Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2010-12-14CITY OF MOAB December 14, 2010 PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP **5:30 PM** REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS (217 East Center Street) Moab City CouncilMaster Meeting Calendar*211/19/2010 4:19 PM*Meeting end times are approximations onlyMoab City Recorder's OfficeSMTWT F S123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 30 31December 2010SMTWT F S12345678910111213141516 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 28 2930 31January 2011December 2010Nov 28 - Dec 4Nov 282930Dec 12347:00pm 9:00pm CVTC3:00pm 4:00pm GCSWSSD3:30pm 4:00pm MARC7:00pm 9:00pm GWSSA6:00pm 7:00pm Holiday LigDec 5 - 115678910116:00pm 7:00pm GCAB3:00pm 4:00pm GC Counci5:00pm 6:00pm KZMU Boa7:00pm 9:00pm GC Counci6:00pm 7:00pm GC PC7:00pm 8:00pmTSSD6:30pm 8:00pm Moab PC7:00pm 8:00pm CVFPDec 12 - 181213141516171812:30pm 2:00pm GCCOA12:00pm 12:30pm MTPSC3:00pm 4:00pm GCSDBE W3:00pm 3:30pm MVFPD6:30pm 9:00pm Moab CC5:00pm 6:30pm GCLB6:00pm 7:00pm GCSDBE6:00pm 6:30pm GCRSSD6:30pm 9:30pm City ChristmDec 19 - 25192021222324253:00pm 4:00pm GC Counci7:00pm 9:00pm GC Counci6:30pm 8:00pm Moab PCDec 26 - Jan 1262728293031Jan 1, 11SundayMondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturday Entry Full Description Meeting Location DatesCHCSSD Canyonlands Health Care Special Service District Grand Center #4 Last ThursdayCVFP Castle Valley Fire Protection Community Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 2nd ThursdayCVPC Castle Valley Planning Commission Community Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 1st WednesdayCVTC Castle Valley Town Council Community Center #2 Castle Valley Drive 3rd WednesdayGCCMD Grand County Cemetary Maintenance District Sunset Memorial Cemetary 2nd TuesdayGC Council Meeting Grand County Council Meeting 125 East Center Street 1st & 3rd TuesdayGCAB Grand County Airport Board 125 East Center Street 2nd TuesdayGCCOA Grand County Council on Aging Grand Center 2nd MondayGCHEC Grand County Higher Education Committee USU Extension Office 4th ThursdayGCHPC Grand County Historic Preservation Committee Grand Center 4th WednesdayGCLB Grand County Library Board 257 East Center Street 2nd WednesdayGCPC Grand County Planning Commission 125 East Center Street 2nd & 4th WednesdayGCRSSD Grand County Recreation Special Service District 217 East Center Street 2nd WednesdayGCSDBE Grand County School District Board of Education 264 South 400 East 3rd WednesdayGCSWSSD Grand County Solid Waste Special Service District 100 Sand Flats Road 1st ThursdayGCWB Grand County Weed Board Grand Center 1st MondayGWSSA Grand Water & Sewer Service Agency 3025 East Spanish Trail Road 1st & 3rd ThursdayLPC Legislative Policy Committee Utah Local Governments Trust No. SLC 3rd MondayMARC Moab Arts and Recreation Center Advisory Board 111 E. 100 North 1st ThursdayMATCAB Moab Area Travel Council Advisory Board 125 East Center Street 4th ThursdayMC Council Meeting Moab City Council Meeting 217 East Center Street 2nd & 4th TuesdayMCPC Moab City Planning Commission 217 East Center Street 2nd & 4th ThursdayMMAD Moab Mosquito Abatement Distrcit 1000 East Sand Flats Road 1st or 2nd ThursdaySEUALG South Eastern Utah Association of Local Government Price 2nd ThursdaySEUDHD South Eastern Utah District Health Department Green River City OfficesTRAIL MIX Trail Mix Grand Center 2nd Tuesday noonTSSD Thompson Special Service District Thompson Springs Fire Station 2nd TuesdayTSSFD Thompson Special Service Fire District Thompson Springs Fire Station 2nd Thursday                City of Moab – Regular Council Meeting City Council Chambers: 217 East Center Street Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.       5:30 p.m. PRE‐COUNCIL WORKSHOP   Grand County School District Regarding Community Education Issues           7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    SECTION 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES  1‐1 October 26, 2010  1‐2 November 23, 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 of the Mayor’s Student Citizenship of the Month Award for  December 2010 for Helen M. Knight School  4‐2 Presentation Regarding Wastewater Facilities Master Plan  SECTION 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Approximately 7:15 PM)   5‐1 Public Input on the Draft City of Moab Wastewater Facilities Master Plan  SECTION 6: NEW BUSINESS  6‐1 Approval of Award of the Neptune ARB Meters Bid 6‐2 Approval of Proposed Resolution #23‐2010 – A Resolution of the Governing  Body of the City of Moab Authorizing Delinquent Terminated Utility Accounts  to be Written off of the Accounting System 6‐3 Council Appointment of the Mayor Pro‐Tem  6‐4 Council Designation of a Councilmember Responsible for Approving Bills  City of Moab  217 East Center Street  Moab, Utah 84532  Main Number (435) 259‐5121  Fax Number (435) 259‐4135  www.moabcity.org  6‐5 Award of the MRAC Fitness Equipment Proposal for the Purchase of Strength  Equipment  SECTION 7: READING OF CORRESPONDENCE    SECTION 8: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS    SECTION 9: REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY COOPERATION    SECTION 10: MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS    SECTION 11: APPROVAL OF BILLS AGAINST THE CITY OF MOAB    SECTION 12: 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  October 26, 2010 Page 1 of 4  MOAB CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING  October 26, 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 and City Recorder/Assistant City  Manager Rachel Ellison.  Mayor Sakrison called the Regular Council Meeting Workshop to order  at 7:00 PM.  Also in attendance were Planning Director Jeff Reinhart,  Community Development Director David Olsen, City Treasurer Jennie  Ross, Public Works Director Jeff Foster, 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.   Eleven (11) members of the audience were present.  Councilmember Bauman moved to approve the Regular Council  Meeting minutes of October 12, 2010.  Councilmember Stucki  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.  Under Community Development Department Update, Community  Development Director Olsen stated that the Housing Authority of  Southeastern Utah was trying to select a new project for Community  Development Block Grant Funds.  Under Engineering Department Update, City Engineer Andrus stated  that she had attended a design meeting regarding Lions Park and had  been working with the design firm Psomas on that project.  City  Engineer Andrus stated that she had attended the final walk through  on the 500 West Project and had been working with the Utah  Department of Transportation regarding the Highway 191 project.  