Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2010-10-12CITY OF MOAB October 12, 2010 PRESENTATION 5:30 PM PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP 6:30 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS (217 East Center Street) Page 1 of 135 Page 2 of 135 Moab City CouncilMaster Meeting Calendar*110/8/2010 2:10 PM*Meeting end times are approximations onlyMoab City Recorder's OfficeSMTWT F S12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 3031October 2010SMTWT F S1234567 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30November 2010October 2010Sep 26 - Oct 2Sep 2627282930Oct 12Oct 3 - 934567896:00pm 7:00pm GCAB3:00pm 4:00pm GC Counci5:00pm 6:00pm KZMU Boa7:00pm 9:00pm GC Counci7:00pm 9:00pm CVTC3:00pm 4:00pm GCSWSSD3:30pm 4:00pm MARC7:00pm 9:00pm GWSSAOct 10 - 161011121314151612:30pm 2:00pm GCCOA3:00pm 4:00pm GCSDBE W3:00pm 3:30pm MVFPD6:30pm 9:00pm Moab CC6:00pm 7:00pm GC PC7:00pm 8:00pmTSSD6:30pm 8:00pm Moab PC7:00pm 8:00pm CVFPOct 17 - 23171819202122233:00pm 4:00pm GC Counci7:00pm 9:00pm GC Counci5:00pm 6:30pm GCLB6:00pm 7:00pm GCSDBE6:00pm 6:30pm GCRSSDOct 24 - 302425262728293012:00pm 12:30pm MTPSC6:30pm 9:00pm Moab CC6:00pm 7:00pm GC PC6:00pm 6:30pm Joint CC/PC6:30pm 8:00pm Moab PCOct 31 - Nov 631Nov 123456SundayMondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdayPage 3 of 135 EntryFull DescriptionMeeting LocationDatesCHCSSDCanyonlands Health Care Special Service District Grand Center #4Last ThursdayCVFPCastle Valley Fire ProtectionCommunity Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 2nd ThursdayCVPCCastle Valley Planning CommissionCommunity Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 1st WednesdayCVTCCastle Valley Town CouncilCommunity Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 3rd WednesdayGCCMDGrand County Cemetary Maintenance DistrictSunset Memorial Cemetary2nd TuesdayGC Council Meeting Grand County Council Meeting125 East Center Street1st & 3rd TuesdayGCABGrand County Airport Board125 East Center Street2nd TuesdayGCCOAGrand County Council on AgingGrand Center2nd MondayGCHECGrand County Higher Education CommitteeUSU Extension Office4th ThursdayGCHPCGrand County Historic Preservation Committee Grand Center4th WednesdayGCLBGrand County Library Board257 East Center Street2nd WednesdayGCPCGrand County Planning Commission125 East Center Street2nd & 4th WednesdayGCRSSDGrand County Recreation Special Service District 217 East Center Street2nd WednesdayGCSDBEGrand County School District Board of Education 264 South 400 East3rd WednesdayGCSWSSD Grand County Solid Waste Special Service District 100 Sand Flats Road1st ThursdayGCWBGrand County Weed BoardGrand Center1st MondayGWSSAGrand Water & Sewer Service Agency3025 East Spanish Trail Road1st & 3rd ThursdayLPCLegislative Policy CommitteeUtah Local Governments Trust No. SLC 3rd MondayMARCMoab Arts and Recreation Center Advisory Board 111 E. 100 North1st ThursdayMATCABMoab Area Travel Council Advisory Board125 East Center Street4th ThursdayMC Council Meeting Moab City Council Meeting217 East Center Street2nd & 4th TuesdayMCPCMoab City Planning Commission217 East Center Street2nd & 4th ThursdayMMADMoab Mosquito Abatement Distrcit1000 East Sand Flats Road1st or 2nd ThursdaySEUALGSouth Eastern Utah Association of Local Government Price2nd ThursdaySEUDHDSouth Eastern Utah District Health Department Green River City OfficesTRAIL MIXTrail MixGrand Center2nd Tuesday noonTSSDThompson Special Service DistrictThompson Springs Fire Station2nd TuesdayTSSFDThompson Special Service Fire DistrictThompson Springs Fire Station2nd ThursdayPage 4 of 135                City of Moab – Regular Council Meeting City Council Chambers: 217 East Center Street Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.       5:30 p.m. MOAB WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING REVIEW    6:30 p.m. PRE‐COUNCIL WORKSHOP           7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    SECTION 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES  1‐1 August 24, 2010  1‐2 September 14, 2010  1‐3 September 28, 2010    SECTION 2: CITIZENS TO BE HEARD     SECTION 3: DEPARTMENTAL UPDATES  3‐1 Community Development Department  3‐2 Engineering Department  3‐3 Planning Department  3‐4 Police Department  3‐5 Public Works Department  SECTION 4: PRESENTATIONS   4‐1 Presentation by the Utah Division of Water Quality Regarding Nutrient  Removal Cost Impact Study  SECTION 5: NEW BUSINESS  5‐1 Approval of Proposed Resolution #18‐2010 – A Resolution Accepting the  Public Improvements Installed for the Extension of the Sewer System  Associated with the North Area Trunk Sewer Project and Authorizing the  Appropriate Parties to Execute and Deliver a Corresponding Sewer Line  Dedication, Easement and Warranty of Improvements 5‐2 Approval of a Relinquishment of a Temporary Construction Easement for the  North Area Trunk Sewer     City of Moab  217 East Center Street  Moab, Utah 84532  Main Number (435) 259‐5121  Fax Number (435) 259‐4135  www.moabcity.org  Page 5 of 135 5‐3 Approval of a Two‐lot Minor Subdivision for Property Located at 420 Kane  Creek Boulevard and Located in the I‐1 Industrial Zone  5‐4 Approval of the 2011 Moab City Holiday Schedule  5‐5 Approval of an Amendment to the 2010 Moab City Holiday Schedule  5‐6 Approval of the 2011 Moab City Regular Council Meeting Schedule  5‐7 Approval of a Moved‐on Structure for Mark Zink, Located at 311 South Main  Street to Conduct a display on April 19, 2011  SECTION 6: READING OF CORRESPONDENCE    SECTION 7: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS    SECTION 8: REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY COOPERATION    SECTION 9: MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS    SECTION 10: APPROVAL OF BILLS AGAINST THE CITY OF MOAB    SECTION 11: ADJOURNMENT    In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting  should notify the Recorder’s Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532;  or phone (435) 259‐5121 at least three  (3) working days prior to the meeting.  Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org  Page 6 of 135 July 21, 2010 Moab Wastewater Facilities Planning Review Moab WWTP Overview Page 7 of 135 Moab WWTP Overview • Seasonal loading characteristics result in occasional permit violations. • Biological process is overloaded. • Existing discharge point in Colorado River gives flexibility due to minimal potential for pollution indicators. Increased Regulatory Interest • Statewide Nutrient Standards Review • Increasing pressure due to occasional permit violations. • Changes in state regulations. • Increased oversight from EPA. • State increasing inspection of WWTPs, Collection Systems, and Pretreatment Plans. • Moab needs to plan responses, leading to Master Plan effort. Page 8 of 135 Design Condition vs. Current Loading Criteria 1996 Design Condition Current Condition (2007-2009) Average Daily Flow, MGD 1.5 0.96 Peak Daily Flow, MGD 1.28 Peak Hourly Flow, MGD 3.1 2.97 Minimum Hourly Flow, MGD 0.15 0.43 Average BOD Load, lb/day 2450 2050 Peak BOD Load, lb/day 3300 4300 Average BOD Concentration, mg/L 196 255 Average TSS Load, lb/day 2600 2010 Peak TSS Load, lb/day 3300 5400 Average TSS Concentration, mg/L 208 249 Flow Trends for Moab WWTP Page 9 of 135 Loading Trends for Moab WWTP Per Capita Loading Conditions Page 10 of 135 Loading Projections Design Criteria for 2030 Criteria Value Average Daily Flow 1.30 MGD Peak Daily Flow 1.67 MGD Peak Hourly Flow 3.20 MGD Minimum Hourly Flow 0.60 MGD Average BOD Load 2,720 lbs/day Average BOD Concentration 256 mg/L Average TSS Load 2,484 lbs/day Average TSS Concentration 234 mg/L Page 11 of 135 Moab WWTP Influent Pump Station Headworks (Screens/Grit ) Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters Secondary Clarifiers / Disinfection Primary Anaerobic Digester Secondary Anaerobic Digester Sludge Drying Beds Septage Receiving Influent Pump Station Description • (2) Archimedes Screw Pumps, 2150 gpm (3.1 MGD) capacity Deficiencies • 2030 peak hourly flow is slightly higher than single pump capacity. Recommendations • Should add pump in approximately 2025. Page 12 of 135 Headworks Description • (1) Automatic Bar Screen – 1” • (1) Manual Bar Screen – ½” • (1) Vortex Grit Trap – 8.5’Ø • (1) Screenings Compactor • (1) Grit Classifier • (1) Comminutor (Grinder) Deficiencies • Screening arrangement is not optimal. Headworks (cont.) Deficiencies (cont.) • State screening and grit requirements now recommend two screens and grit. • Screen prone to icing. • Comminutor not recommended for this facility. Recommendations • Replace existing automatic screen and manual screen with (2) new automatic screens. Page 13 of 135 Headworks (cont.) Recommendations (cont) • Replace existing automatic screen and manual screen with (2) new automatic screens. • Enclose or heat trace screens. • Add a third channel for screen bypass with manual screen. • No changes to grit system. • Eliminate comminutor. Primary Clarifiers Description • (2) 40’Ø Plow-type clarifiers Deficiencies • Clarifier No. 1 is quite old and depth is more shallow than state recommendation. Recommendations • No changes recommended (collection efficiency is excellent, units well maintained). Page 14 of 135 Trickling Filters Description • (1) 72’Ø, (1) 80’Ø Rock MediaTrickling Filters with Motorized distributors mechanisms Deficiencies • Biological process capacity is routinely exceeded. • Cold and transitional weather reduces effectiveness. • Little nutrient removal. Trickling Filters (cont.) Alternatives for Review: • New or expanded biological process required. • Previous consideration provided to covering trickling filters, oxidation ditches, RBCs, hybrid systems, conventional activated sludge. • Process selected will also impact solids handling facilities. • Energy efficiency and footprint. Page 15 of 135 Trickling Filters (cont.) Recommendations • Supplement existing process with (2) 20’x100’ aeration basins (Trickling Filter/Solids Contact Process). • Continue using trickling filters with aeration basins unless State of Utah implements nitrogen removal standards.BLOWERSSecondary Clarifiers Description • (2) 40’Ø Plow-type clarifiers • Chlorination occurs in secondary clarifiers using gas chlorinator. Deficiencies • Both clarifiers have difficulty with settling solids. • State of Utah recommends separate disinfection facilities. • Chlorine gas presents safety concerns. Page 16 of 135 Secondary Clarifiers (cont.) Deficiencies (cont.) • Secondary sludge is routed to headworks. Recommendations • Addition of (1) 60’ diameter spirally raked secondary clarifier. • Send sludge to digester. • Addition of chlorine contact chamber. • Inclusion of on-site hypochlorite generator in design. Solids Handling Facilities Description • (1) 45’Ø Primary Digester with floating lid and turbine mixer. • (1) 33’Ø Secondary Digester with fixed lid (sludge storage) • (8) Drying beds, various sizes • Solids disposal at landfill. Deficiencies • Insufficient drying bed capacity for current loads and for future treatment levels. Page 17 of 135 Solids Handling Facilities (cont.) Deficiencies (cont.) • Digesters have structural issues. • Drying beds have structural problems. Recommendations • Refurbishment of digesters (cover and mixer replacement) • Mechanical dewatering facility. • Repair newest beds, demolish oldest beds. Moab WWTP - Expanded BLOWERSPage 18 of 135 Cost of Improvements Improvement Timeline for Completion Cost of Construction Influent Pump Station 2025 $150,000 Screening Improvements 2012 $300,000 Aeration Basins / Blowers 2013 $2,500,000 Secondary Clarifier 2013 $650,000 Disinfection Basin 2012 $250,000 Dewatering Facility 2012 $2,500,000 Digester Refurbishments 2015 $500,000 Total:$6,850,000 Potential Regulations – Nutrient Removal • State currently studying implementation of new nutrient standards, with 4 scenarios: • Future design must include contingency to meet potential new regulations. Tier Total Phosphorus, mg/L Total Nitrogen, mg/L 1N 0.1 10 1 0.1 No limit 2N 1.0 20 2 1.0 No limit 3 Base condition Base condition Page 19 of 135 Moab WWTP – Nutrient Removal BLOWERSSecondary Clarifier Dewatering / Admin / Hypo(6) 20’x100’ BNR Aeration Basins Filtration Nature Conservancy Project Page 20 of 135 Nature Conservancy Project • Beneficial reuse of WWTP effluent. • Hydraulic concerns appear to be resolved. • Regulatory concerns: – Existing permit – Colorado River receiving body – With diversion – State may interpret wetland as receiving body. – State of Utah has not resolved how they will regulate these types of projects. Page 21 of 135     City of Moab  Wastewater Facilities Master Plan DRAFT October 2010 Prepared for: The City of Moab by: MWH Americas 10619 So. Jordan Gateway Suite 100 South Jordan, Utah 84095 Page 22 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  i | Page    TABLE OF CONTENTS  A. Introduction ......................................................................... 1  B. Existing and Future Conditions............................................. 2  1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification ......................................................................... 2  a. Project Need ......................................................................................................................... 2  b. Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 2  2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area ............................................................................ 13  a. Water Quality Management (WQM) Plans ......................................................................... 13  b. State Priority System and Project Priority List .................................................................... 13  c. Biennial Water Quality Report (305(b)) .............................................................................. 13  3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems .............................................................. 13  a. Influent Pump Station ......................................................................................................... 16  b. Headworks .......................................................................................................................... 16  c. Primary Treatment .............................................................................................................. 16  d. Trickling Filters .................................................................................................................... 18  e. Final Clarifiers ...................................................................................................................... 18  f. Disinfection ......................................................................................................................... 19  g. Biosolids Management........................................................................................................ 20  h. Septage Receiving ............................................................................................................... 20  4. Effluent Limitations ................................................................................................................. 21  5. Infiltration and Inflow ............................................................................................................. 21  6. Future Condition ..................................................................................................................... 24  a. Population and Land Use Projections ................................................................................. 24  b. Forecasts of Flows and Wasteload ...................................................................................... 24  c. Flow Reduction ................................................................................................................... 28  d. Wasteload Analysis ............................................................................................................. 28  C. Environmental Review ....................................................... 29  1. Environmental Information .................................................................................................... 29  2. Historical and Archaeological Sites ......................................................................................... 29  3. Floodplains and Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 29  4. Agricultural Lands ................................................................................................................... 31  5. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................................ 31  6. Fish and Wildlife Protection .................................................................................................... 31  7. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 31  Page 23 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  ii | Page    8. Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 31  9. Direct and Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................... 31  10. Mitigating Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................... 32  D. Development and Screening of Alternatives ..................... 33  1. Development of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 33  2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities ............................................................................... 33  3. Regionalization ........................................................................................................................ 34  4. Unsewered Areas .................................................................................................................... 35  5. Conventional Collection System ............................................................................................. 35  6. Alternative Conveyance Systems ............................................................................................ 35  7. Evaluation of Sewer Alignments ............................................................................................. 35  8. Wastewater Management Techniques ................................................................................... 35  a. Conventional Technologies ................................................................................................. 35  b. Innovative Technologies ..................................................................................................... 35  c. Staged Construction ............................................................................................................ 