The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About851221.tiff RESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, CONCERNING SITE APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF GILCREST AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS , the Town of Gilcrest wishes to make changes to its existing wastewater treatment facility, on the following described parcel of land, to-wit: NWa NW' of Section 27 , Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS , the Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works require review of the Site Application by the Board of County Commissioners before construction may be started and, further, that various local and state agencies be given the opportunity to review and comment on said Site Application, and WHEREAS, the Town of Gilcrest has submitted its Site Application to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado for review and comments, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, after study and review, the Board finds it is in the best interest of Weld County that the Board of County Commissioners recommend approval of said Site Application, subject to the adoption of the following limitations: 1) A low profile spray system, applied only at night, may be used with the applied standard of 2 .2 fecal coliform organisms per hundred milliliters, or flooding at night if there are no more than 23 organisms per hundred milliliters. 2) Monitoring wells around the site to evaluate groundwater impact are very desirable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Site Application of the Town of Gilcrest for changes to its existing sewage treatment plant be, and hereby is, recommended favorable to the Colorado Department of Health, subject to the above listed limitations. 851221 Page 2 RE: SITE APPLICATION - TOWN OF GILCREST BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chairman be , and hereby is , authorized to sign said Site Application. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 23rd day of October, A.D. , 1985 . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS %ATTEST: /4q. jl WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder \ N n_ ^NwaG1cc and Clerk to the Board Jaiiue 'ne Joh�on, Chairman , , ,nC' BY: 02PLgi ene R. Brantner, Pro-Tem Deputy Fount_ Xfrk EXCUSED APPROVED AS TO FORM: C.W. Ki b Gor o County Attorney EXCUSED Frank Yamagu i BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Moved by Don Johnson that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the Site Plan application for Gilcrest Sanitation District be recommended favorably to the State Board of Health, Water Quality Control Division, and that the chairman he instructed to sign the site plan application for the Planning Commission. Also, the Planning Commission recommends the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopt the following limitations: 1. A low profile spray system, applied only at night, may be used with the applied standard of 2.2 fecal conform organisms per hundred milliliters, or flooding at night if there are no more than 23 organisms per hundred milliliters. 2. Monitoring wells around the site to evaluate groundwater impact are very desirable. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. Vote: For Passage Against Passage Louis Rademacher Don Johnson Paulette Weaver Doug Graff Lydia Dunbar Ann Garrison Lynn Brown Jack Holman The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with to the Colorado Department of Health, Water Qualtiy Control Division. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on October 15, 1985 and recorded in Book No. X of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 16th day of October, 1985. t5ol.N-. •v Cf\ooU Bobbie Good Secretary - a Met, 441441 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PHONE ) 3-0540 RCAD 1516 HOSPITAL RCAD GREELEY,COLORADO 90631 COLORADO To: Weld County Planning From: Wes Potter w w WIC Subject: Site application for Gilcrest Sanitation District In our review of this application our only concerns were related to the application of the effluent to the Green Belt Areas. These concerns were: 1. That surface application be limited to flooding to reduce the chance of air borne pathogens. 2. That the fecal coliform levels be kept as low as possible (2-5 fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml) . 3. Monitoring wells around the site to evaluate groundwater impact are very desirable. Other wise we have no problem with the proposed application. _'ti D -15 ;� r� OT 13 1985 Weld Co.. kiting (: i4ftinioA • :'•.r` I 'N'.r }7.1 '. '" .V ' J:;+fit 3 i I et` L ,+ O \. .........ilO Western _ Mutual. pitch— PECKHAM i12J 4 — i x 1 x 20 172i 22 P.\ 1 I ---/ : . c,‘`( -1.C i _ I i 42 ZONE A __. �_-- J 29 I 1 / City of Gilcrest_._ /-J AREA NOT INCLUDED ZONE C 1 29..- 1 27 1 0 i 2 8 -- -- - --- _I IV 1 c ______ • 32 i 33 34 / I. i ) , A r F I p J / . ---S , i ��G Q I C.) 5/ ;TON;r s �o ti , '' I 4 vans l.. . 3 1I LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: October 8, 1985 NAME: Gilcrest Sanitation District ADDRESS P.O. Box 8, Gilcrest, CO 80623 FEQUEST: Site application for proposed existing plant modifications and effluent pumping system. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NWT NWT of Section 27, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Adjacent to the northeast side of the Town of Gilcrest. The Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission's regulations requires that the applicant submit the site application to all appropriate local governments, planning agencies and state agencies for review and comment prior to submission to the Colorado Department of Health's District Engineer. The regulations further state that if the proposed facility is located in the unincorporated area of a county, the county planning agency should be requested to comment upon the relationship of the treatment works to the local long—range comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality including the location in the flood plain and capacity to serve the planned development. The county agency should also comment upon the relationship of the treatment works to the comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality for the proposed treatment works to be located within the boundaries of a city or town. elp engineering professionals September 25 , 1985 A CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING FIRM Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Planning 915 10th Street. