1,381,604.49
$233,075.70
$9,029,842
Number of Units
ln Service Area
17
13
102
114
211
2596
760
53
70
171
913
27
5,047
Total Costs per
Unit in Service Area
$28,499.16
$28,224.02
$6,856.83
$7,129.92
$1,699.04
$1,028.85
$1,369.78
$4,402.81
$5,8s0.78
$1,977.93
$1,513.26
$8,632.43
$1,789.15
6-14
6.2.2.3 lntra-reqional Alternative B-3. This plan would build further upon lntra-regional
Altemative B-2 by extending service into those areas of higher density, built out and which
cunentty have existing adequate facilities for wastewater treatment. These areas are
specifically Elk Creek Subdivision, 3-Elk Run, Cedars Subdivision, Riverbend and Burning
Mountain R.V. Park. lt would be the intent of this plan to consolidate all of the wastewater
flows generated in the town's secondary service or growth areas and provide a single point of
treatment.. ln lntra-regional Alternative B-3, pumping would be required to provide service to
the existing Buming Mountain R.V. Park. Riverbend would be served with an extension of a
lateralwhich would tie into the NCIG lateral defined in lntra-regionalAltemative B-2. Service to
the Elk Creek service area (ie., Elk Creek Subdivision, 3-Elk Run and Cedars) would be
provided with extensions of laterals which would tie into the town's existing northem limits and
into the Lower East Elk Creek lateral defined in lntra-regional Altemative B-2. As with
lntra-regionalAltemative B.2 the service areas in lntra-regionalAltemative B-3 are bounded by
the 3-mile planning area for the town. Future densities and therefore, flows, have been
determined given review and consideration of the Town's comprehensive plan. The specific
seryice areas as shown on Map #1 (appendix) that are seryed are listed as follows, and are
further graphically represented on Map #4 in the appendix.
6- 15
Table B€-1
Service Areas in Attemative B€
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrialPark
Riverbend
Buming Mountain
Elk Creek
Existing units Proposed units Population
6
3
I
20
I
1
2
3
0
2
I
5
60
1
94
11
10
94
94
202
2595
758
50
70
169
905
22
1
45
0
47
36
283
316
584
7191
2105
147
194
474
2529
75
169
46
94
Map #4 defines the extensions necessary to serve those areas discussed above. Detailed
cost estimates of the work identifled are in the appendix.
Table B-3-2 identifies the anticipated flows to the New Castle W.W.T.P. from each of the
service areas as well as associated costs.
Tables B-$3 through B-3-5 summarize, in various forms, the costs to extend service to the
various service areas in lntra-regionalAltematives B-2 and B-3.
Table 8-3-6 summarizes the total costs for extensions and treatment of waste for the various
service areas.
6-16
Table *3-7 defines the costs from a per unit basis.
Table B.3-2
Associated Wastewater Treatment Gosts by
Service Area in Altematives B-2 and B-3
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrialPark
Riverbend
Buming Mountain
Elk Creek
Totals:
Population
(persons)
47
36
283
316
584
7191
2105
147
194
474
2529
75
169
127
260
14,537
Flow to WWTP
(gpd)
3525
2700
21,225
23,700
43,800
539,325
157,875
11,O25
14,550
35,550
189,675
5,625
12,675
9,525
19,500
1,090,275
Associated Cost
(at \rflffTP)
$14,452.50
$11,070.00
$87,022.50
$97,170.00
$179,580.00
$2,211,232.50
$&17,287.50
$45,202.50
$59,655.00
$145,755.00
$777,ffi7.50
$23,062.50
$51,967.50
$39,052.50
$79,950.00
$4,470,127.50
6-17
Table B{A
Work Ac'tivities Summary in
lntra-reoional Alternatives B-2 and B-3
Work Activity
School Lateral
Lower Elk Creek Lateral
Lower Main Elk Creek Lateral
Main EIk Lateral