Under Planning Department Update, Planning Director Reinhart stated  that staff had been very busy rounding up illegal signs around town.   Planning Director Reinhart then displayed samples of the illegal signs.   Planning Director Reinhart stated that there would be a Joint City  Council/Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2010.  Under Police Department Update, Councilmember Peterson asked  Police Chief Navarre about the parking and traffic issues at the new  school.   Police Chief Navarre stated that the problem was working itself out.  Under Public Works Department Update, Public Works Director Foster  stated that the Williams Way Repavement project was under  construction and that the mobile home east of Rotary Park was gone.   Public Works Director Reinhart stated that work would be completed  at the Haciendas Project by mid November.  Under Citizens to be Heard, Grand School District Superintendent  Margaret Hopkin and Grand School District Board member Jim  Webster made a presentation regarding an update on the financial              REGULAR MEETING &  ATTENDANCE                  WORKSHOP              CALL TO ORDER        APPROVAL OF MINUTES          COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  UPDATE          ENGINEERING UPDATE                PLANNING UPDATE              POLICE UPDATE              PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE                CITIZENS TO BE HEARD      October 26, 2010 Page 2 of 4  position of the Grand School District.   Mayor Sakrison moved the agenda and opened a Public Hearing on 1)  Proposed Ordinance #2010‐14 – An Ordinance Amending Various  Chapters of the Moab Municipal Code Pertaining to Accessory  Structures; 2) Proposed Ordinance #2010‐21 – An Ordinance Adopting  Various International Codes; 3) Proposed Ordinance #2010‐06 – An  Ordinance Amending Code Chapters 17.72.100 through 17.72.240 that  Address the Board of Adjustments; and 4) Solicitation of Community  Development Block Grant Projects for the Small Cities Program for  Year 2011 at 7:50 PM.  Planning Director Reinhart gave an overview of the three proposed  ordinances.  Community Development Director Olsen outlined a memo  regarding criteria for selecting a Community Development Block Grant  Project that explained eligible applicants, the three national objectives  of the CDBG program, and federal compliance requirements.  The  memo also listed projects that the City has been awarded over the  years.    Community Development Director Olsen stated that $300,000 in funds  were available and Moab City would potentially be competing with  four other counties for that funding.  Community Development  Director Olsen mentioned that the Housing Authority of Southeastern  Utah desire CDBG funding for the development of the Cinema Court  Apartment Project and Four Corners Behavioral Health would like to  use CDBG funding to convert a multiple purpose room into a studio  apartment at the Ridgeview Apartments.       Mayor Sakrison closed the public hearing at 8:02 PM.  Russell Olsen of Larsen and Rosenberger Certified Public Accountants   presented the Fiscal Year 2009‐2010 Annual Audit of the City of  Moab.  Discussion followed.  Approval of a Request by Chile Pepper Bike Shop to hold the 5th  Annual Moab Ho‐Down Festival Dirt Jump Exhibition at the City BMX  Park Located on 500 West was canceled by the requestor. Councilmember Davis moved to approve a Solicitor License for Todd  Pedersen, d.b.a.  APX Alarm Security Solutions to Conduct Door‐to‐ Door Sales.  Councilmember Stucki seconded the motion.  The motion  carried 5‐0 aye.  A presentation was made under Consideration of a Request by the  Grand Education Foundation to Place Donation Receptacles on City  Sidewalks.  Discussion followed.  Councilmember Bauman moved to approve a Special Business Event  License for Melissa Schmaedick, d.b.a. the Moab Folk Festival and  Moab Folk Camp to Conduct a Music Festival October 31 to  November 5, 2010.  Councilmember Peterson seconded the motion.   The motion carried 5‐0 aye.  Councilmember Bailey moved to approve the Acceptance of the Fiscal  Year 2009‐2010 Annual Audit of the City of Moab.  Councilmember  Stucki seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye.  Councilmember Peterson moved to approve an Initialed Change to  the Architect Agreement for the Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center        PUBLIC HEARINGS OPENED                          STAFF COMMENTS                                            PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED      ANNUAL AUDIT PRESENTATION          EXHIBITION REQUEST  CANCELED        SOLICITOR LICENSE, APPROVED              PRESENTATION AND  DISCUSSION      SPECIAL BUSINESS EVENT  LICENSE, APPROVED              ANNUAL AUDIT, ACCEPTED          CHANGE TO ARCHITECT  AGREEMENT FOR MOAB  RECREATION AND AQUATIC  October 26, 2010 Page 3 of 4  to Provide for the February 8, 2011 Substantial Completion Date and  a 22 Month Total Architect Services Completion Time.   Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye.  Under Review and Discussion Regarding Housing and Employment  Discrimination Ordinances, City Manager Metzler stated that the  proposed ordinances would be presented at the next Regular City  Council Meeting.  Councilmember Davis moved to approve a Request to Send the Moab  Wastewater Facilities Plan to Public Hearing.  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 she  had attended an affordable housing meeting that day and that impact  fee structure changes had been recommended by a sub‐committee.   City Manager Metzler then stated that she had been looking at South  Area Annexation Agreements and that the Moab Recreation and  Aquatic Center (MRAC) project was on schedule and that staff was  focusing on operational aspects of the new facility now.  City  Manager Metzler also stated that the Proposed Dog Park Lease would  be presented at the next Regular City Council Meeting and that there  would be a joint meeting with the Grand County Council on  November 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM.  Under Report on City/County Cooperation, Mayor Sakrison stated  that the City Council and Grand County Council would have a joint  meeting with the Governor and that representatives of the  Governor’s Office of Economic Development Office would be in town  later in the week.  Under Mayor and Council Reports, Councilmember Peterson stated  that a new bicycle trail would be opening that next Wednesday at  noon.  Councilmember Stucki moved to pay the bills against the City of Moab  in the amount of $605,244.46.  