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Project No. : 409 .1 Dear Chuck : The Gilcrest Sanitation District has undertaken engineering efforts to expand their wastewater treatment facilities as existing facilities are at capacity. The first step in the implementatin process of such a plant expansion is to proceed through the site application process which is something of a conceptual review of the proposed alternative. The District's proposal has been approved by the Town of Gilcrest and is now being submitted to Weld County for Planning , Health, and Commission approval. The application will then be submitted to the Regional 208 Committee and then State Health. Enclosed is 1 copy of the complete engineering report and the original copy of the site application for signature. Also enclosed are fourteen copies of the engineering report excluding much of the lengthy appendix material and fourteen copies of the site application form. We have already submitted a complete copy of the engineering report to the County Health Department and have met with Wes Potter to further explain the proposal. We would desire to proceed through the Weld County process as quickly as possible and we will make ourselves available to answer any questions you may have. ��}} Sincerely yours, D E r��[`y� ENGINEERING PROF SSIONALS, INC. 27 19n ------ John P. McGinn, P.E. Weld Co. Planning Commission JPM:psm Attachment .`c `•' f 2625 Redwing Rd. Suite 110 c, ,- 377 E. Agate, Suite 202 P.O. Box 500 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 • 303/226-3852 Granby, Colorado 80446 • 303/887-2631 it I: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Washington. D.C. 20472 1 1 JO N 1980 Mayor P.O. Box 8 Gilcrest, Colorado 80623 Community City of Gilcrest County Weld Flood Hazard Boundary Map Current Effective Date: October 3, 1978 Map Rescission and Conversion to Regular Program Effective: June 10, 1980 Community No. and New Suffix: 080213B Dear Mayor: The Federal Insurance Administration issued a Flood Hazard Boundary Map for the City of Gilcrest (Weld County) on October 3, 1978. Information recently made available to us and your community indicates that, for all practical purposes, the community would not be inundated by the base flood, which is the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. We have, therefore, rescinded the Flood Hazard Boundary Map and converted your community to the Regular Program on June 10, 1980. Please destroy all copies of that map. We are sending this notice to you, the community's Chief Executive Officer, and the State Coordinating Agency in compliance with Section 1917.11 , Chapter 10, Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations. A notice of map withdrawal and conversion to the Regular Program will be published in the Federal Register as soon as possible. All affected Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities and the servicing agent for the National Flood Insurance PLoyram will be notified. The effects of conversion to the Regular Program without a map are: 1 . Your community may have been conplying with regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program for managing areas designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas (A Zones). Compliance with these regulations is no longer mandatory as a condition of your comninity's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. 2 It should, however, be recognized that floods larger than the base flood do occur. In view of your community's ov.,nnitment, as expressed in the Resolution of Intent adopted to qualify for initial eligibility in the NFIP, your community should exercise care in evaluating new development which could aggravate or create flood problems in your community or in adiacent communities. 2. The entire community is now classified as zone C. In a zone C, insurance coverage is available on a voluntary basis at low actuarial, nonsubsidized rates. For example, under. the Fmeraency Program in which your community has been participating the rate for a one-story 1-4 family dwelling is $.25 per S100 of coverage. Under the Reaular Program, to which your community has been converted, the equivalent rate is 5.01 Der $100 of coverage. Contents insurance is also available under the Regular PLWLam at low actuarial rates. Fbr example, when all contents are located on the first floor of a residential structure, the Premium rate is 5.05 per S100 of coverage. In addition to the less expensive rates, the maximum coverage available under the Regular Program is significantly greater than that available under the Emergency Program. For example, a single family residential dwelling now can be insured up to a maximum of S185,000 coverage for the structure and $60,000 coverage for contents. 3. Some owners of utuuerty shown as flood crone on the rescinded map may have been required to purchase flood insurance as a condition to obtaining Federal or federally-related financial assistance under Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended. Those owners of property who do not wish to maintain flood insurance coverage may entitled to a premium refund for the current policy year, provided the lender is willing to release the affected mortgagor from the flood insurance purchase requirement, and provided no claim has been pail or is pending on the policy. To receive a premium refund, the mortgagor should obtain a statement from the bank or mortgagee certifying that flood insurance is no longer required. The mortgagor should submit the statement to the insurance agent who originally sold him or her the flood insurance policy. The agent will then initiate the policy cancellation and refund procedure. In summary, by continuing its participation in the Regular Program of the National Flood Insurance Program, the community makes available to its citizens on a voluntary basis additional amounts of insurance coverage at generally lower rates than would be available under the Emergency Program. While no new flood plain management measures are required, communities are encouraged to implement regulatory measures to protect development against hazards as they are known to exist locally. If you have any questions, please contact our Office of Natural Hazard Reduction Evaluation toll free at (800) 424-8872. Also, our Regional Office will be pleased to answer any questions you have. The address for our Regional Office is: Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Insurance Administration Building 710 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Sincerely, SAII% AM, dl ,,,,,11,,,,c Gloria M. Jimene Federal Insurance Administrator ly' ORIGINAL • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division +.10 East 11th Avenue Deaver, Colorado 30_•_'0 • APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF: A) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS (INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS, OUTFALL SEWERS, AND- LIFT STATIONS) OVER 2,000 