HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.00 General Application Materials_PartDHalf Moon Subdivision Final Engineering
Garfield County, Colorado Design Report
Page 7
Appendix B: FEMA FIRM
Engineer: ADW Drawn By: ADW
Sheet Number:Date Comments Init.Rev.
Sheet Revisions ROARING FORK ENGINEERING
592 HIGHWAY 133
CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623
PH: (970)340-4130
F:(866)876-5873
Of:
1
HALF MOON SUBDIVISION
BATTLEMENT MESA, CO FEMA FLOODPLAINLOCATION MAP
Half Moon Subdivision Final Engineering
Garfield County, Colorado Design Report
Page 8
Appendix C: Sewer and Waterline Report
Engineering Report C
Sewage Collection and Water
Supply and Distribution System
Half Moon Subdivision
Battlement Mesa, CO
OCTOBER 29, 2021
UPDATED NOVEMBER 14, 2022
Prepared by Daniel Stewart, P.E.
Roaring Fork Engineering
592 Highway 133
Carbondale, CO 81623
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 3
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 3
List of Appendices ................................................................................................................... 3
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 4
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Applicant Information ................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Purpose of Report..................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Location ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Geology .................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Sanitary Sewer Service Area Definition ....................................................................... 7
4.0 Waterline Service Area Definition ................................................................................ 9
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 3
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Design Flow Summary .............................................................................................. 6
Table 4-2: Pipe Design Summary............................................................................................... 8
Table 4-3: Manhole Design Summary ........................................................................................ 9
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Vicinty Map .............................................................................................................. 5
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District Master Plan
Appendix B – Engineering Plans
Appendix C – FEMA FIRM
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 4
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
BSD Basalt Sanitation District
cfs cubic feet per second
cu yd, cy cubic yard
fps feet per second
ft feet
ft2, sf square feet
ft3, cf cubic feet
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
I&I infiltration and inflow
MGD million gallons per day
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PVC polyvinyl chloride
SDR Standard Dimension Ration
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WEF Water and Environment Federation
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 5
1.0 Introduction
The Half Moon subdivision is a 9.18-acre housing development located in Battlement Mesa, Colorado.
The development vicinity is shown in Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map
The development will consist of construction of access and full-service utilities to serve forty-eight
single-family residences. This report serves to address the design of the sanitary sewer to serve these units
in accordance with Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (BMMD) Master Plan adopted January 2019.
This report will show the development effects on the existing sanitary sewer system. The master plan can
be found in Appendix A.
1.1 Applicant Information
1.2 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to analyze and document the capacity of the Battlement Mesa Sanitary Sewer
system with the addition of the Half Moon subdivision.
SITE
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 6
2.0 Location
The Half Moon subdivision will be located south of the Battlement Mesa Central Core. The parcel is
approximately 9.18 acres, north of Northstar Trail. The proposed development will contain foty-eight
homes in addition to an access road, water infrastructure, sewer infrastructure, gas, electric,
communication services and stormwater infrastructure. An overall site map can be found in Appendix B
of this report.
2.1 Geology
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site consists of approximately 100 percent Potts
loam ranging from 6 to 12 percent slopes. The proposed development lies to the south of an arroyo.
According to FEMA FIRM, the development does not lie within a flood area. The sites FIRM can be
found in Appendix C. No offsite drainage will enter the developed site.
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 7
3.0 Sanitary Sewer Service Area Definition
3.1 Existing Sewer System Capacity
Per the BMMD Master Plan Sewer Map w/ Basins & Critical Pipes, the half Moon subdivision lies with
Basin A-3. The critical pipe within the Basin is Pipe A-3, an eight-inch pipe with a slope of 1.1%. This
pipe connects to the twenty-four-inch sewer main running on the west side of Battlement Mesa to the
wastewater treatment facility. Existing and proposed flows and capacities of the critical pipe can be found
in Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1: Design Flow Summary
3.2 On-site Sewer System
The Half Moon Subdivision will include forty-eight single family homes. The proposed sewer system was
analyzed per the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District Master Plan. Flow was calculated using an
average three and a half persons per unit, seventy gallons per person per day and a two and a half peaking
factor. The master plan provides the following formula to calculate residential flow.
Daily Flow = # of Units X 3.5 persons per unit X 70 gallons per person per day X 2.5 peaking factor
The peak flow area was compared to the half full capacity of the pipe. Pipe calculations can be found in
the Table 3-1. An overall onsite sanitary sewer plan can be found in Appendix B.
3.3 Pipes
The overall conveyance system for the Basalt Affordable Housing development consists of 2,063 linear
feet of pipe and twenty manholes. Each pipe is 8-inch diameter SDR 26 PVC.
3.3.1 Design Criteria
The collection system has been laid out to connect to the eight-inch sewer main north of Lodgepole
Circle. An existing cleanout will be replaced with a four-foot concrete manhole. The sanitary sewer
layout can be found in Appendix B. The maximum pipe length between manholes is approximately 263
feet.
A summary of the proposed pipes in the sanitary sewer system of the Half Moon subdivision
development is shown in Table 3-1 below. All pipes were modeled based on a Manning’s roughness of
0.009 for PVC and with an inner diameter of 7.754 inches based on an 8-inch nominal diameter SDR 26
PVC pipe.