36  d. Multiple Purpose Projects ................................................................................................... 36  E. Evaluation of Principal Alternatives and Plan Adoption .... 37  1. Alternative Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 37  2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs ................................................................................................. 37  a. Sunk Costs ........................................................................................................................... 37  b. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects .............................................................. 37  3. Reserve Capacity ..................................................................................................................... 37  4. Demonstration of Financial Capability .................................................................................... 37  5. Capital Financing Plan ............................................................................................................. 38  6. Environmental Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 38  7. Evaluation of Reliability .......................................................................................................... 38  8. Evaluation of Energy Requirements ........................................................................................ 38  9. Evaluation of Implementability ............................................................................................... 38  10. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities ............................................................................... 39  11. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 39  a. Two‐Stage Trickling Filters .................................................................................................. 39  b. Oxidation Ditch ................................................................................................................... 40  c. Conventional Activated Sludge ........................................................................................... 41  d. Trickling Filter / Solids Contact ........................................................................................... 42  Page 24 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  iii | Page    e. Alternatives analysis and scoring ........................................................................................ 43  12. Views of the Public and Concerned Interest Groups .............................................................. 44  F. Selected Plan, Description and Implementation   Arrangements ....................................................................... 45  1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan ........................................................................ 45  2. Design of Selected Plan ........................................................................................................... 45  3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan ...................................................................................... 46  4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan ............................................................................. 47  5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan ................................................................................ 48  6. Arrangements for Implementation ......................................................................................... 48  a. Intermunicipal Service Agreements .................................................................................... 48  b. Civil Rights Compliance ....................................................................................................... 48  c. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ....................................................................... 48  d. Pre‐Treatment Program ...................................................................................................... 49  7. Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................................... 49    TABLE OF FIGURES   Figure 1.  Moab‐Spanish Valley & Southeastern Utah. .......................................................................... 3  Figure 2.  Planning Area. ......................................................................................................................... 4  Figure 3. Planning Area. .......................................................................................................................... 5  Figure 4. Groundwater quality classification map. ............................................................................... 10  Figure 5.  City of Moab zoning and land use plan. ............................................................................... 11  Figure 6.  Grand County zoning and land use plan. .............................................................................. 12  Figure 7.  Current Moab WWTP flow schematic. ................................................................................. 14  Figure 8. Flow trends. ........................................................................................................................... 15  Figure 9. Biological and solids loading trends. ..................................................................................... 15  Figure 10. Primary clarifier removal efficiency for various flow rates. ................................................ 17  Page 25 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  iv | Page    Figure 11.  Trickling filter BOD and TSS removal efficiency. ................................................................. 18  Figure 12.  Secondary clarifier removal efficiency. .............................................................................. 19  Figure 13.  Flow versus precipitation. .................................................................................................. 22  Figure 14.  Flow for days following precipitation events. .................................................................... 23  Figure 15.  Flow versus population for Moab....................................................................................... 25  Figure 16.  Flow versus population for Grand County. ......................................................................... 26  Figure 17.  Per Capita and Average BOD and TSS loading for Grand County. ...................................... 27  Figure 18.  100‐year flood plain. ........................................................................................................... 30  Figure 19. Two‐stage trickling filter flow schematic. ........................................................................... 40  Figure 20.  Oxidation ditch  flow schematic. ........................................................................................ 41  Figure 21.  Conventional activated sludge flow schematic. ................................................................. 42  Figure 22.  Trickling filter / Solids contact flow schematic. .................................................................. 43  Figure 23. New facility components. .................................................................................................... 46  Figure 24.  Biological nutrient removal configuration. ......................................................................... 47  Page 26 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  1 | Page    A. INTRODUCTION  The Moab Wastewater Treatment Plant was last upgraded in 1996. Subsequent to these upgrades, population growth and increases in tourism within the service area have caused the wastewater treatment facility to occasionally exceed permit discharge limits. While the cause of these exceedences has been attributed to seasonal fluctuation in flow characteristics, wastewater strength, and biological process efficiency, Moab City has elected to update the Wastewater Facilities Master to determine path forward as the facilities approach their design capacities and to ensure future compliance with discharge permits. This Master Plan is intended to provide a way forward for the City to meet the current discharge permit requirements. Additionally, this plan evaluates the costs of the required facilities and also presents a plan to comply with potential future regulations concerning nutrient discharges from the facility, since the State of Utah is currently contemplating additional standards for all facilities. Page 27 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  2 | Page    B. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS  1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification  a. Project Need  Population growth and increases in transient population from tourism in the area serviced by Moab Wastewater Treatment Plant has resulted in increased biological loading to the facility. The increased loading exceeds the facility’s capacity to effectively treat influent wastewater to continuously meet the standards required by the State of Utah. Upgrades to the biological processes are necessary to ensure full compliance with the requirements of the facility’s discharge permit. Additionally, the plant was originally constructed in the 1950s. Portions of the facility have exceeded the original design life and continue to operate effectively. However, other components at the facility require renovation or replacement in order for the facility to provide continued reliable service. b. Planning Area  Spanish Valley is located in Grand and San Juan Counties of Southeastern Utah as shown in Figure 1. The planning area consists specifically of the City of Moab and the Grand Water & Sewer Service Agency, the boundaries of which are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The planning area outlined by the 208 plan only includes that part of Spanish Valley that is in Grand County. However, it is expected that future growth in Spanish Valley within San Juan County will also impact the wastewater facilities, leading to the inclusion of these areas in the facilities master plan. The planning area is located in the middle of the Canyonlands Section of Utah and as a result receives a large number of tourists and vacationers during the spring, summer, and fall months. Climate  The climate of the area is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold winters. The annual average precipitation as recorded at Moab is 7.94 inches. July and January are generally the driest months of the year, with most precipitation falling in October. The mean annual temperature for the Moab area is 56°, with the highest monthly mean occurring in July at 81°. The lowest monthly mean is 30°, which occurs in January. The frost free period for the Planning Area is about 184 days. The average monthly temperature and precipitation data are summarized on Table 1. Page 28 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  3 | Page    Figure 1. Moab-Spanish Valley & Southeastern Utah. Page 29 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  4 | Page  Figure 2. Planning Area. Page 30 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  5 | Page  Figure 3. Planning Area.Page 31 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  6 | Page    Table 1. Moab average annual precipitation and temperature (Source: Moab General Plan, 2002) Average Daytime/Nighttime Monthly Temperatures (Fahrenheit) Precipitation (inches) JAN 49.6/18.0 .53 FEB 50.4/25.5 .62 MAR 60.2/34.2 .71 APR 72.5/41.9 .79 MAY 82.4/50.1 .57 JUNE 92.0/57.5 .45 JULY 99.0/64.1 .49 AUG 95.3/62.8 .87 SEPT 87.1/52.8 .83 OCT 73.8/40.8 1.16 NOV 56.0/30.6 .60 DEC 45.1/21.4 .64 Organizational Context  The City of Moab has the responsibility for collection and treatment of its wastewater. The governing body of the City is made up of a Mayor and five City Councilmen. The City employs a City Manager who supervises staff and implements policy as directed by the Council. The Public Works Director, who oversees both water and wastewater reports to the City Manager and also supervises the Water and Sewer Superintendent, who in turn supervises the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and the Water and Sewer Service Workers. The City collects and levies service fees for wastewater collection and establishes use ordinances. Moab City also treats sewage from the Grand Water & Sewer Service Agency in accordance with a contract between the City and the Agency. Demographics  Grand County has a total population of approximately 9,500 as estimated in July 2009. Moab, the county seat, is the largest city in the area with a population of about 5,100. The City of Moab, therefore, makes up approximately 54% of the population of Grand County. The population of Spanish Valley in no longer tallied separately, but from 1960-1980 made up between 20 and 23% of the population of Grand County. The only other community in Grand County separately counted by the US Bureau of Census is Castle Valley, which currently has a population of about 390 residents. The population history for Grand County and Moab is shown in Table 2. Page 32 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  7 | Page    Table 2. Grand County Population History. Source: US Bureau of Census, Census of Population, 1890-2000. Utah: Utah Population Estimates by County, 2001-2009. Year Grand County Population City of Moab Population Moab % of County 1890 541 19 1149 376 33% 00 1910 1595 586 37% 19 1808 856 47% 20 1930 1813 863 48% 19 2070 52% 40 1,084 1950 1903 1,274 67% 19 6345 74% 60 4,682 1970 6688 4,793 72% 19 8241 65% 80 5,333 1990 6620 3,971 60% 20 8485 56% 00 4,779 2001 8,423 4,821 57% 2002 8,468 4,904 58% 2003 8,464 4,921 58% 2004 8,611 4,893 57% 2005 8,826 4,958 56% 2006 9,024 5,018 56% 2007 9,125 5,085 56% 2008 9,326 5,121 55% 2009 9,493 The population history for Moab and Grand County shows sporadic growth. In the decade 1950 to 1960 the population of the county more than tripled as a result of uranium mining and processing activity in the area. The boom of activity subsided and in 1965 the population began a decline which lasted until 1973. In 1974 interest was in the area, however in the 1980s, the renewed in the energy and many other natural resources found uranium industry once again declined, %. The Spanish Valley of Southeastern Utah resembles a structural trough but its origin and configuration are more complex. The Valley is approximately 13 miles long and 1 ½ miles wide and lies along a northwesterly axis. The lowest leading to major population declines which did not stop until 1990. Growth in the 1990s and 2000s has largely been the result of increases in the tourism and recreation industries. However, this growth has been much slower and more consistent than previous cycles, with per annum increases of about 2 The tourism and recreation traffic is seasonal, which causes considerable variability in the overall population of the town throughout the year, with peak visitation occurring during the weeks surrounding the Easter holiday. Topography and Geology  Page 33 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  8 | Page    Valley. The Valley is bounded on the east by the l Mou ve vatio feet at Mount M in. T nde ide b usive stocks of ter ge and y hogs stone fo . A more co discussion e geology of th surrounding area is described by Baker (1933), Hunt (1958), and Richmond (1 Sp Valley itse ade up of qua ry deposits ra in thickness from 0 feet. The a thickness of lluvial and e eposits in Spanish Valley is estimated to be 70 feet. This principal groundwater source for m the irrigati smaller dom ells in Spanish Valley. Besides the un idated dep f the Valley e other main aquifer supplying do water is th ajo sandston er. The City oab and the Grand W Sewer Ser gency’s wel extract wate ly from the Navajo sandstone as well as the quate posits of th y. The alluvial fill in S cribed as a g sand with a high hydraulic conducti rom drillers composition of the Valley fill is es as follow rcent clay, 4 t silt, 50 per nd, 23 percent fine to medium gra 16 percent gravel. In a of 18 wells in Sp Valley Sum 1971 of the USGS found the average hydraulic co vity to be y as shown e 3. From data he compiled for the entire valley the average hydraulic conductivity was calculated to be approximately 140 The septic f Spanish Va rain into this va l aquifer. g groundwa lity classific for the Spanish Valley is shown in 4. elevation of approximately 3950 feet is found at the Colorado River in the extreme northwestern portion of the La Sa ellenth ntains which ha he Valley is bou are rimmed b a maximum ele d on the west s acks of sand n of 12,646 y dioritic intr rmationstiary a mplete on th e 962) anish lf is m terna nging to 360 verage the a olian d is the any of on and estic w consol osits o floor th mestic e Nav e aquif of M ater &vice A ls both r large rnary de e Valle panish Valley can be des ravelly vity. F logs the timated s: 7 pe percen cent sa vel, and course study anish sion ( nducti 80 ft/da in Tabl ft/day.tanks o lley d lley fil Existin ter qua ations Figure Page 34 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  9 | Page    Table 3. Aquifer Characteristics of the Valley Fill (Sumison, 1971) Well number Specific capacity (gpm/ft of drawdown) Transmissivity (cubic ft per day per ft) Saturated thickness (ft) Hydraulic conductivity (cubic ft per day per square ft) (D-25-21) 36cda-l 41 8,000 225 36 (D-26-22) 6cbb-l 36 7,000 140 49 6cbb-2 20 3,700 125 29 7bac-l 25 4,300 125 35 8cba-l 20 3,700 40 94 8dcb-l 30 5,700 50 115 16cdd-l 36 7,000 65 107 17aac-l 48 8,700 50 174 17aad-l 18 3,100 70 44 17ada-2 10 1,600 50 32 17cab-l 20 3,700 50 75 20acd-l 20 3,700 30 124 21bdd-l 20 3,600 50 72 22cbb-l 32 5,700 75 76 22cbd-l 60 11,600 100 116 22dcb-l 90 13,900 105 132 35abd-l 30 4,700 120 39 35bdd-2 30 5,700 160 36 Averages (rounded) 30 6,000 90 80 Land­Use Patterns  Land-use in Grand County is dictated by a number of limiting factors. There are a total of 2,362,880 acres within Grand County. 79.7% of the land area is owned by the Federal Government and an additional 15.69% is owned by the State of Utah. Only 4.6% is private land and 0.01% is owned by the cities and county. The existing land usage for Moab and Spanish Valley are given in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Page 35 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  10 | Page  Figure 4. Groundwater quality classification map.Page 36 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  11 | Page    Figure 5. City of Moab zoning and land use plan.   