Full Text
JOB NO. B16-048 GRE AT FA LLS , BO ZE MA N , K AL ISPE L L & S HE LB Y, MT I S POKA NE , W A I LEW IST ON , ID I W ATFO RD C IT Y, ND I ME D IA, PA APRIL 2018 [PHONE REDACTED] tdhengineering.com 234 East Babcock Street Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 CLIENT IN COOPERATION WITH ENGINEER City of Belgrade 91 East Central Avenue Belgrade, MT 59714 TD&H Engineering 234 East Babcock Street, Suite 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 Engineer: Keith Waring, PE BELGRADE, MONTANA WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page i B16-048 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0.1 Populations and Growth 0.2 Regulatory Compliance and Discharge Permit 0.3 Collection System Condition and Recommendations 0.4 Treatment System Conditions and Recommendations 0.5 Disposal System Condition and Recommendations 0.6 Conclusions and Next Steps 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Problem 1.3 Scope 1.4 Acknowledgements 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning and Service Area 2.1.1 Location 2.1.2 Physical Characteristics 2.1.2.1 Topography 2.1.2.2 Soils 2.1.2.3 Surface Water 2.1.2.4 Groundwater 2.1.2.5 Floodplain 2.1.3 Climate 2.2 Population Projections and Planning 2.2.1 Historical Population and Analysis 2.2.2 Future Population Planning Period and Growth Recommendations 2.3 Regulatory Requirements 2.3.1 Definitions 2.3.1.1 Hydraulic Capacity Definitions 2.3.1.2 Organic Definitions 2.3.2 DEQ Design Standards 2.3.2.1 Collection System 2-10 2.3.2.2 Treatment and Disposal System 2-10 2.3.3 Discharge Permit 2-11 3.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXISTING FACILITY REVIEW 3-1 3.1 Existing Hydraulic Demands 3.1.1 Flow Verification 3.1.2 Current Wastewater Production and Average Day Flows 3.1.3 Existing Flow Rates 3.2 Gravity Collection System 3.2.1 Condition and Physical Deficiencies 3.2.2 Diameter and Capacity 3.2.3 Outfall Sewer 3.2.4 East Interceptor Sewer 3.2.5 Interstate 90 Crossing 3.2.6 RV Dump Stations ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page ii B16-048 3.3 Lift Station Jackrabbit 3-11 3.3.1 Capacity 3-13 3.3.1.1 Pump Capacity 3-13 3.3.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates 3-13 3.3.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-14 3.3.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-14 3.3.2 Condition and Deficiencies 3-15 3.3.3 Force Main 3-17 3.4 Lift Station Cruiser 3-17 3.4.1 Capacity 3-19 3.4.1.1 Pump Capacity 3-19 3.4.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates 3-19 3.4.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-20 3.4.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-21 3.4.2 Condition and Deficiencies 3-21 3.4.3 Force Main 3-23 3.5 Lift Station Gallatin Farmers 3-23 3.5.1 Capacity 3-25 3.5.1.1 Pump Capacity 3-25 3.5.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates 3-25 3.5.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-26 3.5.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-26 3.5.2 Condition and Deficiencies 3-27 3.5.3 Force Main 3-29 3.6 Lift Station SID #78/Truck Stop 3-29 3.6.1 Capacity 3-32 3.6.1.1 Pump Capacity 3-32 3.6.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates 3-32 3.6.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-33 3.6.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-34 3.6.2 Condition and Deficiencies 3-34 3.6.3 Force Main 3-36 3.7 Lift Station Meadowlark/Powers 3.36 3.7.1 Capacity 3-38 3.7.1.1 SCADA Pump Run Times 3-38 3.7.1.2 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-39 3.7.1.3 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-39 3.7.2 Condition and Deficiencies 3-40 3.7.3 Force Main 3-41 3.8 Lift Station Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge 3-41 3.8.1 Capacity 3-43 3.8.1.1 SCADA Pump Run Times 3-43 3.8.1.2 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times 3-44 3.8.1.3 Capacity Summary and Conclusions 3-44 3.8.2 Condition 3-45 3.8.3 Force Main 3-46 3.9 Lift Stations Planned or Under Construction 3-46 4.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL EXISTING FACILITY 4.1 Existing Plant Loading 4.1.1 Hydraulic Loading ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page iii B16-048 4.1.1.1 Influent 4.1.1.2 Effluent Flow 4.1.2 Nutrient and Organic Loading 4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant 4.2.1 Lagoons 4.2.1.1 Treatment Lagoons 4.2.1.2 Storage Lagoon 4.2.1.3 Condition 4.2.1.4 Capacity 4-10 4.2.1.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity 4-10 4.2.1.4.2 Nutrient and Organic Capacity 4-11 4.2.1.5 DEQ-2 Criteria 4-13 4.2.2 Piping, Pumps and Control Structures 4-14 4.2.2.1 Distribution Piping 4-14 4.2.2.2 Bypass Piping 4-15 4.2.2.3 Transfer Lines 4-15 4.2.2.4 Recycle Piping 4-19 4.2.2.5 Outlet Line 4-21 4.2.2.6 Overflow Piping 4-21 4.2.2.7 Pumps and Piping Conditions 4-22 4.2.2.8 Pumps and Piping Capacity 4-22 4.2.2.9 DEQ-2 Piping and Control Structure Criteria 4-25 4.2.3 Aeration System 4-26 4.2.3.1 Treatment Lagoon 4-29 4.2.3.2 Storage Lagoon 4-30 4.2.3.3 Aeration System Conditions 4-30 4.2.3.4 Aeration System Capacity 4-31 4.2.3.4.1 Treatment Lagoons 4-31 4.2.3.4.2 Storage Lagoon 4-32 4.2.3.5 Aeration DEQ-2 Standards 4-33 4.2.4 Pump Building 4-33 4.3 Disposal 4-34 4.3.1 Infiltration/Percolation (IP) Beds 4-34 4.3.1.1 IP Bed Conditions 4-36 4.3.1.2 IP Bed Capacity 4-39 4.3.1.2.1 Hydraulic Capacity 4-39 4.3.1.2.2 Nutrient and Organic Capacity 4-42 4.3.1.2.3 Monitoring Wells 4-43 4.3.1.3 DEQ-2 Design Standards for Infiltration/Percolation Systems 4-44 4.3.2 Irrigation 4-44 4.3.2.1 Irrigation Conditions 4-45 4.3.2.2 Irrigation Capacity 4-46 4.4 Belgrade SCADA Planning 4-48 4.4.1 Monitoring and Reporting 4-48 4.4.2 Automated Control 4-49 4.4.3 Security 4-50 4.4.4 SCADA Upgrades 4-50 5.0 FUTURE DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS 5.1 Hydraulic Flows ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page iv B16-048 5.1.1 Population 5.1.2 Wastewater Data 5.1.3 Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) 5.1.4 Water Usage Data 5.1.5 Previous Design 5.1.6 DEQ Standards 5.1.7 City of Belgrade Design Standards 5.1.8 Design Flows 5.2 Organic Loading 5.2.1 Treatment Plant Influent Nutrient and Organic Loading 5.2.2 Treatment Plant Effluent Nutrient and Organic Loading 5.3 Disposal Rates 5.3.1 IP Bed Hydraulic Loading 5.3.2 Agronomic Rates 5.4 Miscellaneous 6.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 6.1 Future Growth and Development 6.1.1 Northwest Planning Region 6.1.1.1 Proposed Subdivision 6.1.1.2 Northwest Regional Lift Station 6.1.1.3 Cruiser Lift Station Improvements 6.1.1.4 Impacts to Existing Infrastructure 6.1.2 Northwest Planning Region 6.1.3 East Planning Regions 6.1.4 Southeast Planning Region 6.1.5 South Planning Region 6.1.6 Southwest Planning 6-12 6.1.7 West Planning Region 6-14 6.2 Impacts of Future Development 6-14 6.2.1 Ryen Glenn Lift Station and Force Main 6-14 6.2.2 Existing Interstate 90 Crossing 6-15 6.2.3 East Interceptor 6-16 6.2.4 Outfall Sewer 6-16 6.3 Existing Deficiencies 6-17 6.3.1 Collection System 6-17 6.3.2 Lift Station Jackrabbit 6-17 6.3.3 Lift Station Cruiser 6-18 6.3.3.1 Alternative LS2-1: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Existing Force Main 6-19 6.3.3.2 Alternative LS2-2: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Northwest Regional List Station 6-21 6.3.3.3 Alternative LS2-2: Abandon Lift Station and Reconstruct Gravity Mains to Northwest Regional Lift Station 6-21 6.3.4 Lift Station Gallatin Farmers 6.3.5 Lift Station SID #78/Truck Stop 6-24 6.3.6 Lift Station Meadowlark/Powers 6-24 6.3.7 Lift Station Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge 6-25 7.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 7.1 Treatment Alternatives ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page v B16-048 7.1.1 Common Improvements 7.1.2 Alternative T-1: No Action 7.1.3 Alternative T-2: Total Retention 7.1.4 Alternative T-3: Facultative Lagoons 7.1.5 Alternative T-4: Advanced Aerated Lagoons and Tertiary Nutrient Removal 7.1.5.1 Alternative T-4A Advanced Aerated Lagoons with Tertiary Nutrient Removal 7.1.5.1.1 Treatment Lagoons 7.1.5.1.2 Nitrification Reactor 7.1.5.1.3 Denitrification 7.1.5.1.4 Storage Lagoon 7.1.5.2 Map 7-10 7.1.5.3 Other Improvements 7-13 7.1.5.3.1 Interpond Piping and Controls 7-13 7.1.5.3.2 Alternative T-4A(2) 7-15 7.1.5.3.3 HDPE Liner 7-15 7.1.5.3.4 Sludge Removal and Disposal 7-16 7.1.5.3.5 Miscellaneous Improvements 7-16 7.1.5.4 Design Criteria 7-16 7.1.5.5 Treatment During Construction 7-18 7.1.5.6 Operations and Maintenance 7-18 7.1.5.6.1 Staffing Requirements 7-18 7.1.5.6.2 Carbon Source 7-19 7.1.5.6.3 Energy Consumption 7-19 7.1.5.6.4 General Maintenance and 7-20 7.1.5.6.5 Cost Estimate 7-20 7.1.5.7 Alternative T-4B Sequencing Batch Reactors with Facultative Biosolids Storage 7-22 7.1.5.7.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) 7-22 7.1.5.7.2 Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoons 7-24 7.1.5.7.3 Basic Equipment List 7-25 7.1.5.7.4 Map 7-25 7.1.5.7.5 Treatment During Construction 7-27 7.1.5.7.6 Operations & Maintenance 7-27 7.1.5.7.7 Cost Estimate 7-28 7.1.6 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Mechanical Treatment 7-30 7.1.6.1 Alternative T-5A: Sequencing Batch Reactor 7-31 7.1.6.1.1 SBR 7-31 7.1.6.1.2 UV Disinfection 7-32 7.1.6.1.3 7-33 7.1.6.1.4 Basic Equipment List 7-33 7.1.6.1.5 Cost Estimate 7-33 7.1.6.2 Alternative T-5B 7-35 7.1.6.2.1 5-Stage Bardenpho Process Flow 7-35 7.1.6.2.2 Basic Equipment List 7-37 7.1.6.2.3 Cost Estimate 7-38 7.1.6.3 Alternative T-5C: Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) 7-39 7.1.6.3.1 Basic Equipment List 7-40 7.1.6.3.2 Cost Estimate 7-41 7.1.6.3.3 Maps 7-42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page vi B16-048 7.1.6.3.4 Biosolids Considerations 7-43 7.1.6.3.5 Anaerobic Digestion 7-43 7.1.6.3.6 Aerobic Digestion 7-43 7.1.6.3.7 Sludge Volumes and Disposal Costs 7-44 7.1.6.3.8 Treatment During Construction 7-47 7.1.6.3.9 Operations and Maintenance 7-48 7.1.6.3.10 Staffing Requirements 7-48 7.2 Disposal Alternatives 7-50 7.2.1 Available Storage 7-50 7.2.2 Alternative D-1: No Action 7-50 7.2.3 Alternative D-2: Disinfection and Surface Water Discharge 7-51 7.2.4 Alternative D-3: Additional IP Bed 7-51 7.2.4.1 Descriptions 7-51 7.2.4.2 Design Criteria 7-52 7.2.4.3 Map 7-52 7.2.4.4 Treatment During Construction 7-53 7.2.4.5 Operations and Maintenance 7-53 7.2.4.6 Cost Estimate 7-55 7.2.5 Alternative D-4: Spray Irrigation System Upgrades 7-55 7.2.5.1 Description 7-55 7.2.5.2 Design Criteria 7-56 7.2.5.2.1 State Regulations 7-56 7.2.5.2.2 Disposal Rates 7-56 7.2.5.2.3 Required Seasonal Storage 7-56 7.2.5.2.4 Irrigation System Hydraulics 7-57 7.2.5.3 Map 7-58 7.2.5.4 Treatment During Construction 7-58 7.2.5.5 Operations and Maintenance 7-58 7.2.5.6 Cost Estimate 7-59 7.2.6 Alternative D-5: Additional Irrigation Area 7-61 7.2.6.1 Description 7-61 7.2.6.2 Design Criteria 7-61 7.2.6.2.1 State Regulations 7-61 7.2.6.2.2 Required Storage 7-62 7.2.6.2.3 System Hydraulics 7-62 7.2.6.3 Map 7-62 7.2.6.4 Treatment During Construction 7-62 7.2.6.5 Operations and Maintenance 7-62 7.2.6.6 Cost Estimate 7-64 8.0 FINAL PROJECT SELECTION 8.1 Recommended Collection System Improvements 8.1.1 Future Development 8.1.2 Existing Infrastructure 8.2 Recommended Treatment System Improvements 8.2.1 Treatment During Construction 8.2.2 Available Storage 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance 8.2.4 Estimated Capital Costs 8.2.5 Alternative Ranking Matrix ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page vii B16-048 8.2.6 Recommended Treatment Alternative 8.3 Recommended Disposal System Improvements 8.3.1 Disposal Flexibility 8.3.2 Permitting Requirements 8.3.3 Operations and Maintenance 8.3.4 Estimated Capital Costs 8.3.5 Alternative Ranking Matrix 8.3.6 Recommended Disposal Alternative 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1 Summary 9.1.1 Collection System 9.1.2 Treatment System 9.1.3 Disposal System 9.2 Conclusions 10.0 ABBREVIATIONS 10-1 11.0 REFERENCES 11-1 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Vicinity Map Figure 2-2 Planning Boundary and Zoning Figure 3-1 Existing Collection System Figure 3-2 RV Dump Locations 3-10 Figure 3-3 Lift Station Jackrabbit 3-12 Figure 3-4 Lift Station Cruiser 3-18 Figure 3-5 Lift Station Gallatin Farmers 3-24 Figure 3-6 Lift Station SID #78/Truck Stop 3-30 Figure 3-7 SID #78 Planning Area 3-31 Figure 3-8 Lift Station Meadowlark/Powers 3-37 Figure 3-9 Lift Station Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge 3-42 Figure 4-1 Existing Treatment Plant Figure 4-2 BWTP Piping and Pump 4-20 Figure 4-3 BWTP Blowers 4-27 Figure 4-4 Aeration System 4-28 Figure 4-5 Disposal System Locations 4-35 Figure 4-6 Typical IP Bed Schematic 4-37 Figure 4-7 Monitoring Well Locations 4-38 Figure 6-1 Planning Regions Figure 6-2 Northwest Planning Region Proposed Improvements Figure 6-3 Northeast and East Planning Regions Proposed Improvements Figure 6-4 Southeast Planning Region Proposed Improvements 6-10 Figure 6-5 South Planning Region Proposed Improvements 6-11 Figure 6-6 West and Southwest Planning Regions Proposed Improvements 6-13 Figure 7-1 Alternative T-4A: Advanced Aeration with Tertiary Nutrient Removal Process Flow Diagram Figure 7-2 Alternative T-4: Advanced Aeration with Tertiary Nutrient Removal Nitrification Basin ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page viii B16-048 Figure 7-3 Alternative T-4A: Advanced Aeration Denitrification Reactor (Upflow Sand Filter) Figure 7-4 Alternative T-4A: Advanced Aeration Option T-4A(1) Layout 7-11 Figure 7-5 Alternative T-4A: Advanced Aeration Option T-4A(2) Layout 7-12 Figure 7-6 Process Flow Diagram for Sequencing Batch Reactor w/Facultative Lagoon 7-23 Figure 7-7 Facultative Storage Lagoon (Biosolids Storage) 7-24 Figure 7-8 Alternative T-4B: SBR with Storage Lagoon Site Layout 7-26 Figure 7-9 Alternative T-5A: Sequencing Batch Reactor with Mechanical Biosolids Digestion 7-32 Figure 7-10 Alternative T-5B: 5-Stage Bardenpho Process with Chemical Phosphorus Removal Figure 7-11 Alternative T-5C: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) 7-40 Figure 7-12 Aerobic Digestion PFD 7-43 Figure 7-13 Alternative D-3: Additional IP Bed Potential IP Bed D Locations 7-54 Figure 7-14 Alternative D-4: Spray Irrigation Upgrades with Treatment Alternative T-4A(2) 7-60 Figure 7-15 Alternative D-5: Additional Irrigation Area 7-63 NOTE: *Figure also provided as full size print in hard copies of the Master Plan. TABLES Table 2-1 Climate Summary Table 2-2 Historic Population Data Table 2-3 Population Projects Table 2-4 Treatment Standards for Partially Mixed Aerated Lagoons with Land Application 2-10 Table 2-5 Current Permit Loading Limits 2-12 Table 3-1 Historic Average Day Influent Table 3-2 Existing Flow Rates Table 3-3 Collect System Inventory Table 3-4 Gravity Sewer Capacity at Minimum Slope Table 3-5 Outfall Sewer Components Table 3-6 Jackrabbit Lift Station Power 3-14 Table 3-7 Jackrabbit Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-16 Table 3-8 Cruiser Lift Station Power Usage 3-20 Table 3-9 Cruiser Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-22 Table 3-10 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Power 3-26 Table 3-11 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-28 Table 3-12 SID #78/Truck Stop Lift Station Power Usage 3-34 Table 3-13 SID #78 Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-35 Table 3-14 Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Power Usage 3-39 Table 3-15 Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-40 Table 3-16 Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Power Usage 3-44 Table 3-17 Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary 3-45 Table 4-1 Existing Influent Flow Rates ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page ix B16-048 Table 4-2 Historic Average Day Effluent Flows Table 4-3 Current Treatment System Table 4-4 Treatment Plant Water Balance Summary Table 4-5 Drinking Water Consumptions vs Wastewater Effluent Table 4-6 BWTP Design 4-11 Table 4-7 Design Treatment Plant Loading 4-11 Table 4-8 DEQ-2 Aerated Lagoon Design Standards vs Existing Conditions 4-13 Table 4-9 Distribution Piping Components 4-14 Table 4-10 Transfer Line Piping 4-16 Table 4-11 Transfer Line Control Structures 4-16 Table 4-12 Overflow Piping 4-21 Table 4-13 Treatment Lagoons Aeration System 4-29 Table 4-14 Storage Lagoon Aeration System 4-30 Table 4-15 Infiltration/Percolation Components 4-36 Table 4-16 Irrigation Components 4-45 Table 4-17 Agronomic Rates 4-47 Table 5-1 Population Estimate Summary Table 5-2 Average Water Usage (gpcd) Table 5-3 Design Flows Table 5-4 Treatment Plant Design Influent Nutrient and Organic Loading Table 5-5 Design Agronomic Rates Table 5-6 Design Irrigation Flow Rates Table 6-1 Gravity Sewer Capacity at Minimum Slope Table 6-2 Ryen Glenn Lift Station Design Flow 6-15 Table 6-3 Existing Interstate 90 Crossing Design Flow 6-15 Table 6-4 East Interceptor Design Flow 6-16 Table 6-5 Jackrabbit Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate 6-18 Table 6-6 Cruiser Lift Station – Alternative LS2-1 Construction Cost Estimate 6-20 Table 6-7 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate 6-23 Table 6-8 SID #78 Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate 6-24 Table 6-9 Meadowlark Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate 6-25 Table 6-10 Ryen Glenn Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate 6-26 Table 7-1 Headworks Facility Construction Cost Estimate Table 7-2 Alternative T-4A Interpond Piping Capacities 7-13 Table 7-3 Treatment Standards for Partially Mixed Aerated Lagoons with Controlled Discharge 7-17 Table 7-4 Alternative T-4A Estimated Effluent Quality 7-17 Table 7-5 Alternative T-4A Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget 7-18 Table 7-6 Alternative 7-4A Construction Cost Estimate 7-21 Table 7-7 Estimated Solids Production 7-25 Table 7-8 Alternative T-4B Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget 7-27 Table 7-9 Alternative T-4B Annual Electrical Utility Cost 7-28 Table 7-10 Alternative T-4B SBR Cost with Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoon Construction Cost Estimate 7-29 Table 7-11 Alternative T-5A: Greenfield SBR Facility Construction Cost Estimate 7-34 Table 7-12 Alternative T-5B: Greenfield 5-Stage Bardenpho Facility Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 7-38 Table 7-13 Alternative T-5C: Greenfield MBR Facility Capital Costs 7-41 Table 7-14 Assumed Parameters for Sludge Production 7-45 Table 7-15 Sludge Production Volumes for SBR, 5-Stage Bardenpho, and MBR, Respectively 7-46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page x B16-048 Table 7-16 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Mechanical Treatment Annual Disposal Costs for Mechanical Solids Digestion 7-47 Table 7-17 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Treatment Facilities Annual O&M Budget 7-48 Table 7-18 Summary of Operations and Maintenance Staffing Recommendations-Relative to Facility Treatment 7-49 Table 7-19 Available Storage 7-50 Table 7-20 Alternative D-3 Construction Cost Estimate 7-55 Table 7-21 Wastewater Treatment Standards for Irrigation 7-56 Table 7-22 Design Irrigation Flow Rates 7-58 Table 7-23 Alternative D-4 with Treatment Alternative T-4A(2) Construction Cost Estimate 7-59 Table 7-24 Alternative D-4 with Treatment Alternative T-5 Construction Cost Estimate 7-61 Table 7-25 Alternative D-4 Construction Cost Estimate 7-64 Table 8-1 Capital Improvements to Accommodate Future Growth Table 8-2 Existing Collection System Capital Improvements Table 8-3 Treatment Alternatives Operations and Maintenance Present Worth Comparison Table 8-4 Treatment Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates Table 8-5 Treatment Alternatives Decision Matrix Table 8-6 Disposal Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates Table 8-7 Disposal Alternative Decision Matrix CHARTS Chart 2-1 Gallatin County Population and Average Annual Growth Rate Chart 2-2 City of Belgrade Population and Average Annual Growth Rate Chart 3-1 Existing Influent Flows Chart 3-2 Jackrabbit Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time 3-13 Chart 3-3 Cruiser Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time 3-19 Chart 3-4 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time 3-25 Chart 3-5 SID #78/Truck Stop Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time 3-33 Chart 3-6 Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time 3-38 Chart 3-7 Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Average Daily Pump 3-43 Chart 4-1 Existing Effluent Flow Rates Chart 4-2 Treatment Plant Influent and Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentrations Chart 4-3 Total Nitrogen Influent Loading 4-12 Chart 4-4 Treatment Plant Historic Influent BOD Loading 4-13 Chart 4-5 Average Recycle Flow Rate 4-24 Chart 4-6 Recycle Pump Runtimes vs Effluent Nitrate Concentrations 4-25 Chart 4-7 Treatment Lagoon Blowers’ Average Run Times 4-32 Chart 4-8 Average Small Blower Run Time 4-33 Chart 4-9 Average Flow Rates to IP Beds A and B Combined 4-40 Chart 4-10 Average Flow Rates IP Bed 4-41 Chart 4-11 IP Bed A Historic Total Nitrogen Loading 4-42 Chart 4-12 IP Bed C Historic Total Nitrogen Loading 4-43 Chart 4-13 Total Nitrogen Groundwater Concentrations 4-44 Chart 4-14 Irrigation Average Day Flow Rates Comparison 4-46 Chart 4-15 Existing Irrigation Rates vs Calculated Agronomic Rates 4-48 Chart 5-1 Historic Average Day Flows ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page xi B16-048 Chart 7-1 Mechanical Treatment Facility – Non Construction, Construction and Total Project Costs 7-41 Chart 7-2 Mechanical Treatment Facility – Construction Cost by Discipline 7-42 Chart 7-3 Mechanical Treatment Facility – Non-Construction Cost by Discipline 7-42 PHOTOS Photo 4-1 Treatment Lagoon Liner Puncture Photo 4-2 Storage Lagoon Floating Arline 4-31 APPENDICES Appendix 2 Web Soil Survey Population Projection Groundwater Elevation Maps FEMA Floodplain Maps Appendix 3 Flow Measurement Validation Peaking Factors Outfall Sewer Capacity East Interceptor Capacity Interstate 90 Crossing RV Dump Stations Lift Station Inspections Lift Station Draw Down Tests Lift Station Event Log Analysis Lift Station Energy Usage Lift Station Operator Logs Force Main Calculations Appendix 4 October 2016 Site Visit Treatment Plant Data and Figures Existing Pipeline Capacity Calculations Existing Pump Run Time Analysis Existing Lagoon Condition Evaluation Existing Agronomic Rate Calculations Appendix 5 Water Usage Calculations DEQ Meeting Notes DEQ Correspondence Groundwater Discharge Permit Design Effluent Concentration Calculations IP Bed Hydraulic Loading Design Agronomic Rates Appendix 6 Northwest Planning Region Northeast Planning Region ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Table of Contents April 2018 Page xii B16-048 East Planning Region Southeast Planning Region South Planning Region Southwest Planning Region West Planning Region Ryen Glenn Lift Station Impacts Interstate 90 Crossing Impacts East Interceptor Impacts Appendix 7A Alternative T-4 Supporting Documents Alternative T-5 Supporting Documents Alternative D-1 Supporting Documents Alternative D-3 Supporting Documents Alternative D-4 Supporting Documents Appendix 7B Wastewater Operation and Maintenance Tasks and Manpower ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Executive Summary April 2018 Page 0-1 B16-048 0.0 Executive Summary A wastewater Master Plan has been prepared for the City of Belgrade to provide an overview of the condition and deficiencies in the collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Improvements to the City’s wastewater system, inclusive of major infrastructure upgrades and capital improvements projects during the 20-year planning period, were developed based on future growth and existing deficiencies. Properly functioning wastewater systems are necessary to protect local ground and surface waters and comply with discharge standards established by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The collection system analysis was completed prior to June 2017 and may not reflect proposed or constructed improvements past that date. This Master Plan is the City’s initial step towards grant and loan assistance for capital improvements. The evaluation and conclusions presented in this document may be included in a future Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and associated Uniform Application for Montana Public Facility Projects. Funding applications may then be submitted to such grant and loan programs as the Montana Department of Commerce’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP), the Montana DEQ’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program or the Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation’s (DNRC) Renewable Resource Grant and Loan (RRGL) Program, as well as others. 0.1 POPULATION AND GROWTH Historic population data reported by the United States Census Bureau was collected for both the City of Belgrade and Gallatin County. Both the County and the City have seen consistent population growth. Gallatin County reported 1.77% to 3.20% annual growth between 1990 and 2010. In that same time period, the City of Belgrade saw between 2.90% and 6.74% annual growth. Based on the historic data and conversations with City personnel, it was decided an annual growth rate of 3.5% would provide an appropriately conservative basis of design. The 2010 Census reported 7,389 people living within the City of Belgrade. A construction year of 2018 and 20-year design life were assumed throughout this Master Plan. With an annual growth rate of 3.5%, the population within the City of Belgrade is estimated to be 19,360 people in the year 2038. 0.2 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND DISCHARGE PERMIT The DEQ regulates wastewater systems in the State of Montana. Circular DEQ-2: Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems was referenced during the evaluation of the existing facilities, including the collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Additionally, all improvement alternatives discussed throughout this Master Plan designed in accordance with Circular DEQ-2 standards. The City of Belgrade currently has a Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System permit that grants discharge of treated wastewater to Class I groundwater. The City’s current permit mandates the groundwater nitrate concentration at the end of each mixing zone is not to exceed the human health standard of 10.0 mg/l. The City has three permitted outfalls, IP Bed A, B, and C. A non-degradation analysis for each outfall was performed by the DEQ during the City’s most recent permit renewal process. In order to maintain acceptable groundwater concentrations, the DEQ has limited the total nitrogen (TN) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Executive Summary April 2018 Page 0-2 B16-048 loading to 72 lb/day, 72 lb/day and 74 lb/day for IP Beds A, B, and C, respectively. A meeting with the DEQ Water Protection Bureau of February 8, 2017 indicated effluent limitations are not likely to change during future permit renewals, provided the treatment plant can continue to produce effluent quality to prevent exceedances of effluent loading limits. 0.3 COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The collection system consists of gravity collection mains, manholes, lift stations, and force mains. Most of the system discharges to a sewer vault on Dry Creek Road before entering the outfall sewer that feeds the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Two subdivisions northeast of the treatment plant discharge wastewater through a force main which terminates at the end of the outfall sewer. In general, the collection system is in good condition with isolated issues including older, clay tile sewer mains around West Main Street and issues at the Cruiser and Gallatin Farmers Lift Stations. Engineer’s estimates of probable cost were prepared for improvements at each lift station: $640,000 for the Cruiser Lift Station and $510,000 at the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station. Smaller repairs are recommended at the other lift stations to address sensor and SCADA issues and to provide bypass pumping connections recommended by DEQ. Seven future planning regions were delineated and referenced to develop collection system improvements including design flow rates, gravity trunk main sizing, lift station location, and force main diameter. The areas of future growth between the City limits and planning boundary were identified and delineated through discussions with City personnel and by reviewing property ownership and aerial imagery. The design peak hour flow for each future development region was estimated by applying the City’s design standards and the mapped zoning. Future gravity mains, lift stations, and force mains were sized to accommodate planning region peak hour flows. Improvements include a Northwest Regional Lift Station to serve areas north of Cruiser Lane, a Southwest Regional Lift Station to serve future development west of Special Improvement District #78, upsizing critical sewer crossings and interceptors, and upsizing existing lift stations. Cost estimates were not prepared for planning region improvements since, in most cases, it is difficult to predict when the development will occur and how costs may be distributed between the City and the developer. 0.4 TREATMENT SYSTEM CONDITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Through the course of this Master Plan, it was found that the City of Belgrade has a well maintained, properly functioning wastewater treatment system. However, the Belgrade area is expected to maintain its elevated population growth rate. Upgrades to the BWTP are necessary to provide reliable wastewater treatment as the City’s raw wastewater flow continues to increase. Potential solutions were preliminarily considered; two were believed to be technically and logistically feasible. These alternatives include upgrades to the existing system and a new greenfield mechanical system. Upgrades to the existing system may include a new advanced aeration system with tertiary nutrient removal or a new SBR with biosolids storage within the existing lagoons. Possible greenfield mechanical systems include a fully mechanical SBR with solids digestion, 5-Stage Bardenpho, or MBR. Conversations with City personnel have indicated the most desirable option will result in a reliable, easily maintained system at a low capital cost. Due to the high construction cost and O&M complexity of the greenfield mechanical systems, it is recommended that City proceed with upgrades to the existing system. Preliminary capital cost estimates suggest upgrades to the system will range from $17 million to $18 million. It is suggested the City complete a PER in the year 2020 to apply for financial assistance for the proposed upgrades. During preparation of the PER, a more detailed analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Executive Summary April 2018 Page 0-3 B16-048 of optional upgrades and conversations with City staff regarding specific needs and desires can be completed and treatment system recommendations will be finalized. Due to inflation and the preliminary nature of the current cost estimate, the City of Belgrade should budget for $20 million in capital costs for the upgrades. This value will provide a sufficiently conservative financial plan. 0.5 DISPOSAL SYSTEM CONDITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on population projections and assumed upgrades to the treatment system, the City is not expected to need additional disposal infrastructure until the year 2032. Three feasible disposal alternatives were detailed within the Master Plan: installation of a fourth IP bed, upgrades to the existing irrigation system and construction of additional irrigation area. Evaluation of each alternative all three are considered equally beneficial. Estimated capital costs ranged from approximately $100,000 for upgrades to the existing irrigation system to $650,000 for a fourth IP bed. It is recommended that the City prioritize more pressing system upgrades. Improvements to the disposal system should be considered by 2029, to ensure a completed system by 2032. Capital cost and needs of the City should be re-evaluated at that time. 0.6 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This Master Plan provides recommended improvements to the City of Belgrade wastewater system and a general timeline for implementing the treatment and disposal system improvements. The City’s wastewater treatment system is expected to reach capacity around the year 2023. It is recommended that the City’s primary wastewater system planning prioritize recommended treatment alternatives necessary to ensure operations in 2023. An independent Rate Study is currently considering infrastructure improvements to budget for recommended projects. It is expected that conventional grant and loan funding options will be considered in the Rate Study and pursued in the next funding cycle. A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is needed to submit for grant funding. It is recommended that the City submit a finished PER in 2020. Grant applications submitted in 2020 will be subject to approval during the 2021 Legislative session (2023 Biennium). If the project ranks well and funding is approved, design could begin in the summer of 2021 to and bid documents ready in early 2022. Bidding should occur soon after to allow for delivery of long-lead equipment ahead of the 2022 construction season. Recent discussions with the DNRC indicates planning grants will be available in the Fall of 2018. It is recommended the City contact DNRC and other perspective planning grant programs early to confirm funding availability and anticipated grant allowances. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Introduction April 2018 Page 1-1 B16-048 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Belgrade has requested an analysis of their existing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems, inclusive of recommending major infrastructure upgrades and capital improvement projects for a 20-year planning period. The chapters to follow include the necessary planning and engineering required to systematically address the existing and future issues regarding the City’s wastewater management system. 