CPU CAPACITY. • B) INTERCEPTORS (IF REQUIRED BY C.R.S. 25-8-702 (3)) APPLICANT: Gilcrest Sanitation District ADDRESS: P.O. Box 8 Gilcrest, Colorado 80623 PHONE: 737-2426 Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: Engineering Professionals, Inc. 2625 A dtaing Rd. Suite 110 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80526 PHONE: 226-3852 A. Summary of information regarding new sewage treatment plant: 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) NW 1/4, N W 1/4, Section 27 and N E 4, N E 'B,Section 23 Township 4 Range 66 Weld County Township 4 , Range 66 (See attached Deeds for complete Weld County. Legal Description) Aerated F,rc( xan/ 2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Processes Used Percolation and Land Application Hydraulic 140,000 Organic 270 gal/day lbs. BOD5/day • Present PE 1111 Design PE 1355 % Domestic 100 % Industrial 3. Location of facility: Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 5-mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes. (b) 1-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. 4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse U/A Subsurface disposal Percolation 74% Land 20% Evaporation = 6% Other State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s) N/A Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards Section, WQCD: BOD5 30/45 mg/1 SS 30/45 mg/1 Fecal Co.],iform 23 /100 m] Total Residual Chlorine --- mg/1 Ammonia* mg/1 Other •---- _ 5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this project? rk 6. Present zoning of site area? Industrial - Plant Site; Parks & Open Space ( I') Land T.ppl Zoning with a 1-mile radius of site? 'residential, Commercial , Industrial, Pi rmi nci 7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic w,lttr supply intake? N/A (Name of Supply) (Address of Supply) What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of • diversion? N/A (Name of User) • (Address of User) * Monitoring for nitrogen (nitrite, nitrate and fecal conform) - No increase in background WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) ** - Energy Impact - Already Approved • S. !.ho has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Gilcrest; Sanitation District - -- 9. :rho owns the land upon which the cacilicy will be constructed? Gilcrest Sanitation District (Please attach copies of te document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site. ) 1:.`. Estimated project cost: Idho is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Gilcrest Sanitation District II. Names and addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility site. Central Weld Water District 2235 2nd Avenue Gre,'ley, CO 80631 (Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) 12. Is the facility in a 100 ye.= r flood plain or other natural hazard area? Pdo If so, what precautions are being taken? Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other Agency? (Agency Name) If so, what is that designation? 13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on ynur application for site approval. • 1 .. 'n•n tti.on rc,a,Lrdi^g lift stations: 1,. The proposed Lift station when fully developed will generate the following additional load: Peak Hydraulic (MGD) P.B. to be served 2. Is the site located in a 100 year flood plain? If yes, on a separate sheet of paper describe the protective measures to be taken. 3. Describe emergency system in case of station and/or power failure. 4. Name and address of facility providing treatment: 5. The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the treatment plant to % of hydraulic and % of organic capacity and agrees to treat this wastewater? Yes No (Treatmcut Agency) Date Signature and Title • -2- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) C. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a • Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application. D. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call 320-8333, Extonsi.on 5272. Recommend Recommend No Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative______ • I. 07/2 /fl X Ma gement Ag ncy (C' 1c sL . an t tatic.D: s1. , Local Government: Citie or Town'. ( If site is inside boundary or within three miles) and Sanitat -on Districts . 3- It) --€1N5 %,1\11— �.. Bo rd o 4unty to missioners , Wm 1" )403:- /' c:? • Loca % leaith Aut 5. I /151%S 151%S Ci /County Planning Authority 6. Council of Governments/Regional Plannin,- 7. State Geologist (For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. App.licati.ons for treatment plants require all signatures. ) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and have posted the site in accordance with tho regulations. . An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepr,.:d dud enclosed. DATE 7/20/85 _ LG Anthony F. Oui (11y S nature of A ica t TYPED NAME• -3- WQCD-3 (Revised 3--83) ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION In accordance with C.R.S.- 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a) , (b) , and (c) , and the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works" , the Water Quality Control Division must determine that each site location is consistent with the longrange, comprehensive planning for Lh;- area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to pin[spice the potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible. In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for e. domestic wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report describing the project and showing the applicant 's capabilities to manage and operate the faility over the life of the preje -r to determine the potential adverse impacts on water quality. The report shall be consider d the culmination of the planning process and as a minimum shall address the fo l'[awing: Ser✓ice area definition including existing population and population projections, fln:r/loading projections, and relationship to other water and wastewater treatment plants in the area. Proposed effluent limitations as developed in coordination with the Planning and Standards Section of the Division. (Allow minimum four weeks processing time. ) Analysis of existing facilities including performance of those facilities. Analysis of treatment alternatives considered. Flood plain and natural hazard analysis. Detailed description of selected alternatives including legal description of the site, treatment system description, design capacities, and operational staffing needs. Legal arrangements showing control of site for the project life. Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or covenant terms for all users which w511 he finalized to accomplished acceptable waste treatment. Mnnagnment capabilities for controlling the wastewater throughout and treatment within the capacity limitations of the proposed treatment works, i.e. , user contracts, operating agreements, pretreatment requirements. Pin:in [al system which has been developed to provide for necessary capital and continued orcron, maintenance, and replacement through the life of the project. This would include, for example, anticipated fee structure. Ire; '.;tm<antation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and estimated .. ,ri-up date. Dapending or the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. in such cases, simply indicate on the application form the non applicability of those. • • -4- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) GILCREST SANITATION DISTRICT ENGINEERING REPORT AND SITE APPLICATION FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND EFFLUENT PUMPING SYSTEM MAY 1985 PROJECT NO. : 409 .1 Prepared for : Town of Gilcrest Prepared by: Engineering Professionals, Inc. 2625 Redwing Rd. , Suite 110 Fort Collins, CO 80526 (303) 226-3852 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Background II . Service Area III. Population and Flow Projections Figure 1 - Comparison of Flows from Totalizer and Chart Recorder Table 1 - Population Projections IV. Evaluation of Existing Facilities V. Identification of Plant Limitations VI. Analysis of Alternatives Table 2 - Comparison of Alternatives VII . Recommended Alternative VIII. Flood Plain and Hazard Analysis IX. Legal Institutional and Management Arrangements X. Financial Analysis XI. Implementation APPENDIX - Agreement between Town of Gilcrest and Sanitation District - Legal Descriptions and Deeds to Parcels - 1 Mile Radius Map - 5 Mile Radius Map - Draft Site Application - Department of Health Letter - Effluent Standards EXHIBITS A - Service Area B - Proposed Improvements C - Process Schematic INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Gilcrest Sanitation District currently owns and operates an aerated lagoon/percolation wastewater system which serves the Town of Gilcrest. The Town can be characterized as a bedroom community whose citizens are primarily employed in the Greeley area. The plant facilities were upgraded in 1980 to provide for rapid growth during the 1970's. The system now consists of screening, two aerated lagoons, and six percolation ponds. The percolation ponds can not be "rested" due to the piping layout, thus constant loading on the ponds results in deteriorating capacities and other problems. In 1982 some of the percolation ponds were taken out of service and cleaned in hopes of regaining capacity, however the results were short lived. The District performed a study in 1983 and again in 1984 to identity solutions to the problem of deteriorating capacity in the ponds. In early 1985, Engineering Professionals, Inc. was retained to evaluate the problem, identify solutions which also addressed the long range goals, submit the necessary permitting applications and follow through with design and construction. The purpose of this report is to identify alternatives, financing, and pre-design issues resulting in site-application to the state. WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA Prior to examining facility problems and future needs for the Gilcrest Sanitation District, we identified the potential service area. Exhibit A delineates the projected service area of the Sanitation District. The projected service area was developed on the basis of the Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan. The projected service area includes approximately 520 acres, 150 acres of which are currently developed. The Town limits currently include approximately 415 acres. The area currently being actively served consists of the developed portions of the Town of Gilcrest. Ultimate flows from the Service Area have not been projected since the sizing of collection facilities are not being contemplated at this time. However, it is important to note that the entire service area will flow by gravity to the existing site. POPULATION AND FLOW Existing Flows The District currently measures flow using a Badger float device which continuously measures the depth of flow in their incoming Palmer Bowles flume. The depth readings are translated into instantaneous flows which are recorded on circular 7-day charts. The flow recorder is also equipped with a totalizer. A previous study indicated that the totalizer readings were erroneous and therefore we cross-checked the readings. We took instantaneous depth readings of the influent in the Palmer Bowles flume which compared favorably with instantaneous readings on the chart. We then analyzed approximately 25 random days of chart readings from 1984 to compare with average daily values obtained from the monthly meter readings. Our findings indicated a significant difference between the chart values and the totalizer readings. A graphical comparison is on the following page. (Figure 1) An interesting note regarding the seasonal sewer flows is a drop in flow during the summer months. This can be explained by the presence of the school system in Gilcrest which serves a regional area. Daily water use readings were obtained during non- irrigation season to project the school ' s contribution. The flows averaged about 10,000 gal/day during weekdays. This amount of flow will have a strong seasonal effect on plant flows. After our comparisons were complete it became our opinion that the totalizer readings are in error. Based upon the existing data we are using a value of 100,000 gal/day until the metering unit is checked and calibrated by a qualified technician. The 100,000 gal/day equates to approximately 90 gal/cap-day after adjustment for school flows. Population and Projections and Future Wastewater Flows The 1983 population of Gilcrest was 1049 which was derived from the Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan. Based upon 63 years of data, the overall annual population growth for Gilcrest is 2.3% year. Using that growth factor, population projections through the year 1020 are as follows: (Table 1) IZOK3 GASEP ON4AALY5/5 OFAZOIV CNANTY - /PO 6 i N. /Oa •••\� / +\ _ --* -.I 'S /*_ It N. / 0 \`+•• / / Q -BO k o s. PLANT RECORPS NI -N. BASEP ON TOTAL/rte REAP/N45 v W y. -4O -20 1 4 I 1 I I I F I I I 1 83 VAN 8 E� AfAt B4 d� 84 B~ 84 84P 81 04T AO TITLE Call/IM t/?ON me non P/4%/#E e/ Pa .Ia icarST PLANT Table 1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS YEAR TOTAL PRECENT PROJECTED WASTEWATER POPULATION CHANGE FLOWS* 1920 222 --- 1930 324 + 45 .9 1940 352 + 8 .6 1950 429 + 21 .8 1960 357 - 16.8 1970 382 + 7 .0 1980 1025 +168 .3 1983 1049 + 2 .3 1985 1098 + 4.6 100,000 GPD 1990 1230 + 12 . 0 112, 000 GPD 1995 1378 + 12.0 125,440 GPD 2000 1544 + 12 . 0 140,500 GPD 2005 1730 + 12 .0 157,350 GPD 2010 1937 + 12. 