Page 37 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  12 | Page       Figure 6. Grand County zoning and land use plan. Page 38 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  13 | Page    2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area  a. Water Quality Management (WQM) Plans  The Moab WWTP is a key component of the 208 plan for the area. It acts as a regional treatment facility for the whole of Spanish Valley and provides a benefit to the quality of the Colorado River. The City and County also have water quality management plans in place to prevent contamination to the local watershed. These plans include stormwater prevention planning requirements, pretreatment programs for industrial and commercial dischargers, and careful monitoring and maintenance of collection systems. b. State Priority System and Project Priority List  The Moab Wastewater Treatment Plant is not currently featured on the State Priority System or Project Priority List. One reason for completion of the wastewater master plan is to provide information that would enable the State to include the wastewater facility on the Project Priority List, making the facility eligible for financial assistance from the State. c. Biennial Water Quality Report (305(b))  The Colorado River has been given beneficial use classifications of 1C, 2B, 3B, and 4 at the point of discharge and is noted as supporting all beneficial uses in the Biennial Water Quality Report (305(b)). However, this segment of the river is classified as “needing a TMDL” both above and below the City of Moab due to selenium contamination from sources located outside of the borders of the State of Utah. The report indicates that no contamination within the river is of municipal point source origins. 3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems  The Moab WWTP was initially constructed for primary treatment and was econdary treatment in 1967. Additional expansion has been completed several times throughout the life of the plant, with the latest expansion completed in 1996, which included new headworks facilities, addition of both a primary and secondary clarifier, installation of a new septage dump station, and several other improvements to increase the plant’s reliability and operability. The existing facility flow schematic is shown in Figure 7. subsequently modified to include s Page 39 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 14 | Page Figure 7. Current Moab WWTP flow schematic. Changes in plant loading characteristics have led to conditions where the plant occasionally is unable to meet the regulatory limits for wastewater effluent concentrations required by the plant’s discharge permit. While the flow trend to the facility has been nearly flat for the past decade (Figure 8), the biological loading has increased consistently (Figure 9). This suggests that the inception of flow reduction programs by the City of Moab and by Grand Water and Sewer have been effective at reducing water use and the consequent delivery to the wastewater treatment plant. While this reduction in hydraulic loading is beneficial for some portions of the treatment plant, particularly the hydraulic and physical separation processes, the biological processes can become overloaded. There is good evidence that this has occurred at Moab, since the primary clarifier treatment efficiency improves at lower flows, while the trickling filter efficiency improves at higher flows as will be presented below. Page 40 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  15 | Page    Figure 8. Flo Figure 9. Biological and solids loading trends.   w trends. y = 2E‐06x + 0.372 2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4 y = 9E‐06x + 1.1778 y = ‐2E‐06x + 3.4961 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4/19/Flow, MGDMin Flow/Average Max Flow / Average Max/Min 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Loading (lbs/day)TSS BOD Linear (TSS) Linear (BOD) Page 41 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  16 | Page    a. Influent Pump Station  All flow to the Moab WWTP enters the facility through a 24 inch diameter gravity sewer that feeds the influent pump station. The influent pump station includes two screw pumps, with room for a third screw pump. The capacity of each screw pump is approximately 2150 gpm, which means the influent pump station has a total capacity of 3.1 MGD peak flow with a single pump operating. This influent pump station capacity is adequate for current flows. Future flows will require the addition of another screw pump. The total capacity of the influent pump station with the addition of third screw pump of equal capacity and configuration to the existing screw pumps is 4,300 gpm, or 6.2 MGD at peak flow, which will be sufficient for the duration of the 20 year planning period. However, the third pump will be required in approximately the year 2025, as dictated by the threshold peak hourly flow of 2150 gpm being reached. b. Headworks  The Moab WWTP headworks features a ¾” automatically raked bar screen followed by a ½” manual bar screen, comminutor, and induced vortex grit chamber. The screens were designed for a capacity of 4.5 MGD, while the grit system was designed for a capacity of 4.2 MGD. creening design configuration results in challenges for the operators, since the manual screen’s smaller aperture size in relation to the automatic screen results in a frequent need for manual raking. Additionally, the outdoor installation of all headworks equipment results in ice dams building up on the automatic screen in freezing weather, which results in either collection of water with the screenings or alarm conditions in the screen as it reaches a high head condition due to plugging. Grit collection is generally acceptable. Screenings and grit handling equipment is located in an indoor facility. Screenings are compacted and dried using a screw compactor, while grit is dewatered using a screw classifier. Collected solids are disposed of in the local municipal landfill. The current headworks configuration does not meet current State of Utah design guidelines. Current guidelines for a plant the size of Moab’s call for mechanically cleaned screens to have a bar spacing of less than 5/8 of an inch, a minimum of two screens, and inclusion of two grit systems. Additionally, freeze protection is required for screens installed outside. c. Primary Treatment  Primary treatment is achieved through the use of two conventional 40-foot diameter circular clarifiers. Clarifier No. 1 was part of the original primary ide water depth of 7-feet, while clarifier no. 2 was constructed in 1996 and has a side water depth of 8-feet. Using the Utah State standard for plants treating greater than 1 MGD, the clarifiers would be permitted The s treatment plant and has a s Page 42 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  17 | Page    ns per day per square foot, and a 1256 square feet per lts. e e. y e e r performance is possible without additional testing. However, the excellent indicate that it is likely that the clarifiers will still perform igh   Figure 10. Prima a loading rate of 1,000 gallo clarifier would be rated for a flow of 1.26 MGD. Both clarifiers are performing very well, with better than expected settling resu Using the State’s standard sizing rate of 1,000 gallons per day per square foot, th clarifier efficiency would be approximately 31.5% at the 1.26 MGD rating abov Using the actual loading rates, predicted performance is about 37.8% (using an average flow of 0.93 MGD for the plant, split between two clarifiers for a flow per clarifier of 0.465 MGD and loading rate of 370 gpd per square foot). However, performance data collected for the clarifiers since 2008 has shown an average removal efficiency of 63% for BOD and 69% for TSS with an average daily flow of 0.93 MGD. Figure 10 shows the performance data for the primar clarifiers at the tested flow rates. Linear regression of the data indicates that th data is scattered with no clear trends to permit prediction of clarifiers above th flows encountered during testing, meaning no clear prediction of clarifie settling results adequately above the current rated 1.25 MGD. This is likely a result of the h solids and BOD loading that the plant currently receives. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 1.20Removal Efficiency Flow (MGD) 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.1 y = ‐0.1707x + 0.7922 R² = 0.0828 y = 0.1644x + 0.5293 R² = 0.0276 BOD Removal Efficie Average Daily ncy TSS Removal Efficiency Linear (BOD Removal  Efficiency) Linear (TSS Removal  Efficiency) ry clarifier removal efficiency for various flow rates. Page 43 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  18 | Page    d. Figure 11. Trickling filter BOD and TSS removal efficiency. e. Final Clarifiers  40-foot diameter plow-type Trickling Filters  Secondary treatment at the wastewater treatment plant is provided by two single stage trickling filters. The trickling filters are both rock media filters, with motorized distributor mechanisms that were provided in the 1996 plant expansion project. Trickling filter number 1 is 72-feet diameter, while trickling filter number 2 is 80-feet diameter and both filters have a 7-foot media depth. The trickling filters are biologically overloaded. This is particularly an issue during the cold winter months when the facility receives its lowest flows. This results in low efficiency of removal and poor BOD removal during these times. When the hydraulic loads are increased, the removal efficiency improves, which typically corresponds to the summer months, when the temperature is warmer (Figure 11). y = 0.2934x + 0.3131 R² = 0.2289 y = ‐0.3348x + 0.5684 R² = 0.094 ‐20.0% ‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20Removal EfficiencyAverage Daily Flow (MGD) BOD Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency Linear (BOD Removal  Efficiency) Linear (TSS Removal Efficiency) Final clarification is achieved through the use of two raked clarifiers. Page 44 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  19 | Page    final clarifiers has resulted in some difficulty at times in e 12). to Figure 12. Secondary clarifier removal efficiency. f. Disinfection  by the addition of gaseous chlorine to the final clarifiers. Contact time is limited to the retention time available in the to the poor secondary clarifier performance, it is likely that the chlorine contact from the clarifiers for many years, as is best practice. The small size of the removing TSS from the wastewater flow. Initially, the clarification area was to be supplemented by means of tube settlers, but this type of modification has not proven to be effective for final clarification at the site and is no longer practiced or proposed for implementation. These final clarifiers show poor and inconsistent removal efficiency (Figur BOD removal is typically around 40%, while TSS removal is about 70%. Removal results do not correlate well with flow, meaning there is no good way predict the operable efficiency of the clarifiers. Many attempts have been made through the years to improve the consistency of the clarifier operations without success. y = ‐0.0022x + 0.4176 R² = 4E‐06 y = ‐0.036x + 0.7409 R² = 0.0023 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20Removal EfficiencyAverage Daily Flow (MGD) BOD Removal  Efficiency TSS Removal  Efficiency BOD Removal  Efficiency TSS Removal  Efficiency Wastewater disinfection is accomplished final clarifiers. Due some short circuiting is occurring within the clarifiers, resulting in low contact times within the clarifiers. Additionally, the State of Utah has recommended that the plant separate Page 45 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  20 | Page    g. c adequate at times. While solids dry very fast during hot, dry summers, if rainfall is higher than normal, it is very difficult to achieve a level of dryness that is acceptable to the landfill. Additionally, solids dewatering essentially stops during the cold winter months. h. Septage Receiving  The city of Moab WWTP also serves as the only septage receiving facility in the area. Septage is received from homes not connected to the sewer system along with recreational facilities operated by vendors for the National Park Service. The total monthly volume of septage received at the Moab WWTP is found in Table 4. Table 4. Septage receipt volumes (gallons). Biosolids Management  Biosolids management at the facility consists of volume reduction by anaerobic digestion, solar drying, and ultimate disposal by landfilling at the Grand County Landfill. No beneficial use has been incorporated into the biosolids management programs for the facility, as the volume of solids is relatively minimal and the additional costs and regulatory burden have not been found justifiable. Digester gas is consumed by a digester gas boiler, which is used to heat the anaerobi digester. The biggest challenge to biosolids management efforts at the facility is the management of solids during drying. The volume of the solids drying beds at the facility is in  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009  January 6017 10602 10036 20039 2746  February 37693 2778 21864 29748 35117  March 12643 26126 36761 43668 52986  April 34904 44225 29916 110882 53444  May 39830 45031 53099 63978 57379  June 52861 63250 46090 67098 28099  July 30047 55696 32939 41617 40029  August 25779 20294 59412 38564 38525  September  51162 31434 37205 38506 45233  October 28192 32776 46486 47119 38688  November 49248 40189 35692 55947 48826  December 6358 17013 42242 14405 N/A  TOTALS   374734 389414 451742 571571 441072  Page 46 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  21 | Page    y not an issue, but can add significant biological t 4. Eff The ischarge permit for the facility allows discharge of water to the Col Table 5. Moab W Septage receiving is generall demands to the facility if not managed properly. Septage is accumulated in the septage receiving station and is slowly added to the influent flow of the facility a the influent pump station. The septage receiving facility was included in the 1996 expansion project and does not appear to have any major deficiencies. luent Limitations  current d orado River under the following criteria (Table 5): WTP NPDES Permit discharge criteria. Effluent Limitations Parameter  Maximum Maximum Weekly Monthly Average    Average  Daily  Minimum  Daily  Maximum  BOD , mg/L 25 35 NA NA 5 BOD Rem 5 Min. %  oval 85 NA NA NA  TSS, mg/L 25 35 NA NA  TSS al 85 NA NA NA Min. % Remov E. Coli. No/100 mL 126 158 NA NA  TDS y Intake,  mg/R N  NA  , Culinar L eport A NA TDS L <40 se NA , Effluent, mg/0 increa NA NA WE Biomonitoring    T, Acute  NA NA NA Pass Oil e, mg/L 10 & Greas NA NA NA pH, Units NA 9.0  Standard NA 6.5 NA – Not Applicable  In general, these criteria are th iteria used by the State of Utah. However, Moab has additional crit e es TD res olorado Riv require 5. Infiltration and Inflow  Inf inflow ha ely in at ab W P. Following the upgrade in 1996, Moab City im aintenance and anhole lids, pr a w onally, e stand eria to m ard cr et with r pect to S as a ult of C er monitoring ments. iltration and ve larg been m plemented a plan to im imized the Mo prove sewer m WT began to seal m eventing surface w ter inflo s. Additi Page 47 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  22 | Page    pro red The a tr stro d the population discharging to the facility is much greater during the summer months Figure 13. F ation. red to determine the level of correlation etween precipitation and flow increases. As noted previously, the above correlation By examining the trends in flow volume following days from precipitation events, we he average flow is appreciably higher on precipitation jects have been completed to replace sewer lines that were in poor condition, ucing infiltration. se improvements are apparent by analysis of the precipitation data. While there is end for increased flow in proportion to precipitation amounts, it is difficult to find ng correlation, since precipitation can happen at any time of the year an (Figure 13). y = 0.0891x + 0.9224  0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Flow, MGDPrecipitation, R² =52 0 0.2  inches low versus precipit Further analysis of the flow data is requi b does not account for the seasonal fluctuations within the service area resulting from increased transient population. Therefore a different method of examining the infiltration must be used. can determine whether or not t days, which would indicate inflow. The flow following precipitation events is shown in Table 6. Page 48 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  23 | Page    Table 6. Average flows for days following precipitation events. Days Since Last Precipitation Average Daily Flow, MGD Mean Minimum Flow, MGD Mean Maximum Flow, MGD 0 0.93 0.29 1.44 1 0.91 0.32 1.39 2 0.90 0.41 1.37 3 0.91 0.41 1.39 4 0.91 0.41 1.40 5 0.91 0.41 1.41 As shown in Table 6, there is not an appreciable difference between average flow conditions for days of precipitation and days with no precipitation. This is further shown in Figure 14, which even indicates a slight trend for higher flows for longer periods without precipitation, although with very little linear correlation. Both show, however, that there is no good correlation between precipitation events and flow at the wastewater treatment plant, which indicates that inflow and infiltration are not major factors impacting operations at the wastewater facility. Figure 14. Fl following precipitation events. ow for days 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 Max. Flow Min. Flow Total Treated MGD Flow, MGD10203040506070 Days Since Last Precipitation Page 49 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  24 | Page    a ion an  Projec pulation trends fo ervice area indic at continued slo th is likely the area. The Sta Utah projects population growth for selected cities and counties through vernor’s Office of Planning & Budget. These dications for both b and Grand County are found in Tabl s not anticipated t in the f Very little s. erall, as San Juan County (0.8% annually, compared to 1.0% annually). b. Forecasts of Flows and Wasteload  Predicting the future flow and wasteload for the Moab WWTP is difficult due to the ongoing increases in the strength of the wastewater due to water conservation measures. However, we can use population estimates for Moab and Grand County along with flow data (Table 7) to estimate the future flows. Additionally, we can use population data and wastewater strength data to estimate per capita wasteloads and use this information to project future wasteloads using the