EXISTING PROPOSED 50% FULL 80% FULL ( MAX)
NUMBER OF UNITS 260 307
CRITICAL PIPE A-3 (8" @ 1.1%) A-3 (8" @ 1.1%)
CALCULATED FLOW (gpd)159,250 188,038 593,203 1,165,728
FLOW (CFS)0.246 0.291 0.918 1.804
FLOW AREA 0.071 0.076 0.175 0.301
AVAILABLE CAP (%) TO HALF FULL 59.43% 56.57% 0.00%
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 8
Table 3-1: Pipe Design Summary
PIPE RUN UNITS CONTRIBUTING UNITS PIPE DIAMETER (in) PIPE LENGTH INVERT UP INVERT DOWN SLOPE FLOW (gpd) FLOW (cfs) FLOW DEPTH FLOW AREA 50% FULL FLOW AREA PERCENT TO 50% FULL
S2-S1 0 48 8 144.16 5,344.00 5,338.30 3.96%29,400 0.045 0.06 0.016 0.176 91%
S3-S2 0 48 8 123.12 5,345.43 5,344.20 1.00%29,400 0.045 0.07 0.02 0.176 89%
S4-S3 0 48 8 34.75 5,348.30 5,346.61 2.25%29,400 0.045 0.06 0.016 0.176 91%
S5-S4 0 48 8 67.44 5,348.66 5,348.49 2.50%29,400 0.045 0.06 0.016 0.176 91%
S6-S5 0 48 8 16.91 5,348.49 5,348.66 -1.01%29,400 0.045 0.08 0.024 0.176 86%
S6.1-S6 1 19 8 85.58 5,352.28 6,348.86 4.00%11,638 0.018 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S6.2-S6.1 3 18 8 100.06 5,359.59 5,354.29 5.56%11,025 0.017 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S6.3-S6.2 4 15 8 127.15 6,366.74 5,359.79 5.70%9,188 0.014 0.03 0.006 0.176 97%
S6.4-S6.3 4 11 8 133.27 6,374.24 6,366.94 5.50%6,738 0.010 0.03 0.006 0.176 97%
S6.5-S6.4 3 7 8 77.20 6,378.66 6,474.44 5.50%4,288 0.007 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S6.6-S6.5 4 4 8 181.63 5,388.60 6,378.86 5.39%2,450 0.004 0.03 0.006 0.176 97%
S7-S6 2 29 8 57.14 5,352.78 5,350.49 4.00%17,763 0.027 0.06 0.016 0.176 91%
S8-S7 8 27 8 263.42 5,369.70 5,352.98 6.40%16,538 0.026 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S9-S8 8 19 8 263.78 5,385.64 5,369.90 6.00%11,638 0.018 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S10-S9 2 11 8 97.34 5,387.40 5,385.84 1.60%6,738 0.010 0.04 0.009 0.176 95%
S10.1-S10 1 4 8 57.90 5,388.17 5,387.59 1.00%2,450 0.004 0.02 0.003 0.176 98%
S10.2-S10.1 3 3 8 86.24 5,388.37 5,389.24 1.00%1,838 0.003 0.02 0.003 0.176 98%
S11-S10 2 4 8 80.36 5,392.29 5,388.96 4.16%2,450 0.004 0.02 0.003 0.176 98%
S12-S11 2 2 8 70.61 5,395.45 5,392.49 4.20%1,225 0.002 0.02 0.003 0.176 98%
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 9
3.4 Manholes
3.4.1 Design Criteria
Each manhole shall have a 0.2-foot drop inside to maintain slopes. No drop manholes have been included
in this design. Manholes are also restricted to a maximum grade ring height of 8 inches.
3.4.2 Summary of Proposed Manholes
A summary of the proposed manholes in the sanitary sewer system of the Half Moon subdivision is
shown in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2: Manhole Design Summary
3.5 Wastewater Treatment Facility
Per the BMMD Master plan, the current wastewater treatment facility is permitted to a capacity of
800,000 gpd with a current flow of 400,000 gpd. The proposed Half Moon development will create an
additional 28,788 gpd. This development will bring the treatment facility to 54% capacity. The BMMD
Master Plan states that the treatment facility should be expanded at 80% capacity.
INVERT OUT RIM ELEVATION HEIGHT (ft) PEAK INFLOW (cfs) FLOW DEPTH (ft) FREEBOARD (ft)
5338.29 5344.11 5.82 0.045 0.060 5.76
5344.00 5351.74 7.74 0.045 0.070 7.67
5345.43 5354.00 8.57 0.045 0.060 8.51
5346.41 5355.57 9.16 0.045 0.060 9.10
5348.30 5359.42 11.12 0.045 0.080 11.04
5348.66 5359.91 11.25 0.045 0.040 11.21
5352.28 5361.82 9.54 0.017 0.040 9.50
5359.59 5367.33 7.74 0.016 0.030 7.71
5366.74 5374.41 7.67 0.014 0.030 7.64
5374.24 5381.90 7.66 0.010 0.040 7.62
5378.66 5386.40 7.74 0.004 0.030 7.71
5388.10 5396.33 8.23 0.000 0.000 8.23
5352.78 5361.76 8.98 0.027 0.060 8.92
5369.70 5378.15 8.45 0.026 0.040 8.41
5385.64 5394.45 8.81 0.018 0.040 8.77
5387.40 5397.00 9.60 0.010 0.040 9.56
5387.67 5396.97 9.30 0.004 0.009 9.29
5388.74 5398.24 9.50 0.000 0.000 9.50
5392.29 5400.73 8.44 0.002 0.003 8.44
5395.45 5405.29 9.84 0.000 0.000 9.84
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Sanitary Sewer & Waterline Report 10
4.0 Waterline Service Area Definition
4.1 Existing Waterline Capacity
The water system was analyzed in the BMMD Masterplan. Per the masterplan Half Moon is in Zone A.
Per the master plan and existing 2,075 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) exist in Zone A with storage
or 944 EQRs. The development consists of forty-seven EQRs, bringing the available storage to 897 EQRs
for future development.
Half Moon Subdivision, Battlement Mesa, CO October 29, 2021
Appendix A – Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District Master Plan
MASTERPLAN ASSESSMENT
BATTLEMENT MESA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
WATER, SEWER, AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
January 2019
FINAL REPORT SUMMER 2019
AMENDED JAN 2020
PREPARED BY
RICK BARTH, PE, SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
BRANDYN BAIR, PE, WATER / WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
CHAD PAULSON, PE, WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
JUSTIN KATTNIG, PE, WATER SYSTEM MODELING
REVIEWED BY
JEFF SIMONSON, PE
Prepared by
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004
970.945.5948 fax
SGM Project # 2009-355.005
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 General observations 1-1
2.0 Sewer System Review Process 2-1
2.1 How to Read the Sewer Data 2-1
2.2 SGM Sewer System Assessment 2-2
3.0 Water Treatment Plant 3-1
3.1 Review process 3-1
4.0 Wastewater Treatment Plant 4-1
4.1 Review Process 4-1
5.0 Water Distribution System Review Summary 5-1
6.0 Water Storage 6-1
7.0 Concluding Comments 7-1
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 All System Demands 5-5
Table 2 Table 2 Residential Demands 5-5
Table 3 Commercial Demand Estimates based on consumption over 545 days (1/1/2017 – 6/60/218) 5-5
Table 4 Storage Capacity Summary: 6-1
Table 5 Development Projection by Zone 6-2
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment iii
LIST OF FIGURES AT END OF REPORT
Sewer System Charts and Tables
Chart of Sewer Pipe Capacity at 50% full
Sewer analysis table
Sewer System Exhibits
Sewer Map w/ Basins & Critical Pipes
Water Model Mapping
Model Map w/ Aerial
Water Distribution System Schematic
Pressure Zone Map w/ Boundaries
Pressure Zone Map
Design Flows
Pressures
Velocities
Water Map w/ Sections
Infill and Existing Areas
Undeveloped Areas
Project Recommended Priority Lis
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 1-1
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This summary presents our findings for the Battlement Mesa Metro District water and sewer
system master plan analysis. Our directive was to look at the current system via existing as-
built documentation, review for potential issues, assess capacity at critical locations, and
provide an approximated plan for future growth. This plan presents the results of this
research and mapping exercises for four major infrastructure components, namely the sewer
system, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and water distribution system.