0 176,250 GPD * Assumes proportional growth in wastewater flows with population. It is unlikely that population growth will occur in such a steady manner, since small communities tend to grow in spurts. Increases in wastewater flows however will generally be proportional with population growth. Influent Concentrations With the exception of a few spot tests , influent and effluent data is not available for the plant. What few tests are documented indicate relatively normal BOD5 loads and less than normal TSS loads. Influent ammonia as nitrogen has been evaluated at approximately 30 mg/l. For the purposes of this pre-design study influent concentrations will be conservatively assumed at 225 mg/1 for BOD5 and TSS and 35 mg/1 for ammonia as N. These values will also be used for future load calculations. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES pesian Capacity The existing plant's site application, filed in 1980, indicates that the hydraulic capacity of the plant is 300,000 GPD. The most recent State plant inspection report also reveals the same hydraulic capacity and an organic capacity of 500 lbs/day of BOD5. Collection Facilities The District has a total of 13,000 LF of sewer main most of which is 8 inch, except for two force mains and approximately 2250 LF of 10". There are two lift stations in the collection system. Discussions with the former operator indicate that a problem area exists at the 12th Street lift station where the influent main lines form a tee however no manhole was ever placed. The most recent State inspection report also reveals the lack of a portable blower for use in the lift stations and manholes. Treatment Facilities Treatment facilities consist of a bar screen and two aerated ponds. Inflow into the plant is by gravity to a small concrete box which houses the bar screen, Palmer Bowles flume and depth meter. The box is open to the weather. The screen is cleaned manually and screenings are dried and bagged for disposal. The flow metering devices are suspected to be in error as discussed previously and attention by a qualified technician is recommended. The two aerated lagoons are operated in series by design. Aeration facilities consist of a 30 Hp blower and nine Inco aeration grids. There are six aeration grids in Pond #1 and three grids in Pond #2. Total system capacity is 1165 lbs per day oxygen transfer and 2690 SCFM. Assuming a 2.5 :1 oxygen transfer efficiency and a 225 mg/1 BOD5 influent the aeration cpacity can be estimated as follows: (1165 lbs - O2/day / 2.5) Flow Capacity = _ = 2.90 MGD (225-30 mg/1 BOD5) (8 .34) or 290,000 GPD Pond #1 has a surface area of 55700 ft2 and a volume of 1.9 million gallons. Pond #2 has a surface area of 13000 ft2 and a volume of 450,000 gallons. The existing aeration ponds have a combined capacity of 2.35 million gallons which would provide enough detention capacity for a flow of 196,000 GPD with 12 days of detention time. It should be noted that the ponds cannot be raised to provide additional detention time without adjusting the level of influent and the elevation of the aeration grids. Pond #2 is lined with a rubber liner and is in good condition. Pond #1 could use some attention with respect to bank maintenance on the North side. The condition of the lining on Pond #1 is unknown but there is evidence of an old liner being present. It can be assumed that it has sealed itself due to many years use, even if it is unlined. Settling and Percolation Facilities The aeration ponds are followed by six percolation ponds which are operated in series, by design. There are no designated settling facilities so settling occurs as the flow passes through the percolation ponds. The current system does not allow for any "resting" of percolation beds. All but the final pond remain in a fully loaded condition year round. Consequently, percolation capacity deteriorates quickly with time. In 1982 some of the ponds were cleaned resulting in a temporary regain of capacity, however, the ponds are again full. The soil at the site is extremely sandy (valent sand) and thus has excellent percolation qualities. The entire Gilcrest area has sandy well-drained soils which are suitable for agricultural uses especially in growing crops such as onions and potatoes. The actual existing percolation rate of the ponds is calculated as follows: Compute Evaporation: Total pond surface area - 158,000 ft2 Ft. Collins evaporation = 38 . 92 c 1.23 x .7 = 33.51 in/yr. from 1938-1970 data Ft. Collins Station U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau. 33 . 5 in/yr 158, 000 ft2 x 7 . 48 gal/ft3 = 3, 300,000 gal/yr 12 in/yr (21 gal/ft2-yr) Compute Flow Percolated: Total Influent - Evaporation = Total Percolation 365 day/yr(100,000 gpd)-3,300,000 gal/yr = 33,200,000 gal/yr Compute Actual Percolation Rate: - Assume ponds 1 and 2 do not contribute to percolation loss. Total Perc / Total Area of 6 Perc. Ponds = Perc. Rate 33,200,000 gal/yr / 89 ,300 ft2 = 370 gal/ft2 - yr . (1 gal/ft2 day; 1.62 in/day; .07 in/hr) As can be seen a rate of .07 in/hr is extremely low, especially for the sandy soil at the site. Given the type of soil, percolation rates of three to five times as great should be expected if the soil is allowed even minimal resting periods. The constant hydraulic loading of the percolation beds also creates a condition not conducive to nitrification and denitrification of the effluent. Although significant nitrification can be expected in the aeration ponds during summer months, the percoaltion beds probably are doing little to promote further nitrogren breakdown. Nitrification and denitrification by percolation requries periodic aerobic soil conditions which is not possible under existing conditions. The municipal wells in Gilcrest have suffered high nitrate and nitrite levels for years. Although local agricultural uses have probably been the greatest contributors to this problem, incomplete nitrogen breakdown in the percolation ponds has not helped the nitrogen levels in the aquifers. IDENTIFICATION OF PLANT LIMITATIONS In its current mode of operation, the plant is near its actual hydraulic cpacity based upon inspection of percolation pond levels. Although the State recognizes the design capacity as 300, 000 GPD based on the design report, there are some limiting factors which we feel are present that prevent the plant from achieving that flow. As operated, the hydraulic capacity of the facility is probably currently only slightly greater than the existing flow of 100, 000 gpd. With no mechanism to allow the percolation beds to rest, the percolation capacity is currently severely reduced from clogging of the soil pores due to constant loading. Even with minimal resting of the percolation beds, percolation rates could conceivably be restored to nearer the design rating. The addition of "resting time" would also promote the nitrification and denitrification processes within the soil beds. Our evaluation of the facilities indicates that the hydraulic capacity of the plant is by far the most serious limiting condition and that plant modifications which would allow for "resting" of the percolation beds would significantly restore capacity. Other plant facilities are generally not limiting factors until flows approach 200,000 GPD at which point aeration detention time starts becoming insufficient. In very basic terms, the basic problem with facility is its ability to handle plant effluent. ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES In developing alternatives, we considered facilities, equipment and/or modifications which generally would result in increased hydraulic capacities in the range of 140,000 GPD to 190,000 GPD. Because of treatment and detention times, this entails increased mechanisms for handling plant effluent. Alternatives identified could be classified into three categories; discharge to a receiving water, increased percolation and land application. Discharge Alternatives Several points of discharge are available to the District and are listed as follows: o Platte River - The closest distance to discharge is approximately 2.8 miles. This alternate is very attractive in terms of treatment, future expansion, possible groundwater degradation, and operation. The main drawback is cost and the ability of the District to finance pumping and piping facilities. o Irrigation Ditches - Two irrigation ditches are within reasonable distance from the plant; the Western Mutual and the Farmers Independence. Both ditch boards were adamantly opposed to entertaining any notions of acceptance of flows. Even if either ditch company would be willing to accept the wastewater problems would be encountered due to the amount of crops (potatoes and onions) that are grown for human consumption in the region. o Discharge to an Illdefined Seepageway East of the Interstate Discharge could be accomplished by piping under the interstate and allowing the wastewater to seek its overland course to the river. A previous meeting with Weld County Health officials produced a strong negative reaction to this plan on the basis of drainage as well as quality issues. Of the three discharge alternatives, discharge to the Platte River is probably by far the most attractive long term solution to the District's wastewater problem. Discharge could ultimately eliminate the percolation process thus allowing the plant site to become expandable to nearly .5 MGD which could more than meet the District's projected 25 year needs. Increased Percolation In order to increase the plant's ability to percolate flows, the existing piping and pond structure must be modified to permit "resting" periods in the beds. Unfortunately, the ability to work on the ponds alone creates the need to dispose of flows for a significant period of time. The District currently owns a 3.25 acre parcel approximately 1300 feet west of the existing site which could be used on a temporary, seasonal or permanent basis for the transfer of flow. The use of the site for permanent percolation facilities has met with strong disapproval from the community and could face possible negation at the Town Planning and Zoning level since a special use permit would he necessary for a percolation pond. Temporary use of the site might include flooding for several weeks while pond modifications are being undertaken. These alternatives allow for plant modifications which would increase on-site effluent handling by up to 50%. Permanent use of the additional site also allows for additional flow capacity. Land Application Land application processes could be coupled with expansion of the percolation facilities or complete application away from the site. Only one landowner in the area was willing to accept the waste flows however initial discussions quickly indicated the desire to grow potatoes and onions on the land application site and the inability to separate flows between corn and the human consumption crops. Although corn is a major crop in the area potato and onion crops are typically rotated. Another major drawback is the need to create some storage in order to develop appreciable flows for crop irrigation. If the District's existing 3.25 acre site were used for storage, double pumping would be necessary and the problem of zoning would again be in question. Alternately, land acquisition would be necessary to create storage. Another possible land application site is the District 's 3 .25 acre parcel which could produce hay or a recreational grassed site. The site, however would not accept total plant flows. One of the elements common to any of the alternates discussed is the need for a pumping facility on-site, and with the exception of temporary use of the District's additional site, each alternate requires permanent pumping facilities. A tabular comparison of the most promising specific alternates can be found on the following page (Table 2) . In order to properly assess the alternatives it is necessary to consider public reaction, initial cost and long term goals in addition to present worth analysis. Alternatives 2 and 3 are obviously by far two of the least expensive initially and over long term considerations. However, both alternatives pose negative sentiments. Alternative 3 continues to use percolation to groundwater over the 25 year period which could have some negative impact on groundwater. Alternative 1 is obviously the most attractive long term alternative, however, it has a high initial price tag. Alternatives 4 and 5 have reasonable initial capital costs and both are expandable to a system which would discharge to the Platte. Although aternative 4 has the lowest front end cost, the present worth of alternative 6 is similar because facilities constructed in 1985 are useful throughout the 25 year period. Alternative 5 is obviously too high with few benefits over any other alternative. 4 0)1) .C >i 01 44 4 W 3 0 C 00N 0' 4J V C oW A • 1) O N 41 O JJ 4 N ..I C C L N 0 > H W 0 .i 04 •" RI ..i H 4 7 Cf 0 0 W 4 •.I N 'v co C W .. 0 C) JJ 3704 0 C 1JNJJ C4 A ,17 04 H '7i CC y•.Ei i U �C) OHN 3 ° O 0400H00 .0 CC W O O yi O) A •.1 0' H •.I .- 0 H 4J *10430 rt 'O TO 0 'O .-I 4 .0 1) CO H ri U •.I 'O C RS •.I C .i W ro 0' •�.,yi . N 7 4. V 03 II 7 0 o (( 'O 41 'C Ui '0 0 0 >> 04'0 0+ 4 1) 4) 301 0 C •.I N CA W V '4-I C W a m x 0 9 .° W ED C) 0 4J 0' Cd 4J W CI 4 x • Cl 0 N C1 0 C > i) 4 •.i a W id C N R3 to A C W 0 0 C 0 U) >I C a 'd W 0 W Q aa)) C7.Oi H W C 3 3 A .