population projections (Table 8). Table 7. Moab population trends and growth. Moab Grand  6. Future Condition  . Populat d Land Use tions  Po r the s ate th w grow for te of all the Go pre Moa e 9. It i hat land use will change appreciably uture. private land is available for future development. Anticipated future growth is expected to be the result of increases in development density. Additionally, both Moab and Grand County have committed to preserving existing land use pattern However, in San Juan County projected development could include many residential units in the future, which could have a significant impact on future waste load allocations. However, it anticipated that population increases in this area will be largely in line with growth in Grand County ov County is expected to grow even more slowly than Grand Year Population Growth Population Growth Ave Flow  2002 4,904 8468 0.9525  2003 4,921 0.35% 8464 -0.05% 0.897178  2004 4,893 -0.57% 8611 1.74% 0.884687  2005 4,958 1.33% 8826 2.50% 0.900137  2006 5,018 1.21% 9024 2.24% 0.914822  2007 5,085 1.34% 9125 1.12% 0.948192  2008 5,121 0.71% 9326 2.20% 0.937022  2009 9493 1.79% 0.955068  Page 50 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  25 | Page    Table 8. Per capita BOD and TSS for Grand County d County BOD, TSS, Year Average of Influent Average of Raw Gran BOD, lb/day TSS, lb/day Population lb/cap lb/cap  1869 1619 8468 0.221 0.191 2002  2003  1858 1536 8464 0.220 0.182 1685 1697 8611 0.196 2004 0.197  2005 1683 1855 8826 0.191 0.210  1780 1966 9024 0.197 0.218  2032 1899 9125 0.223 0.208  2006  2007  2012 1990 9326 0.216 0.213  2116 2130 9493 0.223 0.224 2008  2009   By using linea Moab WWTP. Grand County, since it is not certain which population trend will govern the future wastewater t Grand County will govern future wastewater volume growth. The plots of population and flow along with the linear regression formulae are fo Figure 15. Flow populati oab. r regression analysis, it is possible to predict the future flow of wastewater to the This analysis has been completed using population data for both Moab and flows, although with the larger sample size, it is likely tha und in Figure 15 and Figure 16. y = 2.5823E‐04x ‐3.7732E‐01 R² = 9.1537E‐01 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 4,850 4,900 4,950 5,000 5,050 5,100 5,150MGD pulation 0.92 Flow, Po versus on for M Page 51 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  26 | Page    Predicting the future flow using linear regression assumes that wastewater will be generated in volumes similar to the past volumes. If water conservation measures continue to be effective in the service area, it is likely that the predicted wastewater volumes will be higher than the actual future wastewater flow volumes. However, in the interest of being conservative, the higher Moab values should be used for the facility when developing hydraulic loading criteria. In a similar manner, it is possible to determine the typical per capita BOD and TSS loads for the area. Unlike in the flow predictions, Moab data should not be used alone, since this will result in an inappropriate determination of per capita BOD and TSS loads, resulting in overestimation of the overall load. Therefore, only Grand County population comparisons were used to determine the per capita BOD and TSS loads. The per capita and average BOD and TSS loads are shown in Figure 17. The trendlines for Figure 17 indicate that the per capita BOD and TSS loads are relatively constant. The average annual increase in per capita BOD is less than 0.5%, while the increase in per capita TSS is less about 2%. Using the average per capita values of 0.23 lb/person for BOD and 0.21 lb/person for TSS, we can predict the overall BOD and TSS loading to the facility (Table 9). When we come to a conclusion about the e facility influent for the planning period. In all cases, the higher, more conservative values should be used. y = 6.6840E‐05x + 3.1927 Figure 16. Flow versus population for Grand County. combined with the predicted population, overall water quality for th E‐01 R² = 8.2555E‐01 0.89 0 0.92 0 0 0.95 Flow, MGD0.9 .91 .93 .94 0.88 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 Population 0.96 Page 52 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  27 | Page    Figure 17. Per C Table 9. Project   60   542 y = 0.001x ‐1.785 R² = 0.0319 y = 0.0052x ‐10.139 R² = 0.7686 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Per Capita Loads, lb/personAverage Influent Loads, lb/dayAverage of Influent BOD, lb/day Average of Raw TSS, lb/day BOD, lb/cap TSS, lb/cap Linear (BOD, lb/cap)Linear (TSS, lb/cap) apita and Average BOD and TSS loading for Grand County. ed population, flows, and loading. 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20 Grand Pop 8,485 9,024 9,693 11,007 11,827 12,559 13,781 15,   94   Proje   Projec   Moab Pop 4,779 4,875 5,237 5,946 6,388 6,783 7,443 8,3 cted BOD Load,  lb/day 1952 2076 2229 2532 2720 2889 3170 3575 ted TSS Load,  lb/day 1782 1895 2036 2311 2484 2637 2894 3264 Projections Grand County 1.36  B 316  0 288 Moab 9  Flow 0.89 0.92 0.97 1.05 1.11 1.16 1.24  OD Conc, mg/L 264 270 276 288 294 299 306  TSS Conc, mg/L 241 246 252 263 268 273 28 Flow 0.86 0.88 0.98 1.16 1.27 1.37 1.54 1.7 B 6 252 246 239  TSS Conc, mg/L 249 258 250 239 234 230 225 219  OD Conc, mg/L 273 282 274 262 25 Page 53 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  28 | Page    c. Flow Reduction  Flow reduction initiatives in the area serviced by the Moab WWTP have been effective. The result has been a gradual increase in the strength of the wastewater. Flow to the facility could be further reduced by additional water conservation initiatives. d. Wasteload Analysis  Using the data from Table 9, the predicted flow, BOD, and TSS values that should be used for design purposes should be 1.3 MGD average daily flow, with 2.0 MGD peak hourly flow (using a 1.5 peaking factor, as is typical for the site), 300 mg/L BOD, and 270 mg/L TSS. Page 54 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  29 | Page    C. ENVIRO 1. Environmental Information  s to the Colorado River. It is located in an area adjacent to wetlands and within a 100-year flood plain. from was tim low harging at its highest flow. 2. Historical and Archaeological Sites  The State of Utah Historic Preservation office has reviewed the Moab Sewage Treatment Plant site and has concluded that the site should have “no known effect upon any potential or listed national register historical, archeological, or cultural sites.” 3. Floodplains and Wetlands  Moab has a history of flooding. The city is subject to flooding from summer thunderstorms along Mill and Pack Creeks. Flooding may occur with no precipitation in the city as, “thunderstorms produce short-duration floods originating on nearby sandstone cliffs, ‘slick-rock’ damage has been limited to erosion of channels, water and sediment damages to residential area, and deposition of debris and erosion on roads.” Some flooding also occurs from spring run-off from the Colorado River in the marshland north of the city. No damage to the city has occurred from these floods. Several studies have been done to identify flood hazards and provide assistance in alleviating this problem. Currently, there are 70 rock debris and detention basins in the “slick-rock” area. The city and county have established floodplain or flood- channel zones which restrict development in these areas. There are several other proposals under consideration including a dam along the Mill Creek, storm drains, and other diversionary measures to control flooding. The flood hazard zones for a 100-year flood in Moab and Spanish Valley as established by the National Flood Insurance Program are shown in Figure 18. The facility is also located adjacent to wetlands. The Colorado River has established wetlands all along its banks between the town and the river. The Moab WWTP is located adjacent to these wetlands.   NMENTAL REVIEW  The Moab WWTP discharge However, the facility is well protected surface water intrusion through the use of berms around the site. The treated tewater is greatly diluted by the flow of the Colorado River which is over 1000 es higher than the flow from the Moab WWTP when the Colorado River is at its est flow and the Moab WWTP is disc Page 55 of 135  Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  30 | Page  Figure 18. 100-year flood plain.Page 56 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  31 | Page    4. Agricultural Lands  The area serviced by the Moab WWTP still consists of some agricultural lands, although agricultural land in private ownership is very limited. Agricultural lands consist largely of range land on BLM property. 5. Wild and Scenic Rivers  The Moab WWTP discharges to the Colorado River which, while not currently designated as such, could be classified as a wild and scenic river at the discharge location. The Bureau of Land Management is currently considering Segment 4 of the Colorado River in the State of Utah which reaches from the confluence of the Colorado with the Dolores River to Mile 49 near Potash for designation as a Wild and Scenic River due to its recreation value within this segment. 6. Fish and Wildlife Protection  There are several animals listed on the Federal Endangered Species list which are found in the area. The American Peregrine Falcon (Falco Peregrinus Anatun) is an uncommon, permanent resident of Arches National Park. The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus (Lucius)), is a common winter visitor to the area. The Colorado Squawfish (Ptychocheilus Lucius) and the Humpback Chub (Gila Cypha) are both found in this part of the Colorado River. The Black-footed Ferret (Mustekla Nigripes) is thought to be in the area, however no confirmed sightings have been made in recent years. 7. Air Quality  The Moab area and Spanish Valley are not currently under any special restrictions with respect to air quality. During the winter the site is susceptible to inversion conditions, however. 8. Water Quality and Quantity  The Moab WWTP discharges to the Colorado River. At this reach of the river, the supported uses include 1C (drinking water), 2B (secondary contact recreation), 3B (warm water game fish), and 4 (agricultural use including irrigation and stock watering). All classified uses are currently supported. The highest recorded monthly mean flow value for the Colorado River above Moab was 55,530 cfs in June of 1917, while the lowest monthly mean flow was 1017 in August of 1934. The overall median flow from 1913 to 2009 was 7190 cfs. 9. Direct and Indirect Impacts  The wastewater facility currently has some impact on water quality in the Colorado River, but due to the large volume of dilution these impacts are beyond the current Page 57 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  32 | Page    termine. Expansion of the facility will permit additional owever, which may lead to stresses on wildlife and 10. fort is intended to identify an alternative that will leaving the Moab WWTP. This will result in nticipated to occur in the wetlands and the Colorado River, bypassing any wetlands. capability to accurately de development in the area, h agricultural lands. Mitigating Adverse Impacts  The current facility planning ef improve the quality of effluent improvements in the quality of water in the Colorado River, although these improvements will be nearly imperceptible. Moab City and Grand County are attempting to mitigate the impacts of development on the environment surrounding the facility. Both entities have adopted General Plans, outlining plans for preserving agricultural lands while mitigating impacts on wildlife. No facility construction is currently a wastewater is discharged directly into Page 58 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  33 | Page    D. DEVE D SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES  Development of Alternatives  ation and planning techniques into The criteria used to develop and screen alternative wastewater management plans was presented in Sections B and C of this report. Principal feasible alternative wastewater treatment plant processes that have potential for the Moab Treatment Plant were also defined and discussed in Section C. From a conceptual standpoint, three fundamental alternatives exist for the study area. These include: 1. No action. 2. Optimization of operations. 3. Construction of new facilities. Since the construction of the existing wastewater management facility at Moab, treatment standards have tightened considerably, and wastewater flow rates and biological loading rates have increased to nearly match and occasionally exceed the capacity of the existing treatment plant to effectively treat influent flows. As a result, continued operation without a plan of action for change will result in discharge permit violations. It is clear, therefore, that a “no action” plan in the Moab-Spanish Valley area is unacceptable and was not considered further. The feasibility of optimizing operations to meet standards is discussed below in a separate section. However, the general conclusion of the Study is that the existing facility is presently being operated near its optimum level and is likewise not a viable alternative. As a result, the remaining portions of this section are all based on alternatives involving construction of new facilities. 2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities  In spite of the excellent operation and maintenance of the Moab Sewage Treatment Plant, the treatment facility has not been able to meet its NPDES discharge permit. Review of the initial design calculations show that the treatment facility was designed to produce an effluent quality that would meet the 25 mg/L BOD5 and TSS LOPMENT AN 1. Key components of a facilities plan include development and presentation of alternative plans. The presentation serves to define factors considered and approaches taken to combine available inform feasible alternatives and to establish a foundation for the selection of a recommended plan. Alternative plans by way of their presentation at public hearings also offer the public an opportunity to participate in the selection of key features of alternatives considered and ultimately in the final plan itself. The objective of this section is the present the principles considered in formulation and the features of alternative plans. Page 59 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  34 | Page    requirement on a 30-day average and 35 mg/L of the same water quality parameters on a 7-day average at a design flow of 1.5 MGD and BOD and TSS loading rate of e winter. While the permit requirements for the facility have remained the same as they were following the most recent expansion and the hydraulic capacity of the plant has not ds load to the facility has exceeded the design ly y, Table 10. Su lb/day 2130 2090 0.96 2050 2010 nt has operated very well, reporting only n 7- es in tourism in the area. Due om 3. Regionalization  tewater treatment facility in a 3300 lb/day in the summer or 1600 and 1900 lb/day respectively in th been exceeded, the biological and soli criteria (Table 10). The peak loads to the facility have often exceeded even these average criteria, with the all time peak BOD5 load to the facility reaching near 4,300 lbs/day in October, 2009 and a TSS peak reached at 5,400 lbs/day in Januar 2009. mmary of Moab WWTP Loading Conditions (2007-2009). Average Flow, MGD Average BOD5, lb/day Average TSS, December- February 0.82 1600 1590 March-May 0.98 2190 2090 June-August 1.05 2280 2260 September-0.98 November Average Under these loading conditions, the pla occasional permit exceedences, and only on the 30-day average values, rather tha day average values. This is a result of the plant operating in excess of its design efficiencies with respect to primary sedimentation. Lower efficiency in secondary treatment is usually the major issue with respect to plant permit violations, which typically occur in both the spring and fall as a result of general plant loading in combination with weather conditions that challenge the trickling filters, particularly during spring, when the Moab WWTP reaches its typical peak hydraulic and biological loading conditions due to the major increas to the drawbacks associated with the trickling filter process during the transition fr cold to warm weather and the timing of Moab’s peak loading conditions, alternative processes should be included in the design of the wastewater treatment plant to prevent permit exceedences. The Moab WWTP is currently the only municipal was Grand County. Separate facilities have recently been studied for treatment of wastewater generated in Spanish Valley, however a suitable plan for construction of separate facility was not developed. In addition, there was strong opposition from the City of Moab and from the State Department of Environmental Quality to Page 60 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  35 | Page    4. e le to current sewer access. 5. Conventional Collection System  conv on sy ting has not been evaluated w in the scope of th aster 6. e Conveyance System conv e systems have been evaluated as part of the master plan. conve l system is sti cted to provide uired utility lanning period. 7.  of Sewer Alignments  8. a. s ogies  Innovative technologies are acceptable insofar as the technologies have proven construction of separate wastewater treatment facilities for Spanish Valley and the remainder of Grand County, since the Moab Wastewater Treatment Plant is for all intents and purposes a regional facility with capacity to handle current and future wastewater loads to the facility with some modifications. Unsewered Areas  There continue to be areas of Spanish Valley that are unsewered. These homes ar either slated for future expansion of the sewer system or are in areas that are not accessib The existing collection system is a entional collecti stem. The exis collection system plan. ith e wastewater m Alternativ s  No alternative eyanc The existing within the p ntiona ll expe the req Evaluation Sewer alignments have not been evaluated within this master plan. Existing alignments will continue to be used for future expansion of the system. Wastewater Management Techniques  Conventional Technologies  The use of conventional technologies is desired for the Moab WWTP. This facility i crucial to sustaining proper wastewater treatment for the community. The facility currently uses conventional technologies and it is appropriate that conventional technologies continue to be used, since the existing infrastructure is in place to handle this type of construction and expansion. b. Innovative Technol application on facilities similar to Moab. Additionally, alternatives that have a high cost of installation and operation were not considered. Page 61 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  36 | Page    c. ading considerations ired. d. ty plans will need to incorporate projects within Staged Construction  Facility construction should be staged to permit inclusion of additional facilities as the demands on the wastewater treatment facility require. Additionally, construction of some facilities will be dependent upon flow or biological lo before they will be requ Multiple Purpose Projects  Facilities should be designed to incorporate multiple uses as far as possible. However, it is recognized that facili the existing wastewater facilities. Page 62 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  37 | Page    E. EVAL ADOP d for the facility. Four principle alternatives for biological treatment were evaluated for use at the Moab WWTP. These alternatives include: 1. Two-Stage Trickling Filters 2. Oxidation Ditch 3. Conventional Activated Sludge 4. Trickling Filter / Solids Contact These alternatives are described further below. 