The end goal was to present our findings of critical issues, District desires, and, where
feasible, a general cost estimate for specific improvements. The vast majority of potential
cost / capital issues are with the treatment facilities.
1.2 General observations
As noted in our many conversations with District Staff and known history, for all the systems
reviewed there is a general understanding that what is installed is significantly larger or with
more capacity than is currently needed. Battlement Mesa water and sewer systems were
built with a 20,000+ population in mind and is currently around 4,000 residents with light
commercial needs and sporadic yet at times significant industrial needs, namely through oil
and gas company impacts.
What this often affords is that the system has capacity in most aspects. In terms of
functionality, there were no prevalent issues that warrant what we would consider
“emergency” attention. The system functions well, provides amply for your needs, and is in
general compliance with current regulations. One notable exception is back up power is
virtually non-existent and that is a regulation issue that should be of higher priority. Even
though many of the elements of your system are nearing 40 years old, they have not been
used as though they have 40 years of wear. Regardless, what elements have worn out,
your staff has done well in making appropriate replacements or amendments to keep the
system running.
The age of the system does present some issues in other ways. As technology and
regulations have progressed, the design of systems, especially the treatment plants, have
grown to more manageable and more modern facilities and processes, which your staff
readily recognizes. There is opportunity to plan for and incorporate more modern elements
or make amendments to current facets of your systems. Your staff deals with needing to
fabricate custom parts, working with old but still functioning pump systems, and very little
backup capacity, redundancy or functionality.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 2-1
2.0 Sewer System Review Process
After review of the current documented as-built mapping and best available record data,
looking for the most likely “critical” sewer line segments. This surficial and as-built data had
a latest date of 2010. Basins were delineated according to sewer connectivity, and those
critical pipelines identified on the map. The general criteria were the segment of sewer line
that collects the most area in a basin and would also have the shallowest slope, thereby
having the lowest capacity. This data was gathered and input into the spreadsheet (blue
text: columns G, H, J, K). Pipe diameter, slope, hydraulic radius and cross-sectional area at
80% capacity were calculated. Further, unit counts were done from available mapping to
account for all known residential and commercial uses (blue text: columns E, F).
The uses were then calculated following standard practice as presented by Dewberry and
Davis’ Land Development Handbook on sewer design (Ch. 11). Also, standard inputs to
comply with typical CDPHE standards were applied (CDPHE WPC-DR-1, 2012). The
resultant equations for flow calculation are as follows:
1. Residential Use = Number of Units X 3.5 persons per unit X 70 gallons per person
per day X 2.5 peaking factor = Units * 3.5 * 70 * 2.5, to give gallons per day returned
to the sewer system.
2. Commercial Use = Aggregate 2,000 gallons per commercial acre
The resultant loading is tabulated and totaled (red: column N). It is then compared to a daily
line capacity for a ½ full pipe from the attached chart for each basin pipe scenario (red:
column M). These are compared to see what capacity is left for a daily flow (red: column P).
We then calculate 80% flow capacities by taking the gallons per day and dividing into a
single hour increment (green: column Q) and comparing to Manning’s equation for 80% full
pipe flow (green: column R), with then a simple ratio of comparison (green: column S).
2.1 How to Read the Sewer Data
The blue text is formulaic, leading to the red and green outputs, as needed. An initial focus
would be column P, to see if a DAILY loading is nearing capacity. The lower the
percentage, the closer to ½ full flow all day. That does not warrant changes to the system
but is a wise place to being consideration of system analysis, upgrades, or limits of future
development for that basin.
Secondly, looking at the green text, we then compare an hourly flow rate (columns Q and R)
using column S as our gage. The closer (lower) column S gets to 1, the more urgent the
upgrade to the system or limit to additional flows, as per CDPHE requirements. CDPHE
requirements are if a segment of sewer line reaches 80% capacity for longer than 1 hour,
then the system needs to be upgraded to handle greater capacity or action taken to reduce
or limit flows to that segment.
Therefore, we have two different forms of flow analysis that can be referenced as a gage for
future loads.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 2-2
2.2 Sewer System Assessment
Our process and calculations utilized a reasonable amount of conservative inputs. Of
course, field verification and real-time flow data would supersede any such calculations. Yet
it is our conservative assessment that the system is operating well and has significant
expansion room without upgrades to collector sewer lines for the near term.
The Sewer Map shows our designation of the basins simply as “A-1, A-2, etc.” The
designations have no reference to any zoning or technical indicators. The basin
delineations relate to existing developments as far as is built, then follows a general
topography (anticipated as mostly gravity sewer) with some current anticipated platting as a
background for reference.
A-1: Shows 27% remaining to “half-full”, all day flow and capacity for 2.4 times greater
capacity for a 1-hour flowrate. This would allow approximately 295 available residential
units for that infrastructure to the half-flow scenario. This is the portion of the district that is
currently the closest to consideration for system improvement or limitation of flows, but still
has a significant room for growth. However, a single, 300-unit subdivision would likely
trigger engineering for improvement or stopping additional expansion in that basin.
A-2: Shows 57% to half full and nearly 4 times capacity available to 80%, 1-hour flows.
A-3: 54% to half full; nearly 4 times to 80%.
A-4: 92% to half full; 20 times to 80%. A lot of room for expansion and this is one of the
more likely areas for future growth. Also have opportunity for flows to go either to A-4 or A-
10.
A-5: 96% to half full; 38 times to 80%. Basin is built out. No growth anticipated.
A-6: 72% to half full; 6 times to 80%. Basin is built out. No growth anticipated.
A-7: 98% to half full; 179 times to 80%. Basin is built out. No growth anticipated.
A-8: 71% to half full; 6 times to 80%. Basin is built out. No growth anticipated.
A-9: 83% to half full; 10 times to 80%. Basin is built out. No growth anticipated.
A-10: 91% to half full; 11 times to 80%. Only school and small commercial use in basin
thus far.
A-11: 100% to half full; No apparent use at this time.
A-12: 94% to half full; 31 times to 80%. 2300 Units available
A-13: 95% to half full; 44 times to 80%. Limited space available without extending sewer
significantly. Would seem easier to focus on flows to A-10, A-11 and A-12, where feasible
first.