Upper Main Elk Lateral
West Elk Lateral
Lower East Elk Lateral
Upper East Elk Lateral
PepsiLateral
The Farm Lateral
Upper Farm Lateral
Upper Colorado Lateral
Upper NCIG Lateral
Lower Farm Lateral
NCIG Lateral
West Faas Lateral
East Faas Lateral
lndustrial Park Lateral
Riverbend Lateral
Buming Mountain Lateral
West Elk Creek Subd. Lateral
East Elk Creek Subd. Lateral
3-Elk Run Lateral
The Cedars Lateral
Hidden Valley Lateral
Co. Rd. 245 Lateral
Associated Cost
$85,734.00
$214,398.00
$194,011.20
M35,556.80
$295,4il.00
$391,195.20
$194,6tr.00
$549,370.80
$534,974.40
$377,329.20
$206,155.20
$323,329.20
$93,260.40
$102,368.40
$81,5M.00
$200,598.60
$259,070.40
$210,013.20
$193,742.40
$149,116.80
$132,955.20
$164,896.80
$142,800.00
$155,678.40
$178,603.20
$219.866.40
6-18
Table B-34
Work Ac'tivities/Service Areas Benefitted in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2 and B{
Lower Elk Creek Lateral $214,398.00
Lower Main Elk Creek Lateral $194,011.20
Main Elk Lateral $435,556.80
Service Areas Benefited
East Elk,Main Elk,West Elk
Upper Main Elk, UPPer East Elk
50% Elk Creek
(1079 units served)
East Elk,Main Elk,West Elk
Upper Main Elk, UPPer East Elk
50o/o Elk Creek
(1079 units served)
25o/o of East Elk,Main Elk
West Elk, Upper Main Elk
(185 units served)
Main Elk, West Elk
Upper Main Elk
(132 units served)
UpPer Main Elk
(13 units served)
West Elk Lateral
(17 units served)
25o/o of East Elk, UPPer East Elk
50o/o Elk Creek
(214 units served)
UPPer East Elk
(114 units served)
West Faas, East Faas, The Farm,
Upper Colorado, Upper NCIG, NGIG
Riverbend, Buming Mountain
(4670 units served)
Work Activity
School Lateral
Upper Main Elk Lateral
West Elk Lateral
Lower East Elk Lateral
Upper East Elk Lateral
Pepsi Lateral
Associated Cost
$85,734.00
$295,464.00
$391,195.20
$194,664.00
$549,370.80
$534,974.40
6-19
Table B-il - Continued
Work Ac-tivities/service Arcas Benefitted in
tntra-reoional Alternatives B-2and B-3
Work Activity
The Farm Lateral
Upper Farm Lateral
Upper Colorado Lateral
Upper NCIG Lateral
Lower Farm Lateral
NCIG Lateral
West Faas Lateral
East Faas Lateral
lndustrial Park Lateral
Riverbend Lateral
Burning Mountain Lateral
Associated Cost
$377,329.20
$206,155.20
$323,329.20
$93,260.40
$102,368.40
$81,504.00
$200,598.60
$259,070.40
$210,013.20
$193,742.40
$149,116.80
Seruice Areas Benefited
The Farm, UPPer Colorado,
Upper NCIG, NCIG
Riverbend
(1268 units served)
33% The Farm, UPPer Colorado,
Upper NCIG
(424 units served)
Upper Colorado, UPPer NCIG
(123 units served)
Upper NCIG
(70 units served)
33% The Farm, NCIG
Riverbend
(533 units served)
NCIG
Riverbend
(232 units served)
West Faas, East Faas
(3356 units served)
East Faas
(760 units served)
lndustrial Park
(27 units served)
Riverbend
(61 units served)
Burning Mountain
(46 units served)
6-20
Table BA4 - Continued
Work Activities/Service Ateas Benefitted in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2and B-3
Work Activity Associated Cost
West Elk Creek Subd. Lateral $132,955.20
East Elk Creek Subd. Lateral $164,896.80
$Elk Run Lateral $142,800.00
The Cedars Lateral $155,678.40
Hidden Valley Lateral $178,603.20
Co. Rd. 245 Lateral $219,866.40
Service Areas Benefited
75o/o Elk Creek
(47 units served)
75olo Elk Creek
(47 units served)
759o Elk Creek
(14 units served)
75o/oElkCreek
(10 units served)
75%o Elk Creek
(10 units served)
75o/o ElkCreek
(71 units served)
6-21
Table BA-5
Combined Costs per Service Area in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2 and B-3
Service Area l.D.Percent of
Work ActivW
West Elk 1.6% School Lat.