2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs  a. Sunk Costs  All existing improvements have been treated as sunk costs. Preservation of existing utility has been considered where the existing infrastructure is still suitable for the purposes of the alternative. Where the infrastructure is not suitable, it would be abandoned or demolished. b. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects  The nature of the existing facility is not conducive to multiple purpose projects. Therefore, the full cost of the facility must be borne by the wastewater treatment operations. 3. Reserve Capacity  Facilities will allow for redundancy to prevent mechanical failure leading to violation of permit requirements. 4. Demonstration of Financial Capability  Both Moab City and Grand Water & Sewer have the financial capability of supporting improvements at the Moab WWTP. Both entities have accumulated UATION OF PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES AND PLAN  TION  1. Alternative Evaluation  Correction of the deficiencies at the Moab WWTP will require examining all of the process areas at the facility, but choices for every other process unit will depend on the major treatment process selecte Page 63 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  38 | Page    impact fees for the purpose of paying for treatment plant improvements. Grand Water & Sewer is currently holding $1.2 million for treatment projects, while Moab is responsible for all financial obligations of the wastewater treatment City of Moab has demonstrated an ability to balance the facility budget while maintaining the facilities appropriately. Grand Water & Sewer is for all intents oab WWTP, paying for treatment services in proportion tem. 5. the State of Utah in the form of grants and low- ding be required, the City will seek to finance the an increase in the cost of collection and treatment fees likely provements. 6. ly different environmental impacts. All site work will be confined to the existing facility. Therefore, there will be no e systems with respect to environmental considerations. Reliability  Rel ty of the is like e thro r number of mechanical 8. Eva Energy requirement for the different alternatives include pumping, aeration and significant differences between these alternatives with eds. Significant increases in power will result in additional site to City also maintains some funds, although with a much smaller balance. Moab City plant. The and purposes a client of the M to flows from its collection sys Capital Financing Plan  Financing of any improvements will need to come from multiple sources. The first source of financing will be the development impact fee reserve funds. Additionally, the City will seek funding from interest loans. Should additional fun facility by bonding, with required in order to pay the debt associated with facility im Environmental Evaluation  None of the alternatives will provide significant evaluation of the differences between th 7. Evaluation of  iability is considered in two ways: the reliability of treatment and the reliabili susceptibility of mechanical equipment to failure. Treatment process failure ly to be an issue where processes are sensitive to large swings in temperatur ughout the annual cycle. Conversely, the greate components included in the system, the greater likelihood of failure of those components. luation of Energy Requirements  mixing costs. There are respect to the power ne expenses related to construction of new facilities, since power service to the wastewater treatment plant will need to be upgraded as well. 9. Evaluation of Implementability  Implementability considerations must include compatibility with the existing prevent failure of the existing processes during construction activities. Process Page 64 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  39 | Page    tion   10. icipated to be gained by any of the treatment alternatives. 1. Comparison of Alternatives  d meter secondary clarifier designed to effectively nd permit the existing clarifiers to be drained and • Refurbishment of the primary digester through the replacement of the and mixer. a. tage trickling filter alternative would add a second stage of tricking filters to the existing trickling filter process. The flow schematic for the process s to d ters have been employed at the Moab WWTP for decades and are compatible with the existing ed footprint available on the site for two alternatives that interfere with existing processes must permit partial implementa of the new process as an interim measure. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities  No recreational opportunities are ant 1 Regardless of the alternative selected, several improvements will be necessary. As noted previously, headworks, secondary clarification, disinfection, digestion, an solids dewatering improvements will be required. These improvements will include: • Replacement of the screen with a new screen designed to effectively remove debris from the influent without additional operator intervention. • Addition of a new 60 ft. dia remove the effluent solids a maintained. • Addition of a chlorine contact chamber and conversion from the use of chlorine gas to an on-site sodium hypochlorite generator. anaerobic digester cover • Construction of a new dewatering facility to handle the increase in solids generated by the facility without the need for additional solids drying beds. This facility will also include new operator offices. Two­Stage Trickling Filters  The two-s is shown in Figure 19. This process has a distinct advantage over the other alternatives when it come energy consumption. The only additional energy that will be required is the energy necessary to pump the effluent water from the first stage to meet the hea requirements of the second stage. This process is very familiar to the operators. Tricking fil infrastructure. However, there is limit new trickling filters. Additionally, it is likely that this process will produce lower treatment efficiency during low temperatures. Page 65 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 40 | Page While it is likely that this process will effectively treat the wastewater, if future nutrient regulations are required the facility will have a difficuly time meeting the regulations. While nitrification will be possible with the two-stage process, trickling filter processes are not able to effectively denitrify. This process will result in reduction of the effluent ammonia concentration, but will do very little to reduce the overall effluent nutrient load. Figure 19. Two -stage trickling filter flow schematic. b. Oxidation Ditch Oxidation ditches are an effective way of reducing BOD and TSS from wastewater and are particularly suitable to small facilities. Aeration and mixing of the oxidation ditch are typically provided by mechanical aerators. The aerators induce flow around the oxidation ditch while also entraining oxygen in the wastewater by agitating the surface of the water. A flow schematic for an oxidation ditch system is shown in Figure 20. Oxidation ditches are generally very reliable, but do suffer from reduced oxygen transfer efficiency during cold weather. This can result in reduced treatment efficiency during these cold weather times. Oxidation ditches are generally quite simple to maintain. The moving parts consist solely of the mechanical aerator assembly. This assembly can come in a variety of configurations, from horizontal, to vertical, to floating configurations. Oxidation ditches are also suitable for conversion to biological nutrient removal processes. Additional basins must be constructed to provide the necessary anaerobic and anoxic treatement zones that would be required for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal, but this is much simpler for this type of operation. Additionally, many operators have reported an ability to denitrify Page 66 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 41 | Page through careful operation of the mechanical aerators to provide in-basin anoxic zones. For the Moab WWTP, inclusion of oxidation ditches would require demolition and abandonment of the existing trickling filters. There is not currently enough space at the facility to accommodate concurrent operation of the trickling filter and oxidation ditch process units, which would necessitate land acquisition in order to complete the project. However, an oxidation ditch could eliminate use of the anaerobic digesters, should the City elect to do so. Oxidation ditches facilitate long solids retention times, which means the oxidation ditches can also act as digesters. Figure 20. Oxidation ditch flow schematic. c. Conventional Activated Sludge Conventional activated sludge processes are the most commonly used types of treatment processes. This process typically uses diffusers located at the bottom of an aeration basin to provide oxygen to the wastewater, although surface aerators can be used in this type of system as well. These systems are known to provide effective treatment in all weather conditions. A schematic of a conventional activated sludge process is found in Figure 21. Conventional activated sludge processes would require the most capital expenditure and would also use the most energy of the alternatives considered. The basins required to effectively treat the total load to the facility will also require demolition of the tricking filter process, however, it would be possible to get a portion of the aeration capabilities on line prior to demolition of the trickling filters. Page 67 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 42 | Page Figure 21. Conventional activated sludge flow schematic. Activated sludge plants are very conducive to conversion for nutrient removal. Typically it is possible to partition off zones of the aeration basin to provide the necessary anaerobic and anoxic zones to permit effective biological nutrient removal. d. Trickling Filter / Solids Contact The trickling filter / solids contact process is a hybrid between the trickling filter process and the activated sludge process. The trickling filter process is able to cost effectively reduce the BOD, while the solids contact process, which is essentially an activated sludge basin, provides reliable treatment of the wastewater for times when the tricking filter is not able to effectively treat the wastewater, such as during inclement weather. A flow schematic of the trickling filter / solids contact process is found in Figure 22. Another noted benefit for the trickling filter /solids contact process is that the solids produced typically settle very efficiently. This can result in improved secondary clarifier performance. There is additional complexity associated with the tricking filter / solids contact process resulting from the employment of both processes. The operator must be able to balance the requirements of each process. Additionally, there are multiple equipment types that will require maintenance. The trickling filter / solids contact process cannot be adapted for biological nutrient removal without the abandonment of the trickling filter process. However, the solids contact basins can be designed in a manner that would make them effective components of an activated sludge system, should biological Page 68 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 43 | Page nutrient removal be required in the future. Additionally, the solids contact basins could be located on the site without the need for additional property. Figure 22. Trickling filter / Solids contact flow schematic. e. Alternatives analysis and scoring Using simple scoring, the alternatives were rated on a variety of criteria, as noted above and in Table 11. Alternatives were given a score of 1-4 with 4 being the highest rating and 1 the lowest. The alternative with the highest total points was viewed as the best alternative to meet the current facility requirements. Table 11. Alternative comparison and scoring. Alt. 1 (2-Stage Tricking Filter) Alt. 2 (Oxidation Ditch) Alt. 3 (Conventional Activated Sludge) Alt. 4 (Tricking Filter/Solids Contact) Treatment Reliability 1 2 4 3 Future Regulations 1 3 4 3 Expandability 1 2 3 4 Site Constraints 3 2 1 4 Energy Consumption 4 2 1 3 Maintenance 4 3 2 1 Ease of Operation 2 3 4 1 Constructability 1 3 2 4 Cost 3 2 1 4 Total 20 22 22 27 Page 69 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  44 | Page      12. Views of the Public and Concerned Interest Groups  Public input has not been obtained for this draft plan. Public input will be solicited prior to finalization of the plan.   Based on the results of the analysis, the tricking filter / solids contact process was advanced as the selected process alternative. Page 70 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  45 | Page    F. SELECT PLEMENTATION  ARRANGEMENTS  1. act process provides a good transition from the existing trickling filter treatment process to an activated sludge process. The trickling filters will provide a cost effective means of significantly reducing BOD, while the solids contact basins will provide the capability of effectively treating the plant’s flows during all environmental conditions. Energy savings through using this process alternative will be significant, since the blowers for the solids contact basin will be permitted to operate in response to oxygen demand. When the trickling filters are operating efficiently, very little oxygen input will be required. Conversely, during cold periods when the trickling filters have typically not operated well, the solids contact basins will provide adequate aeration to prevent violations of the plant discharge permit. Additionally, the trickling filter / solids contact process will permit future implementation of biological nutrient reduction, should the State require nutrient removal in the future. By constructing solids contact basins in a manner and configuration that will permit their use as part of the activated sludge process, the facility will be ready for adaptation if necessary. Of course, this conversion will require demolition of the trickling filters, but the solids contact basins will be able to provide sufficient treatment of wastewater while the additional aeration basins are under construction. 2. Design of Selected Plan  The selected plan will be completed as part of a conventional design process. It is imperative that solids dewatering facilities be constructed prior to the commencement of additional work, since site staging for the solids contact basins is likely to require demolition of some of the solids dewatering beds, which are already insufficient for current needs. Therefore, initial designs should include the solids dewatering facility along with the solids contact basin, new final clarifier, and new chlorine contact chamber. The layout of the new facility can be found in Figure 23. Additionally, conversion of the facility to biological nutrient reduction is shown in Figure 24. Improvements to the screen and digester could be completed as a separate design process should the City determine that insufficient funding exists to complete the work at this time. Additionally, the additional influent pump will not be required in the immediate future and should not be included in short term design plans. ED PLAN, DESCRIPTION AND IM Justification and Description of Selected Plan  The Tricking Filter / Solids Cont Page 71 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 46 | Page Figure 23. New facility components. 3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan The cost of the recommended improvements are found in Table 12. Table 12. Cost for recommended improvements. Improvement Timeline for Completion Cost of Construction Influent Pump Station 2025 $150,000 Screening Improvements 2012 $300,000 Aeration Basins / Blowers 2013 $2,500,000 Secondary Clarifier 2013 $650,000 Disinfection Basin 2012 $250,000 Dewatering Facility 2012 $2,500,000 Digester Refurbishments 2015 $500,000 Total: $6,850,000.00 Dewatering Facility Blower Facility Solids Contact Basins Secondary Clarifier Chlorine Contact Chamber Page 72 of 135 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 47 | Page Figure 24. Biological nutrient removal configuration. 4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan The recommended improvements will result in additional energy consumption at the facility. While the new clarifier will result in virtually no additional energy consumption, the dewatering and aeration systems will consume large amounts of energy. The dewatering facility will require the addition of high energy dewatering equipment and pumps. While a number of dewatering alternatives would be available to this facility, screw presses would appear to be the most feasible alternative at this time, due to the volume of sludge anticipated and the need only to pass a paint filter test to permit solids disposal at the municipal landfill. These screw presses will likely feature 15 hp motors for each press, with two presses recommended. The largest energy use at the site will be the blowers for the solids contact basins, however. The air demands for the process will require at most 20 mg of oxygen per liter of reactor per hour, or about 166 lb per million gallons of reactor per hour. For this facility, we would need to supply approximately 0.62 lb oxygen per minute. This will require about 1300 scfm or 26 kW of power. Page 73 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  48 | Page    5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan  The selected plan is likely to have a positive overall environmental impact. Implementation of the recommended improvements will result in higher effluent quality, although this will come at the expense of additional electricity consumption. However, pollution from increases in electricity consumption could be offset through the purchase of green energy credits, if the City were to elect to pursue such an alternative. Additionally, elimination of chlorine gas from the facility will result in better air quality. Removal of the tankage and piping for chlorine gas will reduce the potential for a chlorine gas release, reducing the potential toxic impacts of the wastewater facility. 