Councilmember Peterson seconded  the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0 aye by a roll‐call‐vote.  Councilmember Davis moved to adjourn the meeting.   Councilmember Stucki seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5‐0  aye.  Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 9:08 PM.      APPROVED: __________________   ATTEST: ___________________                          David L. Sakrison                              Rachel Ellison                          Mayor                                               City Recorder   CENTER, APPROVED            DISCUSSION REGARDING  EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING  DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES          MOAB WASTE WATER  FACILITIES PLAN SENT TO  PUBLIC HEARING      READING OF  CORRESPONDENCE    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS                              REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY  COOPERATION              MAYOR AND COUNCIL  REPORTS        APPROVAL OF BILLS          MOTION TO ADJOURN,  APPROVED        ADJOURNMENT      November 23, 2010 Page 1 of 3  MOAB CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING  November 23, 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, Sarah Bauman, Jeffrey Davis and Gregg Stucki; City  Manager Donna Metzler, City Engineer Rebecca Andrus and Deputy  City Recorder Danielle Guerrero.  A Presentation was made by City Engineer Rebecca Andrus regarding  Stewart Canyon/Highway 191 Outfall Alternatives.  Discussion  followed.  Mayor Sakrison called the Regular Council Meeting to order at 7:00  PM and Citizen B.D. Howard led in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Also in  attendance were Community Development Director David Olsen,  Public Works Director Jeff Foster, and Administrative  Analyst/Economic Development Specialist Kenneth Davey.  Eleven (11)  members of the audience and media were present.  Under Community Development Department Update, Community  Development Director Olsen stated that 41 people had registered for  the trail building project that connected Hidden Valley to Jackson  Street.  An Engineering Department Update was not given.  A Planning Department Update was not given.  A Police Department Update was not given.  Under Public Works Department Update, Public Works Director Foster  stated the asphalt portion of the Williams Way repavement project  was complete and the striping would be completed soon.  Public  Works Director Foster also stated that the Certificates of Occupancy  for the Haciendas Subdivision had been approved.   There were no Citizens to be Heard.  Councilmember Davis moved to approve the Confirmation for the  Mayoral Appointment of Laura Uhle to the Moab City Planning  Commission.  Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion.  The  motion carried 4‐0 aye.  Councilmember Davis moved to approve a Temporary Class III Beer  License for Melodie McCandless, d.b.a. Mc’s on the Corner, Located  at 495 West 400 North.  Councilmember Bailey seconded the motion.   The motion carried 4‐0 aye.  Councilmember Stucki moved to approve a Class II Beer License for  Karen Whipple, d.b.a. Peace Tree Juice Café, Incorporated, Located at  20 South Main Street.  Councilmember Bauman seconded the  motion.  The motion carried 4‐0 aye.  Councilmember Bauman moved to Approve a Local Consent for a  Limited Restaurant License for the Peace Tree Juice Café,  Incorporated, Located at 20 South Main Street.  Councilmember              REGULAR MEETING &  ATTENDANCE                  PRESENTATION        CALL TO ORDER                  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  UPDATE          ENGINEERING UPDATE    PLANNING UPDATE    POLICE UPDATE    PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE                CITIZENS TO BE HEARD    LAURA UHLE CONFIRMED AS  PLANNING COMMISSION  MEMBER        TEMPORARY CLASS III BEER  LICENSE, APPROVED            CLASS II BEER LICENSE,  APPROVED          LOCAL CONSENT, APPROVED        November 23, 2010 Page 2 of 3  Bailey seconded the motion.  The motion carried 4‐0 aye.  A presentation was made by Administrative Analyst/Economic  Development Specialist Kenneth Davey regarding the Business  Expansion and Retention Program.  Discussion followed.  Councilmember Bauman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance  #2010‐05 – An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 17.09.660, Supplemental  Regulations, Specifically Repealing 17.09.660, Site Plan Required and  Replacing the Chapter with Detailed Provisions for Site Plan  Application Submittals.  Councilmember Davis seconded the motion.   The motion carried 4‐0 aye.  There was no Correspondence to be Read.  Under Administrative Report, City Manager Metzler stated that the  Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center Director position had been filled  by Terry Lewis and that staff is working on a fee schedule that will be  presented to the City Council for approval soon.  City manager  Metzler stated that there was a  prototype recycling bin in the  Administrative Office and that the final bins would be placed on Main  Street by spring.  City Manager Metzler stated that there would be a  joint meeting held with the School District on December 14 at 5:30  p.m. and that there would be a public hearing on the Draft City of  Moab Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. City Manager Metzler  stated that the South Area Annexation was moving along and that the  City Staff had been working on the float for the Christmas Light  Parade on December 4 and reminded City Council and staff that the  Annual City Holiday Party would be held on December 18.    Under Mayor and Council Reports, Councilmember Bailey stated that  the Moab Regional Medical Center would be completed in December  and that the Millcreek bridge would be opening soon.   Councilmember Bailey also stated that Jerry McNeely would be taking  Lance Christie’s position on the Grand Water and Sewer Service  District Board.  Councilmember Stucki moved to approve the bills against the City of  Moab in the amount of $614,507.70.  Councilmember Bauman  seconded the motion.  The motion carried 4‐0 aye by a roll‐call‐vote.  Mayor Sakrison adjourned the meeting at 7:39 PM.      