A-14: 84% to half full; 11 times to 80%. Not much space available for additional growth.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 2-3
With the limited scope to analyze general system capacities based on known information
and as-built data, SGM relied upon discussions with staff for interceptor and lift station
issues. No independent pump tests or field flow measurements were taken. At this time,
the staff did not reveal any apparent issues with system leaks, manhole problems or lift
station capacities. Pumping stations should, of course, be monitored for age and pump
problems, the fact that you have albeit old, but duplex systems for all but the RV Park you
are in the good spot of replacement when elements fail. At this time, it would be good to set
the parameters for replacements so that such upgrades could be made quickly.
Your primary basins that seem ready to accept significant additional flow with the best
likelihood of normalized construction (gravity systems or only minor lift stations) are basins
A-4, 10, 11 and 12. The rest of the basins are already confined or would appear to have
more significant engineering and construction costs to achieve a reasonable system.
Remember that while the cost of the system would be on the developer, you will maintain
the system and simplicity tends toward less expense. Guiding future development to these
noted basins would be encouraged.
There were no known issues presented by staff or discovered by SGM that warrant
immediate infrastructure changes or costs other than potential back up power for lift
stations. Individual lift stations reportedly function well and staff has sufficiently responded
to the occasional pump failure within 24-hours.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 3-1
3.0 Water Treatment Plant
3.1 Review process
SGM staff met with District staff and inspected the treatment plants, went through numerous
review and observational assessments, and collected a “wish list”. The inspections were an
overview and interview. No independent testing or facility operation was conducted by
SGM.
Below is a list of specific elements reviewed and, where we can with the information
provided, a price of the elements requested by staff or suggested by SGM. Note that these
preliminary estimates are for materials/equipment and construction, not necessarily
including any engineering (see descriptions below).
In general, the facility is well kept, and staff should be commended for the job they do.
Given the age of the facility (began operating in 1982) it performs very well.
The WTF is currently permitted for a capacity of 6,500,000 gpd. Currently, the average daily
flow is 800,000 gpd under current system demands during the winter periods and will range
from 2,500,000 gpd to 5,000,000 gpd in the summer months. The higher end of the range is
when the district is providing bulk water sales attributable oil and gas operations. Thus,
under current practice, to meet residential and commercial demands (excluding Oil and Gas
bulk sales), the plant is at 38% of capacity. When bulk water sales are included, the
capacity of the plant is at 77% capacity. It should be noted that as development progresses
within the District that capacity will need to be tracked so as to assure that when the plant
demand reaches 80% (or 520,000 gpd) that plans for expansion would need to ensue if bulk
water sales are to continue. Likewise, construction of improvements would need to begin
when the plant reaches 95% of capacity or 6,175,000 gpd. It will be important therefore to
assure that any new demands proposed for the plant be provided such that the total build
out flow (in gpd) be reported to the District to assure planning and policy making by the
board can be properly initiated. Such policies could consider bulk water sales occurring in
“non irrigation” months as well as a gradual curtailment of such sales occurring.
No reported issues in recent sanitary surveys.
Only one VFD in entire facility. If energy use is of concern, VFD’s should be considered,
especially given the large horsepower pumps throughout the treatment plant and pump
stations.
No backup power at treatment plant or any of the pump stations. CDPHE requires
provisions for standby power or alternate water supply so that water may be treated and/or
pumped to the distribution system during power outages to meet the average day demand.
Sludge handling was noted as challenging by plant superintendent due to radio nuclide
levels.
“Emergency” backwash waste pond doesn’t have an access point to allow removal of solids.
Flocculation and sedimentation treatment systems could be separated to allow better
process control.
o For preliminary costs floc and sed equipment sized for two basins at 3.25 MGD each
Floc Basins Equipment - $175K
Baffle Walls - $50K
Plate Settlers - $300K
Sludge Removal System - $125K
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 3-2
o These costs account for equipment purchase only. Installation/construction costs
could range anywhere from 25 to 50% of equipment value.
Current flocculation/sedimentation basin has freezing problems in winter. Cover of basin to
be considered.
o For preliminary costs, we considered structural concrete modifications, new
CMU building, etc.
Concrete modifications - $540K
Masonry – $98K
Structural Steel Roof System - $147K
Roofing, Fascia, Soffit - $96K
Doors, Hardware, Overhead Coiling Doors - $26K
Painting of Building, struct steel - $90K
HVAC roof top Units - $46K
o These costs account for installation/construction costs associated with
converting both of the existing combined floc/sed basins. These costs were
estimated from prior SGM projects.
Raw water reservoir doesn’t have an access point to allow the removal of accumulated
sediment.
Plant Superintendent also noted an algae problem at certain times of the year with the raw
water storage reservoir. Could consider floating covers
Floating cover (spheres of hexagons) - $2.50/sf = $550k
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 4-1
4.0 Wastewater Treatment Plant
4.1 Review Process
Similar to the water plan, the sewage treatment facility was reviewed. The results and
recommendations are below. You will see several “should” and “could”, and that is
intentional.
Again, a well-kept facility and staff should be commended for the job they do. Given the age
of the facility (began operating in 1982) it performs very well.
The WWTF is currently permitted for a capacity of 800,000 gpd. Currently, the average daily
flow is 400,000 gpd under current system demands indicating that the plant is at 50%
capacity today. It should be noted that this flow also includes wastewater from the entire
Town of Parachute. It should be noted that as development progresses within the District
and Town, the capacity will need to be tracked so as to assure that when the plant demand
reaches 80% (or 640,000 gpd) that plans for expansion would need to ensue. Likewise,
construction of improvements would need to begin when the plant reaches 95% of capacity
or 760,000 gpd. It will be important therefore to assure that any new demands proposed for
the plant be provided such that the total build out flow (in gpd) be reported to the District to
assure planning and policy making by the board can be properly initiated.
No reported issues in recent sanitary surveys.
Only one VFD in entire facility. If energy use is of concern, VFD’s should be considered.
Per the electrical one-line diagram, motors sizes range from 5hp to 125hp.
VFD cost range (5hp to 125hp) - $2k to $15k
No backup power at treatment plant. CDPHE regulations require the owner to consider
providing sufficient standby power to maintain normal operations at all times.
o Generator size based on existing plant one line diagram for WWTF
700-1000 KVA (nameplate) generator - $150K
1600 amp transfer switch - $25K
Headworks barscreen is ¾” spacing, consideration should be given to install tighter screen.
o For preliminary costs wastewater equipment based on a permitted flow of 0.8 MGD,
with and estimated peak flow of 2.5 MGD.
o Barsceen sized at 1/4” spacing
“Screw type” screen with integral washer/compactor - $75K
“Multi-rake type” screen - $80K to $100K
Should consider installing washer compactor behind barscreen. Screening coming off of
barscreen are very wet and still contain organics that should be put back into the waste
stream for treatment.