-I-I•>i >11I O �.1 .. [Z� [A Ha 00071 orn o • 0 044 W 0404 +J .0 •0 4 C1) to 4 W ova.) O U m a) X '° ..O •.IW X .. C W •.I WOa OW W0W AO '0W W a) W7M0 > •.ie U > z H W co 4 C 1J N C • t0 • 0 W N E O W•.I JJ 7 --I z .JC ,4rt • OOt OOE Ww0 O 7H'O 4.) 10 t0 .i4 O aJ•.I •.I O • a) W04WW 0O > ° W 0 C44O O01C CS U W EEC a; > aIOC M'o •.i HU OS .I ..I a .WOE I ° G .,Ij .0 .00 ° IWi0 0E0r0 • ma) • •. '1 4-1 4.-1 o a) y "i 1J a OW 1) •"4 7 04 t ' W ••i ow a co 1J •.I C C W I7 >I >r 10 10 b •.i >I C JJ E W '•I >i °+ 1) C 0 > v co C •.i 0 4' .i IJ E .i N .IJ O .4 •.I W C 10 1J 4 •.I ^i W W O X E 4 z A•'IECm 0 .C-HO CX1J 4-1 ..-I CS C 0 -i-) 'oA OW7 E0 •.I o W '0 4J 4 H yI A •.4 b •.1 .i .,i U .C ••i W 4J 0 •.I r1 .C 7 A CO W 1) 4 N W 1J W r1 CH a N m b O 1•I co amO' ro1) •.i E10OH 3 I Oa040) 3NAC 0000 0' E4 'ON O ro > a) a) HC co W7W 00000a) •.i 007N44 •.400 W•.I P4 U DI H RI •.I Co m 0' 3 a 4J 0 H U U 'O a U O H 0444 MO 41 Z '0 iI iI 0 0 w Ei 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 H N m za H 0 o 0 o IQ, W X U *r N N M � zz a 0 a M N N Pa a 3 w r( (0- f r (r ()). N El • m a 04 < U W< n �. �• '••I en Pao 04 • El 1 •74N • H HM 111 44 0 Ei z HPy En 'C a N q. ca- VI-I< O C7 U i0•0 s� a) UUm H H W K N -e O O O o rn co SC H I.a O co ko en m O 0 O p4 vi v In in rn o O U' to co- t0. Vr CO- 03- >1 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 u - . 040 0 0 o O H CT H M1/40 0 H H i H 0 0 0 0 a <<(0- 0 '• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 'O 4 . O H H 7 O' CO n co *r in p, co .-1 0 V' N O 0, d' 4 0 0 W N H 6••I U0 C en t0• CM C0• CO- W H O H H 0 W W W JJ CS •.I C >1 b 0 w 0'aJ H Le 4-1 �W1roi O 'd 'UOCW) 000000 4i 14 A Z • .ro . 4 0 0 O W •.i 4 1 H •.1 •.i ) M•ri U .C 4 4) 0U)0 1) 4 J 4 0 1 -.-1N 0 W C C4 UP4 W C) 4-I W •.I 0V ••i JJ W 043 •.I1.I W 'oHaJ a N • ° . N CO > t0 CO 4J 04 4 C 'O W 4J a 0 '0 CO 4.1 C a••i 4 0 W ' E! •1 a •.i ro C '0 W 0 '° •'i •.i W H 'O •.i •-i it a 4 asW t0 ' oraH ICaaICCm Hw 'Cca0 a ,Oww mD . 4 N M C in 'D . RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Recommendation The District is not able to finance alternatives 1 or 5 at this time, however, alternatives 3 and 4 provide facilities which make expansion to alternate 1 fairly easy. Because of Weld County's opposition to alternative 2, for which there is some cause, and because alternative 3 has strong negative reaction, we believe that alternative 6 presents the most attractive alternate. Alternative 3 would have very significant aesthetic drawbacks and would possibly not clear local planning and zoning. Alternative 4 does not provide for any mechanism to periodically extend resting of the percolation ponds nor does it provide any facilities which are usable permanently in a plan which would ultimately discharge to the river. Almost by the process of elimination, we would recommend submission of alternative 6 for site application approval . Description of Alternative 6 Alternative 6 would consist of the installation of a lift station to the north of and between existing cells 6 and 8. The lift station would pump flow from the site approximately 1300 feet to the west to the District's parcel at County Roads 31 and 42. Plant piping would also be added to allow for the transfer of flow between percolation beds. Ponds 5 and 6 would be combined as well as ponds 4, 7, and 8. The pumping facility could draw from either ponds 3, 6, or 8 as shown. These drawing points are necessary to provide for settling prior to land application. Along with the modifications at the site, the beds will be rehabilitated to restore the initial percolation rates. The plant's effluent can then be alternated between three beds which will allow for "resting" which will allow for aeration of the beds and maintenance of percolation capacity. "Resting" periods could increase during the summer when portions of the flow are also directed to the additional site where grass or hay could be cultivated. A chlorinator will be added to the lift station and an oversized force main will provide chlorine contact. This will allow for some human contact at the land application site. Exhibit B diagrams the plant's basic upgrades. The plant's process schematic and component capacities are outlined in Exhibit C. Several of the ponds were combined to create larger percolation areas, reduce bank maintenance and to limit the number of ponds to be operated and the associated piping. With the "resting" and drying periods the percolation rate will be increased back to near original design capacity. For the purposes of conservatism, this report is estimating a doubling of percolation rates which will allow the beds aeration time in a dry condition. More tests will be performed at the discharge permit stage which will allow a better prediction. It is very likely that far greater capacity is available. The seasonal land application system will allow additional resting and bed rehabilitation time during the summer. Since it is necessary to develop at least a temporary pumping and piping facility just to modify the ponds, permanent facilities are more useful and create an extremely important mechanism which would allow for exteneded maintenance in the beds. The plant currently requires little operation except for maintenance, cleaning of the bar screen, and DO testing. The new alternative would require some actual plant operation and testing. The flooding and drying operations would be strictly manual through the use of valves which will allow the operator some additional freedom to observe and adjust the operation of each bed. The land application system would operate automatically; however mowing operations would be required. It is expected that plant operations and maintenance requirements would increase by 10 hrs/week. The District would experience only slight administrative time increases. FLOODPLAIN AND HAZARD ANALYSIS Neither the existing plant site nor the land application site are within designated flood plains nor is there any geologic hazard at either site. The application site does accept some urban drainage and the existing plant site retains its own drainage into the ponds. LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS The Gilcrest Sanitation District was formed as a special purpose District under Colorado State statute to provide sanitary sewer service to the Town of Gilcrest. The District shares equipment and staff with the Town who employs a certified operator. The arrangement has provided a strong maintenance base for the District. A copy of the District and Town's joint use agreement is included in the Appendix. The District owns both sites which are to be used in the implementation of the recommended alternative. The deeds and legal descriptions of the sites are included in the Appendix. The District is managed by a Board of Directors who hire a part-time professional manager. Staff consists of a clerk and maintenance man who are hired by the Town and shared with the District as the District shares the cost of their salaries. The maintenance man has a "C" wastewater certification with the State of Colorado. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In analyzing the ability of the Gilcrest Sanitation District to bear the costs of the proposed improvements, the 1984 audit and the 1985 budget were reviewed with respect to the anticipated capital costs and operation and maintenance costs. The project cost of Alternative 6 is $138,000 which includes both engineering and construction costs. The District's major sources of initial capital are $72,868.00 of cash on hand (at the beginning of 1985) and a $45 , 000 .00 energy impact grant. Budgeted expenses and revenues for exclusive of those relative to the expansion project are projected to yield an additional $19,380.00. Although this appears to adequately cover the expenditures it is necessary to maintain approximately $16,000.00 to cover operating cash flow during the first few months of 1986. Therefore, approximately $121,000 can be considered available during 1985. The remaining $17,000.00 needed can be financed through several different mechanisms or the expenditure for sprinkling system, seeding and site work at the land application site can be foregone until 1986. Except for initial draining the site would not be needed until after that time. The District could also finance the $17 , 000.00 through several other mechanisms or combinations thereof. 1. The District (through the Town) has applied for lottery funds to be used in seeding, sprinkling and sitework at the site. 2 . The Town may contribute funds for the same purposes. 3. Debt financing (although it is unlikely that this will be needed) over 5 years would result in yearly payments of $4334.00 (10%, 5 years) which is within the level of yearly projected retained earnings. Yearly operating and maintenance costs are expected to raise after plant modifications are completed. The increase in costs will be due to addition testing, operation, and increased operator time. The initial increase is estimated at $6,340.00 per year which should begin in 1986 and may drop significantly in 1987 then rise at inflationary rates. Following is an analysis of 1986 as a test year . Assume revenue 1986 = 1985 $76964 .00/yr - from 1985 budget Expenditures = 1985 Budget x 1.08 + $6340. 00 ($57584.00 x 1.08) + $6340.00 = $ 68530 .00 Net Income = 76964 - 68530 = $8433.00 Note: The $8433.00 net income would be more than sufficient to cover the anticipated debt service should $17,000.00 of capital improvements be financed through debt. IMPLEMENTATION The District should follow-up site application with the discharge permit process for the overall facility as well as the proposed modifications. Design of facilities will occur during the discharge permit process which must preceed discharge by 180 days. However, the plant currently has no discharge permit, therefore, the 180 days probably has little bearing on operation. Construction however should not proceed until the District has the necessary assurance that the plan, design and facilities are acceptable to the State Health Department. At this time, it is reasonable to assume that construction may begin as early as October with full operation in 1986. Although there is not a great deal of heavy construction involved, it will take at least 3 months to implement the plan because of the necessary coordination and effort necessary to keep the facility in operation while modifications are taking place. APPENDIX of•Coc COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Richard D. Lamm " s'"� N°~` * Thomas M.Vernon, M.D. Governor 1876 'E Executive Director July 3, 1985 John P. McGinn, P.E. Engineering Professionals, Inc. 2625 Redwing Road, Suite 110 Ft. Collins, Colo. 80526 • RE: Gilcrest Sanitation District Effluent Limits Dear Mr. McGinn: Your request for effluent limits for Gilcrest has been reviewed by this division as requested by you in your letter of May 24, 1985. The following limits will apply to alternative 6 (Engineering Report) at a point following the rapid infiltration basis: - BOD/TSS: Secondary treatment (30/45 mg/1) . Waiver of SS to 75/110 mg/1 possible upon demonstration of inability to meet lower limits. - TRC: No limit. - Coliform Bacteria: 2.2 org/100 ml if irrigation is used next to dwellings. Otherwise, 23 org/100 ml would be adequate. - Monitoring: Subsurface monitoring devices should be used. No increase over background of nitrite, nitrate, or fecal coliforms is allowed. If you have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Very Trul Yours, o/ Jo Scherschligt ction Chief Planning and Standards Section Water Quality Control Division JS:njf XC: Gary Girolimon Tom Bennett District Engineer Gilcrest Sanitation District JUL 0 8 1985 EXHIBITS W Q � w(35 � - � � CO z W O te W W H U Q Z f- CC Cl) J o coa a c� kiliC CO w cww z a I -- z _> > _� o J I r tr 22 z ~ J lsl ` I 1 I o w W a ~ ! F— 4. CO W J ! I I I L1 nl t'' J ± I I I \ ��3 _ I I iI \ r�� V Z tic 11 w I I v � 4 , A k g'h-i �. . - -� -® ° .. ttww �.'. re •`,,. V Q I •' \ ' Z Q L' ' ® I W —n u n l J 19_ ■■■■■HHI■■■■ �I� . - 1 --', L , I I -R1► _ - - - - L --I L_— li ; ir r I..°n..a. kJ ae o I • I II : ' I °• I L I ` I i J - - - - _ J — J L u cz 0 I „iI 1 1 I // II I h I " I I Z o to A/...........44./ ____I-I_ _ o I // II W I // W = w If i �i I II N o , II- II LC O i I Fr , r III I o I , ! I I ≤ Zr v \ h h W �Kiel • --au k CO CA gi ` �LiZI•Q liNI\NNN W CL~• i ti h hh: klc te TA. q I -S- -75.,` a % = . $ . J W k a �� I- � z C3 I ° h h 41 a a i kJ c) 1.. O i 1* N •J to ` h lb Ili CO ^o V V 0 %)) q( n0�` W1/4. W 0 2 ro ki h kZ ` W O II V ^ �.� C 0 O " e W � Qoo O -, li C. Et hd co d bIb u._ itch h o ct � o kWWW [per •.p2. `cc `1 l f �/� \ • k % h � N U O o ollk w Id�� Nc WD tl'ij NIatn o 0 o > #F CC Isl W Q Z Z a. 0 W N Q C w 1' a o 0 LF Oba' .tLN?OJ ' , W al ‘ , 4 R � a NCI Qh N kt \ h 0 h H v 29S69 i • PROCESS SCHEMATIC 10" Ave. day Influent - 300,000 GPD Line (Peak hr. - 1.05 MGD) 1 Bar Screen and Flow - Same as above Meter 1 Aeration Daily flow Facilities Air Equipment - 290,000 GPD 12 days detention - 196,000 GPD A B C Area - 30,000ft2 36,000ft2 29,000 ft2 Capacity* - 44,000 GPD 53,000 GPD 43,000 GPO Operation - 4/9 5/8 4/9 POND PONDS PONDS (flood/rest) 3 4,7,8 5,6 days A B C LAND 3.25 acre site can accept APPLICATION approximately 16 ac ft/yr or • approximately 30,000 GPD during 180 day growing season. PERCOLATION (Based upon approximately 200 kg/HA nitrogen uptake) * Loading Rate (winter) = 72 ft/yr (22 m/yr) Loading Rate (sunnier) = 56 ft/yr (17 m/yr) TITLE GILCREST PROCESS SCHEMATIC 4:314914 o"r�ur'i�c ALTERNATIVE 6 EXHIBIT IC Hello