APPROVED: __________________   ATTEST: ___________________                          David L. Sakrison                              Rachel Ellison                          Mayor                                               City Recorder        PRESENTATION        ORDINANCE #2010‐05,  APPROVED                READING OF  CORRESPONDENCE    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS                                        MAYOR AND COUNCIL  REPORTS              APPROVAL OF BILLS              ADJOURNMENT         R:\Notices\2010\wwtp master plan.docx CITY OF MOAB PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT CITY OF MOAB WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN   The City of Moab will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at approximately 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moab City Offices at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public input on the Draft City of Moab Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. This draft plan is available for public review online at: www.moabcity.org or at the Moab City Recorder’s Office at 217 East Center Street. 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) 259-5131 at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. /s/ Rachel Ellison City Recorder/Assistant City Manager Published in the Times Independent, November 25 and December 2 and 9, 2010.     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   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    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    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    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    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.   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.   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  3 | Page    Figure 1. Moab-Spanish Valley & Southeastern Utah. Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  4 | Page  Figure 2. Planning Area.   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  5 | Page  Figure 3. Planning Area.   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.   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    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   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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  10 | Page  Figure 4. Groundwater quality classification map.   Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  11 | Page    Figure 5. City of Moab zoning and land use plan.     Moab Wastewater Master Plan ‐ DRAFT  12 | Page       Figure 6. Grand County zoning and land use plan.   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 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.   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)   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 a loading rate of 1,000 gallons per day per square foot, and a 1256 square feet per clarifier would be rated for a flow of 1.26 MGD. Both clarifiers are performing very well, with better than expected settling results. Using the State's standard sizing rate of 1,000 gallons per day per square foot, the clarifier efficiency would be approximately 31.5% at the 1.26 MGD rating above. 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 primary clarifiers at the tested flow rates. Linear regression of the data indicates that the data is scattered with no clear trends to permit prediction of clarifiers above the flows encountered during testing, meaning no clear prediction of clarifier performance is possible without additional testing. However, the excellent settling results indicate that it is likely that the clarifiers will still perform adequately above the current rated 1.25 MGD. This is likely a result of the high solids and BOD loading that the plant currently receives. r- Removal Efficiency 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% ■ A. • 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 Average Daily Flow (MGD) 1.20 y = 0.1644x + 0.5293 Rz = 0.0276 y =-0.1707x + 0.7922 R2 = 0.0828 BOD Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency Linear (BOD Removal Efficiency) Linear (TSS Removal Efficiency) Figure 10. Primary clarifier removal efficiency for various flow rates. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 171Page d. 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). Removal Efficiency 80.0% 70.0% 60.0 % 50.0 % 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.70 -10.0% -20.0% ♦♦ ♦♦i ♦ •♦ •♦♦ ♦ y ♦ ♦s ♦♦• ♦ ♦• • ♦# ■ il lei ■ y =-0.3348x ■ RZ=O.( ■ 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 0.2934x + 0.3131 Rz = 0.2289 BOD Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency Linear (BOD Removal Efficiency) + 0.56 34 Linear (TSS Removal Efficiency) 94 1.20 ■ Average Daily Flow (MGD) Figure 11. Trickling filter BOD and TSS removal efficiency. e. Final Clarifiers Final clarification is achieved through the use of two 40-foot diameter plow -type raked clarifiers. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 18 'Page The small size of the final clarifiers has resulted in some difficulty at times in 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 (Figure 12). 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 to 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. Removal Efficiency 90.0% • 80.0% 70.0% • • • ■� * 60.0% 50.0% ▪ ii y =-0.0022x + 0.4176 40.0% 11* w at a * AEAilE 30.0% * I 4 ilE * 20.0% it li y =-0.036x + 0.7409 R2 = 0.0023 ■* * . do*•* lik R2 = 4E-06 0.0% 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 Average Daily Flow (MGD) BOD Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency BOD Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency Figure 12. Secondary clarifier removal efficiency. f, Disinfection Wastewater disinfection is accomplished by the addition of gaseous chlorine to the final clarifiers. Contact time is limited to the retention time available in the final clarifiers. Due to the poor secondary clarifier performance, it is likely that 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 the chlorine contact from the clarifiers for many years, as is best practice. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 19 l P a g e g• 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 anaerobic 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 inadequate 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). January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTALS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 6017 10602 10036 20039 2746 37693 2778 21864 29748 35117 12643 26126 36761 43668 52986 34904 44225 29916 110882 53444 39830 45031 53099 63978 57379 52861 63250 46090 67098 28099 30047 55696 32939 41617 40029 25779 20294 59412 38564 38525 51162 31434 37205 38506 45233 28192 32776 46486 47119 38688 49248 40189 35692 55947 48826 6358 17013 42242 14405 N/A 374734 389414 451742 571571 441072 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 20'Page Septage receiving is generally not an issue, but can add significant biological 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 at the influent pump station. The septage receiving facility was included in the 1996 expansion project and does not appear to have any major deficiencies. 