1.60/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
9.2o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
12.9o/o of Main Elk Lat.
100o/o of West Elk Lat.
Upper Main Elk 1.2o/o ot School Lat.
1.2o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
7o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
9.9% of Main Elk Lat
1OO% of Upper Main Elk Lat.
Main Elk 9.5% of School Lat.
9.57o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
71.4o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
100%o of Main Elk Lat.
Upper East Elk 10.60/o of School Lat.
10.60lo of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
53.3o/o of Lower East Elk Creek Lat
lOoo/o of Upper East Elk Lat.
Associated TotalCosts
Ac'tivity Cost (Extensions)
$1,371.74
$3,430.37
$17,849.03
$56,186.83
$391,195.20
$1,028.80
$2,572.78
$13,580.78
$42,895.75
$295,464.00
$8,144.73
$20,367.81
$138,429.61
$435,556.80
$9,087.80
$22,726.19
$103,755.91
$549,370.80
$470,033.17
$355,542.11
$602,498.95
$684,940.70
6-22
Table BA-5 -Continued
Combined Costs Per Service Area in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2 and B:3
Service Area l.D.Percent of
Work Activity
East Elk 19.6% School Lat.
19.60/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
28.7o/o of Lower Main Elk Creek Lat.
24.8o/o of Lower East Elk Lat.
55.67o of PePsi Lat.
77.4Yo of West Faas Lat.
16.30lo of Pepsi Lat.
22.60/o of West Faas Lat.
1007o of East Faas Lat.
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado 1.1o/o of Pepsi Lat.
4.2o/o of The Farm Lat.
12.5o/o of UPPer Farm Lat.
43.1o/o of UPPer Colorado Lat.
Upper NCIG 1.5o/o of PePsi Lat.
5.5% of The Farm Lat.
16.50/o of UPPer Farm Lat.
56.9% of Upper Colorado Lat.
lOAo/o of UPPer NCIG Lat.
Associated Total Costs
Activity Cost (Extensions)
$16,803.86
$42,O22.O1
$55,681.21
$48,276.67 $162,783.75
$297,445.77
$155,263.32 $452,709.09
$87,200.83
$45,335.28
$259,070.40
$5,884.72
$15,847.83
$25,769.40
$139,354.89
$8,024.62
$20,753.11
$34,015.61
$192,704.20
$93,260.40
$391,606.51
$186,856.84
$348,757.94
6-23
Table B-3-5 -Continued
Combined Costs per Service Area in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2 and B€
Service Area l.D.
NCIG
The Farm
Riverbend
Percent of
Work Activity
3.7o/o of Pepsi Lat.
13.5o/o of The Farm Lat.
32.Oo/o of Lower Farm Lat.
73.7o/o of NCIG Lat.
19.60lo of Pepsi Lat.
72.Oo/o of The Farm Lat.
71o/o of Upper Farm Lat.
57.Oo/o of Lower Farm Lat.
1.3o/o of Pepsi Lat.
4.8o/o of The Farm Lat.
11.4o/o of Lower Farm Lat.
26.30/o of NCIG Lat.
lO0o/o of Riverbend Lat.
Associated TotalCosts
Activity Cost (Extensions)
$19,794.05
$50,939.45
$32,757.89
$60,068.45
$104,8il.98
$271,677.O3
$146,370.19
$s8,349.99
$163,559.84
$6,954.67
$18,111.80
$11,670.00
$21,435.55
$193,742.40 $251,914.42
$5,349.74
$149,116.80 $154,466.54
$581,252.19
lndustrial Park 100o/o of lndustrial Park Lat.$210,013.20 $210,013.20
Buming Mountain 1o/o of Pepsi Lat.