6. Arrangements for Implementation  a. Intermunicipal Service Agreements  In order for the City of Moab to implement the recommended facility improvements, additional cooperation from Grand Water & Sewer will be required. The two entities will have to cooperate on the timing and financing of future projects in order to ensure that impact fees associated with improvements required by population growth are adequately utilized and that impact fees are fairly assessed. Additionally, it would be appropriate for more data sharing to occur between the two entities in order to ensure that no adverse impacts are result of operational or infrastructure changes implemented by the City of Moab or Grand Water & Sewer. y c. e ditional l experienced by either entity as the b.Civil Rights Compliance  There are no civil rights compliance issues associated with the recommended alternative, since the facility is to remain in its existing location, which is largel isolated from any housing units. Operation and Maintenance Requirements  The recommended alternative will require significantly more operation labor and maintenance. The increases in operator attention will largely be required as a result of addition of the solids contact facility with associated blowers and th dewatering facility. These mechanical components will require ad maintenance and may also require specialized maintenance requiring additiona training for the plant operators. Additionally, it may be appropriate to add an additional operator and implementation of a scheduled preventative maintenance program to ensure continued reliable and efficient operation of the wastewater facility. Page 74 of 135   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  49 | Page    sting pre- uld 7. isition  d. Pre­Treatment Program  The recommended alternative will not require alteration of the City’s exi treatment program. Future significant sources of wastewater to the facility sho be evaluated with respect to their potential biological impact on the facility, however. Land Acqu No land acquisitions will be required in order to implement the preferred alternative. All facilities will be constructed on property currently occupied by the wastewater treatment plant. Page 75 of 135 August 24, 2010 Page 1 of 3  MOAB CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING  August 24, 2010    The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date in the  Council Chambers of Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center  Street, Moab, Utah.  Mayor David L. Sakrison called the Pre‐Council  Workshop to order at 6:30 PM. In attendance were Councilmembers  Kyle Bailey, Kirstin Peterson, Sarah Bauman, Jeffrey Davis and Gregg  Stucki; City Manager Donna Metzler, City Recorder/Assistant City  Manager Rachel Ellison, Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Community  Development Director David Olsen and City Engineer Rebecca Andrus.    Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00  PM and led in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Five (5) members of the  audience were present.    There were no minutes to approve.    There were no Citizens to be Heard.     A Community Development Department Update was not given.     Under Engineering Department Update, City Engineer Andrus stated  that paving had begun on the 500 West Project and that striping of 500  West as well as 400 North would be completed as part of the same  project.  City Engineer Andrus stated that the Williams Way Repaving  Project was currently out to bid and that she had attended a productive  meeting with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) regarding  the Highway 191 project.    Under Planning Department Update, Planning Director Reinhart stated  that staff was moving ahead with the Haciendas and Portal Vista  projects and that staff had been investigating the claims of Portal Vista  homeowners regarding the status of improvements.  Planning Director  Reinhart then stated that there would not be a workshop at the next  City Planning Commission meeting as staff would be attending the  Grand County General Plan Workshop.  Planning Director Reinhart then  stated that there would be a joint City/County Council meeting on  August 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM to discuss complete streets.  Planning  Director Reinhart then reviewed the next Planning Commission meeting  agenda.    A Police Department Update was not given.    Public Works Department Update was not given.  Mayor Sakrison opened a public hearing on Proposed Ordinance #2010‐ 13 – An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code, Section  17.09 and 17.70, by Establishing Standards and Conditions for Approval  of Specific Conditional Uses; and Proposed Ordinance #2010‐15 – An  Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code, Section  17.12.030, Non‐conforming Uses and Non‐complying Buildings at 7:15  PM.  Planning Director Reinhart gave a staff summary of the proposed  ordinances.  No public comment was received.  Mayor Sakrison closed the public hearing at 7:25 PM.            REGULAR MEETING &  ATTENDANCE                    CALL TO ORDER          APPROVAL OF MINUTES    CITIZENS TO BE HEARD    COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  UPDATE    ENGINEERING UPDATE                    PLANNING UPDATE                              POLICE UPDATE    PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE    PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON  PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010‐ 13                      PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED      Page 76 of 135 August 24, 2010 Page 2 of 3  Under Presentations, Finnoula Kofoed of the Utah Municipal Clerks’  Association presented City Recorder/Assistant City Manager Rachel  Ellison with the designation of Master Municipal Clerk as conferred by  the International Institute of Municipal Clerks for fulfilling educational  and professional development requirements.    Councilmember Peterson moved to approve a Staffing Plan for the  Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center.  Councilmember Bauman  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 4‐1 aye with Councilmember  Davis voting nay.    Councilmember Peterson moved to approve a Job Description for the  Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center Director Position with the addition  of the requirement of a successful background check.  Councilmember  Stucki seconded the motion.  The motion carried 4‐1 aye with  Councilmember Davis voting nay.  Councilmember Bailey moved to approve Proposed Ordinance #2010‐20  – An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Official Zoning Map  Contemplating Rezoning a Property Located at 976 West and 400 North  from I‐1 Industrial to R‐4 Residential.  Councilmember Bauman seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Bailey moved to approve Proposed Resolution #16‐2010  ‐ A Resolution Adopting the City of Moab Cafeteria Plan and Summary  Plan Description Documents, Including Dependent Care and Health  Flexible Spending Accounts.  Councilmember Peterson seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.  The Discussion and Presentation Regarding a Proposed South Area  Annexation was cancelled.    There was no Correspondence to be Read.    Under Administrative Report, City Manager Metzler stated that city staff  had been spending a lot of time developing proposals for operations of  the new aquatics center.  City Manager Metzler stated that weekly  aquatics center meetings were being conducted and that the project  was on schedule.  City Manager Metzler continued that staff had been  working to communicate the City’s expectations regarding the highway  191 project to UDOT as well as coordinating opening issues for the new  school with the Grand School District, and working with the Nature  Conservancy regarding their use of the WWTP effluent.  City Manager  Metzler stated that initial Public Works Director interviews had been  conducted and that staff continued to work on the project issues with  Portal Vista and Haciendas subdivisions.      A Report on City/County Cooperation was not given.    Mayor and Council Reports were not given.     Councilmember Stucki moved to pay the bills against the City of Moab in  the amount of $572,165.15.  Councilmember Davis seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye by a roll‐call‐vote.    Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 8:44 PM.        PRESENTATION BY UTAH  MUNICIPAL CLERKS’  ASSOCIATION            STAFFING PLAN FOR THE  MOAB RECREATION AND  AQUATIC CENTER, APPROVED            JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE  MOAB RECREATION AND  AQUATIC CENTER DIRECTOR  POSITION, APPROVED        PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010‐ 20, APPROVED              PROPOSED RESOLUTION #16‐ 2010, APPROVED              DISCUSSION REGARDING  ANNEXATION, CANCELLED      READING OF  CORRESPONDENCE    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS                                REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY  COOPERATION    MAYOR AND COUNCIL  REPORTS    APPROVAL OF BILLS            ADJOURNMENT      Page 77 of 135 August 24, 2010 Page 3 of 3  APPROVED: ____________________   ATTEST: ____________________                          David L. Sakrison                      Rachel Ellison                          Mayor                                      City Recorder/Asst. City Mgr.        Page 78 of 135 September 14, 2010 Page 1 of 3  MOAB CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING  September 14, 2010    The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date in  the Council Chambers of Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center  Street, Moab, Utah.  Mayor David L. Sakrison called the Pre‐Council  Workshop to order at 6:30 PM. In attendance were Councilmembers  Kyle Bailey, Kirstin Peterson, Sarah Bauman, Jeffrey Davis and Gregg  Stucki; City Manager Donna Metzler, City Recorder/Assistant City  Manager Rachel Ellison, Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Community  Development Director David Olsen, Police Chief Mike Navarre and City  Engineer Rebecca Andrus.    Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00  PM and Citizen B.D. Howard led in the Pledge of Allegiance.  One (1)  member of the audience was present.    There were no minutes to approve.    There were no Citizens to be Heard.     Under Community Development Department Update, Community  Development Director Olsen stated that the Bureau of Land  Management had approved additions to the Pipe Dream Trail.     Under Engineering Department Update, City Engineer Andrus stated  that staff had participated in the 500 West walk‐through the previous  week and that she had attended the Joint Highway Committee Meeting  in Salt Lake City and had submitted a request for funding for the next  phase of the 500 West Project, which had been approved for funding in  2015.    Under Planning Department Update, Planning Director Reinhart stated  that staff had been working on the Portal Vista project and that there  would be a Planning Commission workshop on September 9, 2010.     A Police Department Update was not given.    Public Works Department Update was not given.    Councilmember Bailey moved to approve a Special Event License for  the Moab Century Tour to Conduct a Road Cycling Event on September  17 and 18, 2010 at 1551 North Highway 191.  Councilmember Stucki  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Stucki moved to approve a Special Business Event  License for Raft for the Cure 2011 to Conduct a Benefit Event on June  24 and 25, 2011.  Councilmember Peterson seconded the motion.  The  motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Peterson moved to approve a Request for Use of  Swanny City Park by Moab Adventure Center to Conduct a Benefit  Event on June 24 and 25, 2011.  Councilmember Bailey seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Stucki moved to Confirm the Mayoral Appointment of            REGULAR MEETING &  ATTENDANCE                      CALL TO ORDER          APPROVAL OF MINUTES    CITIZENS TO BE HEARD      COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  UPDATE        ENGINEERING UPDATE                PLANNING UPDATE          POLICE UPDATE    PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE        SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE FOR  THE MOAB CENTURY TOUR,  APPROVED          SPECIAL BUSINESS EVENT  LICENSE FOR RAFT FOR THE  CURE 2011, APPROVED          REQUEST FOR USE OF SWANNY  CITY PARK BY MOAB  ADVENTURE CENTER,  APPROVED          MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF  Page 79 of 135 September 14, 2010 Page 2 of 3  Jeff Foster as Moab City Public Works Director.  Councilmember Davis  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Peterson moved to Award the Williams Way Re‐ pavement Project to LeGrand Johnson in the amount of $354,783.   Councilmember Stucki seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye by a roll‐call‐vote.    Councilmember Stucki moved to approve the Williams Way Re‐ pavement Project Contract.  Councilmember Bauman seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Peterson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance  #2010‐15 – An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code,  Section 17.12.030, Non‐conforming Uses and Non‐complying Buildings.   Councilmember Bauman seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye.    Councilmember Bauman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance  #2010‐13 – An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code,  Section 17.09 and 17.70, by Establishing Standards and Conditions for  Approval of Specific Conditional Uses.  Councilmember Peterson  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Under a Discussion and Presentation Regarding a Proposed South Area  Annexation, Planning Director Reinhart made a presentation.   Discussion followed.    Under Reading of Correspondence, Mayor Sakrison proclaimed  September 9, 2010 as “Ride for Their Lives Day” in the City of Moab, as  well as a proclamation regarding the Smithsonian Exhibition Explores  America’s Musical Roots exhibit at the Dan O’Laurie Canyon Country  Museum.   Mayor Sakrison stated that he had received a letter  regarding “Serve Your National Public Lands Day” as well as a 2010  Census Award.     Councilmember Stucki stated that he had received a letter from a local  business owner regarding a Moab City Police Officer.    City Manager Metzler stated that the issue was in process.    Under Administrative Report, City Manager Metzler stated that city  staff had attended a meeting with the Nature Conservancy and had  outlined the requirements for their project.  City Manager Metzler  stated that the Nature Conservancy had concurred with all of the  requirements and that changes needed to be made to the City’s  discharge permit as required by the State of Utah.  City Manager  Metzler stated that an agreement would be drafted.  City Manager  Metzler stated that Nathan Zaag would be making a presentation at  the first meeting in October.  City Manager Metzler stated that the  MRAC (Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center) project was on schedule  and that she was participating on the Grand County School District  Financial Oversight Committee and that a lease was being drafted for  the new Dog Park.    JEFF FOSTER AS PUBLIC WORKS  DIRECTOR, CONFIRMED        WILLIAMS WAY RE‐PAVEMENT  PROJECT AWARD, APPROVED            WILLIAMS WAY RE‐PAVEMENT  PROJECT CONTRACT,  APPROVED        PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010‐ 15, APPROVED                PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010‐ 13, APPROVED              DISCUSSION AND  PRESENTATION REGARDING  THE PROPOSED SOUTH AREA  ANNEXATION        READING OF  CORRESPONDENCE                                ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS                                      Page 80 of 135 September 14, 2010 Page 3 of 3   A Report on City/County Cooperation was not given.      Mayor and Council Reports were not given.     Councilmember Stucki moved to pay the bills against the City of Moab  in the amount of $1,124,354.55.  Councilmember Peterson seconded  the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye by a roll‐call‐vote.    Councilmember Bailey moved to adjourn the meeting.  Councilmember  Davis seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 8:02 PM.      APPROVED: ____________________   ATTEST: ____________________                          David L. Sakrison                              Rachel Ellison                          Mayor                                              City Recorder/Asst. City      REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY  COOPERATION    MAYOR AND COUNCIL  REPORTS      APPROVAL OF BILLS          MOTION TO ADJOURN,  APPROVED      ADJOURNMENT            Page 81 of 135 September 28, 2010 Page 1 of 3  MOAB CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING  September 28, 2010    The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date in  the Council Chambers of Moab City Offices, located at 217 East Center  Street, Moab, Utah.  Mayor David L. Sakrison called the Pre‐Council  Workshop to order at 6:30 PM. In attendance were Councilmembers  Kyle Bailey, Kirstin Peterson, Sarah Bauman, Jeffrey Davis and Gregg  Stucki; City Manager Donna Metzler, City Recorder/Assistant City  Manager Rachel Ellison, Planning Director Jeff Reinhart, Community  Development Director David Olsen, Administrative Analyst/Economic  Development Specialist Kenneth F. Davey, Police Chief Mike Navarre  and City Engineer Rebecca Andrus.    Mayor Sakrison called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00  PM and Councilmember Davis led in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Eighteen  (18) members of the audience were present.    