4. Effluent Limitations The current discharge permit for the facility allows discharge of water to the Colorado River under the following criteria (Table 5): Table 5. Moab WWTP NPDES Permit discharge criteria. Parameter Effluent Limitations Maximum Monthly Average Maximum Weekly Average Daily Minimum Daily Maximum BOD5, mg/L BOD5 Min. Removal 25 85 35 NA NA NA NA NA TSS, mg/L TSS Min. % Removal 25 85 35 NA NA NA NA NA E. Coli. No/100 mL 126 158 NA NA TDS, Culinary Intake, mg/L Report NA NA NA TDS, Effluent, mg/L <400 increase NA NA NA WET, Acute Biomonitoring NA NA NA Pass Oil & Grease, mg/L NA NA NA 10 pH, Standard Units NA NA 6.5 9.0 NA — Not Applicable In general, these criteria are the standard criteria used by the State of Utah. However, Moab has additional criteria to meet with respect to TDS as a result of Colorado River monitoring requirements. 5. Infiltration and Inflow Infiltration and inflow have largely been minimized at the Moab WWTP. Following the upgrade in 1996, Moab City implemented a plan to improve sewer maintenance and began to seal manhole lids, preventing surface water inflows. Additionally, Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 21 l P a g e projects have been completed to replace sewer lines that were in poor condition, reducing infiltration. These improvements are apparent by analysis of the precipitation data. While there is a trend for increased flow in proportion to precipitation amounts, it is difficult to find strong correlation, since precipitation can happen at any time of the year and the population discharging to the facility is much greater during the summer months (Figure 13). 0 C7 3 o LL 1.6 1.4 • 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 ♦'♦ y = 0.0891x + 0.9224 • s�tN • R2=0.0052 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Precipitation, inches 1.2 1.4 • 1.6 1.8 Figure 13. Flow versus precipitation. Further analysis of the flow data is required to determine the level of correlation between precipitation and flow increases. As noted previously, the above correlation 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. By examining the trends in flow volume following days from precipitation events, we can determine whether or not the average flow is appreciably higher on precipitation days, which would indicate inflow. The flow following precipitation events is shown in Table 6. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 22 l P a g e Table 6. Average flows for days following precipitation events. Days Since Last Precipitation 0 Average Daily Flow, MGD Mean Minimum Flow, MGD Mean Maximum Flow, MGD 1.44 0.93 0.29 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. 3 2.5 • • I { • I • 1 2 • • • • ••..• • •• • • Max. Flow ■ Min. Flow ♦ Total Treated MGD • • • • _ • • ••O. • •• • !• •��•:•.A•••�••••• •• •�••• • ••• ••• • • Y • •0 0.5 0 ■ 10 20 30 40 Days Since Last Precipitation Figure 14. Flow for days following precipitation events. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 50 60 70 23 1 Page 6. Future Condition a. Population and Land Use Projections Population trends for the service area indicate that continued slow growth is likely for the area. The State of Utah projects population growth for selected cities and all counties through the Governor's Office of Planning & Budget. These predications for both Moab and Grand County are found in Table 9. It is not anticipated that land use will change appreciably in the future. Very little 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 patterns. 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 overall, as San Juan County is expected to grow even more slowly than Grand 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. Year Moab Population Growth Grand Population Growth Ave Flow 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 4,904 4,921 4,893 4,958 5,018 5,085 5,121 0.35% -0.57% 1.33% 1.21 % 1.34% 0.71 % 8468 8464 8611 8826 9024 9125 9326 9493 -0.05% 1.74% 2.50% 2.24% 1.12% 2.20% 1.79% 0.9525 0.897178 0.884687 0.900137 0.914822 0.948192 0.937022 0.955068 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 24 1 P a g e Table 8. Per capita BOD and TSS for Grand County Year Average of Influent Average of Raw Grand County BOD, TSS, BOD, lb/day TSS, lb/day Population lb/cap lb/cap 2002 1869 1619 8468 0.221 0.191 2003 1858 1536 8464 0.220 0.182 2004 1685 1697 8611 0.196 0.197 2005 1683 1855 8826 0.191 0.210 2006 1780 1966 9024 0.197 0.218 2007 2032 1899 9125 0.223 0.208 lik2008 2012 All1111 1990 9326 _ 0.216 0.213.a 2009 2116 2130 9493 0.223 0.224 By using linear regression analysis, it is possible to predict the future flow of wastewater to the Moab WWTP. This analysis has been completed using population data for both Moab and Grand County, since it is not certain which population trend will govern the future wastewater flows, although with the larger sample size, it is likely that Grand County will govern future wastewater volume growth. The plots of population and flow along with the linear regression formulae are found in Figure 15 and Figure 16. 0.96 0.95 0.94 O 0.93 w • 0.92 3 0 LL 0.91 0.9 0.89 0.88 y = 2.5823E-04x - 3.7732E-01 R2 = 9.1537E-01 • • 4,850 4,900 4,950 5,000 5,050 Population 5,100 5,150 Figure 15. Flow versus population for Moab. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 25 1 Page 0 L9 2 3 0 7 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.9 0.89 • y = 6.6840E-05x + 3.1927E-01 R2 = 8.2555E-01 • • 0.88 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 Population Figure 16. Flow versus population for Grand County. 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 combined with the predicted population, we come to a conclusion about the overall water quality for the facility influent for the planning period. In all cases, the higher, more conservative values should be used. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 26 'Page Average Influent Loads, lb/day 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 y = 0.001x - 1.785 R2 = 0.0319 y = 0.0052x - 10.139 R2 = 0.7686 0.500 - 0.450 0.400 - 0.350 0.300 - 0.250 0.200 - 0.150 0.100 - 0.050 0.000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 —•—Ayerage of Influent BOD, Ib/dayfAyerage of Raw TSS, lb/day BOD, lb/cap Linear (BOD, lb/cap) —X—TSS, lb/cap Linear (TSS, lb/cap) Per Capita Loads, lb/person Figure 17. Per Capita and Average BOD and TSS loading for Grand County. Table 9. Projected population, flows, and loading. 