1O0o/o of Buming Mnt. Lat.
6-24
Table BA-5 -Continued
Combined Costs Per Service Arca in
lntra-reqional Altematives B-2 and B-3
Service Area l.D.
Elk Creek
Percent of
Work Ac'tivity
4.4o/o of School Lat.
4.4o/o of Lower Elk Creek Lat.
22Yo of Lower East Elk Lat.
West Elk Creek Subd. Lat.
East Elk Creek Subd. Lat.
&Elk Run Lat.
The Cedars Lat.
Hidden Valley Lat.
Co. Rd.245Lat.
Associated Total Costs
Ac{ivity Cost (Extensions}
$3,772.30
$9,433.51
$42,826.08
$132,955.20
$1il,896.80
$142,800.00
$155,678.40
$178,603.20
$219,866.40 $1,050,831.89
6-2s
Table B-3€
Total Cost per Service Area in
lntra-reqional Altematives B-2 and B-3
Service Area l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrial Park
Riverbend
Buming Mountain
Elk Creek
Totals:
Extension Costs
(Table B-3-5)
$470,033.17
$355,542.11
$602,498.95
$684,940.70
$162,783.75
$452,709.09
$391,606.51
$186,856.84
$348,757.94
$163,559.84
$581,252.19
$210,013.20
$251,914.42
$154,466.54
$1,050,831.89
$6,067,767
W.W.T.P. Costs
(Table B-3-2)
$14,452.50
$11,070.00
$87,022.50
$97,170.00
$179,580.00
$2,211,232.50
$647,287.50
$45,202.50
$59,665.00
$145,755.00
$777,667.50
$23,062.50
$51,967.50
$39,052.50
$79,950.00
$4,470,138
TotalCosts per
Service Area
$484,486
$366,612
$689,521
$782,111
$342,364
$2,663,942
$1,038,894
$232,059
$408,423
$309,315
$1,358,920
$233,076
$303,882
$193,519
$1,130,782
$10,537,905
6-26
Table BA-7
Total Cost per Unit per Service Area in
lntra-reoional Altematives B-2 and B-3
Service Arca l.D.
West Elk
Upper Main Elk
Main Elk
Upper East Elk
East Elk
West Faas
East Faas
Upper Colorado
Upper NCIG
NCIG
The Farm
lndustrial Park
Riverbend
Buming Mountain
Elk Creek
Totals:
Total Cost per
Service Area
$484,486
$366,612
$689,521
$782,111
$342,364
$2,663,942
$1,038,894
$232,059
$408,423
$309,315
$1,358,920
$233,076
$303,882
$193,519
$1,130,782
$10,537,905
Number of Units
ln Service Area
17
13
102
114
211
2596
760
53
70
171
913
27
61
46
94
5,248
Total Costs Per
Unit in Service Area
$28,499.16
$28,224.O2
$6,856.83
$7,129.92
$1,699.04
$1,028.85
$1,369.78
$4,402.81
$5,850.78
$1,977.93
$1,513.26
$8,632.43
$4,981.67
$4,206.93
$12,029.60
$2,007.98
6-27
C: \DWG\NC201\REP0RT Tue Aug 6 15:36:07 t996
p
s
d+- ,,
)
/,_._.\...
'\.--"
se
f'rrir'{j )/?
2..\S.<
,7
lrEf; i
\ (,"
\.
ss
s'
.s+"
;4,
/.t
ff*
\t
\---'-.\_._
n
rnaCn
rrl(f
Tno
rn
rrl
Z.
a
-Tl
()x
a
rTln
O
rrl
n
rrl
a
N)O
_J
H?7zfo
frl TlazTrn
;:=
- ^
-l)z->z.aC,=
(n rtl
CU
\. I
\--.^
C: \0WG\NC201\REP0RT Tue Aug 6 15:00:43 1996
Wss
AI .,.-v til
*fil iii.,A
a'rtr In | ,,1 'It
;;t !t Y">, t//Plle !e t)f'( '1,
'ri:lfffi,,,W
rlr
I;;
itls[!l
Ep'
tl''
)
A...,-__
lHtr \.
