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