2000 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Grand Pop 8,485 9,024 9,693 11,007 11,827 12,559 13,781 15,542 Moab Pop 4,779 4,875 5,237 5,946 6,388 6,783 7,443 8,394 Projected BOD Load, lb/day 1952 2076 2229 2532 2720 2889 3170 3575 Projected TSS Load, lb/day 1782 1895 2036 2311 2484 2637 2894 3264 -0 >• c Flow 0.89 0.92 0.97 1.05 1.11 1.16 1.24 1.36 co c 0 0 BOD Conc, mg/L 264 270 276 288 294 299 306 316 o •U TSS Conc, mg/L 241 246 252 263 268 273 280 288 N aO _o Flow 0.86 0.88 0.98 1.16 1.27 1.37 1.54 1.79 co ° BOD Conc, mg/L 273 282 274 262 256 252 246 239 TSS Conc, mg/L 249 258 250 239 234 230 225 219 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 27 I P a g e 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 28 1 P a g e C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1. Environmental Information The Moab WWTP discharges to the Colorado River. It is located in an area adjacent to wetlands and within a 100-year flood plain. However, the facility is well protected from surface water intrusion through the use of berms around the site. The treated wastewater is greatly diluted by the flow of the Colorado River which is over 1000 times higher than the flow from the Moab WWTP when the Colorado River is at its lowest flow and the Moab WWTP is discharging 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 29 1 P a g e Figure 18. 100-year flood plain. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 301Page 20NEIkv X • (:R.41.ND COLINTY 1.; -:AH PANEL 11110F 2100 maisijr 6Fi MEN RR MN PA BL LN' OUT l ,•rarF u•, uui 11 bn.I ern I! M 4• NILJMLitli 4914C17154 EFFtaIla DATE I FC& 1, NM * i- •y i&Or 'i71FF • t•ii-F •i+Y-F-•i-i 11.}1++} • �14+•1146141 Nw01T5Th•Lat EMI {Mg +p W4c1 M1NX* lilt aar11 144. 4-414 }r+l 9G 114 ,lF'Y {•• • 11.14 IP FM 11 111.1 1.7rl4 MAIM NO FM' hbruLP •k• • • lima Rme akr% Um •tail. food • ZJG•F e! 1AP FI^! • 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 31 1 P a g e capability to accurately determine. Expansion of the facility will permit additional development in the area, however, which may lead to stresses on wildlife and agricultural lands. 10. Mitigating Adverse Impacts The current facility planning effort is intended to identify an alternative that will improve the quality of effluent leaving the Moab WWTP. This will result in 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 anticipated to occur in the wetlands and wastewater is discharged directly into the Colorado River, bypassing any wetlands. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 32 1 P a g e D. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Development of Alternatives 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 information and planning techniques into 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. 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 33 1 P a g e 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 33001b/day in the summer or 1600 and 19001b/day respectively in the 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 been exceeded, the biological and solids load to the facility has exceeded the design 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 nearly 4,3001bs/day in October, 2009 and a TSS peak reached at 5,4001bs/day in January, 2009. Table 10. Summary of Moab WWTP Loading Conditions (2007-2009). Average Flow, Average BOD5, Average TSS, MGD lb/day lb/day December- 0.82 1600 1590 February March -May 0.98 2190 2090 June -August 1.05 2280 2260 September- 0.98 2130 2090 November Average 0.96 2050 2010 Under these loading conditions, the plant has operated very well, reporting only occasional permit exceedences, and only on the 30-day average values, rather than 7- 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 increases in tourism in the area. Due to the drawbacks associated with the trickling filter process during the transition from 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. 3. Regionalization The Moab WWTP is currently the only municipal wastewater treatment facility in Grand County. Separate facilities have recently been studied for treatment of wastewater generated in Spanish Valley, however a suitable plan for construction of a 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 34 1 P a g e 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. 4. Unsewered Areas There continue to be areas of Spanish Valley that are unsewered. These homes are either slated for future expansion of the sewer system or are in areas that are not accessible to current sewer access. 5. Conventional Collection System The existing collection system is a conventional collection system. The existing collection system has not been evaluated within the scope of the wastewater master plan. 6. Alternative Conveyance Systems No alternative conveyance systems have been evaluated as part of the master plan. The existing conventional system is still expected to provide the required utility within the planning period. 7. Evaluation of Sewer Alignments Sewer alignments have not been evaluated within this master plan. Existing alignments will continue to be used for future expansion of the system. 8. Wastewater Management Techniques a. Conventional Technologies The use of conventional technologies is desired for the Moab WWTP. This facility is 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 Technologies Innovative technologies are acceptable insofar as the technologies have proven application on facilities similar to Moab. Additionally, alternatives that have a high cost of installation and operation were not considered. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 35 1 P a g e c. 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 loading considerations before they will be required. d. Multiple Purpose Projects Facilities should be designed to incorporate multiple uses as far as possible. However, it is recognized that facility plans will need to incorporate projects within the existing wastewater facilities. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 36 1 P a g e E. EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES AND PLAN ADOPTION 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 selected 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 37 1 P a g e 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 City also maintains some funds, although with a much smaller balance. Moab City is responsible for all financial obligations of the wastewater treatment plant. The City of Moab has demonstrated an ability to balance the facility budget while maintaining the facilities appropriately. Grand Water & Sewer is for all intents and purposes a client of the Moab WWTP, paying for treatment services in proportion to flows from its collection system. 5. 