Stand-alone washer compactor - $50K
Should consider installing grit classifier. Grit collection is very similar to screenings in that
once they are washed, they still contain a large amount of organics.
Grit classifier with cyclone - $130K
Should consider liner or new aeration basins, as existing basins tend to leak at the redwood
joints between the different concrete slabs.
Should consider additional clarifier. Only one clarifier is operational. CDPHE requires
redundancy. Could consider a different type of clarifier technology versus the old “draft tube”
removal system
Suction header style clarifier - $150K
Could consider launder covers over clarifier weirs and scum baffles to reduce algae growth.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 4-2
Launder covers - $40K per clarifier
Could consider different aeration system in digester, instead of the “single” diffuser/mixer in
the center of the basin.
Tideflex aeration system - $55K
Could consider moving away from the diaphragm pumps and replace with centrifugal pumps
for WAS (waste activated sludge) operations. This would eliminate the need for additional
air compressors. Air compressors are required to operate the diaphragm pumps. The
diaphragm pumps and air compressors were stated by staff as becoming a maintenance
item.
Centrifugal pumps - $20k per pump
Could consider separating aeration blowers and digester blowers allowing for better process
control.
Could consider installing probes (DO, ORP) and SCADA system improvements to allow for
better process control.
Could consider security and fire alarm systems.
Could consider UV disinfection.
Horizontal UV system - $160K to $180K
Drying beds are currently utilized for sludge dewatering, as flow dictate future consideration
should be given to other forms of dewatering such as belt press, screw press, or centrifuge.
Screw Press with polymer system - $150K
SGM also wants the District to be aware of the nutrient regulations that CDPHE will be
implementing between now and 2027. WWTF’s are going to be required to meet stream
water quality standards for ammonia, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus amongst other
criteria. These costs cannot be quantified at this time as the exact target levels have not
been set. The District should evaluate and plan the necessary improvements to help meet
future regulations.
Costs presented herein account for equipment purchase only. Installation/construction costs
could range anywhere from 25 to 50% of equipment value. Engineering/design costs
typically range between 8-10%.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 5-1
5.0 Water Distribution System Review Summary
In general terms, the water distribution system works well but suffers from being overbuilt
and awkward to manage.
BMMD’s existing GIS was processed and imported into InfoWater to create a clean and
connected hydraulic model.
As-built documents and system data were collected from District staff and input into the
model.
o Pump nameplate data
o PRV settings/sizes
o Normally closed valves
o Tank sizes, diameters, and elevations
o Pump settings and narrative of system operations
Production data and commercial billing data were processed and used to estimate system
demands.
o Currently estimate that 21% of production is consumed by commercial/public
customers.
o 8% of that 21% is oil and gas bulk water sales.
Demands were distributed to model nodes by placing a point at each address/bulk water
delivery point and assigning unit demand numbers. Demands from each address were
assigned to the nearest model node.
The system has been analyzed for pipeline velocity, operating pressure, and safely available
fire flow.
o High pipeline velocities and low pressures are observed near Zone C, which is fed by
a continually running pump station.
Fire flow:
o Safely available fireflow is the flow which can be withdrawn at a certain location
without resulting in unacceptable conditions at any point in the distribution system.
The following default parameters were implemented within the model to determine
available fireflow at each node:
Minimum System Pressure: 20 psi
Minimum Pressure at Fireflow Node: 20 psi
o Note: 20 psi is recommended as a standard minimum pressure to prevent vacuum
development and column separation resulting from pressure transients during
fireflow events.
o Initial modeling results indicated that the southern portion of the distribution system
had lower fire flow availability (between 1,000 and 1,500 gpm). Per the 2015
International Fire Code, this fireflow availability may be acceptable for single family
residences, but could be unacceptable for commercial structures and appartments,
such as Bea Underwood Elementary School, the Garfield County School District
Building, and the Saddleback Center1.
1 Appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) prescribes a minimum fireflow requirement of 1,000 gpm for
one and two-family residential dwellings. Required fireflows for commercial structures and apartment buildings varies
based on size, building type, and sprinkler design. The minimum required commercial/apartment fireflow is 1,500 gpm.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 5-2
o Model predicted fireflow availability in the southern half of the zone is poor because
of a high point at the intersection of Underwood Lane and Stone Quarry Road. The
modeled static pressure at this location is slightly above 20 psi due to this location’s
proximity to Tank A-1. Implementing a 3,000 gpm+ fireflow event drops the pressure
at this location by a marginal amount, resulting in a residual pressure of over 18 psi.
Therefore, SGM does not recommend considering this location when looking at
fireflow, as fireflow impacts at this location would be relatively low. However, SGM
recommends that the City install a combination air valve at the Stone Quarry Road
high point to prevent column separate and vaccum development from pressure
transients (if one does not already exist).
o Removing the Stone Quarry node from consideration results in available fireflows in
excess of 3,000 gpm throughout the southern half of the zone (Zone A and below).
Therefore, fireflow availability in this area is sufficient.
o SGM would like to note that the 6” service line feeding the Garfield County School
District Building from Zone B is not sufficiently sized for fireflow (fireflow availability at
this location is under 1,500 gpm). SGM recommends that this line be upsized to 8”,
which increases the available fireflow to around 2,000 gpm.
Pressure:
Colorado’s Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems recommends that watermains be
sized to provide operating pressures which range between 60 and 80 psi. This ensures
there is sufficient driving head to supply water to upper building levels, irrigation systems,
and common household plumbing fixtures. In SGM’s experience, operating pressures can
drop as low as 55 psi without causing a decline in customer experience, resulting in
complaints of “low water pressure.” SGM typically recommends that system pressures not
exceed 120 psi to limit the potential for line breaks resulting from pressures transients.
System pressures should never drop below 35 psi under normal operating conditions, which
is the minimum required service pressure listed in the Design Criteria. Residential pressure
regulating valves are required for system pressures in excess of 80 psi (based on the
International Plumbing Code).
o A large percentage of BMMD’s distribution system pressures are under 55 psi, which
is a reasonable target. A number of low-pressure points exist because a PRV is
being implemented to prevent system pressures of 80 psi, which is the cutoff for
residential PRV installation.