--',
rel
f;;I
!
,*lt8,
asI
il;
E
,!'ll,
:.Fi::trrl
;lri
t lie
l;fr
E*I
il8
'ii
ffih
ele
E;
IFE IEtr
iixhlE
T
riI
til
IEf;--j '%,l'lii
--/WilEqf L.l]rry /;(/ s.ti f%ll stii 'tffi(l
/ rP"'iffi
;tx!
IIN
t..'\
l,
\r
C: \0WG\NC201\HEP0RT Tue Aug 6 lE:02:28 1996
ss
d+-.,,
,K/
?/
:te.^'\
/
/._.__...
ry
1ttr
ili!t3
;li
..rt''-'-F'
W\lliil. "it!' /n;F /
Sr
r!
,'t
!
AIEI
'EI
Irs
_s
;4,
/z+
iEil
int
TE'ttil:cl
rrE
r;E
[:*
nrnDgn
rn(f
-Uno
rrl
rrlz
a
-r1
()n
r
-1rrln
Z-
-i
rrl
r1h
C!
N)O
-J I
H?7z
=o[rl rrarZ-Um
5,€4oz->zao!
afr
-lCU
PROJEGT NAME:
PREVIOUS TASKS
REOUIRED TO COMPLETE:
COMMENTS:
ITEM
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
TIE INTO EXJSTING SYSTEM
A'SEWER MAIN
MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION
FINISH GRADE RESTORATION
DEMOBILIZATION
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION (5%)
CONTENGENCY (150,6)
PROJECT TOTAL
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
NEW CASTLE 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVE #3 (EASTERN SERVICE AREA)
RIVERBEND I.ATERAL
PEPS| LATERAL (@ $S4,974.40)
THE FARM LATERAL (@ $32,329.20)
LOWER FARM LATERAL (@ $102,368.,10)
NC|G LATERAL (@$81,504.00)
NONE
OUANT.
1
1
1
3936
10
3936
1
UNIT
LS
LS
EA
LF
LF
LF
LS
U. PRICE
80m
2000
1500
30
2000
2
4000
SUBTOTAL
$8,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$118,080.00
$20,000.00
$7,872.00
$4,000.00
3161,452.00
$8,072.60
$24,217.80
$193,742.40
WffiffiFILEtM M*
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
NEWCASTLE2Ol STUDY
ALTERNATIVE #2 (EASTERN SERVICE AREA)
PEPSI LATERAL
NONE
NONE
ouAilT.
1
1
1
75@n
75@
1
26
TOTAL FOR IiJIPROVEMENTS
oEsrGN AND ADMINISTRATION (5%)
CoNTENGENCY(15%)
PROJECT TOTAL
PROJECT NAITIIE:
PREVK'USTASKS
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE:
COMMEI{TS:
ITEM
MOBILIZAT]ON
TRAFFIC CONTROL
TIE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM
2T SEWERUNE CONSTRUCTION
MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION
FINISH GRADE RESTORATION
DEMOBILIZATION
RIGHTOFWAY
UiITT
LS
LS
EA
LF
EA
LF
LS
AC
U. PRICE
15000
75@
25@
45m
37ffi
10000
SUBTOTAL
$15,000.00
$7,500.00
$2,500.00
$340,605.00
$50,000.00
$2.,707.@
$7,500.m
$25,000.00
$445,t12"00
$2N.@
$66,871.80
$534,974/0
WffiFGW. EJ
PROJECT NAME:
PREVIOUS TASKS
REQUIREO TO COMPLETE:
COMMEIITS:
]TEM OUAIIIT.