1.1 Purpose This Master Plan has been prepared for the purpose of identifying deficiencies within the City of Belgrade’s existing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems. Properly functioning wastewater systems are necessary to protect local ground and surface waters and comply with discharge standards established by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additionally, wastewater infrastructure must be adequately sized to manage peak flows. This Master Plan will address the impacts of the City’s anticipated growth and increased wastewater flows on the existing infrastructure. Improvement alternatives will be identified and evaluated to provide a prioritized list of major and minor capital improvement needs. All proposed upgrades will account for a minimum 20- year design life. A cost-effective analysis of the proposed alternatives will be compared to determine the lowest capital and operating costs in conjunction with social and environmental considerations. A conceptual design level analysis of various alternatives will be completed. Calculations and cost estimates will be presented to predict financial feasibility of the alternatives and recommended projects. Through this process, prudent and cost-effective wastewater management improvements can be selected for implementation. This Master Plan is the City’s initial step toward pursuit of grant and loan assistance for capital improvements. The evaluation and conclusions presented in this document may be included in a future Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and associated Uniform Application for Montana Public Facility Projects. Funding applications may then be submitted to such grant and loan programs as the Montana Department of Commerce’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP), the Montana DEQ’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program or the Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation’s (DNRC) Renewable Resource Grant and Loan (RRGL) Program, as well as others. The wastewater system is owned and operated by the City of Belgrade. Contact information is as follows: City of Belgrade 91 East Central Avenue Belgrade, Montana 59714 1.2 Problem The City of Belgrade’s existing wastewater system is comprised of aging infrastructure. The existing collection system includes six lift stations of varying age, condition and capacity. The collection system includes newer PVC, installed in the last decade, as well as older clay tile pipe prone to root intrusion and blockages. The existing treatment system was constructed in 2004 with a 20-year design life. Two effluent disposal methods are currently available to the City, land application through spray irrigation and a series of three Infiltration/Percolation (IP) Beds. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Introduction April 2018 Page 1-2 B16-048 The DEQ has set pollutant loading limits on the IP beds in the City’s groundwater discharge permit. The City of Belgrade has experienced population growth. The annual population growth rate has remained close to or above 3% since 1980; this trend is expected to remain over the design life of the proposed improvements. As Belgrade’s population continues to grow, wastewater flows through the collection, treatment and disposal systems will increase. Additionally, the City has historically produced wastewater with elevated Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and organic nitrogen concentrations. Generally speaking, high strength wastewater increases capital costs of treatment components as well as operating costs. Evaluation of the current system along with recommended improvements and scheduling are critical to ensure the system has sufficient capacity to manage the increased flows. Although the existing system has a history of compliance with the state and federal discharge requirements, additional treatment will also be necessary in the years to come to maintain compliance as populations and wastewater flows increase. 1.3 Scope Thomas, Dean and Hoskins (TD&H) Engineering in partnership with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Solutions, Inc. (AE2S) was hired by the City of Belgrade to complete a comprehensive study of the City’s wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems. The scope of this Master Plan is to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing wastewater management systems and provide improvement recommendations with preliminary cost estimates and implementation scheduling. The detailed scope of work for this Master Plan Includes: • Projection of population and sewage flows • Evaluation of existing collection system • Evaluation of existing pump stations • Evaluation of existing treatment lagoons and associated facilities • Evaluation of existing disposal systems • Evaluation of existing control devices and local panels • Identification of infrastructure in need of repair or replacement • Evaluation of viable alternatives • Preparation of preliminary construction costs for each alternative • Improvement recommendations and implementation scheduling 1.4 Acknowledgements City of Belgrade personnel, including Mr. Ted Barkley-City Manager, Mr. Steve Klotz- Public Work Director, Mr. Jason Karp- Director of Planning, Mr. Clinton Holman, Mr. Paul Burkardt, Ms. Diane Eagleson and the entire City of Belgrade financial team were very helpful in providing recent data and historic records for the system in addition to assistance with facility inspections and equipment testing. Their cooperation, understanding and direction guided the recommendations in this report. The community has shown concern for the problems with their wastewater system and has a strong desire to address the problem in the most cost effective means possible. They have been very proactive in attempting to address their problems with the financial means and personnel availability at their disposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-1 B16-048 2.0 BACKGROUND The City of Belgrade’s wastewater system includes a network of six submersible lift stations, gravity mains and force mains, a three-celled aerated lagoon system and two disposal methods. The collection system has been designed to convey only wastewater to the treatment lagoons; a separate storm sewer system has been constructed to handle stormwater runoff. This chapter describes the planning area, population trends and applicable regulatory requirements. 2.1 Planning and Service Area The location and physical characteristic of the City of Belgrade’s planning area is described in the sections to follow. 2.1.1 Location. The City of Belgrade is an incorporated city located in Gallatin County, just east of the Continental Divide in southern Montana. The City is situated on Interstate-90, roughly 10 miles west of Bozeman and 75 miles east of Butte. Most of the City is in Sections 1 and 12, Range 4 East, Township 1 South. The center of the City is at latitude 45.7785, longitude -111.1790, at an elevation of approximately 4,460 feet above sea level. A vicinity map is available in Figure 2- 1. The City is roughly 3.25 square miles. The planning area for this Master Plan is approximately 12.5 square miles and includes the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport. Figure 2-2 displays the existing City limits, the current Belgrade zoning boundaries and the selected planning area boundary. The planning area boundary was selected based on input from City staff. 2.1.2 Physical Characteristics. 2.1.2.1 Topography The City has relatively flat topography, generally sloping to the north. The Gallatin and Madison Mountain Ranges are south of the City, while the Bridger Mountain Range and the Tobacco Root Mountains are east and west of the City, respectively. The nearby mountains can rise to elevations as high as 10,300 feet. 2.1.2.2 Soils A query of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) web soil survey was completed for the planning area. Per the NRCS, most the planning area consists of soils classified as loam or cobbly loam. The detailed soils report is available for review in Appendix 2. 2.1.2.3 Surface Water Belgrade is located between the East and West Gallatin Rivers, just south of their confluence. Several tributaries, such as Cottonwood, Gibson and Bostwick Creeks, flow past the City. Additionally, numerous irrigation ditches flow through the planning area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-1 VICINITY MAP BELGRADE, MONTANA BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CJS 04/04/2017 B16-048 SHEET G a l l a t i n R a n g e M a d i s o n R a n g e B r i d g e r R a n g e T o b a c c o R o o t M o u n t a i n s Mon tan a State Library ³ 0 2 4 1 Mi les 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONT ANA 59401 J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan \CADD\CIVIL\B16-048 Fig 2-1.bak.m xd B16-048 Fig 2-1.bak.MXD DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: DATE DRAWN: JOB NO.: FIELDBOOK: REV DAT E REVISION [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhen gin eerin g.com PROJECT LOCATION T o Butte ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PROPOSED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY BELGRADE ZONING BOUNDARY CITY LIMITS DRY CREEK RD I-90 JACKRABBIT LN FRONTAGE ROAD FRONTAGE ROAD BOZEMAN YELLOWSTONE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT B-2 R-3 M-1 M-1 M-1 B-2 R-3 R-2 R-4 PL-1 R-3 R-2 R-2 R-3 R-3 R-4 R-1 PL-1 R-3 SINGLE FAMILY B-2 R-2-M R-4 B-2 B-3 M-1 B-3 M-1 PL-1 R-3 R-3 R-2 PL-1 R-4 B-2 R-4-T PL-1 R-2 PL-1 R-1 R-4 R-2-D R-4 R-2 R-2-D M-1 AS R-4 R-2-M R-2 R-2 R-1 R-1-T PL-1 R-3 R-4 R-2-D R-3 BP M-1 BP-10 M-1 RS-M M-1 M-2 R-3 MULTI B-2 B-2 M-1 M-1 B-2 R-2 R-2 R-3 R-1 B-2 R-2 M-1 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-3 R-2 R-1 B-2 R-1, PUD M-2 R-4 AS R-1 RS-M PL-1 B-2 I-90 I-90 REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 2-2 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA PLANNING BOUNDARY AND ZONING B16-048 05-23-2017 .DWG 2-2 CJS DDN/CEVJ NMR Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND ZONING INDEX J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 2-2.dwg, 5/23/2017 2:21:33 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-4 B16-048 2.1.2.4 Groundwater The City of Belgrade is in the Gallatin River drainage. The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s (MBMG) Groundwater Information Center (GWIC) was referenced to evaluate water levels in the area. Wells logs from 50 wells in and around Belgrade reported an average static water level of 45.3 feet below the top of the casing (TOC). Groundwater elevations were mapped using AutoDesk Civil 3D for the City’s 2011 MPDES groundwater discharge permit renewal application. Static water level data from 2003 to 2010 was utilized to map groundwater table elevations. A sample of these groundwater table elevation figures, including maps from June through September of each year of record, is provided in Appendix 2. Evaluation of aquifer conditions around the existing wastewater lagoons indicates groundwater in that area is between 27 to 32 feet below the ground surface. It was also determined that the hydraulic gradient near the wastewater lagoon is approximately 0.0044 ft/ft and slopes to the northwest. 2.1.2.5 Floodplain The East and West Gallatin Rivers nearest the City of Belgrade have been mapped by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The majority of the City and planning area are categorized as Zone X: areas to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, also known as the 500-year flood plain. A small portion of the northeast corner of the City and planning area is categorized as Zone A: areas within the 1% annual chance floodplain, also known as the 100-year floodplain. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for both the East and West Gallatin Rivers can be found in Appendix 2. 2.1.3 Climate The Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) was referenced for climatologic data in the Belgrade area. Data collected from the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport weather station was utilized. Temperate in the Belgrade area fluctuates greatly depending on time of year. In winter months, temperatures near or below 0°F are not uncommon; while the summer time can see long periods with temperatures as high as 90°F. Precipitation usually peaks in the summer with an average of 2.53 inches in June. Snow fall in the area does not generally occur in the summer, however averages 7.2 and 8.5 inches in December and January, respectively. Table 2-1 summarizes averages for temperature, precipitation, snowfall and snow depth. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-5 B16-048 Table 2-1 Climate Summary Average Maximum Temperature Average Minimum Temperature Average Total Precipitation Average Total Snow Fall Average Snow Depth (in) (in) (in) January 29.9 6.2 0.57 8.5 4 February 35.5 12.1 0.45 5.6 3 March 43.1 18.8 0.91 9.1 2 April 54.9 28.7 1.35 6.0 0 May 64.4 36.9 2.21 2.3 0 June 73.2 43.9 2.53 0.0 0 July 84.6 48.9 1.12 0.0 0 August 83.2 47.4 1.12 0.0 0 September 71.2 38.7 1.29 0.5 0 October 58.4 29.3 1.06 2.3 0 November 41.8 18 0.76 5.6 1 December 32.0 8.9 0.55 7.2 2 Annual 56.0 28.2 13.92 47.0 1 2.2 Population Projections and Planning Period Both the City of Belgrade and Gallatin County have experienced relatively consistent growth in the past. A detailed analysis of population trends is critical to correctly assess the existing system’s available capacity as well as provide accurate design conditions for future upgrades. Historic population analysis and future projections for the City of Belgrade are detailed in the following sections. 2.2.1 Historical Population and Analysis Population trends for both the City and the County were reviewed to gain a better understanding of past growth in the area. Population information published by the United States Census Bureau is summarized in Table 2-2 along with average annual growth rates for each decade. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-6 B16-048 Table 2-2 Historic Population Data Gallatin County City of Belgrade Population Annual Growth Rate Population Annual Growth Rate 1890 6,246 1900 9,553 5.29% 1910 14,079 4.74% 561 1920 15,864 1.27% 499 -1.11% 1930 16,124 0.16% 533 0.68% 1940 18,269 1.33% 618 1.59% 1950 21,902 1.99% 663 0.73% 1960 26,045 1.89% 1,057 5.94% 1970 32,505 2.48% 1,307 2.37% 1980 42,865 3.19% 2,336 7.87% 1990 50,463 1.77% 3,422 4.65% 2000 67,831 3.44% 5,728 6.74% 2010 89,513 3.20% 7,389 2.90% 20141 97,308 2.18% 7,798 1.38% 1 2014 population data is considered a Census estimate Both Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade have experienced consistent growth over the past century. Annual growth for the County has ranged from 0.16% in the 1920s to 5.29% in the 1890s. More recently, the County’s annual growth rate has remained relatively constant at or above 3.00%. Since 1970, the average annual growth rate has exceeded 3.00% for three of the five decades. A noticeable decline in growth was experienced from 1980 to 1990 with only a 1.77% average annual rate. However, from 1990 to 2000 the County’s growth increased to 3.44% and remained above 3% from 2000 to 2010. The City grew at a slower rate in the early 20th century. Between 1950 and 1960, the growth rate drastically increased to nearly then peaked at 7.87% in the 1970s and remained above 4.5% until 2000. From 2000 to 2010, the growth slowed to just below 3% and is estimated to have slowed even further since 2010. The population and growth rate information is graphically presented in Charts 2-1 and 2-2 for Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-7 B16-048 Chart 2-1: Gallatin County Population and Average Annual Growth Rate Chart 2-2: City of Belgrade Population and Average Annual Growth Rate ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-8 B16-048 2.2.2 Future Population Planning Period and Growth Recommendations The continual growth reported for both the City of Belgrade and Gallatin County indicates further growth in the area can be expected. Conversations with City personnel suggest Belgrade generally experiences times of rapid growth followed by periods of more consistent population. Although the City’s population has grown at an annual rate of less than 3% in recent years, three of the past 5 decades have witnessed average annual growth rates exceeding 4.5%. It is believed that an annual growth rate of 3.5% will provide a conservative basis of design. With this growth rate and a 20-year planning period, the design population for the City of Belgrade is 19,360 persons. The City of Belgrade formally approved these population projections in an October 24, 2016 e-mail from City Planner Mr. Jason Karp, provided in Appendix 2. Detailed population projections are presented in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Population Projections Year Annual Growth Rate Population Estimates 2010 3.5% 7,389 2018 3.5% 9,730 2020 3.5% 10,423 2030 3.5% 14,703 2038 3.5% 19,360 2.3 Regulatory Requirements The DEQ is the primary regulatory agency for wastewater systems in the State of Montana. This agency reviews and approves new wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems in accordance with Circular DEQ-2: Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems. Additionally, the Permitting and Compliance Division of DEQ issues and enforces permits pertaining to the disposal of treated wastewater. The following sections discuss the design and permitting considerations for the existing and future system. 