Low pressures along Stone Quarry Road do not appear to be near any
served development. High service taps could not be added to this area
without increasing operating pressures. This could be done via a new
transmission main and a new PRV between Zone B and Zone A, resulting in
one or two new sub-zones at an HGL slightly above Zone A.
o Potential development in the North-Eastern quadrant of the District would require a
new storage tank and some booster pumps. The elevation of development sites
along E. Battlement Parkway results in static pressures of around 35 psi, which is
low.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 5-3
Figure 1 Low Pressure Area: Stone Quarry and Underwood Lane [Not a concern if
combination air valve
installed]
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 5-4
Figure 2 Pressures under 55 psi [Highlighted in Blue]
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 5-5
Velocity:
o High velocities are only observed in Zone C, which is a pumped pressure zone
pulling from Zone B. There are two 10 HP pumps for this zone. Fire flow is provided
by running both pumps simultaneously. The zone currently recirculates back to Zone
B through a partially open line valve, resulting in a waste of pumping energy, a lack
of fire protection, and a lack of redundant water supply in the event of a pump or
electrical failure. SGM recommends that BMMD optimize operation of Zone C by
upgrading the pump station. Potential improvements are as follows:
Install an appropriately sized pressure tank to provide emergency water
supply in the event of a pump or electrical failure.
Consider replacing pumps and motors and installing VFDs to facilitate pump
turn down if desired, reducing energy costs and increasing pump life
expectancy.
Table 1 All System Demands
Demand MGD gpm Multiplier
ADD 1.60 1,109 1.00
PMD 3.02 2,098 1.89
MDD 4.2 2,920 2.63
Table 2 Residential Demands
Demand MGD gpm Multiplier
ADD 1.26 874 0.79
PMD 2.38 1,655 1.49
MDD 3.3 2,303 2.08
ADD = Average Daily Demand
PMD = Peak Monthly Demand
MDD = Maximum Monthly Demand
Table 3 Commercial Demand Estimates based on consumption over 545 days (1/1/2017 –
6/60/218)
Category Gallons
Used
ADD
(gpd)
ADD
(gpm) EQRs Demand
Points EQR/Point
% of
Total
Deman
d
Commercial Business 4,477,720 8,216 5.71 14 8 2 0.51%
Golf Course 2,021,995 3,710 2.58 6 1 6 0.23%
Common Area and
Park Irrigation 48,614,300 89,201 61.94 156 1841 0.08 5.59%
Churches 3,235,290 5,936 4.12 10 4 3 0.37%
Public Buildings 54,475,570 99,955 69.41 175 6 29 6.26%
Bulk Water - Oil and
Gas Industry 71,164,750 130,578 90.68 228 2 114.12 8.18%
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 6-1
6.0 Water Storage
6.1 Water Storage
Water storage requirements were calculated for the BMMD water distribution system based
on existing water demands and planned development. The storage analysis was performed
with the following key assumptions
Water production facilities have a firm capacity equal to or greater than the
system-wide maximum day demand (MDD)
Booster pump stations have a firm capacity equal to or greater than the MDD of
their respective service areas plus the MDD for all subsequent service areas that
pull water through the zone.
Equalization storage is the volume required to supply diurnal or peak hourly
demands that are greater than the firm capacity (MDD) of production and
pumping facilities. This volume was calculated assuming a two-hour duration.
Fire storage volume is the volume associated with a single fire event for the class
of development with the highest Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and/or Insurance
Services Organization (ISO) fire flow requirement in the service area. Fire volume
requirements will vary by service area based on the type of structures and
development within the service area. This evaluation assumed a fire flow
requirement of 1500 gpm with 2-hour duration, which equates to 180,000 gallons.
Emergency storage is the volume set aside to provide a limited backup supply in
the event of an emergency, such as a water main break, or power or mechanical
failure at a treatment plant or pump station. The specific volume selected is often
some fraction or multiple of the ADD for the service area, and it varies from water
system to water system. Emergency volume is sometimes used to cover typical
water leakage volume as well. This evaluation assumes one day of ADD is sufficient for
emergency storage.
Total required system storage was calculated as fire volume plus equalization
volume plus emergency storage. This is an industry standard approach, but is
considered a minimum desired volume.
System storage was looked at on a whole system basis, as opposed to zone by
zone, because Zone B can download back to zone A through the PRV at the Zone B
pump station. Therefore, the negative surplus shown in Table 4 does not indicate the need
to upsize Tank A because the resulting emergency storage deficit can is supplied by the
Zone B Tank.
Future consideration: water quality could become an issue in the future if Oil & Gas
use out of Zone B dramatically drops, resulting in low tank turnover and increased
water age. At present this just requires monitoring and consideration in future
planning.
Table 4 Storage Capacity Summary:
Capacity
(MGD) Fire flow
Remaining
Available existing ADD
remaining
surplus
volume after
ff+ADD
REQ'D EQ
Volume(PHF‐
MDD for 2‐hrs)
Available for
future
remaining EQR
(@350 gpd)
approved
but
unbuilt
EQR
EQR
available for
future plat
approval
Tank A 1.0 180,000 820,000 1,314,256 (494,256) ‐ 259
Tank B 3 180,000 2,820,000 282,342 2,537,658 5,679 91
Tank C 180,000 (180,000)
2,043,402 55,628 1,987,774 5,679 350 5,329
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 6-2
The analysis suggests that there is capacity for 5329 additional EQRs. Of these, approximately 259
EQRs are platted but undeveloped lots in Zone A and another 91 are platted but undeveloped lots
in Zone B. This suggests there is roughly storage capacity for an additional 5000 future EQRs.
Table 5 Development Projection by Zone
Tank A
Zoning Current Not built Platted check Zoned AC Max Future DU EQR % Current EQR Platted EQR Future EQR
MHR 917 92 1009 1009 92 100% 917 92 92
LDR 545 19 564 564 285 304 100% 545 19 304
MDR 18 18 426 426 100% 18 0 426
CAR 495 148 643 148 80% 396 118.4 118
NC 10 10 40%0 0 4
RDR
PSR 100 100
BC
2075 259 2334 980 944
11%
Tank B
Zoning Current Not built Platted check Zoned AC Max Future DU EQR % Current EQR Platted EQR Future EQR
MHR 0
LDR 0 1180.75 1181 100%0 0 1181
MDR 85 85 2094 2094 100% 85 0 2094
CAR 70 60 130 60 80% 56 48 48
NC 2 2 10 10 40% 0.8 0 4
RDR 93 31 124 31 100% 93 31 31
PSR12 12 3 350%601
BC 64 64 84.26 84 40% 25.6 0 34
326 91 417 3463 3393
22%
Tank C (future)thru A and B C + D totals
Zoning Current Not built Platted check Zoned AC Max Future DU EQR % Current EQR Platted EQR Future EQR
MHR
LDR 0 1176 1176 100%0 0 1176
MDR 0 492 492 100%0 0 492
CAR
NC 0 17 1740%007
RDR 0 302.2 302 100%0 0 302
PSR
BC
0 0 0 1987 1977
Tank D (future)thru A, B and C
MHR - Mobile Home Residential
LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
CAR - Central Area Residential
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
RDR - Rural Density Residential
PRS - Public, Semi-Public, and Recreational
BC - Business Center
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment 7-1
7.0 Concluding Comments
From this analysis the majority of potential capital issues are directly associated with your
treatment facilities. Much of that would have to do with legitimate staff desires for
manageability of the systems and code compliance. Some of the elements, such as pump
replacements, could be considered on a step-by-step basis if the Board would rather take
smaller “bites” of capital improvement.