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 the State of Utah in the form of grants and low - interest loans. Should additional funding be required, the City will seek to finance the facility by bonding, with an increase in the cost of collection and treatment fees likely required in order to pay the debt associated with facility improvements. 6. Environmental Evaluation None of the alternatives will provide significantly different environmental impacts. All site work will be confined to the existing facility. Therefore, there will be no evaluation of the differences between the systems with respect to environmental considerations. 7. Evaluation of Reliability Reliability is considered in two ways: the reliability of treatment and the reliability of the susceptibility of mechanical equipment to failure. Treatment process failure is likely to be an issue where processes are sensitive to large swings in temperature throughout the annual cycle. Conversely, the greater number of mechanical components included in the system, the greater likelihood of failure of those components. 8. Evaluation of Energy Requirements Energy requirement for the different alternatives include pumping, aeration and mixing costs. There are significant differences between these alternatives with respect to the power needs. Significant increases in power will result in additional 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 site to prevent failure of the existing processes during construction activities. Process Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 38 1 P a g e alternatives that interfere with existing processes must permit partial implementation of the new process as an interim measure. 10. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities No recreational opportunities are anticipated to be gained by any of the treatment alternatives. 11. Comparison of Alternatives Regardless of the alternative selected, several improvements will be necessary. As noted previously, headworks, secondary clarification, disinfection, digestion, and 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. diameter secondary clarifier designed to effectively remove the effluent solids and permit the existing clarifiers to be drained and maintained. • Addition of a chlorine contact chamber and conversion from the use of chlorine gas to an on -site sodium hypochlorite generator. • Refurbishment of the primary digester through the replacement of the anaerobic digester cover and mixer. • 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. a. Two -Stage Trickling Filters The two -stage trickling filter alternative would add a second stage of tricking filters to the existing trickling filter process. The flow schematic for the process is shown in Figure 19. This process has a distinct advantage over the other alternatives when it comes to 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 head requirements of the second stage. This process is very familiar to the operators. Tricking filters have been employed at the Moab WWTP for decades and are compatible with the existing infrastructure. However, there is limited footprint available on the site for two new trickling filters. Additionally, it is likely that this process will produce lower treatment efficiency during low temperatures. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 39 1 P a g e Plant Influent 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. Screen Supernatant Grit Removal Li Anaerobic Digester Primary Clarifier -------------------- Sludge Drying Facility Figure 19. Two -stage trickling filter flow schematic. b. Oxidation Ditch Secondary Trickling Filter Secondary Clarifier Sodium Hypochlorite Chlorine Contact Chamber Colorado River 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 40 1 P a g e Plant Influent A 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. Screen Supernatant Grit Removal Anaerobic Digester Primary Clarifier Figure 20. Oxidation ditch flow schematic. Sludge Drying Facility Oxidation Ditch j Secondary Clarifier Y Sodium Hypochlorite 1 Chlorine Contact Chamber Colorado Rive 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 41 1 P a g e Plant Influent Screen Supernatant , Grit Removal _l Anaerobic Digester Primary Clarifier Sludge Drying Facility Figure 21. Conventional activated sludge flow schematic. Aeration Basin Secondary Clarifier Sodium Hypochlorite Chlorine Contact Chamber Colorado River 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 42 1 P a g e Plant Influent nutrient removal be required in the future. Additionally, the solids contact basins could be located on the site without the need for additional property. Screen Supernatant Grit Removal Anaerobic Digester Primary Clarifier Sludge Drying Facility Figure 22. Trickling filter / Solids contact flow schematic. Trickling Filter Solids Contact Basin I Secondary Clarifier Y Sodium Hypochlorite Chlorine Contact Chamber V Colorado River 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 43IPage Based on the results of the analysis, the tricking filter / solids contact process was advanced as the selected process alternative. 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 44 1 P a g e F. SELECTED PLAN, DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan The Tricking Filter / Solids Contact 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 45 1 P a g e Solids Contact Basins Blower Facility Secondary Clarifier Figure 23. New facility components. Chlorine Contact Chamber Dewatering Facility 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 Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 46'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 1661b per million gallons of reactor per hour. For this facility, we would need to supply approximately 0.621b oxygen per minute. This will require about 1300 scfm or 26 kW of power. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 47 1 P a g e 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 experienced by either entity as the result of operational or infrastructure changes implemented by the City of Moab or Grand Water & Sewer. 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 largely isolated from any housing units. c. 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 the dewatering facility. These mechanical components will require additional maintenance and may also require specialized maintenance requiring additional 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 48 1 P a g e d. Pre -Treatment Program The recommended alternative will not require alteration of the City's existing pre- treatment program. Future significant sources of wastewater to the facility should be evaluated with respect to their potential biological impact on the facility, however. 