MOBILIZATION 'I
TRAFF]C CONTROL 'I
TIE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM 1
15'SEWERUNECONSTRUCTION 5987
MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION 'I5
FINISH GRADE RESTOMTION 5987
DEMOBILIZATION 'I
RIGHTOFWAY 2,1
TOTAL FOR III'I PROVEM ENTS
DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION (5%)
ooNTENGENCY (15%)
PROJECT TOTAL
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
NEW CASTLE 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVE #2 (EASTERN SERVICE AREA)
THE FARM I.ATERAL
PEPSI I-ATERAL (@ $534,974.,10)
NONE
UNIT
LS
LS
EA
LF
EA
LF
LS
AC
U. PRICE
12000
7500
1500q
2000
3
6000
100@
SUBTOTAL
$12,000.00
$7,500.00
$1.500.00
$239,480.00
$30,000.00
$17.961.00
$6,000.00
$21,000.m
$314141.00
$15,7206
$47,166.15
$3r,"t29.z0
ffinBGW: g
PROJECT NAME:
PREVIOUS TASKS
REOUIRED TO COMPLETE:
COMMENTS:
rTEM
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
TIE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM
rI" FORCED SEWER MAIN
INTERSTATE FfWYBORE
PUMP STATION
8" SEWERLINE CONSTRUCTION
MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION
FINISH GRADE RESTORATION
DEMOBILIZATION
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
DESTGN AND ADMINISTRATION (506)
CONTENGENCY (150/6)
PROJECT TOTAL
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INL.
NEWCASTLE2Ol STUDY
ALTERMTTVE #2 (EASTERN SERVICE AREA)
LOWER FARM I.ATEML
PEPSI r-ATERAL (@ $534,974.40)
THE FARM LATERAL (@ $32,32e.20)
NONE
OUANT.
1
1
1
d41
250
1
800
3
1500
1
UNIT
LS
LS
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
EA
LF
LS
U. PRICE
5000
2000
2000
27
30
16000
30
2000
2
2500
SUBTOTAL
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$17.307.00
$7,500.00
$16,fi)0.00
$24.000.00
$6,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,s00.00
$85,307.00
$4,205.35
$12,796.05
3102,368/0
ffiTfUME:M
PROJECT NAME:
PREVIOUS TASKS
REOUIRED TO COMPLETE:
COMMENTS:
lTEM
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
TIE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM
8" SEWERLINE CONSTRUCTION
8'SEWER ENCASEMENT
MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION
FINISH GRADE RESTORATION
DEMOBILIZATION
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
NEWCASTLE2Ol STUDY
ALTERNATTVE f2 (EASTERN SERVICE AREA)
NCIG I.ATERAL
PEPS| TATERAL (@ $534,974.40)
THE FARM I-ATERAL (@$377,329.20)
LOWER FARM r-ATERAL (@ $102,368.40)
NONE
UN]T
LS
LS
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LS
OUANT.
1
1
1
800
422
3
800
1
U. PRICE
5000
2000
1500
30
60
2000
2
2500
SUB TOTAL
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$24,000.00
$25,320.00
$6,000.00
$1,600.00
$2,500.00
$67,920.00
$3,396.00
$'t0,188.00
$81,504.00
TOTAT- FOR IMPROVEMENTS
DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION (50/6)
CONTENGENCY (150/6)
PROJECT TOTAL
rll
X-I
EI
tT,|
1'l
r
0
0
U
!
a
>-
z
3
>!
z"^. r1]',Sf'..il-rao 2
New Treatment Plant
, .. --/ rt.D ? r a:a.itaez-lttt.t t t..r,.rt
-i-
.,.
rt!RIVERBEND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY(to tre abandoned)
-\ i*-)-;4u X^--;tt'.z-.24:t/2- - h a!r.t.aa ri4a,.o3 t
I
I
4,;^
cq.oa^s rmt !o mffiutrt
FLOOO PL III STUDY
ffi',EFmfrsr6am{ElGffi,tho d
.^tntlo a nt^ amllm^oo
r ryar! fr
asri r.[a a|ffi -dxflat6'-
icaratl. aaQ
Ito
'T,:i,f\-----
---------.-"
.l__
T,rL
HlJifl*HS*-:r
ffiH*iliffiffi'
llli d!&[ mr 6aaat[. rl{t D.lE }Ia - t-,lt&* aaE...rr,
{ ar trclq rr H.a.aaia h ..ls
:l.. m,lm
i-'i ,n*ro. d
tlattcr rtra
+ tu. tao,6 @{.