There were no minutes to approve.    Under Citizens to be Heard, Sara Melnicoff stated that the Solutions  Group was celebrating their sixth year and in part due to their efforts,  no one had died on the parkway over the past winter.  Ms. Melnicoff  acknowledged the Grand County High School Earth Club and their  recycling efforts.  Ms. Melnicoff gave Mayor Sakrison the first annual  Solutions “Walking the Talk” award.     Under Community Development Department Update, Community  Development Director Olsen stated that the next Community  Development Block Grant process was starting up again.     Under Engineering Department Update, City Engineer Andrus reviewed  a written report.    Under Planning Department Update, Planning Director Reinhart stated  that the Haciendas and Portal Vista projects had slowed down and that  the Haciendas project would be ending in two to three weeks and that  the Portal Vista project would be progressing.  Planning Director  Reinhart stated that there would be a Joint Planning Commission/City  Council Mobile Vendor Workshop.    A Police Department Update was not given.    A Public Works Department Update was not given.    Councilmember Bailey moved to approve the Use of Swanny City Park  by Energy Solutions on September 30, 2010 to Conduct a Community  Celebration and Grand County School District Charity Event.   Councilmember Bauman seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye.     Councilmember Peterson moved to approve a Request for Use of City  Right‐of‐way by Stella Ann Lightfoot to Conduct a Sidewalk Sale on  October 8 and 9, 2010 at Various Locations on Main Street.   Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye.            REGULAR MEETING &  ATTENDANCE                        CALL TO ORDER          APPROVAL OF MINUTES      CITIZENS TO BE HEARD                COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  UPDATE        ENGINEERING UPDATE        PLANNING UPDATE                  POLICE UPDATE    PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE      USE OF SWANNY CITY PARK BY  ENERGY SOLUTIONS,  APPROVED                REQUEST FOR USE OF CITY  RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TO CONDUCT A  SIDEWALK SALE, APPROVED        Page 82 of 135 September 28, 2010 Page 2 of 3      Councilmember Peterson moved to approve a Request to Send  Proposed Ordinance #2010‐14 – An Ordinance Amending Various  Chapters of the Moab Municipal Code Pertaining to Accessory  Structures to Public Hearing.  Councilmember Stucki seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Bauman moved to approve a Request to Send  Proposed Ordinance #2010‐21 – An Ordinance Adopting Various  International Codes to Public Hearing.  Councilmember Peterson  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Bauman moved to approve a Request to Send  Proposed Ordinance #2010‐06 – An Ordinance Amending Code  Chapters 17.72.100 through 17.72.240 that Address the Board of  Adjustments to Public Hearing.  Councilmember Bailey seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Councilmember Bailey moved to approve Proposed Resolution #17‐ 2010 – A Resolution Regarding a $25,000 Allocation of Real Estate  Transfer Assessment Funds to Help Finance the Cinema Court  Affordable Housing Project.  Councilmember Bauman seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    There was no Correspondence to be Read.    Under Administrative Report, City Manager Metzler stated that city  staff would conduct ten interviews for the Moab Recreation Aquatic  Center (MRAC) Director position out of 31 applicants.  City Manager  Metzler then stated that there were temporary recycling containers on  Main Street and that she had met with the Nature Conservancy, the  Division of Water Quality, the Division of Wildlife Resources and the  Water Rights Attorney for the Nature Conservancy.  City Manager  Metzler continued that the state had decided that the ammonia level  was too high in the Waste Water Treatment Plant’s effluent for the  Nature Conservancy to use and that their project could not continue as  configured.     A Report on City/County Cooperation was not given.    Under Mayor and Council Reports, Mayor Sakrison stated that the  Millcreek Bridge project should be completed by the end of November  and that he had attended the annual Utah League of Cities and Towns  convention in Salt Lake City.     Councilmember Bauman stated that she had attended an Affordable  Housing Task Force meeting and that impact fee recommendations  were being developed.    Councilmember Stucki moved to pay the bills against the City of Moab  in the amount of $199,182.01.  Councilmember Davis seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye by a roll‐call‐vote.    Councilmember Bailey moved to adjourn the meeting.  Councilmember  Peterson seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.    Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 8:12 PM.        REQUEST TO SEND PROPOSED  ORDINANCE #2010‐14 TO  PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVED              REQUEST TO SEND PROPOSED  ORDINANCE #2010‐21 TO  PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVED          REQUEST TO SEND PROPOSED  ORDINANCE #2010‐06 TO  PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVED              PROPOSED RESOLUTION #17‐ 2010, APPROVED            READING OF  CORRESPONDENCE    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS                                REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY  COOPERATION    MAYOR AND COUNCIL  REPORTS                      APPROVAL OF BILLS          MOTION TO ADJOURN,  APPROVED      Page 83 of 135 September 28, 2010 Page 3 of 3      APPROVED: ____________________   ATTEST: ____________________                          David L. Sakrison                      Rachel Ellison                          Mayor                                      City Recorder/Asst. City Mgr.  ADJOURNMENT            Page 84 of 135 MOAB.FINAL.TM DRAFT.DOCX1 T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M UDWQ POTW Nutrient Removal Cost Impact Study: Analysis of Moab City Wastewater Treatment Plant PREPARED FOR: Utah Division of Water Quality PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL COPIES: Moab Wastewater Treatment Plant DATE: June 2010 In partial fulfillment of the Utah Division of Water Quality Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Nutrient Removal Cost Impacts Study, this Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the process, financial and environmental evaluation of Moab City Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) to meet the four tiers of nutrient standards presented in Table 1. The thirty mechanical POTWs in the State of Utah were categorized into five groups to simplify process alternatives development, evaluation, and cost estimation for a large number of facilities. Similar approaches to upgrading these facilities for nutrient removal were thus incorporated into the models developed for POTWs with related treatment processes. The five categories considered were as follows: • Oxidation Ditch (OD) • Activated Sludge (AS) • Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) • Trickling Filter (TF) • Hybrid Process (Trickling Filter/Solids Contact (TF/SC) or Trickling Filter/Activated Sludge (TF/AS)) The MWWTP fits in the Trickling Filter category. TABLE 1 Nutrient Discharge Standards for Treated Effluent Tier Total Phosphorus, mg/L Total Nitrogen, mg/L 1N 0.1 10 1 0.1 No limit 2N 1.0 20 2 1.0 No limit 3 Base condition Base condition Page 85 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 2 1. Facility Overview MWWTP has a design flow of 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently receives an average annual influent flow of approximately 0.9 mgd. The facility operates a rock media trickling filter system with primary treatment. Chlorine is added to the secondary clarifiers for disinfection prior to discharge to the Colorado River. Primary solids and wasted solids are stabilized by anaerobic digestion and dewatered with sludge drying beds. A process flow diagram is presented in Figure 1 and an aerial photo of the POTW is shown in Figure 2. The major unit processes are summarized in Table 2. FIGURE 1 Process Flow Diagram Page 86 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 3 FIGURE 2 Aerial View of the Facility (Source: Google Earth) TABLE 2 Summary of Major Unit Processes Treatment step Number of Units Size, each Details Primary Clarifiers 2 40-ft diameter 8-ft SWD Trickling Filters 2 72-ft & 80-ft diameter 7-ft depth, rock Secondary Clarifiers 5 40-ft diameter 7-ft SWD Anaerobic Digestion 2 48-ft diameter, 35,600-ft3 Mesophilic 2. Nutrient Removal Alternatives Development A nutrient removal alternatives matrix was prepared in order to capture an array of viable approaches for TF facilities (See Attachment A). This matrix considers biological and chemical phosphorus removal approaches as well as different activated sludge configurations for nitrogen control. The alternatives matrix illustrates that there are several strategies for controlling nutrient limits. The processes that were modeled and described in the subsequent sections are considered proven methods for meeting the nutrient limits. There may be other ways to further optimize to reduce capital and operation and Page 87 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 4 maintenance (O&M) costs that are beyond the scope of this project. This TM can form the basis for an optimization study in the future should that be desired by the POTW. MWWTP currently operates two rock media trickling filter units with primary treatment. As with all of the POTWs, the approaches were developed with the goal of utilizing the existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible. Because the facility’s trickling filters are relatively shallow (7ft depth) and utilize rock media as opposed to more efficient plastic media, it was decided to move toward an activated sludge system as nutrient limits become more stringent. Figure 3 shows the selected upgrade approach used between each tier of nutrient control with the bullet points A through D describing each upgrade step: A. From Tier 3 (existing) to Tier 2 phosphorus control, the existing primary and secondary treatment system was supplemented with a metal-salt feed and storage system for chemical phosphorus removal. B. To go from Tier 2 to Tier 2N, the trickling filters were replaced with an extended aeration process using oxidation ditches. New anaerobic basins located between the primary clarifiers and aerobic zones provided an environment for phosphorus release. The aerobic-anoxic zones within the oxidation ditch allowed phosphorus uptake and nitrogen removal (nitrification/denitrification). New secondary clarifiers that were designed for solids separation of an activated sludge replaced the existing clarifiers. In addition, a return activated sludge (RAS) pumping station was needed. Metal-salt feed and storage remained as a redundant system for P removal. C. To go from Tier 2 to Tier 1 phosphorus control, deep bed granular media filters were added downstream of the existing secondary clarifier units. An additional chemical feed point was implemented upstream of the filter system. D. To go from Tier 2N to Tier 1N, deep bed granular media filters were added downstream of the new secondary clarifiers. FIGURE 3 Upgrades Scheme for Meeting Increasingly More Stringent Nutrient Control Page 88 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 5 Data Evaluation, Initial Modeling, and Calibration The selected progression of upgrades conceived for meeting the different tiers of nutrient control for MWWTP was analyzed using the following four steps; Step 1. Review, compile, and summarize the process performance data submitted by the POTW; Step 2. Develop and calibrate a base model of the existing POTW using the summarized performance data; Step 3. Build upon the base model by sequentially modifying it to incorporate unit process additions or upgrades for the different tiers of nutrient control and use model outputs to establish unit process sizing and operating requirements; Step 4. Develop capital and O&M costs for each upgrade developed in Step 3. The facility information and data received by MWWTP per the initial data request was evaluated to (a) develop, and validate the base process model, and (b) size facilities to conserve the POTW’s current rated capacity. Table 3 provides a summary of the reported information used as the model input conditions. See process modeling protocol for additional information. TABLE 3 Summary of Input Conditions Input Parameter 2009 (1) 2029 (2) Design (3) Flow, mgd 0.9 1.25 1.5 BOD, lb/day 2,000 (266 mg/L) 2,750 (264 mg/L) 3,300 (264 mg/L) TSS, lb/day 1,870 (250 mg/L) 2,750 (264 mg/L) 3,300 (264 mg/L) TKN, lb/day 310 (41 mg/L) 427 (41 mg/L) 512 (41 mg/L) TP, lb/day 35 (5 mg/L) 52 (5 mg/L) 63 (6 mg/L) (1) Historic conditions 2007-2009 (2) Projected by the POTW, and updated at the POTW Workshop October, 2009. (3) Design maximum month capacity of POTW updated at the POTW Workshop October, 2009. The main sizing and operating design criteria that were associated with the system upgrade for MWWTP are summarized in Table 4. Page 89 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 6 TABLE 4 Main Unit Process Sizing and Operating Design Parameters Design Parameter (Nutrient Tier) Value Influent design temperature (All Tiers) 10 deg C Anaerobic fraction of bioreactor (T2N, T1N) 15% Anoxic fraction of bioreactor (T2N, T1N) 20% - 30% Target metal:PO4-P molar Ratio (Tier 1 and 1N) 1:1, 2:1, 7:1 (1) Metal-salt storage (All Tiers) 14 days Granular filter loading rate (T1 and T1N) 5 gpm/ft2 (2) (1)Target dosing ratio at the primary clarifiers, secondary clarifiers and upstream of polishing filter, respectively. Note that polishing filter included in T1 and T1N only. (2)Hydraulic loading rate at peak hourly flow 3. Nutrient Upgrade Approaches The following paragraphs provide details of the upgrade approaches as presented previously in Figure 3. Tier 2 Phosphorus (A) The effluent limit for Tier 2 alternatives is 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus. MWWTP can achieve 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus using a multi-point metal-salt addition approach. This approach dosed metal-salt upstream of the primary clarifiers and secondary clarifiers. A metal-salt storage building was required for housing both storage tanks and metering pumps. The process flow diagram for this approach is shown in Figure 4. Page 90 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 7 FIGURE 4 Modifications to POTW for Tier 2 Nutrient Control Tier 2N – Phosphorus & Nitrogen (B) The effluent limit for this alternative is 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus and 20 mg/L total nitrogen. Because of the favorable influent wastewater characteristics (i.e,. BOD: P = 40), a biological nutrient removal process was implemented to achieve nutrient control and to minimize the plants dependence on chemicals. Primary effluent was sent to an anaerobic basin prior to entering an oxidation ditch. Existing secondary clarifiers was replaced with larger 50-ft diameter units with a deeper SWD for enhanced settling of the mixed-liquor. The new clarifier underflow system provided adequate capacity to convey settled solids from the new activated sludge system. The metal-salt feed system remained from Tier 2 as a standby process. A process flow diagram for this Tier 2N approach is shown in Figure 5. FIGURE 5 Modifications to POTW for Tier 2N Nutrient Goal Tier 1 –Phosphorus (C) The effluent limit for this alternative is 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus. This approach builds upon the Tier 2 approach for phosphorus control. The dosing rate of metal-salt was increased from Tier 2. In addition, new granular media filters with chemical feed were needed to remove particulate phosphorus from the liquid stream prior to final discharge. The filtration system required secondary effluent pumps to provide adequate head, as well as backwash pumps and other ancillary equipment. A process flow diagram for this chemical phosphorus approach is shown in Figure 6. Page 91 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 8 FIGURE 6 Modifications to POTW for Tier 1 Nutrient Goal Tier 1N – Phosphorus & Nitrogen (D) The effluent limit for this alternative is 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus and 10 mg/L total nitrogen. This approach combined the process elements proposed in both Tier 2N and Tier 1. First, this approach replaced the trickling filter system with oxidation ditches as described in Tier 2N. It also incorporated granular media filters as presented in T1. The multi-point chemical feed system remained as a redundant means of phosphorus removal. A process flow diagram is shown as Figure 7. Page 92 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 9 FIGURE 7 Modifications to POTW for Tier 1N Nutrient Goal 4. Capital and O&M Cost Estimates for Nutrient Control This section formalizes the cost-impact results from this nutrient control analysis. These outputs were used in the financial cost model and subsequent financial analyses. Table 5 presents a summary of the major facility upgrade components identified for meeting each tier of nutrient control. For all Tiers, a metal-salt feed and storage facility was required along with minor mechanical modification at the specific dosing points. Tier 1 also required the addition of a granular media filter system with upstream metal-salt feed. Tier 2N needed a BNR system using oxidation ditches with new secondary clarifiers and RAS/WAS pumping. Tier 1N incorporated a granular media filtration system to the new activated sludge treatment system. TABLE 5 Page 93 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 10 Major Facility Upgrade Summary Processes Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Metal-salt feed & storage system X X X X Anaerobic basins X X Oxidation Ditches (Basins, aerators, mixers) X X Mixed-liquor distribution structure X X Secondary clarifiers X X RAS/WAS Pump Station X X Granular media filtration system X X The capital cost estimates shown in Table 6 were generated for the facility upgrades summarized in Table 5. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International and defined as a Class 4 estimate. The expected accuracy range for the estimates shown in Table 6 is -30%/+50%. TABLE 6 Capital Cost Estimates ($ Million) Unit Process Facility Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Metal-Salt Feed Facility $0.630 $0.340 $0.660 $0.340 Oxidation Ditches $0.000 $3.630 $0.000 $3.630 Anaerobic Basin $0.000 $0.920 $0.000 $0.920 Mixed-Liquor Splitting Structure $0.000 $0.320 $0.000 $0.320 Secondary Clarifiers $0.000 $3.100 $0.000 $3.100 RAS/WAS Pump Station $0.000 $2.612 $0.000 $2.612 Secondary Effluent Pumps $0.000 $0.000 $1.210 $1.210 Deep Bed Filters $0.000 $0.000 $4.150 $4.150 TOTAL TIER COST $0.630 $10.922 $5.820 $16.082 December 2009 US Dollars Incremental O&M costs associated with meeting each tier of nutrient standard were generated for the years 2009 and 2029. The unit costs were either provided by the POTW or assumed based on the average costs in the State of Utah, and are presented in Table 7. A straight line interpolation was used to estimate the differential cost for the two years. O&M costs for each upgrade included the following components: • Biosolids management: hauling , use, and disposal • Chemical consumption costs: metal-salt, and, polymer Page 94 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 11 • Power costs for the major mechanized process equipment: aeration, secondary effluent pumps, backwash pumps and dewatering units TABLE 7 Operating and Maintenance Unit Costs Parameter Value Biosolids hauling $20/wet ton Biosolids tipping fee $20/wet ton Roundtrip biosolids hauling distance (1) 42 miles Ferric chloride $1000/ton Polymer $1/lb Power $0.07/kwh (1) Provided by the POTW Increased O&M relative to the current O&M cost (Tier 3) are presented in Table 8 and shown graphically in Figure 8. TABLE 8 Estimated Impact of Nutrient Control on O&M Costs TIER 2 TIER 2N TIER 1 TIER 1N 2009 2029 2009 2029 2009 2029 2009 2029 Biosolids $0.04 $0.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.04 $0.06 $0.02 $0.02 Metal-salt $0.05 $0.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.04 $0.07 $0.01 $0.02 Polymer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Power $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 $0.04 $0.05 Total O&M $0.09 $0.13 $0.02 $0.03 $0.10 $0.15 $0.07 $0.09 Note: $ Million (US) in December 2009 Costs shown are the annual differential costs relative to the base line O&M cost of the POTW Page 95 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 12 $0.00 $0.02 $0.04 $0.06 $0.08 $0.10 $0.12 $0.14 $0.16 $0.18 $0.20 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032Annual Differential O&M Cost ($1M)Year Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N FIGURE 8 Impact of Nutrient Control on O&M Costs over 20 year evaluation period 5. Financial Impacts This section presents the estimated financial impacts that will result from the implementation of nutrient discharge standards for MWWTP. Financial impacts were summarized for each POTW on the basis of three primary economic parameters: 20-year life cycle costs, user charge impacts, and community financial impacts. The basis for the financial impact analysis is the estimated capital and incremental O&M costs established in the previous sections. Life Cycle Costs Life cycle cost analysis refers to an assessment of the costs over the life of a project or asset, emphasizing the identification of cost requirements beyond the initial investment or capital expenditure. For each treatment upgrade established to meet the studied nutrient limits (Tier 2, Tier 2N, Tier 1, and Tier 1N), a multi-year life cycle cost forecast was developed that is comprised of both capital and O&M costs. Cost forecasts are organized with initial capital expenditures in year 0 (2009), and incremental O&M forecasts from year 1 (2010) through year 20 (2029). The cost forecast for each treatment alternative was developed in current (2009) dollars, and discounted to yield the net present value (NPV). The NPV was divided by the estimated 20-year nutrient discharge mass reduction for each tier, resulting in a cost per pound estimate for nutrient removal. This calculation represents an appropriate matching of costs with receiving stream load reduction over the same time period. Table 9 presents the results of the life cycle cost analysis for MWWTP. Page 96 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 13 TABLE 9 Nutrient Removal: 20-Year Life Cycle Cost per Pound 1 Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Phosphorus Removal (pounds)2 166,285 166,285 225,697 225,697 Nitrogen Removal (pounds)2 - 1,122,213 - 1,782,338 Net Present Value of Removal Costs3 2,327,524$ 11,263,061$ 7,945,950$ 17,518,681$ NPV: Phosphorus Allocation 2,327,524 2,327,524 7,945,950 7,945,950 NPV: Nitrogen Allocation4 8,935,538 9,572,731 TP Cost per Pound5 14.00$ 14.00$ 35.21$ 35.21$ TN Cost per Pound5 7.96$ 5.37$ 2 - Total nutrient removal over a 20-year period, from 2010 through 2029 3 - Net present value of removal costs, including capital expenditures and incremental O&M over a 20-year period 4 - For simplicity, it was assumed that the nitrogen cost allocation was the incremental difference between net present value costs across Tiers for the same phosphorus limit (i.e. Tier 2 to Tier 2N); differences in technology recommendations may result in different cost allocations for some facilities 1 - For facilities that are already meeting one or more nutrient limits, "meets limit" is displayed for nutrient removal mass and "NA" is displayed for cost per pound metrics 5 - Cost per pound metrics measured over a 20-year period are used to compare relative nutrient removal efficiencies among treatment alternatives and different facilities Customer Financial Impacts The second financial parameter measures the potential impact to user rates for those customers served by the POTW. The financial impact was measured both in terms of potential rate increases for the POTW’s associated service provider, and the resulting monthly bill impacts for the typical residential customer of the system. Customer impacts were estimated by calculating annual increased revenue requirements for the POTW. Implementation of each treatment upgrade will increase the annual revenue requirements for debt service payments (related to initial capital cost) and incremental O&M costs. The annual cost increase was then divided by the number of customers served by the POTW, as measured by equivalent residential units (ERUs), to establish a monthly rate increase per ERU. The monthly rate increase associated with each treatment alternative was estimated by adding the projected monthly rate increase to the customer’s current average monthly bill. Estimated financial impacts for customers of the MWWTP are presented in Table 10. Page 97 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 14 TABLE 10 Projected Monthly Bill Impact per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for Treatment Alternatives Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Initial Capital Expenditure 629,000$ 10,907,000$ 5,998,000$ 16,252,000$ Estimated Annual Debt Service1 50,500$ 875,200$ 481,300$ 1,304,100$ Incremental Operating Cost2 95,800 20,500 106,600 74,900 Total Annual Cost Increase 146,300$ 895,700$ 587,900$ 1,379,000$ Number of ERUs 3,770 3,770 3,770 3,770 Annual Cost Increase per ERU $38.81 $237.59 $155.94 $365.78 Monthly Cost Increase per ERU3 $3.23 $19.80 $13.00 $30.48 Current Average Monthly Bill4 $18.65 $18.65 $18.65 $18.65 Projected Average Monthly Bill5 $21.88 $38.45 $31.65 $49.13 Percent Increase 17.3%106.2%69.7%163.4% 1 - Assumes a financing term of 20 years and an interest rate of 5.0 percent 3 - Projected monthly bill impact per ERU for each upgrade, based on estimated increase in annual operating costs 4 - Estimated 2009 average monthly bill for a typical residential customer (ERU) within the service area of the facility 5 - Projected average monthly bill for a typical residential customer (ERU) if treatment upgrade is implemented 2 - Incremental annual increase in O&M for each upgrade, based on chosen treatment technology, estimated for first operational year Community Financial Impacts The third and final parameter measures the financial impact of nutrient limits from a community perspective, and accounts for the varied purchasing power of customers throughout the state. The metric is the ratio of the projected monthly bill that would result from each treatment alternative to an affordable monthly bill, based on a parameter established by the State Water Quality Board to determine project affordability. The Division employs an affordability criterion that is widely used to assess the affordability of projects. The affordability threshold is equal to 1.4 percent of the median annual gross household income (MAGI) for customers served by a POTW. The MAGI estimate for customers of each POTW is multiplied by the affordability threshold parameter, then divided by 12 (months) to determine the monthly ‘affordable’ wastewater bill for the typical customer. The projected monthly bill for each nutrient limit was then expressed as a percentage of the monthly affordable bill. The resulting affordability ratio for each nutrient limit for the MWWTP is shown in Table 11. Page 98 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 15 TABLE 11 Community Financial Impacts: Affordability of Treatment Alternatives Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Median Annual Gross Income (MAGI)1,2 28,700$ 28,700$ 28,700$ 28,700$ Affordability Threshold (% of MAGI)3 1.4%1.4%1.4%1.4% Monthly Affordability Criterion $33.48 $33.48 $33.48 $33.48 Projected Average Monthly Bill $21.88 $38.45 $31.65 $49.13 Meets State's Affordability Criterion?Yes No Yes No Estimated Bill as % of State Criterion 65%115%95%147% 1 - Based on the average MAGI of customers within the service area of the facility 2 - MAGI statistics compiled from 2008 census data 3 - Parameter established by the State Water Quality Board to determine project affordability for POTWs 6. Environmental Impacts of Nutrient Control Analysis This section summarizes the potential environmental benefits and impacts that would result from implementing the process upgrades established for the various tiers of nutrient control detailed in Section 3. The following aspects were considered for this evaluation: • Reduction of nutrient loads from POTW to receiving water bodies • Changes in chemical consumption • Changes in biosolids production • Changes in energy consumption • Changes in emissions from biosolids hauling, disposal and energy consumption As per the data received from MWWTP and per process modeling of the base condition (Tier 3), MWWTP is able to achieve some nutrient removal with its existing infrastructure, but not enough to meet the effluent limits of the specified Tiers of nutrient standards. Table 12 summarizes the annual reduction in nutrient loads in MWWTP effluent discharge if the process upgrades were implemented. The values shown are for the current (2009) flow and load conditions. It should be noted that any increase in flow or load to the POTW will result in higher reductions. TABLE 12 Estimated Environmental Benefits of Nutrient Control Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Total phosphorus removed, lb/year 6,500 6,500 8,965 8,965 Total nitrogen removed, lb/year ---- 47,760 ---- 75,155 Note: Nutrient loads shown are the annual differential loads relative to the baseline (Tier 3) condition of the POTW for the year 2009. Page 99 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 16 The nutrient content of POTWs’ discharges and their receiving waters were also summarized to examine the potential of various treatment alternatives for reducing nutrient loads to those water bodies. The POTW loads were paired with estimated loads in the upstream receiving waters to create estimated downstream combined loads. Those combined stream and POTW loads could then be examined for the potential effects of future POTW nutrient removal alternatives. The average total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations discharged by each POTW were either provided by the POTW during the data collection process or obtained from process modeling efforts. Upstream receiving historical water quality data was obtained from STORET. Data from STORET was summarized in order to yield average total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations that could then be paired with the appropriate POTW records. It should be noted that the data obtained from STORET were not verified by sampling and possible anomalies and outliers could exist in historical data sets due to certain events or errors in measurement. Table 13 shows the total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentration discharged by MWWTP to its receiving waters for baseline condition (Tier 3) and for each Tier of nutrient standard. The STORET ID from where historical water quality data were obtained is also presented in the Table. The process upgrades established to meet the four tiers of nutrient standards require increased energy consumptions, chemical usage and biosolids production. Regular metal- salt addition would be required to meet the more stringent phosphorus limits. This would result in increased chemical sludge generation and consequently increased biosolids production. Process modifications to meet the total nitrogen limits would also result in increased energy consumption and biosolids productions. Table 14 summarizes these environmental impacts of implementing the process upgrades to achieve the various tiers of nutrient control. The values shown are on an annual basis, for the current (2009) flow and load conditions and indicate a differential value relative to the base line condition. TABLE 13 Estimates of Average TN and TP Concentrations for Baseline and Cumulative Treatments to Receiving Waters (mg/L) Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N STORET LOCATION STORET ID FLOW (cfs) TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN TP TN MWWTP ---- 1.39 3.37 37.00 1.0 N/A 1.0 20 0.1 N/A 0.1 10 Colorado River 4956540 6652.49 0.16 1.11 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Combined Concentrations 0.16 1.11 0.16 N/A 0.16 1.11 0.16 N/A 0.16 1.11 Page 100 of 135 MOAB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UDWQ POTW NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST IMPACT STUDY 17 TABLE 14 Estimated Environmental Impacts of Nutrient Control Tier 2 Tier 2N Tier 1 Tier 1N Chemical Use: Metal-salt use, lb/year 97,795 750 86,825 29,515 Polymers, lb/year 780 0 750 400 Biosolids Management: Biosolids produced, ton/year 78 0 75 40 Average yearly hauling distance(1) 150 0 145 76 Particulate emissions from hauling trucks, lb/year (2) 8 0 8 4 Tailpipe emissions from hauling trucks, lb/year(3) 19 0 18 10 CO2 emissions from hauling trucks lb/year(4) 1895 0 1815 970 Energy Consumption: Annual energy consumption, kwh 0 327,359 284,909 609,016 Air pollutant emissions, lb/year (5) CO2 0 295,278 256,988 549,333 NOx 0 458 399 853 SOx 0 393 342 731 CO 0 21 19 40 VOC 0 3 2 5 PM10 0 6 6 12 PM2.5 0 3 3 6 Note: Values shown are the annual differential values relative to the base line condition (Tier 3) of the POTW for the year 2009 (1) Roundtrip hauling distance of 42 miles, assuming the POTW uses 22 ton trucks for hauling biosolids to the landfill. (2) Includes PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in pounds per year. The emission factors to estimate particulate emissions were derived using the equations from AP-42, Fifth Edition, Vol. I, Section 13.2.1.: Paved Roads (11/2006). (3) Tailpipe emissions in pounds per year resulting from diesel combustion of hauling trucks were based on Emission standards Reference guide for Heavy-Duty and Nonroad Engines, EPA420-F-97-014 September 1997. It was assumed that the trucks would meet the emission standards for 1998+. (4) CO2 emission factor in pounds per year for hauling trucks were derived from Rosso and Chau, 2009, WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference Proceedings. (5) Emission factors for electricity are based on EPA Clean Energy Power Profiler (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html) assuming PacifiCorp UT region commercial customer and AP-42, Fifth Edition, Vol. I, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.: Bituminous and Sub bituminous coal Combustion (09/1998). Page 101 of 135 Page 102 of 135 Page 103 of 135 Page 104 of 135 Page 105 of 135 Page 106 of 135 Page 107 of 135 Page 108 of 135 Page 109 of 135 Page 110 of 135 Page 111 of 135 Page 112 of 135 Page 113 of 135 Page 114 of 135 Page 115 of 135 Page 116 of 135 Page 117 of 135 Page 118 of 135 Page 119 of 135 Page 120 of 135 Page 121 of 135 Page 122 of 135 Page 123 of 135 Page 124 of 135 Page 125 of 135 Page 126 of 135 Page 127 of 135 Page 128 of 135 Page 129 of 135 City of Moab Holiday Schedule 2011 All City Offices will be closed on the following holidays during 2011: Monday, January 17 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday, February 21 Presidents’ Day Monday, May 30 Memorial Day Monday, July 4 Independence Day (observed) Monday, July 25 Pioneer Day (observed) Monday, September 5 Labor Day Friday, November 11 Veterans’ Day Thursday, November 24 Thanksgiving Day Friday, November 25 Day After Thanksgiving Monday, December 26 Christmas Day (observed) Published in the Times-Independent, October 21 and 28, 2010. Page 130 of 135 City of Moab AMENDED Holiday Schedule 2010 All City Offices will be closed on the following holidays during 2010: Friday, January 1 New Year’s Day 2010 Monday, January 18 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday, February 15 Presidents’ Day Monday, May 31 Memorial Day Monday, July 5 Independence Day (observed) Friday, July 23 Pioneer Day (observed) Monday, September 6 Labor Day Thursday, November 11 Veterans’ Day Thursday, November 25 Thanksgiving Day Friday, November 26 Day After Thanksgiving Friday, December 24 Christmas Day (observed) *Friday, December 31 New Year’s Day 2011 (observed)* Published in the Times-Independent, October 21 and 28, 2010. Page 131 of 135 City of Moab Regular Council Meeting Schedule 2011 The City of Moab will hold Regular City Council Meetings at 7:00 PM with workshops beginning at 6:30 PM on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. All Regular City Council Meetings will be held in the Moab City Council Chambers at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. Meeting dates will be as follows: January 11 January 25 February 8 February 22 March 8 March 22 April 12 April 26 May 10 May 24 June 14 June 28 July 12 July 26 August 9 August 23 September 13 September 27 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 13 /s/ Rachel Ellison City Recorder/Assistant City Manager Published in the Times-Independent, October 21 and 28, 2010. Page 132 of 135 Page 133 of 135 Page 134 of 135 Page 135 of 135