2.3.1 Definitions According to Circular DEQ-2, specific values for both hydraulic and organic loading must be provided as the basis of design for new and retrofitted wastewater facilities. The Circular’s definitions for the specific design quantities are provided below. 2.3.1.1 Hydraulic Capacity Definitions Minimum hydraulic parameters must be established to evaluate the capacity of sewer mains, lift stations, wastewater treatment plants, treatment units and all other wastewater handling facilities. Critical design parameters include design average flow, maximum day flow, peak hourly flow, peak instantaneous flow, and maximum month flow. All hydraulic parameters are expressed in units of volume per time. • Average Daily Flow (ADF): The average daily volume of wastewater, over a 12- month period, to be received by a wastewater facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-9 B16-048 • Maximum Day Flow: The maximum volume of wastewater to be received by a wastewater facility in a continuous 24-hour period. • Peak Hourly Flow: The maximum volume of wastewater to be received by a wastewater facility during a one-hour period. • Peak Instantaneous Flow: The maximum recorded flow received by a wastewater facility over the shortest time interval consistent with the recording equipment. • Maximum Month Flow: The maximum average daily flow calculated for a single calendar month, over a 12-month period. 2.3.1.2 Organic Definitions Organic loading pertains almost exclusively to wastewater treatment facilities. As such, specific organic quantities for the design year are not required for collection system design. Quantities related to BOD, Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) are included in treatment facility design requirements. Organic loading is expressed in units of weight per time. • Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5): The amount of oxygen required to stabilize biodegradable organic matter under aerobic conditions within a five-day period. o Average BOD5: The average BOD5 load received for a continuous 12-month period. o Maximum Day BOD5: The largest amount of BOD5 load to be received during a continuous 24-hour period. o Peak Hourly BOD5: The largest amount of BOD5 load to be received during a one-hour period. • Total Nitrogen (TN): The summation of organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate (all expressed as o Average Total Nitrogen: The average TN load received for a continuous 12- month period. o Diurnal Peak TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is the organically bonded nitrogen and ammonia present in the wastewater. The diurnal peak TKN is the largest quantity of TKN to be received during a continuous 24-hour period. • Total Phosphorus (TP) Loading: The average daily quantity of the phosphorous to enter the treatment plant for a continuous 12-month period. • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Loading: TSS are solids present in the wastewater stream that may be captured and removed by a filter. TSS loading is the average daily quantity of TSS received by the treatment plant over a continuous 12-month period. TSS loading is not specifically required by DEQ-2, but should be considered during the design and evaluation of treatment systems. 2.3.2 DEQ Design Standards Circular DEQ-2: Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems details design criteria for collection, treatment and disposal systems. The following sections briefly summarize applicable standards. Detailed evaluation of the existing system and improvement alternatives will be discussed in the chapters to follow. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-10 B16-048 2.3.2.1 Collection System Collection system design criteria is detailed in DEQ Circular-2, Chapter 30: Design of Sewers and Chapter 40: Wastewater Pumping Stations. Chapter 30 presents specific design criteria for both gravity and force mains. Criteria include minimum allowable pipe size and slope for gravity mains, restrictions to alignment and changes in pipe sizing, manholes, stream crossings and separation of clear water. Chapter 40 defines minimum standards for lift station design criteria including pump station structure requirements, pumps, intakes, and safety. The existing collection system will be evaluated against applicable criteria. Additionally, all improvement alternatives will comply will DEQ regulations. 2.3.2.2 Treatment and Disposal Systems The current treatment and disposal system, discussed in detail in the following chapters, is a partially mixed aerated lagoon system with controlled discharge to a series of IP beds and an irrigation system. Table 93-2 of Circular DEQ-2 provides criteria for this type of system. The criteria are summarized below in Table 2-4. The existing system will be reviewed against this criterion later in this Master Plan. Possible upgrades may require different criteria based on the proposed treatment and disposal. Table 2-4 Treatment Standards for Partially Mixed Aerated Lagoons with Land Application DEQ Circular-2 Criteria Standard Distance from Habitation Minimum 1/4 mile from human habitation Groundwater Separation Minimum 4 feet from groundwater to bottom of pond Bedrock Separation Minimum 10 feet from bedrock to bottom of pond Water Well Separation Minimum 500 feet separation from pond to water well Minimum Number of Cells 1-2(1) Minimum System Oxygen Requirements 2.5 lbs O2/ lb BOD5 removed Quiescent Zone Detention Time 1-2 days Minimum Dissolved Oxygen 2.0 mg/l Depth 10-15 feet Minimum Detention Time Under Aeration 20 days Maximum Seepage Rate 6 inches per year Emergency Storage for I/P Beds 30-90 days Winter Storage for Irrigation Mixing In Aerated Cells 5-10 HP/MG One aeration cell if large storage cell is proposed, two if IP is proposed An annual month-by-month water balance must be used to determine required winter storage ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-11 B16-048 2.3.3 Discharge Permit The City of Belgrade has a Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System groundwater discharge permit issued by the DEQ. The current permit was issued December 1, 2012 and expired November 30, 2017. A completed application was submitted to the DEQ prior to the expiration date. At the time of writing this Master Plan, the current permit has been extended until a new permit can be issued. Montana’s non-degradation policy went into effect April 29, 1993. According to the current permit’s Fact Sheet, the City’s discharge activities do not result in a change in the water quality occurring on or before April 29, 1993. The DEQ therefore concluded Belgrade’s discharge is not a new or increased source of contamination, and as such is not subject to the State’s non- degradation policy. Rather, the DEQ has classified the receiving water as Class I groundwater. Class I groundwater must be maintained to provide the following with little or no treatment: • Public and private water supply • Culinary and food processing purposes • Irrigation • Drinking water for livestock and wildlife • Commercial and industrial purposes Discharging to Class I groundwater may not cause the following effects beyond the system’s defined mixing zone boundaries. • Violations to groundwater human health standards listed in Circular DEQ-7 • Increase of any constituent to a level deemed by the department to be detrimental, harmful or injurious to the beneficial uses of Class I groundwater. • Decrease from the general water quality necessary to support designated beneficial uses The water quality standards for Class I groundwater, defined in Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.30.1006 and Circular DEQ-7 were utilized in developing the permit effluent limitations. These standards state that nitrate concentrations at the end of mixing zones may not exceed the human health standard of 10.0 mg/l. For the purposes of predicting the nitrate concentration in the groundwater, the DEQ assumed the entire TN load is composed of nitrate, rather than a mixture of nitrate, nitrite, TKN and ammonia. DEQ has set TN loading limits for each of the three outfalls, IP Beds A, B and C. Values were calculated using a mass balance equation considering volume of effluent, volume of groundwater, ambient groundwater concentration and applicable groundwater quality standards. (10 mg/l TN). Allowable TN loading, as set by the current permit, is available in Table 2-5. A meeting with the DEQ Water Protection Bureau on February 8, 2017 indicated effluent limitations are not expected to change with future permit renewals, assuming the treatment plant can maintain TN concentrations low enough to prevent exceedance of effluent loading limits. Should the City become unable to comply with current permit limits, the department would likely consider the groundwater discharge as a new or increased source. At least for increased nutrient loading, this would trigger Montana’s non-degradation policy and result in more stringent allowable groundwater concentrations. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan – Final Background April 2018 Page 2-12 B16-048 Table 2-5 Current Permit Loading Limits Outfall Pollutant Effluent Limit IP Bed A Total Nitrogen (as N) 72 lb/day IP Bed B Total Nitrogen (as N) 72 lb/day IP Bed C Total Nitrogen (as N) 74 lb/day ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-1 B16-048 3.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXISTING FACILITY REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the existing wastewater demands and the City of Belgrade’s wastewater collection system condition. The collection system consists of gravity collection mains, manholes, lift stations, and force mains. Most of the system discharges to a sewer vault on Dry Creek Road before entering the outfall sewer that feeds the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Two subdivisions northeast of the treatment plant discharge wastewater through a force main which terminates at the end of the outfall sewer. The analysis was completed in June 2017 and does not account for planned or installed infrastructure beyond this date. 3.1 EXISTING HYDRAULIC DEMANDS The existing hydraulic demands were estimated from historic influent flows to the City of Belgrade’s wastewater treatment plant. A 21-inch gravity main, known as the outfall sewer, conveys most of the City’s wastewater to the plant. The remaining wastewater is conveyed through a force main which discharges at the end of the outfall sewer. Wastewater then passes through an open channel flow meter, in a structure called the weir box, prior to entering the treatment plant. The influent flow meter reports flow rates to the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system in gallons per minute (gpm) at 6-minute intervals. Flow data from January 1, 2010 to October 31, 2016 was downloaded from the SCADA system on November 1, 2016. From this data, existing average day, maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flows were calculated. This information is graphically presented in Chart 3-1. The SCADA data is available electronically on CD with hard copies of this Master Plan. Chart 3-1: Existing Influent Flows ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-2 B16-048 A general increase in flow rates, commensurate with recent population growth, has occurred over the past 6 years. A dramatic spike in peak instantaneous, peak hour and maximum day flows is reported from October 2014 to January 2015. These elevated flow measurements have been attributed to inaccurate meter measurements. Conversations with City staff suggest the treatment plant’s influent flow meter had been damaged and was no longer properly seated within the control structure. The ultrasonic open channel flow meter was reportedly replaced in 2015. Average day flow rates were not significantly affected by the damaged meter readings. Inflow and infiltration (I/I) are not expected to contribute to the system wastewater demands. According to well records from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s (MBMG) Ground Water Information Center (GWIC), the static groundwater level around the City of Belgrade ranges from 22 feet to 75 feet below ground surface. The groundwater table is significantly lower than the sanitary sewer collection system and, therefore, I/I is not considered a likely source of inflow to the system. 3.1.1 Flow Verfication M.E.T. Automation and Controls was procured to perform a flow verification and inspection of the three electromagnetic flow meters in the pump building and the flow measurement apparatus in the weir box. The verification was completed on March 27, 2017; a report documenting the findings is provided in Appendix 3. The inspection revealed several issues with the flow measurement equipment in the weir box. The current meter does not include a primary device within the flow. Rather, the meter relies on water level measurements and user- entered variables to calculate flow using Manning’s equation. M.E.T. discovered that several variables were incorrect in the software, including pipe diameter and slope. The recorded flows were nearly 40% higher than the actual flow rates. M.E.T. and City personnel corrected the inputs to represent the system as accurately as possible. Regardless of the corrections, M.E.T. does not recommend the current meter type or setup. Installing equipment which also measures velocity and is submerged in the flow path has been recommended. 3.1.2 Current Wastewater Production and Average Day Flows To determine the applicability of the available inflow measurements, the yearly average wastewater production rates for 2014-2016 were calculated based on population data. The results are presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Historic Average Day Influent Flows Year Average Day Flow Estimated Population Calculated Wastewater Production (gpd) (persons) (gpcd) 2014 689,119 7,798 88.4 2015 776,624 8,071 96.2 2016 684,468 8,353 81.9 Average 716,737 88.8 The DEQ recommends applying 90 to 100 gpcd wastewater production rates for design flows to new treatment facilities. Previous Design Reports and Facilities Plans have reported 86 gpcd ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-3 B16-048 as a standard for Belgrade’s production rate. Production rates from 2014 to 2016 range from 81.9 to 96.2 gpcd and averaged 88.8 gpcd. Although these values are believed to be high based on the previously discussed meter verification reports, they are not outrageously high when compared to DEQ standards and Belgrade’s previous design conditions. Therefore, these values are considered to provide reasonably conservative estimates of the existing flows. Based the above analysis, the current ADF for the BWTP is estimated to be 716,737 gpd. 3.1.3 Existing Flow Rates Peaking factors for maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flows were estimated based on SCADA flow data presented in Chart 3-1. The procedures followed during the peaking factor analysis are included in Appendix 3. Data from October 2014 to January 2015 was not included in the analysis due to the dramatic increase in flow rates attributed to the damaged meter. Table 3-2 summarizes the peaking factors and existing flow conditions. The maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous peaking factors for the City of Belgrade have been defined as 1.44, 1.99, 3.30 and 4.19, respectively. Multiplying these peaking factors by the existing average day flow of 716,373 gpd, the existing maximum month flow rate is 1,032,101 gpd, the maximum day flow rate is 1,426,307 gpd and the peak hour and peak instantaneous flow rates are 2,365,232 gpd and 3,003,128 gpd, respectively. 3.2 GRAVITY COLLECTION SYSTEM Belgrade’s collection system consists of conventional gravity mains of varying sizes and pipe materials. Most mains are located under streets, although a few are in the alleys east of Belgrade High School. Figure 3-1 presents the known extents of the collection system and the location of the mains, manholes, lift stations, and force mains. A full-size copy of Figure 3-1 is provided with hard copies of this Master Plan. The following sections describe the known physical condition, size, and capacity of the gravity collection system; however, the City does not have a comprehensive inventory of sewer main sizes, materials, or age. The City is currently compiling a GIS database of the sewer mains and manholes in the system; however, this process is not complete and will not be finished prior to adoption of this Master Plan. When the GIS database is complete, more information will be available to assess pipe age and condition. The condition and deficiencies in the gravity collection system, as documented in this report, are based on the 1998 Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities Plan and observations by City personnel. A comprehensive infrastructure inspection has not been conducted and is outside the scope of this Master Plan. Table 3-2 Existing Flow Rates Demand Average Peaking Factor Flow Rate (gpd) Average Day 716,737 Maximum Month 1.44 1,032,101 Maximum Day 1.99 1,426,307 Peak Hour 3.30 2,365,232 Peak Instantaneous 4.19 3,003,128 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-4 B16-048 The capacity of several sewer mains is examined in detail, including the outfall sewer, the east interceptor, and the crossing under Interstate 90. Issues with two RV dumps are also comprehensively described. 