The only evident collection or distribution items relate to backup power supply, of which
there are options the District can consider, and some re-arranging or replacement of PRV
systems for better and more reliable pressure controls.
As a final, albeit abstract element, one item to note is staffing. You have a capable staff
right now, but a small staff. We have seen a shortage of good treatment operators with the
appropriate certifications. Attaining such certifications takes time and it may behoove the
District to consider hiring sooner rather than later to begin the process of training a new
employee under the care of your current, experienced staff to get that new person to an
appropriate certification as well as the nuances of your system.
We hope this report helps identify those more significant issues, so the District can begin to
prioritize and budget for such capital expenditures. Keep in mind several of these issues
have potential for grant eligibility including Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease and State
DOLA EIAF.
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment A
Sewer System Chart – 50% Full
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment B
Sewer Analysis Table
Ba
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
M
e
s
a
M
e
t
r
o
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
IN
T
E
R
C
E
P
T
O
R
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
US
I
N
G
1
/
2
F
U
L
L
A
N
D
8
0
%
F
U
L
L
A
S
T
H
E
G
U
I
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
AD
D
L
A
C
R
E
S
CR
O
S
S
HY
D
MO
S
T
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
I
N
S
T
A
N
T
D
A
I
L
Y
PO
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
P
P
F
(
d
a
y
)
A
B
S
O
L
U
T
E
C
O
M
P
A
R
A
B
L
E
IN
T
E
R
C
E
P
T
O
R
/
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
bl
a
n
k
E
X
I
S
T
.
U
N
I
T
S
x
2
0
0
0
G
P
D
E
X
I
S
T
.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
R
A
D
I
U
S
A
S
-
B
U
I
L
T
L
I
N
E
LI
N
E
PE
A
K
F
L
O
W
C
A
P
(
%
)
T
O
S
I
N
G
L
E
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
8
0
%
P
K
H
R
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
CO
M
M
I
T
T
E
D
D
E
M
A
N
D
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
A
R
E
A
(
8
0
%
)
SL
O
P
E
CA
P
A
C
I
T
Y
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
T
O
H
A
L
F
F
U
L
L
H
O
U
R
80
%
D
I
A
M
v
s
A
V
G
P
K
H
R
U
N
I
T
S
S
E
R
V
E
D
N
O
T
E
S
un
i
t
s
ac
r
e
s
in
c
h
e
s
gp
m
gp
d
gp
d
gp
h
ho
u
r
f
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
MA
I
N
U
S
E
O
T
H
E
R
U
S
E
1/
2
f
u
l
l
p
i
p
e
1
/
2
f
u
l
l
p
i
p
e
gp
h
A-
1
M
H
R
N
C
77
5
3.
4
10
0.
4
7
0.
2
5
1.
2
0
%
46
0
66
2
4
0
0
48
1
4
8
8
27
%
20
0
6
2
48
,
2
0
1
2.
4
0
29
5
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
U
S
I
N
G
B
O
T
H
T
A
M
A
R
I
S
K
A
N
D
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
L
I
N
E
S
A-
2
L
D
R
32
4
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
1.
8
0
%
32
0
46
0
8
0
0
19
8
4
5
0
57
%
82
6
9
32
,
4
7
0
3.
9
3
42
8
A-
3
L
D
R
M
D
R
26
0
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
1.
1
0
%
24
0
34
5
6
0
0
15
9
2
5
0
54
%
66
3
5
25
,
3
8
3
3.
8
3
30
4
A-
4
L
D
R
M
D
R
,
B
C
,
P
U
D
26
5
18
.
7
12
0.
6
7
0.
3
6.
0
0
%
17
0
0
24
4
8
0
0
0
19
9
7
1
3
92
%
83
2
1
1
7
3
,
5
1
3
20
.
8
5
36
7
1
A
L
O
T
O
F
S
P
A
C
E
,
W
H
E
R
E
C
O
U
L
D
A
-
1
0
B
E
R
E
A
C
H
E
D
V
S
A
-
4
?
A-
5
C
A
R
60
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
5.
8
0
%
58
0
83
5
2
0
0
36
7
5
0
96
%
15
3
1
58
,
2
8
6
38
.
0
6
13
0
4
EN
C
A
P
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
,
N
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
A-
6
C
A
R
24
0
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
2.
4
0
%
36
0
51
8
4
0
0
14
7
0
0
0
72
%
61
2
5
37
,
4
9
3
6.
1
2
60
6
EN
C
A
P
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
,
N
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
A-
7
L
D
R
38
0
12
0.
6
7
0.
3
6.
0
0
%
86
9
12
5
1
3
6
0
23
2
7
5
98
%
97
0
1
7
3
,
5
1
3
17
8
.
9
2
20
0
5
2"
F
O
R
C
E
M
A
I
N
L
I
N
E
,
N
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
A-
8
L
D
R
95
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
0.
3
4
%
14
0
20
1
6
0
0
58
1
8
8
71
%
24
2
4
14
,
1
1
2
5.
8
2
23
4
EN
C
A
P
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
,
N
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
,
L
A
S
T
L
E
G
O
F
8
"
L
O
W
E
R
T
H
A
N
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
M
I
N
S
L
O
P
E
A-
9
C
A
R
B
C
58
12
8
0.
3
0.
2
1.
1
0
%
24
0
34
5
6
0
0
59
5
2
5
83
%
24
8
0
25
,
3
8
3
10
.
2
3
46
7
A-
1
0
B
C
MD
R
x
56
.
7
8
0.
3
0.
2
4.
8
0
%
86
9
12
5
1
3
6
0
11
3
4
0
0
91
%
47
2
5
53
,
0
2
4
11
.
2
2
18
5
8
ON
L
Y
U
S
E
A
R
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
N
D
C
O
M
M
E
R
I
C
A
L
A-
1
1
L
D
R
M
D
R
0
0
8
0.
3
0.
2
0.
6
6
%
19
0
27
3
6
0
0
0
10
0
%
0
19
,
6
6
2
#D
I
V
/
0
!
44
7
NO
A
P
P
A
R
E
N
T
U
S
E
Y
E
T
,
N
O
T
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
A-
1
2
L
D
R
M
I
X
E
D
0
43
.
2
10
0.
4
7
0.
2
5
6.
3
0
%
10
5
0
15
1
2
0
0
0
86
4
0
0
94
%
36
0
0
1
1
0
,
4
4
2
30
.