7. Land Acquisition 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. Moab Wastewater Master Plan - DRAFT 49 1 P a g e INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL FROM: LLOYD SWENSON WATER / SEWER SUPT. SUBJECT: METER BID DATE: 11 /29/2010 It is my recommendation that we accept Grand Junction Pipes bid of $30,475.60 for the Water Departments Meter bid. The bid included 80 - 3" x 5/8" water meters (97.25), 6- 1 ' 2" meters (355.00) and 190 radio pit transmitters (108.24). They were the only bid received. Thank you Lloyd Swenson 435-259-0600 City of Moab City of Moab 08:59:32a.m. 11-23-2010 1;8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 Neptune Meters Bid Bid Opening November 23, 2010 Amount e v-cwvA -ScA- 17i v ._ 9 0 4-- S`.t _ a �' LI- `e is : St 9--i / $ 355 -- _,1 Jr r i, .� � , t � l/ L ,. Ot""-) U ,2 I U s; - 1 1 6(th • `e , /) C L r _,,-------7:/ 9 ,f I mo' V )," �� r 1.1 5 . l�% 1 bi roi 0' Present at Bid Opening: a_cAA-e-/1 [i So \a.sw� elm t iP ,� 4 Ciuswtk&AsJ 11 /23/2010 ig .ture: City of Moab Recorder's Office 435-259-0600 City of Moab City of Moab 08:59:45a.m. 11-23-2010 2,8 MOAB CITY BID SPEC SHEET CITY OF MOAB CITY RECORDER'S OFFICE 217 EAST CENTER STREET MOAB, UT 84532 MOAB CITY WATER DEPARTMENT NEPTUNE ARB METERS AND RADIO TRANSMITTERS ***DEADLINE FOR ALL BIDS IS 2:00 PM MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010*** IF YOU WISH TO FAX YOUR BID, PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING FAX TELEPHONE NUMBER: (435) 259-4951. ALL BIDS MUST BE TURNED INTO MOAB CITY OFFICES ON THIS BID SHEET. Neptune ARB meters with pit receptacle compatible with the Advance Meter Reading System. 80 5/8' x 3/4" T-10 Pro Read Meter $ 97.25 per meter 6 1 IA" T-10 Pro Read Meter $ 355.00 per meter 190 R-900 Pit radio transmitters $ 108.24 per unit ;?,t3Q'Ui 02. o, 51o56 1. Type Only magnetic driven, positive displacement meters of the flat nutating disc type will be accepted because of en4anced low flow accuracy performance. 2. Size, Capacity, Length The size, capacity, and meter lengths shall be as specified in AWWA Standard C700 (latest revision). The maximum number of disc nutations is not to exceed those specified in AWWA C700 latest revision. All meter maincases shall be made of a lead-free brass containing a minimum of 85% copper, such as Envirobrass II, that meets the ANSI/NSF 61 standard. The serial number should be stamped between the outlet port of the maincase and the register. Maincase markings shall be cast raised and shall indicate size, model, direction of flow, and NSF 61 certification. Plastic maincases are not acceptable. Maincases for 5/8", 3/4" and 1" meters shall be of the removable bottom cap type with the bottom cap secured by four (4) bolts on 5/8" and 3/4" sizes and six (6) bolts on the 1" size. Intermediate meter maincases shall also be made of the same lead-free brass material in sizes 1-1/2" and 2" with a cover secured to the maincase with eight (8) bolts. Meters with a frost plug, a screw -on design or no bottom cap shall not be accepted in 5/8"-1" sizes. The 5/8" meters shall have a synthetic polymer or cast iron bottom cap option. 2 RESOLUTION #23-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF MOAB AUTHORIZING DELINQUENT TERMINATED UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO BE WRITTEN OFF OF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WHEREAS, it is important to write off delinquent terminated utility accounts from the Moab City accounting system to maintain integrity of this system; and WHEREAS, Resolution #10-2003 provided conditions for writing off delinquent terminated utility accounts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution #10-2003, the City Council is authorized to write off accounts over $50.00; NOW THEREFORE WE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF MOAB DO HEREBY WRITE OFF THE FOLLOWING DELINQUENT TERMINATED UTILITY ACCOUNTS: DELINQUENT TERMINATED UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO BE WRITTEN OFF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WITH CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 206307 504404 504406 800502 1003701 1008004 1301409 1302205 1306400 1603305 2409200 2409327 TOTAL AMOUNT DATE TERMINATED $ 96.77 151.29 58.03 72.27 65.81 78.93 89.38 67.30 57.01 54.63 59.30 244.08 $1,094.80 12/24/09 12/14/09 08/23/10 12/30/09 11 /02/09 06/01 /10 12/07/09 08/23/10 07/24/10 09/20/10 07/24/10 05/31 /10 RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED in open meeting of the City Council of Moab City, Utah, this 14rh day of December, 2010. Mayor David L. Sakrison ATTEST: Rachel Ellison, City Recorder Resolution #23-2010 December 14, 2010 City of Moab 217 East Center Street Moab, Utah 84532-2534 Main Number (435) 259-5121 Fax Number (435) 259-4135 Memorandum Mayor: David L. Sakrison Council: Kyle Bailey Jeffrey A. Davis Sarah Bauman Gregg W. Stucki Kirsten Peterson To: Moab City Council From: John Geiger, Recreation Coordinator Date: 12/9/10 Re: Request to approve Moab Recreation and Aquatic Center Fitness Center Equipment RFP (strength equipment component purchase) I recommend that the Council accept Summit Fitness Equipment's proposal for the strength component of the MRAC Fitness Center Equipment RFP for the amount of $45,172. Comparison prices are listed below. Note that Summit provides the second lowest proposal price. However, Summit's "Matrix" line is judged to be the best value based upon selection criteria of cost, quality, biometrics, and appearance. Criteria input was obtained from a wide array of municipal and private fitness center operators as well as through direct experience with each vendor's product. HealthStyles - $41,443 Summit - $45,172 Fitco - $52,300 Technogym - $52,835 Life Fitness - $55,584 * Please see accompanying document, "Strength Equipment Bid," for per unit pricing. Summit Fitness Strength Proposal Unit Description Bid Price Converging Shldr Press $ 2,425 Converging Chest Press $ 2,494 Arm Curl $ 2,138 Rear Delt / Fly $ 2,644 Lateral Raise $ 2,275 Rotary Torso $ 2,425 Leg Extension $ 2,350 Seated Leg Curl $ 2,350 Leg Press $ 3,819 Multi Adjust Bench (2) $ 1,444 Jones machine $ 1,731 Combo ad/abductor $ 3,171 Back Extenstion Bench $ 538 3-Tier Dumbbell Rack $ 966 5 - 60 Lb. Dumbbells $ 1,180 Plate Rack $ 253 Weight Plates $ 380 Curl bar $ 57 6-Stack Multi -Station $ 7,725 - Seated Lat Pulldown - Low row - triceps pressdown - adjustable column Assisted chin/dip $ 2,055 Preacher curl bench $ 546 Adjustable decline bench $ 550 VKR $ 638 Collars $ 550 Cable attachments $ 208.00 Accessory Rack $ 260.00 $ 45,172