3.2.1 Condition and Physical Deficiencies The age of the gravity mains varies throughout the City. Newer polyvinyl chloride (PVC) mains have been installed during the last decade in two subdivisions east of town, Meadowlark Ranch and Ryen Glenn Estates, and in Special Improvement District (SID) #78 south of Interstate 90 near Jackrabbit Lane. The new gravity mains and sewer manholes in these areas are in good condition. The age of the remaining gravity mains and manholes is not known; however, it is suspected that some have been in place between ten and fifty years. The 1998 Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities plan indicated the gravity mains were 25 years old at the time, so they would be 44 years old in 2017. In general, the mains and manholes are in good condition with no obvious damage or deficiencies, except in the area between North Quaw Boulevard, North Kennedy Street, West Central Avenue, and West Main Street. The 1998 Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities Plan indicates this area consists of older, clay tile pipe which is prone to root intrusion and other blockages. The Facilities Plan also reports a single storm drain inlet is connected to the sanitary sewer; however, the location of the inlet is unknown. While the physical condition of the gravity infrastructure is generally good, several aspects of the layout may not comply with DEQ requirements. A review of the available sewer main mapping indicates there are locations with manhole or cleanout spacing which exceeds the requirements in Section 34.1 of Circular DEQ-2. A 2006 water and sewer design report, Design Report for City of Belgrade SID 78 Water & Sewer Improvements, indicates the City has equipment available to clean and maintain up to 500 feet for gravity sewers 8-inches and larger. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 3-X REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM B16-048 2017-06-19 .DWG 3-1 CEVJ CEVJ/DDN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X.dwg, 6/19/2017 4:35:43 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-6 B16-048 3.2.2 Diameter and Capacity The gravity collection system includes 10-, 12-, 18-, and 21-inch mains. The DEQ- required minimum sewer diameter is 8-inches; therefore, it is recommended to upsize any existing 6-inch mains during any utility replacement or street reconstruction projects. Table 3-3 presents the approximate quantities of each main size in the system. Quantities are based on the system mapping available as of May 2017. The City’s GIS inventory will provide a better estimate when it is complete. Force mains are discussed in the following sections with their corresponding lift stations; however, the approximate quantity of force mains is included in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Collection System Inventory Type Pipe Diameter Approximate Length(1) Gravity Main 6-inches 670 LF 8-inches 154,400 LF 10-inches 7,500 LF 12-inches 11,720 LF 18-inches 1,700 LF 21-inches 9,840 LF Force Main 4-inches 740 LF 6-inches 2,950 LF 8-inches 6,760 LF 10-inches 5,200 LF are approximate and may change after City GIS mapping is complete. The capacity and sizing of sewer mains is based on DEQ and City criteria and is related to their slope, material, and diameter. Slopes should be sufficient to produce a scouring velocity in the pipes and prevent buildup of debris and solids. If the gravity mains are oversized, then a scouring velocity of 2-3 ft/sec may not be achieved. Circular DEQ-2 requires sewer mains be at least 8-inches and designed at the minimum slope provided in Table 3-4. Smaller diameters are allowed for certain structures where no future development is planned. The City of Belgrade Design Standards and Specification Policy, updated in July 2017, indicates that sanitary sewers be designed for peak hour flows plus an infiltration allowance when the pipe is 75% full. Table 3-4 presents the pipe capacity and velocity at various flow depths and at minimum DEQ slopes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-7 B16-048 Table 3-4 Gravity Sewer Capacity at Minimum Slope Sewer Diameter DEQ Minimum Slope (ft/ft) 30% Full 75% Full 90% Full Flow Rate (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Rate (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Rate (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) 6-inches 0.0060 38 1.7 178 2.5 210 2.4 8-inches 0.0040 67 1.7 313 2.5 369 2.4 10-inches 0.0028 102 1.6 474 2.4 560 2.3 12-inches 0.0022 147 1.7 684 2.4 807 2.3 15-inches 0.0015 220 1.6 1,024 2.3 1,208 2.3 18-inches 0.0012 320 1.6 1,489 2.3 1,757 2.3 21-inches 0.0010 440 1.6 2,051 2.4 2,419 2.3 City personnel have indicated no major issues with clogging or backups; as a result, it is assumed existing sewer mains are installed at sufficient slopes and are not oversized. The older, clay tile mains around West Main Street have been known to clog; however, that behavior is likely caused by root intrusion or pipe collapse. Pipes at slopes greater than the DEQ minimum facilitate higher velocities at smaller flow rates; however, velocities which are too high may damage or displace concrete manholes and pipe inverts. Circular DEQ-2 requires special provisions for pipes with velocities higher than 15 ft/sec. The City of Belgrade is in a gently sloping area and high velocities are not anticipated in any of the gravity mains. 3.2.3 Outfall Sewer The majority of the City’s raw wastewater is conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant though approximately 2,300 linear feet (LF) of 21-inch PVC sewer pipe. As-built drawings indicate the pipe slope ranges from 0.10% to 0.24%. The outfall sewer begins at a sewer vault just east of Dry Creek Road and terminates at the treatment plant. A flow measurement vault (also referred to as the weir box) and a diversion vault are located at the segment of the outfall sewer, near the head of the treatment facility. The weir box is a 60-inch precast concrete manhole with steps and manhole rim access. The diversion vault is a 72-inch precast concrete manhole with manhole rim access and steps. Two manual slide gates direct flow to either or both of the primary treatment ponds through the distribution and by-pass piping. The layout and configuration of the wastewater treatment plant piping is described in Chapter 4. Components of the outfall sewer are summarized in Table 3-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-8 B16-048 Table 3-5 Outfall Sewer Components Pipeline 21-inch PVC 2,300 LF Weir Box Structure 60-inch Precast Concrete Manhole Inlet 21-inch PVC (south) Outlet 21-inch PVC (north) Meter Ultrasonic Open Channel Flow Meter Diversion Vault Structure 72-inch Precast Concrete Manhole Inlet 21-inch PVC (south) Outlet 21-inch PVC (north) 21-inch PVC (east) Valves Slide gate City personnel indicate the outfall sewer is in good condition. No recent leaks, main breaks or issues related to the condition of the manholes has been reported. Circular DEQ-2 specifies sewer conveyance infrastructure including gravity sewers must be sized to carry the peak hour flow. As previously mentioned, the outfall sewer is a 21-inch PVC sewer main. According to the record drawings, the minimum slope along the pipe line is 0.10%. Calculations, provided in Appendix 3, indicate the capacity when the pipe is 75% full is about 2,050 gpm or 2.95 MGD. When the pipe is full the calculated capacity is 2,250 gpm (3.24 MGD). The current peak hour flow is 2.36 MGD, so the pipe is not yet at capacity. Approximately 19% of the outfall sewer has a slope greater than 0.10%. 3.2.4 East Interceptor Sewer A 21-inch sewer interceptor was constructed around ten years ago on the east side of Belgrade. Documentation related to the SID #79 improvements indicates the interceptor was intended to “serve all new developments on the southeast side of Belgrade and areas south of I-90”. The interceptor is a 21-inch sewer main located on the east side of Belgrade. Figure 3-1 indicates the location of the interceptor. The slope of the interceptor is not known; however, the capacity can be estimated using Circular DEQ-2’s minimum slope for 21-inch sewer mains: 0.10%. The capacity of the east interceptor when flowing 75% full is about 2,050 gpm and when flowing full is 2,250 gpm. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3. The maximum theoretical capacity of the pipe, when flowing about 94% full, is 2,419 gpm. 3.2.5 Interstate 90 Crossing The sewer system south of Interstate 90 is conveyed through two parallel gravity mains under the interstate. The parallel mains begin at a manhole in Alaska Frontage Road, south of the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-9 B16-048 interstate, and end at a manhole at the intersection of Stiles Avenue and Colorado Street. According to 1995 MDT plans, the crossing includes two 12-inch PVC SDR 35 gravity mains which slope at 0.444%. The capacity of the crossing when the pipes are 75% full is 1,850 gpm and when the pipes are flowing full the capacity is 2,030 gpm. The 1995 plan sheet and capacity calculation are provided in Appendix 3. 3.2.6 RV Dump Stations There are two RV dumps in the City of Belgrade; both contribute flow to the WWTP. They are located at two service stations on Jackrabbit Lane north of Interstate 90: Town Pump and Rocky Mountain Supply. Photos of the facilities are provided in Appendix 3 and their locations are indicated in Figure 3-2. The RV dump at Rocky Mountain Supply flows through gravity mains to the sewer vault in Dry Creek Road. The second RV dump station at Town Pump flows to the Jackrabbit Lift Station. City personnel indicate they recently forced a closure of the Town Pump facility due to lift station pump damage. The pumps were replaced in 2012 because of a flexible hose left at the RV dump station entering the sewer system. Town Pump and City personnel have attempted to prevent hoses entering the City system by installing screws inside the drop pipe; however, the screws have been removed multiple times by patrons whose RV hoses would not stay in the drop pipe. It is recommended to modify the Town Pump RV dump station to prevent tampering with the drop pipe and to prevent hoses from impacting the lift station. Solutions may include one or more of the following: • Place the trash rack at the Jackrabbit Lift Station into service to catch any hoses or other debris from the dump station; • Modify the bollards at the dump station so vehicles can park closer to the drop pipe; • Raise the drop pipe a few inches and reinstall screws to provide more depth for RV drain pipes to “grip”; • Add a p-trap and sewer cleanout to catch hoses or debris before it reaches the lift station; • Replace the screws in the drop pipe with an anchored steel rod and remove and replace a section of the concrete pad. • Install a sewer manhole with a trash rack of the RV dump. It is recommended the City adopt design standards for RV dump stations to prevent similar issues at future installations. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X RV DUMPS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3-2 FIGURE B16-048 2017-05-09 CEVJ RV DUMP LOCATIONS BELGRADE, MONTANA BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-11 B16-048 3.3 LIFT STATION JACKRABBIT Lift Station also referred to as Jackrabbit Lift Station, is located east of the intersection of 8th Street and Jackrabbit Lane near Saddle Peak Elementary School. The lift station is in a locked, fenced area. It was moved to its current location in 1978 and at the time of the 1998 Facilities Plan, it consisted of a steel tank and concrete wet well with submersible pumps. The Facilities Plan recommended multiple repairs and improvements. The station currently consists of a circular concrete wet well and circular concrete valve vault with duplex submersible pumps. In 2012 the pumps were replaced and a bypass connection was installed. The current submersible pumps are model NP3153 with 20 hp motors and a duty point of 535 gpm at 80 ft total dynamic head (TDH). The station includes a trash rack; however, it is not used. A dedicated automatic transfer switch (ATS) at the station provides access to backup power from the elementary school’s emergency generator. Figure 3-3 presents the location and layout of the lift station. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. Jackrabbit Lift Station serves a large area of central Belgrade. Prior to September 2013, Lift Station #2 (Cruiser) contributed flow directly to Jackrabbit. An evaluation of the Cruiser and Jackrabbit lift stations was completed by Morrison Maierle, Inc. in 2013. The report, Lift Station #2 Force Main Improvements, indicated the Jackrabbit Lift Station was nearing capacity and proposed to reroute the Cruiser Lift Station directly to the sewer vault on Dry Creek Road. Lift Station #1 discharges to a 6-inch force main which terminates in a manhole near the intersection of Al Drive and Amsterdam Boulevard. A 10-inch gravity main then conveys the flow to the sewer vault on Dry Creek Road. The City of Belgrade’s SCADA system continuously receives alarms and pump run times from the Jackrabbit Lift Station. At this time, wet well depths and lift station flow rates are not measured or reported. The station is controlled with a pressure transducer in the wet well. Alarms are communicated through the SCADA system and radio telemetry to City personnel. The system continuously records RTU (remote telemetry unit) temperature and battery voltage. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION JACKRABBIT CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-3 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:33:55 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-13 B16-048 3.3.1 Capacity Lift station capacity is largely dependent on the capacity of the pumps and the inflow rate to the wet well. Pump run times are also indicators of lift station performance. Multiple data sources were analyzed including a draw down test, SCADA data, and electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.3.1.1 Pump Capacity A draw down test was completed by TD&H Engineering on April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am. Assuming a constant inflow to the wet well during the testing period, results indicate Pump #1 provided 543 gpm and Pump #2 provided 527 gpm. The capacity of the station should be taken as the lowest available pumping rate, or 527 gpm. 3.3.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates Daily pump run times are reported by the SCADA system and inflow rates were estimated from the station’s SCADA event log by dividing the active wet well volume by the time increments when no pumps were in operation. Pump run times were evaluated from 2010 to 2016 and inflow rates were estimated using 2015 and 2016 data. Chart 3- 2 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. Chart 3-2. Jackrabbit Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-14 B16-048 Pump run times decreased in 2014 after the Cruiser Lift Station was rerouted to the sewer vault on Dry Creek Road. The average total run time was 6.3 hours per day from 2010 to 2013; from 2014 to 2016, the average run time decreased to 5.1 hours per day. The SCADA event log analysis indicates minimal seasonal variations in the average wet well inflow rate. The average inflow rate during 2015 and 2016 was 189 gpm, the peak hourly inflow was 503 gpm (April 2015), and the peak instantaneous flow was 564 gpm on January 22, 2015. 3.3.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical demand and usage at the Jackrabbit lift station was provided by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. The records report energy usage in kWh and power demand in kW. By dividing the energy usage by the demand, the pumping hours can be estimated. Table 3-6 presents the energy usage, demand, and pump run times predicted at the Jackrabbit Lift Station. Table 3-6 Jackrabbit Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used Average Energy Demand Annual Pump Run Time(1) Average Daily Pump Run Time 2013 33,435 kWh 14.8 kW 3,535.3 hrs 9.7 hrs/day 2014 26,903 kWh 10.1 kW 3,161.2 hrs 8.7 hrs/day 2015 25,743 kWh 7.1 kW 3,728.4 hrs 10.2 hrs/day 2016(2) 21,433 kWh 8.6 kW 2,711.2 hrs 9.9 hrs/day Average 26,879 kWh 10.1 kW 3,284.0 hrs 9.6 hrs/day (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. The power usage analysis estimates a pump run time of 9.6 hours per day which differs significantly from the SCADA pump run time data. The source of the discrepancy is not known; however, it is likely caused by power draw from other equipment at the site and from the startup draw of the pumps. The pump run time calculated by the SCADA data is most representative of the hydraulic behavior of the station. 3.3.