-i- 6.ho rt(rs q.tt
ttal6r r.ia
G.ta , @.{E {&ro t' gau i.ra4 .ta4EUer trrtt fr a(art. t!
t-l r.. Oat! itr rrlo..r r&&*r til*6
qrral !ffq *
o46HaA E's!.rtst,
Humr//'E O. a 6:#
OM -tra.l m "
€ t,r19.996 € r...r.o@ E 1342.0@ € r,4.f,oq)
?26x 6ao.oazE t,4aJ.ta9
jero
566'
.ie:o
€ I J...OOO
V/%,
5f tz-e - ./
t2?x 6.O.!6fE l.4a!.862 I
?2'x 639..06f r.444.O39
E
.t6s z
tz4\/x 6l9.o3a \
\0,,o
\
o.-' . 726
Riverbend Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(T.;" abandoned)
\/sav.sr.-rz/2-
_--/22'
't7
,25il 61a.786
Q t.442.?14
,7?5x 6!6,3ilE r.442,556
?24
N 6!8.rJ6
E t.44t.<r9
'.tll____r"
r.7
foto
7?6
639.r 39
o
8.o
z
*r.f_:
N
i
a
I
oo
JTt(|f:
ooo-
:-i
_1,
560r.2I
lt
E t.44 4.7 t 5
t\226
7r
I
ooo.
2
5508.8
Old Plant
*
,
x 55r2 7 ,2a ..--n-'O'vs't 563t o
1
,.-
8o
:,
z
-...-..-..-------\!-r:
ooo
COLORAOO RIV€R AIIO TRIAUTARIES
FLOOD PLAIN STUDY
DtPAmU€rr orIHE AnMY
src8r,loflo lrstRlcr. coffli tr €l{G,ttERS
6s0 ctPllo( ry+--- . .-.
E><H I BI -T F
SER.VICE AR"EA
E}O(JI\D AR.\T
N*fr$r
loP
'('rtjo5
-8 ./ \-
--tz2 ---=-\
N 6!6.592
E t.44O.tt9
aasrs of Hof,rzoilTAl colrTRotr IHE
COLOtaoO STlr€ PLArr€ COOROINAIE
SrSTt .., CETIRIL ZOftE, LAxgEnT COrfOeuc
CO.llC PROJEC-IOil- tHE FOLLO(nG (uSi a Ciaio,oR uscst rRtancuLATtot sTArtoalsU€R€ USED,
rrAH€ 0nCER @Ofi6{^r€S
cAIr€Rr{€ 26 r:1.516,508.42
Y: 5€(235.78
GHAI 3.6 x.l2fl566-6o
Y: 52l,64110
SAS|S 0. V€FITCAL CofirRot: USC A GS
sEA LEV€L oarux 6A5€0 o.. rxE
rO(LOwrflG 8€}rcHuae(S '
rAT€ ORo€R €L€$Trcil
0{56 24 6t92.2A4
487O.74PS 2nd a869_86O
. . .. SRrrSx s SCRTB
-_rlt I FOuiOrtON o. RUINS
s€cTroi Lrx€
rOJNO SECTION CORNEP
uxfouro sEcTror coRNER
AP'ROr. SECTIOi LrtE
COTPILATOT 8Y PHOTOGRATI€TRIC C€TXOOS
fROU 5..C.fL. VERTICAL AERIAL
PHOTOGPAPHY rAx€r{ XOv- 15,16,g r7, 1982
TX|S UAP COSPLT€S WrrX tArrOilAL MAP
ACCURACY STA(OAROS
PPEPAR€O 8Y:
axaLrrrcaL SuRv€Ys, r{c.
4r6t SStIOx FOAo
coLoRAoo sPerxcs, co. 60907
30J -593-OO9l
SCALE IAt FEEI
?oo o. o ?@ 4@
COTIOUR ItrTERVAL- 2 FTET
z/.
ss----;
SE FTVI C E AFI.EA. BO(JT{DAFI.Y
r- t-7