6
8
23
2
8
A-
1
3
RD
R
64
0
15
1.
0
5
0.
3
8
0.
3
0
%
58
0
83
5
2
0
0
39
2
0
0
95
%
16
3
3
71
,
1
8
8
43
.
5
8
13
0
0
A-
1
4
R
D
R
65
2.
4
8
0.
3
0.
2
0.
7
0
%
19
5
28
0
8
0
0
44
6
1
3
84
%
18
5
9
20
,
2
4
9
10
.
8
9
38
6
LO
A
D
I
N
G
I
N
F
O
CR
I
T
I
C
A
L
P
I
P
E
I
N
F
O
1/
2
F
L
O
W
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
80
%
F
U
L
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
NO
T
E
:
FO
R
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
W
E
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
E
T
H
E
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
P
E
A
K
F
L
O
W
(
G
P
D
)
A
N
D
C
O
MP
A
R
E
T
O
A
C
T
U
A
L
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
P
I
P
E
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
A
S
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
D
E
RI
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
A
S
‐
B
U
I
L
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
O
N
T
H
E
A
S
B
U
I
L
T
S
,
W
E
L
O
O
K
F
O
R
WH
A
T
W
O
U
L
D
A
P
P
E
A
R
T
O
B
E
T
H
E
M
O
S
T
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
,
L
O
W
E
S
T
CA
P
A
C
I
T
Y
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
O
F
S
E
W
E
R
T
H
A
T
I
S
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
I
N
G
T
H
E
L
A
R
G
E
S
T
O
F
T
H
E
B
A
S
I
N
T
H
A
T
S
E
W
E
R
I
S
I
N
.
D
A
T
A
E
N
T
E
R
E
D
I
N
BL
U
E
.
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
E
D
H
Y
D
R
A
D
I
U
S
A
N
D
A
R
E
A
V
I
A
A
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
O
R
.
I
N
S
T
AN
T
L
I
N
E
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
D
C
H
A
R
T
.
T
H
E
N
W
E
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
W
H
AT
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
O
F
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
I
S
L
E
F
T
,
U
S
I
N
G
A
1
/
2
F
U
L
L
P
I
P
E
A
S
O
U
R
I
N
IT
I
A
L
G
A
G
E
.
O
N
C
E
S
U
C
H
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
R
E
A
C
H
E
D
,
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
C
O
NT
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
S
H
O
U
L
D
B
E
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
E
D
A
N
D
L
I
N
E
U
P
S
I
Z
I
N
G
M
A
Y
N
O
T
B
E
F
A
R
O
F
F
.
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
L
Y
,
A
L
I
N
E
R
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
8
0
%
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
F
O
R
AN
H
O
U
R
I
S
W
A
R
R
A
N
T
E
D
T
O
B
E
U
P
S
I
Z
E
D
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
S
L
I
K
E
W
I
S
E
S
H
O
W
N
.
T
H
I
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
I
S
A
N
A
T
T
E
M
P
T
O
G
E
T
U
S
I
N
T
H
E
R
A
N
G
E
F
O
R
S
C
O
P
I
N
G
R
EM
A
I
N
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
S
F
O
R
A
B
A
S
I
N
.
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
D
E
M
A
N
D
I
S
C
A
L
C
U
A
L
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
E
D
D
E
S
I
G
N
F
L
O
W
S
B
AS
E
D
O
F
F
O
F
A
C
R
E
A
G
E
(
L
D
H
,
D
&
D
,
p
3
6
9
)
.
A
C
R
E
A
G
E
(
S
H
O
W
N
)
M
U
L
T
I
P
L
IE
D
B
Y
2
0
0
0
G
P
D
A
N
D
A
D
D
E
D
T
O
T
O
T
A
L
F
O
R
T
H
A
T
B
A
S
I
N
.
A
L
L
N
C
A
N
D
BC
A
R
E
A
S
A
R
E
A
C
C
O
U
N
T
E
D
F
O
R
I
N
T
H
I
S
M
A
N
N
E
R
.
F
O
R
CO
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
,
2
0
0
0
G
P
D
~
3
.
2
5
U
N
I
T
S
FR
O
M
T
H
I
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
,
A
R
E
A
S
A
‐
1
,
A
‐
2
A
N
D
A
‐
3
H
A
V
E
S
O
M
E
S
P
A
C
E
,
B
U
T
M
A
J
O
R
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
N
E
E
D
S
T
U
D
I
E
D
.
AR
E
A
S
A
‐
5
,
A
‐
6
,
A
‐
7
,
A
‐
8
,
A
‐
9
A
N
D
A
‐
1
4
A
L
L
A
P
P
E
A
R
T
O
B
E
B
U
I
L
T
O
UT
A
N
D
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
E
N
C
A
P
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
,
S
O
N
O
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
A
D
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
E
X
P
E
C
T
E
D
F
O
R
T
H
O
S
E
S
U
B
‐
B
A
S
I
N
S
.
A‐
1
1
I
S
N
O
T
Y
E
T
A
C
T
I
V
E
.
AR
E
A
S
A
‐
4
,
A
‐
1
0
,
A
‐
1
2
A
N
D
A
‐
1
3
W
O
U
L
D
A
P
P
E
A
R
T
O
H
A
V
E
T
H
E
M
O
S
T
P
O
TE
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
E
X
P
A
N
D
E
D
D
E
M
A
N
D
A
N
D
A
L
L
H
A
V
E
A
S
I
G
N
I
F
I
C
A
N
T
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
.
DE
S
I
G
N
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
S
H
A
L
L
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
F
O
R
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
D
E
P
T
H
O
F
F
L
O
W
A
T
P
E
AK
H
O
U
R
F
L
O
W
R
A
T
E
O
F
N
O
M
O
R
E
T
H
A
N
8
0
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
P
I
PE
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
(
I
.
E
.
,
D
/
D
)
.
F
U
L
L
P
I
P
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
S
H
A
L
L
N
O
T
B
E
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
,
E
X
C
E
P
T
F
O
R
S
I
P
H
O
N
S
W
H
I
C
H
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
F
U
L
L
P
I
P
E
FL
O
W
.
NC
C
V
R
M
P
.
x
l
w
Battlement Mesa Metro District February 2019
Masterplan Assessment C
Maps and Exhibits
Sewer System Exhibits
Sewer Map w/ Basins & Critical Pipes
Water Model Mapping
Model Map w/ Aerial
Water Distribution System Schematic
Pressure Zone Map w/ Boundaries
Pressure Zone Map
Design Flows
Pressures
Velocities
Water Map w/ Sections
Infill and Existing Areas
Undeveloped Areas