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The various field tests and calculations indicate the following: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Original = 535 gpm o Current = 527 gpm • Average day inflow = 189 gpm • Peak hour inflow = 503 gpm • Peak instantaneous inflow = 564 gpm • Average pump run time: o Historical = 6.3 hours per day o Current = 5.1 hours per day ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-15 B16-048 Circular DEQ-2 states that the lift station pumping capacity must be equal to or greater than the peak hour design flow. The peak hour flow measured in 2015 and 2016 was less than the current pumping capacity; therefore, the station is not at full capacity. The remaining capacity of the station can be approximated by assuming, in accordance with Circular DEQ-2, that the peak hour flow to the station should not exceed the pumping capacity. Therefore, the remaining peak hour capacity of the Jackrabbit Lift Station is approximately: 527 gpm – 503 gpm = 24 gpm. It is recommended that additional connections to the Jackrabbit service basin not increase the peak hour flow above the pumping capacity; however, it is acknowledged that occasional peak instantaneous flows may occur which exceed the capacity of the station. It is also not unusual for an existing station to continue operating under conditions where the peak hour flow is intermittently exceeded. If a more detailed analysis of the pumping capacity is required, then it is recommended to add continuous depth and flow measurement capabilities to the station. 3.3.2 Condition and Deficiencies TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the Jackrabbit lift station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-7 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and recommended improvements. The operator’s logs are summarized in Appendix 3 and list the date of repairs and control panel errors. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-16 B16-048 Table 3-7 Jackrabbit Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation West Submersible Pump Replaced in 2012 OK West Pump Motor Replaced in 2012 OK East Submersible Pump Replaced in 2012 OK East Pump Motor Replaced in 2012 OK Wet Well Structure Concrete; good condition; inverted tube vent present OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings Some visible corrosion, but not severe. OK Pressure Transducer Continual issues with detachment and failure due to placement in wet well. Replace and adjust location to minimize damage from turbulence and/or install stilling tube, and/or modify influent pipe with deflector panel/drop pipe. Pump Lift Rails Some surface corrosion visible, yet still functional. OK Valve Vault Concrete, good condition with floor drain. Standing water was visible on floor during site visit. Clean floor drain to eliminate standing water. Check valves Adequate condition OK Plug valves Adequate condition OK Emergency Bypass Piping Present OK Controls External housing, functional, radio telemetry OK; if pump panels can calculate pumping rate, then enable this feature and send data to SCADA Alarms The following alarms are available: pump 1 failure, pump 2 failure, entry alarm, power, and lift station level. DEQ requires both high and low-level alarms and the SCADA description does not indicate which is provided. Add level alarms in accordance with DEQ requirements Electrical External housing, functional, dedicated ATS for shared genset. OK In general, the condition of the station is adequate. It appears that most of the mechanical and structural components were replaced recently. The operator logs indicate a history of probe errors. In one instance, a probe error caused one of the pumps to run for over 15 hours. The floor drain in the valve vault may also be obstructed since standing water was observed during the site visit. It is recommended to install a new level measurement device and to investigate ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-17 B16-048 the addition of a stilling well or deflector panel at the influent pipe. Level alarms should be modified to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements. 3.3.3 Force Main A 6-inch force main conveys flows from the lift station to a manhole in Al Drive. The pipe material is unknown. Applying the pumping rates calculated in the draw down test, the force main velocity is 6.0 ft/sec to 6.2 ft/sec. A calculation is provided in Appendix 3. Circular DEQ-2 requires a minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec and a maximum velocity of 8 ft/sec; Lift Station #1 meets the velocity requirements. 3.4 LIFT STATION CRUISER Lift Station located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Cruiser Lane and Jackrabbit Lane, is a submersible duplex lift station with a rectangular wet well and an underground valve vault. It was installed in the early 2000’s. The lift station is surrounded by a chain link fence with three-strand barbed wire. The controls and electrical panels are housed in external enclosures inside the gate. A backup generator is not present at the station. Figure 3- 4 presents the location and layout of the lift station. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. The lift station receives wastewater from a largely residential area in north Belgrade. Originally, the Cruiser lift station discharged to Lift Station #1 through a 10-inch force main in Jackrabbit Lane. The 2013 report, Lift Station #2 Force Main Improvements, recommended discharging flows from Cruiser Lift Station directly to the sewer vault in Dry Creek Road. Based on the recommendations, in 2013 the Cruiser Lift Station was rerouted through a 10-inch force main to the sewer vault. The existing 72-inch circular vault, piping, and valves were demolished and replaced. The existing 4-inch submersible pump discharge piping was increased to 6-inch inside the vault and new check and plug valves were installed on each pump discharge line. The new vault also included a bypass pumping connection to permit emergency bypassing of the lift station’s submersible pumps. The City of Belgrade’s (SCADA system continuously receives alarms and pump run times from the Cruiser Lift Station. Alarms from the station are communicated to City personnel via radio telemetry. At this time, wet well depths and lift station flow rates are not measured or reported. The station is controlled with several floats in the wet well, so no inputs are available for continuous measurement. RTU temperature and battery voltage are reported continuously. The submersible pumps and 10 HP motors are original to the station. According to the 2013 report Lift Station #2 Force Main Improvements, the pumps were sized for 395 gpm at 48.5 ft total dynamic head (TDH). ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION CRUISER CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-4 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:34:07 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-19 B16-048 3.4.1 Capacity The capacity of the existing lift station is largely dependent on the capacity of the pumps and the inflow rate to the wet well. Pump run times are also indicators of lift station performance. Multiple data sources were analyzed including a draw down test, SCADA data, and electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.4.1.1 Pump Capacity A draw down test was completed by TD&H Engineering on November 16, 2016 between 10 am and 11 am. Assuming a constant inflow to the wet well during the testing period, results indicate the east pump provided 290 gpm and the west pump provided 357 gpm. The capacity of the station should be taken as the lowest available pumping rate, or 290 gpm. 3.4.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates Daily pump run times are reported directly by the SCADA system and inflow rates were estimated from the station’s SCADA event log by dividing the active wet well volume by the time increments when no pumps were in operation. Pump run times were evaluated from 2010 to 2016 and inflow rates were estimated using 2015 and 2016 data. Chart 3- 3 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. Chart 3-3. Cruiser Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-20 B16-048 Pump run times have increased since 2014. The average total run time before 2014 was 3.9 hours per day. In 2016, the average total run time increased to 6.0 hours per day. The increase may be related to mechanical issues with the pumps, discussed the following sections. The SCADA event log data analysis indicates there are seasonal variations in the hourly inflow rate to the lift station. The highest flows occur in mid-summer and early autumn. The average inflow rate from January 2015 to December 2016 was 87 gpm. The peak hour flow to Cruiser Lift Station ranged from 119 gpm in February 2016 to 584 gpm in August 2015. The peak instantaneous flow occurred on August 22, 2015 and was approximately 621 gpm. 3.4.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical demand and usage at the Cruiser lift station was provided by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. The records report energy usage in kWh and power demand in kW. By dividing the energy usage by the demand, the pumping hours can be estimated. Table 3-8 presents the energy usage, demand, and pump run times predicted at the Cruiser lift station. Table 3-8 Cruiser Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used Average Energy Demand Annual Pump Run Time(1) Average Daily Pump Run Time 2013 14,682 kWh 10.9 kW 1,443.8 hrs 4.0 hrs/day 2014 17,921 kWh 9.3 kW 2,063.4 hrs 5.7 hrs/day 2015 22,053 kWh 9.6 kW 2,312.9 hrs 6.3 hrs/day 2016(2) 15,354 kWh 9.0 kW 1,743.7 hrs 6.4 hrs/day Average 17,503 kWh 9.7 kW 1,891.0 hrs 5.6 hrs/day (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. The power usage analysis predicts an average energy demand of 9.7 kW and an estimated pump run time of 5.6 hours per day. It is not unexpected that the daily pump run time is greater according to the electrical data because the meter is recording all electrical activity at the lift station including the controls and the initial pump motor power draw. I ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-21 B16-048 3.4.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The various field tests and calculations indicate the following: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Original = 395 gpm o Current = 290 gpm • Average inflow = 87 gpm • Peak hour inflow = 584 gpm • Peak instantaneous inflow = 621 gpm • Average pump run time: o Historical = 3.9 hours per day o Current = 5.9 hours per day Circular DEQ-2 states that the lift station must convey the peak hour flow. Over time, the capacity of the pumps has decreased with one pump only capable of 73% of the original design capacity. The SCADA data indicates peak hour flows to the lift station are higher than the current pumping capacity; therefore, it is not recommended to allow additional developments to contribute flow to the Cruiser Lift Station. While the peak hour flows do exceed the pumping capacity, the pump run times are not excessive. The station appears to have adequate capacity during average demand conditions; emergency improvements to increase the lift station capacity are, therefore, unnecessary. 3.4.2 Condition and Deficiencies TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the Cruiser lift station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-9 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and recommended improvements. The operator’s logs are summarized in Appendix 3 and list the date of repairs and control panel errors. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-22 B16-048 Table 3-9 Cruiser Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation West Submersible Pump Near end of useful life, reduced capacity Replace and increase capacity West Pump Motor Continual issues with seal failures Replace East Submersible Pump Pump doesn't seat properly, near end of useful life, significantly reduced capacity Replace and increase capacity East Pump Motor Continual issues with seal failures Replace Wet well structure Concrete; good condition; inverted tube vent present OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings Some visible corrosion Replace Floats Older equipment, but functional; does not provide depth signal to SCADA system Replace and/or add level transducer for depth and flow measurements to SCADA system Pump Lift Rails Steel I-beams, warped Replace Valve Vault Replaced in 2013; however, no floor drain is visible in as-builts or photos Install a floor drain in the vault which drains to the wet well to comply with DEQ-2 Check valves Replaced in 2013 OK Plug valves Replaced in 2013 OK Emergency Bypass Piping Added in 2013 OK Controls External housing, functional, older equipment, radio telemetry Replace Alarms The following alarms are available: pump 1 failure, pump 2 failure, entry alarm, power, and lift station level. DEQ requires both high and low-level alarms and the SCADA description does not indicate which is provided. Add level alarms in accordance with DEQ requirements Electrical External housing, functional, older equipment, no backup power Replace and update all electrical; add backup generator to comply with DEQ-2 In general, the condition of the wet well and valve vault are adequate; however, the pumps are in poor condition and there is no backup power to the station. The operator logs indicate continual issues with the pump seals and the draw down test indicates the capacity of one pump has been greatly decreased. Repair or replacement of the lift station is recommended to provide adequate and reliable pumping capacity at the Cruiser Lift Station. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-23 B16-048 3.4.3 Force Main The velocity in the 10-inch force main was analyzed to determine if the minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec is provided. The 2013 lift station improvement project indicates the new 10- inch force main is DR18 C900 PVC with an inside diameter of 9.79-inches. A data sheet, provided in Appendix 3, provides the typical dimension of the referenced pipe material. The draw down test indicates the lift station pumps at a rate of 357 gpm (0.80 cfs) or 290 gpm (0.65 cfs). Referencing the continuity equation, the resulting force main velocity ranges from 1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec, less than the DEQ-required 2 ft/sec. Presumably, the force main was oversized for future development. 3.5 LIFT STATION GALLATIN FARMERS Lift Station #3 is located on Gallatin Farmers Avenue near the intersection with West Northern Pacific Avenue; it is between the Montana Rail Link railroad and Interstate 90. The site is commonly referred to as the “Farmers”, “Gallatin Farmers”, or “Pacific” Lift Station. It was built in 1999 and serves one block of commercial and industrial properties on Gallatin Farmers Avenue. Figure 3-5 presents the location and layout of the lift station. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. The submersible duplex station includes a wet well and buried valve vault; both are circular concrete structures. There is a bypass piping connection in the valve vault and a drain. The site is unfenced with no backup power. The original capacity of the submersible Hydromatic pumps is not known; the as-built drawings do not list any of the pump or motor characteristics. A 4-inch force main conveys the flows to a manhole in West Northern Pacific Avenue. The City of Belgrade’s SCADA system continuously receives alarms and pump run times from the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station. Alarms from the station are communicated to City personnel via radio telemetry. At this time, wet well depths and lift station flow rates are not measured or reported. The station is controlled with several floats in the wet well, so no inputs are available for continuous measurement. RTU temperature and battery voltage are measured and reported continuously. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION GALLATIN FARMERS CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-5 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:34:20 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-25 B16-048 3.5.1 Capacity The capacity of the existing lift station is dependent on the capacity of the pumps and the inflow rate to the wet well. Pump run times are also indicators of lift station performance. Multiple data sources were analyzed including a draw down test, SCADA data, and electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.5.1.1 Pump Capacity A draw down test was completed by TD&H Engineering on April 13, 2017 at 9:00 am. Assuming a constant inflow to the wet well during the testing period, results indicate Pump #1 provided 141 gpm and Pump #2 provided 212 gpm. The capacity of the station should be taken as the lowest available pumping rate, or 141 gpm. 3.5.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates Daily pump run times are reported by the SCADA system and inflow rates were estimated from the station’s SCADA event log by dividing the active wet well volume by the time increments when no pumps were in operation. Pump run times were evaluated from 2010 to 2016 and inflow rates were estimated using 2015 and 2016 data. Chart 3- 4 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. Chart 3-4. Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time Overall station run time has steadily increased from 2012 to 2016. In 2016 the average station run time was 8 hours per day compared to 2 hours per day in 2011 and 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-26 B16-048 The station serves a small number of businesses on Gallatin Farmers Avenue. There are a few empty lots on the street, so recent development may have contributed to the increased operation; however, the degree to which the pump run times increased is not commensurate with the number of lots available. Maintenance issues, discussed below, are the likely cause of the increase. The SCADA event log analysis indicates that the lift station primarily operates during the day Monday through Friday and that inflows are not strongly influenced by seasonal variations. Several charts are provided in Appendix 3 which depict the average hourly and daily inflow rates during 2016 and illustrate that wastewater demands primarily occur during business hours. The estimated average hourly inflow during 2015 and 2016 was 17 gpm. The peak hour flow varied from 44 gpm to 138 gpm. The peak instantaneous flow was also 138 gpm and occurred between 8 and 9 am on February 10, 2016. The analysis estimates the same peak hour and peak instantaneous flows during the analysis period because the pumps run infrequently and there was only one inflow measurement between 8 am and 9 am on February 10th. 3.5.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical usage, in kWh, was provided for the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. Power demand at the meter, measured in kW, was not available in the records, so pumping hours cannot be estimated. Table 3-10 presents the total energy usage at the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station. Table 3-10 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used 2013 2,308 kWh 2014 2,713 kWh 2015 3,540 kWh 2016(2) 4,153 kWh Average 3,179 kWh (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. 3.5.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The various field tests and calculations indicate the following: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Current = 141 gpm • Average day inflow = 17 gpm • Peak hour inflow = 138 gpm • Peak instantaneous inflow = 138 gpm • Average pump run time: o Historical = 2.0 to 4.2 hours per day o Current = 8.0 hours per day No documentation is available which defines the design capacity of the Farmers Lift Station. The draw down test indicates the pumps were originally capable of at least 212 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-27 B16-048 gpm; however, over time the capacity of one of the pumps decreased to only 141 gpm. Circular DEQ-2 states that the lift station must convey the peak hour design flow. The peak hour flow estimated using the SCADA event log data is less than the station’s pumping capacity; therefore, the station should be considered near capacity. If additional sewer connections are proposed in the service area, it is recommended to replace at least the lower capacity pump to a rate at or above the original design capacity. If the original design conditions cannot be discovered in the City’s records, then an updated design capacity evaluation should be completed. 3.5.2 Condition and Deficiencies TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the Farmers Lift Station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-11 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and recommended improvements. The operator’s logs are summarized in Appendix 3 and list the date of repairs and control panel errors. During 2016 the condition of the lift station deteriorated; the operator logs indicate at least half a dozen occasions when one of the pumps was found to be running for excessive periods of time. For example, the east pump ran for 17.8 hours on July 13th and three days later it ran for 14 hours. The station also has long term maintenance issues with debris and dye clogging the check valves and depositing in the wet well. The effects, if any, of the dye which has been observed by City personnel in the wet well and valve vault should be investigated further. It may be necessary to research the composition of the dye and determine if it can negatively impact the lift station components. If the dye if found to detrimentally affect the mechanical equipment or instrumentation, pretreatment at the source may be necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-28 B16-048 Table 3-11 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation Submersible Pumps Near end of useful life; one pump has reduced capacity; excessive run times. Replace; review capacity. Pump Motors Near end of useful life; no issues reported. Replace Wet Well Structure Concrete; good condition; inverted tube vent present; dye builds up in bottom of hopper OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings Some visible corrosion; near end of useful life. Replace Floats Older equipment; does not provide depth signal to SCADA system. Many instances when pumps do not turn on or shut off at the set points. Replace with level transducer for depth and flow measurements to SCADA system. Pump Lift Rails As-constructed plans indicate a Pentair Pultruded Rail System was specified which includes fiberglass I-beams. OK Valve Vault Includes a drain; floor is coated with a blue-green liquid or dye; interior concrete appears to be in good condition. Find the source of the blue-green liquid by checking for leaks in the piping connections and cleaning the floor drain piping. Check valves Continual issues with valve failure; City has removed rubber bands from the valve; they also suspect there may be buildup from dyes used by local businesses. Replace; consider a trash rack at the wet well inlet. Contact local business owners and request they cease emptying trash in sewer lines or drains. Investigate alternative valve types and configurations. Plug valves Plug valves appear to be newer than the rest of the piping in the valve vault. No reported issues from City personnel. OK Emergency Bypass Piping Plain end PVC pipe with cap. OK – Consider updating the connection with a cam-lok or flanged fitting for easier connections. Controls External housing, functional, older equipment, radio telemetry. Many instances when pumps do not turn on or shut off at the set points. Replace to be compatible with new level transducer. Alarms The following alarms are available: pump 1 failure, pump 2 failure, entry alarm, power, and lift station level. DEQ requires both high and low-level alarms and the SCADA description does not indicate which is provided. Add level alarms in accordance with DEQ requirements Electrical External housing, functional, older equipment, no backup power Replace and update all electrical; add backup generator to comply with DEQ-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-29 B16-048 The station is also nearly 20 years old; some of the components are reaching the end of their useful lives. The draw down test indicates the capacity of one pump is significantly less than the other. In addition, the station has no backup power source as required by DEQ. Repair or replacement of the lift station is recommended to provide a reliable lift station which complies with DEQ standards. 3.5.3 Force Main The velocity in the 4-inch force main was analyzed to determine if the minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec is provided. The 1999 plans indicate the force main is 4-inch PVC and the draw down test indicates the lift station pumps at a rate of 141 gpm (0.31 cfs) or 212 gpm (0.47 cfs). Referencing the continuity equation, the resulting force main velocity ranges from 3.6 to 5.4 ft/sec, more than the DEQ-required 2 ft/sec. 3.6 LIFT STATION SID #78/TRUCK STOP Lift Station #4 was constructed as part of Special Improvement District (SID) #78 south of Interstate 90 and is referred to as the “Truck Stop” or “SID #78” lift station. The station is accessed by Amsterdam Road and is located on a 0.057-acre parcel owned by the City of Belgrade. The duplex submersible station includes a generator building, circular concrete wet well and circular concrete valve vault. Controls and electrical panels are housed in the generator building. The site is not fenced. Wastewater is conveyed through a 6-inch PVC force main that discharges in a manhole approximately 600 feet to the east in Amsterdam Road. Figure 3-6 presents the location and layout of the Truck Stop Lift Station. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. The lift station was completed in 2009 and was designed to serve the SID west of Jackrabbit Lane with provisions for future growth south of Interstate 90. Figure 3-7 presents the boundaries of SID #78 and the planning area. The SID improvements are described in the 2006 report Design Report for City of Belgrade SID 78 Water & Sewer Improvements. The report indicates the lift station design flow in SID #78 is 99 gpm and the design flow in the future planning area is 590 gpm. The station was constructed with two submersible pumps sized for 300 gpm at 18.7 ft TDH. If the pumping capacity is increased to 590 gpm at 36.4 ft TDH, the station would convey design flows associated with the future planning area west of Jackrabbit Lane depicted in Figure 3-7. The City of Belgrade’s SCADA system continuously receives alarms and pump run times from the Truck Stop Lift Station. Alarms from the station are communicated to City personnel via radio telemetry. At this time, wet well depths and lift station flow rates are not measured or reported. The station is controlled with a level sensor in the wet well. Three parameters are continuously recorded: wet well level, battery voltage, and RTU temperature. There is a flow rate variable in the SCADA system; however, it has no data. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION SID #78 / TRUCK STOP CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-6 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:34:36 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X SID 78 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3-7 FIGURE B16-048 2016-05-03 CEVJ SID #78 PLANNING AREA BELGRADE, MONTANA BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-32 B16-048 3.6.1 Capacity Typically, a lift station which is only eight years old should not have experienced significant changes in capacity or performance; however, the SID #78 Lift Station has a documented history with probe errors and excessive pump run times. An analysis of the SCADA data and a draw down test were performed to determine whether the design capacity of the station has changed. Multiple data sources were analyzed including a draw down test, SCADA data, and electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.6.1.1 Pump Capacity A draw down test was completed by TD&H Engineering on November 16, 2016. The test consisted of measuring the following: the time to fill the wet well between pumping cycles, the time to draw down the wet well with each pump, and the volume of wastewater between the “on” and “off” float controls. Results of this initial test were inconclusive; the predicted pumping rates were higher than the design capacity of the pumps. Given the station’s history of probe errors and issues, the results are not considered indicative of the lift station’s performance. A second test, performed by City personnel in December 2017, indicate that each pump is performing near the design capacity: 300 gpm and 291 gpm. 3.6.1.2 Pump Run Times and Contributing Flow Rates Daily pump run times are reported by the SCADA system and inflow rates were estimated from the station’s SCADA event log by dividing the active wet well volume by the time increments when no pumps were in operation. Pump run times were evaluated from 2010 to 2016 and inflow rates were estimated using 2015 and 2016 data. Chart 3- 5 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-33 B16-048 Chart 3-5. SID #78/Truck Stop Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time Pump run time data indicates there was a spike in pump run times during 2011. Average pump operation doubled before decreasing in 2012 to similar averages from 2010. The cause of the increase is not known; however, it is most likely related to pump or wet well level issues. The average run time was 0.4 hours from 2012 to 2014 and has increased to about 0.6 hours in 2015 and 2016. The increase may be related to development; however, there have been many documented issues with the wet well level probe which may have increased run times. The SCADA event log analysis indicates the lift station receives a relatively low average inflow rate of about 14 gpm. There may be some seasonal variation in the average flows to the station. A very large range in the calculated peak hour flows was observed, with variations of hundreds of gallons per minute. The maximum peak hour inflow was 664 gpm in August 2015. The peak instantaneous flow was 703 gpm and occurred in September of 2015. The discrepancy between average and peak flow rates may be due to level probe errors. 3.6.1.3 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical demand and usage at the SID #78 Lift Station was provided by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. The records report energy usage in kWh and power demand in kW. By dividing the energy usage by the demand, the pumping hours can be estimated. Table 3-12 presents the energy usage, demand, and pump run times predicted at the lift station. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-34 B16-048 Table 3-12 SID #78/Truck Stop Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used Average Energy Demand Annual Pump Run Time(1) Average Daily Pump Run Time 2013 11,197 kWh 5.3 kW 2,260.5 hrs 6.2 hrs/day 2014 11,749 kWh 5.5 kW 2,425.3 hrs 6.6 hrs/day 2015 14,124 kWh 8.1 kW 1,991.3 hrs 5.5 hrs/day 2016(2) 12,106 kWh 9.0 kW 1,525.6 hrs 5.6 hrs/day Average 12,294 kWh 7.0 kW 2,050.7 hrs 6.0 hrs/day (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. Like the other lift stations, the electricity usage analysis is an overestimate of the pump run time. The SID #78 Lift Station also includes a climate controlled generator building which would increase the energy usage at the station. The SCADA run times are considered valid at the location. 3.6.1.4 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The various field tests and calculations indicate the following: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Current = 300 gpm • Average day inflow = 14 gpm • Peak hour inflow = 664 gpm • Peak instantaneous inflow = 703 gpm • Average pump run time: o Historical = 0.4 hours per day o Current = 0.6 hours per day As discussed previously, the level probe may be affecting the function of the pumps and artificially increasing peak hour and peak instantaneous flow rates. It is recommended that the issue with the level probe be resolved prior to assessing the capacity of the SID #78 Lift Station. It should not be operating at capacity since it was designed to accommodate full buildout of both SID #78 and the SID #78 future planning area. 3.6.2 Condition and Deficiencies TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the SID #78 Lift Station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-13 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and recommended improvements. The operator’s logs are summarized in Appendix 3 and typically list the date of repairs and control panel errors. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-35 B16-048 Table 3-13 SID #78 Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation Submersible Pumps Questionable run times. Replace level probe. Pump Motors Near end of useful life; no issues reported. OK Wet Well Structure Concrete; good condition; inverted tube vent present; OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings Some light corrosion is visible. OK Level Monitoring Almost daily history of probe errors. Replace probe and consider the addition of a stilling tube. Pump Lift Rails Project specifications indicate stainless steel was required, minimal visible corrosion. OK Valve Vault Concrete; adequate. OK Check valves Adequate. OK Plug valves Adequate. OK Emergency Bypass Piping None indicated on original plans. Add bypass piping connection in or near valve vault. Controls Located in generator building, functional, radio telemetry. OK Alarms The following alarms are available: pump #1 fail, pump #2 fail, entry, power, pump #1 called, pump #2 called, high wet well, low wet well, generator run, gen. comm. Fail, gen. batt., ATS in Em. Pos., pump #1 seal, pump #2 seal, pump #1 temp, pump #2 temp, lag pump in op., operator present, and door switch. OK Electrical Located in generator building; backup power provided for emergency pumping. OK Generator Building Good condition OK The overall condition of the station infrastructure, including the building and buried concrete structures, is good. The lift station has only been in operation since 2009; however, there have been many issues with the level monitoring probe and with the pumps. The operator logs indicate that probe errors have been recorded nearly every day for two years. In addition, the station does not appear to include an emergency bypass pumping connection. It is recommended to replace the level probe and investigate the addition of a stilling well or deflector panel at the influent pipe. Once the probe is replaced, a new draw down test should be performed to verify the pumping capacity. Finally, it is recommended to install an emergency pumping bypass connection in the valve vault to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-36 B16-048 3.6.3 Force Main A 6-inch PVC force main conveys flows from the lift station to a manhole in Amsterdam Road. The performance of the force main was analyzed using the design pumping rate due to the discrepancies in pump performance. Applying the design flow rate of 300 gpm, the force main velocity is 3.4 ft/sec. A calculation is provided in Appendix 3. Circular DEQ-2 requires a minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec and a maximum velocity of 8 ft/sec; the force main is adequate at the design flow. 3.7 LIFT STATION MEADOWLARK/POWERS Lift Station #5 is located on Powers Boulevard in the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision, east of the wastewater treatment plant, and was constructed in 2008. The lift station consists of a generator building, a circular concrete wet well with duplex pumping units, and a circular concrete valve vault. The model NP3085.183 submersible pumps with 3 HP motors were designed for 283 gpm at 22 ft TDH. According to the Meadowlark Subdivision Lift Station Engineering Report (Engineering, Inc. 2006), the Meadowlark Lift Station was designed for full build-out of the subdivision, or about 430 residences. To date, approximately 130 homes have been built. Figure 3-8 illustrates the boundaries of Meadowlark Lift Station and the planning area. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. Flow from the Meadowlark Lift Station is routed through a 4-inch PVC force main to a nearby sewer manhole in Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision. From there, the wastewater flows through 8” PVC gravity mains until it reaches the Ryen Glenn Lift Station. The City of Belgrade’s SCADA system continuously receives a variety of data, including but not limited to alarms, pump run times, and pump temperatures, from the Meadowlark Lift Station. The station is controlled with a pressure transducer in the wet well. Alarms are communicated through the SCADA system and radio telemetry to City personnel. Flow rates are not measured or reported; wet well depths, RTU temperature, and battery voltage are reported continuously. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION MEADOWLARK / POWERS CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-8 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:34:47 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-38 B16-048 3.7.1 Capacity The Meadowlark Lift Station is less than ten years old and there are few documented issues with the pumps. The station was sized for full buildout of the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision and, to date, Phase I and part of Phase II of the multi-phase project are complete. The lift station will not reach capacity until future phases are completed; therefore, the capacity of the station is considered equal to the peak hour flow and pumping rate described in the original design report. A detailed investigation and analysis of the capacity is not necessary. A draw down test was not completed and the SCADA event log data was not analyzed. The pump run time records are an indicator of lift station performance and should reflect the development in the subdivision. Run times from the SCADA data were compared to run times calculated from electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.7.1.1 SCADA Pump Run Times Daily pump run times are reported directly by the SCADA system and were evaluated from 2010 to 2016. Chart 3-6 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. Chart 3-6. Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Average Daily Pump Run Time Pump run times have increased significantly since 2010 as more homes have been built in the subdivision. The average total run time in 2016 was 1.1 hours per day. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-39 B16-048 3.7.1.2 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical demand and usage at the Meadowlark Lift Station was provided by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. The records report energy usage in kWh and power demand in kW. By dividing the energy usage by the demand, the pumping hours can be estimated; however, the station has a climate-controlled generator and controls building. The power demands from the building are expected to affect the electricity usage. Table 3-14 presents the energy usage, demand, and estimated pump run times. Table 3-14 Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used Average Energy Demand Annual Pump Run Time(1) Average Daily Pump Run Time 2013 7,255 kWh 3.3 kW 2,323.9 hrs 6.4 hrs/day 2014 8,381 kWh 3.2 kW 2,511.4 hrs 6.9 hrs/day 2015 7,144 kWh 2.5 kW 2,684.4 hrs 7.4 hrs/day 2016(2) 5,307 kWh 3.0 kW 1,693.4 hrs 6.2 hrs/day Average 7,022 kWh 3.0 kW 2,303.3 hrs 6.7 hrs/day (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. The average run times estimated by the electricity analysis are significantly higher than what was recorded by the SCADA system. The lights, heating, and other appurtenances in the generator building increase the energy usage; therefore, the pump run times reported by the SCADA system are considered correct. The run times in Table 3-14 are not representative of the station. It is recommended that the City perform an energy audit of the station and to create an inventory of all infrastructure which utilizes the lift station’s electrical service. If it is discovered that other infrastructure or buildings are utilizing the lift station’s service, the City should take corrective action. 3.7.1.3 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The capacity of the lift station is defined by the original design and the current pump run times. The following summarizes the lift station capacity: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Original = 283 gpm • Average day inflow = 76 gpm (full buildout) • Peak hour inflow = 283 gpm (full buildout) • Average pump run time: o Historical = 0.2 to 0.7 hours per day o Current = 1.1 hours per day The capacity of the existing station is adequate for the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision at full buildout, so it will be several years before the station reaches capacity. In order to monitor the pumps more closely, it is recommended to enable flow measurement capabilities in the local pump controller and to transmit the data to the City’s SCADA system. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-40 B16-048 3.7.2 Condition and Deficiencies TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the Meadowlark Lift Station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-15 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and any recommended improvements. The operator’s logs, through December 2016, are summarized in Appendix 3 and provide the date of repairs and control panel errors. Table 3-15 Meadowlark/Powers Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation Submersible Pumps OK; some recent issues with Pump 2 which have been resolved. OK Pump Motors OK OK Wet well structure Concrete; good condition; vents present OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings OK, no corrosion visible OK Level Monitor OK OK Pump Lift Rails Stainless steel, good condition OK Valve Vault Floor was damp; however, concrete in good condition and floor drain is visible OK Check valves OK OK Plug valves OK OK Emergency Bypass Piping None Install an emergency bypass pumping connection in the wet well. Controls Located in generator/control building; no reported problems. OK Alarms The following alarms are available: pump #1 fail, pump #2 fail, entry, power, pump #1 called, pump #2 called, high wet well, generator run, gen. comm. Fail, gen. batt., ATS in Em. Pos., pump #1 seal, pump #2 seal, pump #1 temp, pump #2 temp, operator present, and door switch. DEQ requires both high and low-level alarms. Install low level alarm in accordance with DEQ requirements Electrical Housed in separate generator/control building. Continual issues with power faults after construction; however, issue appears to be resolved. OK Generator Building Good condition OK ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-41 B16-048 The Meadowlark Lift Station is less than ten years old and does not have any recurring operation or maintenance issues; however, the station was apparently designed without a quick connect pump bypass connection. This feature is required by Circular DEQ-2 to facilitate pump bypassing during repairs or maintenance. The control panel also does not appear to include a low wet well level alarm. It is recommended to add a bypass connection and to adjust the controls to include a low-level alarm in accordance with DEQ requirements. 3.7.3 Force Main The velocity in the 4-inch PVC force main was analyzed to determine if the minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec is provided. When the pumps operate at the design flow of 283 gpm, the velocity in the force main is 7.2 ft/sec. The force main achieves a satisfactory cleaning velocity. 3.8 LIFT STATION RYEN GLENN/PENWELL BRIDGE Lift Station #6 is in the Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision north of the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision. The station is located on Penwell Bridge Road on a 1.695-acre parcel owned by 2B Holdings, LLC. It was constructed during 2007 and 2008. The lift station was designed to serve the Ryen Glenn Estates and Meadowlark Ranch subdivisions. The Ryen Glenn Lift Station consists of a mechanical building, a square concrete valve vault and a square concrete, vented wet well with two submersible pumps. The 30 HP, 1,755 RPM submersible pumps have a design capacity of 520 gpm at 99 ft TDH. Documentation from the developer indicates that the design peak hour flow for just the Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision is 271 gpm. Figure 3-9 presents the location and layout of Ryen Glenn Lift Station. Photos and notes from a site visit are provided in Appendix 3. Wastewater from the Meadowlark Lift Station and the Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision flows through the Ryen Glenn Lift Station and is discharged through an 8-inch PVC force main to a manhole at the southwest corner of the treatment ponds. The flow is discharged just upstream of the flow measurement vault. The City of Belgrade’s SCADA system continuously receives alarms and pump run times from the Ryen Glenn Lift Station. The station is controlled with a level sensor in the wet well. Alarms are communicated through the SCADA system and radio telemetry to City personnel. The Ryen Glenn Lift Station is the only installation which reports a pumping rate directly to the SCADA system. Wet well level, RTU temperature, and battery voltage are continuously recorded. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA LIFT STATION RYEN GLENN / PENWELL BRIDGE CJS CEVJ 04/28/2017 B16-048 FIGURE Engineering 3-9 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 3-X LIFT STATIONS.dwg, 4/28/2017 3:35:00 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-43 B16-048 3.8.1 Capacity The Ryen Glenn Lift Station is less than ten years old and there are few documented issues with the pumps. The station was sized for full buildout of the Ryen Glenn Estates and Meadowlark Ranch subdivisions. Neither has been developed to full buildout. The lift station will not reach capacity until both subdivisions are fully developed; therefore, the capacity of the station is considered equal to the peak hour flow and pumping rate described in the original design report. A detailed investigation and analysis of the capacity is not necessary. A draw down test was not completed. Unlike the other lift stations, the City’s SCADA system does not appear to record the time and date of events such as pumps turning on and off, alarms, and generator tests. Without this “event log” data, the inflow rate to the lift station cannot be estimated. As discussed above, the station has not accumulated the operating hours and associated wear to warrant a full analysis; however, it is recommended that this functionality be activated in the SCADA system to facilitate future monitoring and analysis. The pump run time records are an indicator of lift station performance and should reflect the development in the subdivision. Run times from the SCADA data were compared to run times calculated from electricity usage records. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3 and copies of the SCADA data are available electronically. 3.8.1.1 SCADA Pump Run Times Daily pump run times are reported directly by the SCADA system and were evaluated from 2010 to 2016. Chart 3-7 presents the average pump run time from 2010 to 2016. The station run time is equal to the sum of the individual pump run times. Chart 3-7. Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Average Daily Pump R Ti ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-44 B16-048 Pump run times have increased since 2010 as more homes have been built in the subdivisions; however, the total run time is quite small considering the pumping capacity. The average station run time in 2016 was 0.5 hours per day. 3.8.1.2 Electricity Usage and Pump Run Times Electrical demand and usage at the Ryen Glenn lift station was provided by the City for January 2013 to September 2016. The records report energy usage in kWh and power demand in kW. By dividing the energy usage by the demand, the pumping hours can be estimated; however, the station has a climate-controlled generator and control building. The power demands from the building are expected to affect the electricity usage. Table 3-16 presents the energy usage, demand, and estimated pump run times. Table 3-16 Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Power Usage Year Total Energy Used Average Energy Demand Annual Pump Run Time(1) Average Daily Pump Run Time 2013 6,871 kWh 6.6 kW 1,068.5 hrs 2.9 hrs/day 2014 8,081 kWh 6.3 kW 1,292.2 hrs 3.5 hrs/day 2015 8,098 kWh 5.8 kW 1,385.9 hrs 3.8 hrs/day 2016(2) 7,512 kWh 5.8 kW 1,312.3 hrs 4.8 hrs/day Average 7,641 kWh 6.1 kW 1,264.7 hrs 3.8 hrs/day (1)Calculated using the energy usage and demand. (2)January to September. The average run times estimated by the electricity analysis are higher than what was recorded by the SCADA system. The lights, heating, and other appurtenances in the generator building increase the energy usage; therefore, the pump run times reported by the SCADA system are considered correct. The run times in Table 3-16 are not representative of the station. 3.8.1.3 Capacity Summary and Conclusions The capacity of the lift station is defined by the original design and the current pump run times. The following summarizes the lift station capacity: • Lift station pumping capacity: o Original = 520 gpm • Peak hour inflow = 520 gpm • Average pump run time: o Historical = 0.1 hours per day o Current = 0.5 hours per day The capacity of the Ryen Glenn Lift Station is adequate for both the Ryen Glenn Estates and Meadowlark Ranch subdivisions at full buildout, so it will be some time before it reaches capacity. It is recommended to adjust the flow rate measured in the SCADA ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-45 B16-048 system to match either the pumping rate, measured with a draw down test, or the nominal pump capacity. 3.8.2 Condition TD&H Engineering conducted a site visit to the Ryen Glenn Lift Station on October 20, 2016 to document the station’s condition by visual observation of the components, verbal reports from City personnel, and field data. Table 3-17 presents a summary of the main components in the station, their condition, and any recommended improvements. The operator’s logs, through December 2016, are summarized in Appendix 3 and provide the date of repairs and control panel errors. Table 3-17 Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge Lift Station Equipment Condition and Recommendation Summary Component General Condition Recommendation Submersible Pumps OK. OK Pump Motors OK OK Wet well structure Concrete; good condition; vent present OK Wet Well Piping and Fittings OK, no corrosion visible OK Level Monitor OK OK Pump Lift Rails Stainless steel, good condition OK Valve Vault Floor was damp; however, concrete in good condition and floor drain is visible OK Check valves OK OK Plug valves OK OK Emergency Bypass Piping None Add an emergency bypass pumping connection in the wet well. Controls Located in generator/control building; no reported problems. Pump station event data does not appear in the SCADA system; this should be available for City records and to facilitate capacity calculations. Enable station event log reporting like the other lift stations. Alarms The following alarms are available: pump #1 fail, pump #2 fail, entry, power, high wet well, low wet well, generator run, gen. comm. Fail, gen. batt., ATS in Em. Pos., operator present, and door switch. OK Electrical Housed in separate generator/control building. OK Generator Building Good condition OK ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 3-46 B16-048 The age and condition of the Ryen Glenn Lift Station are similar to the Meadowlark Lift Station. Ryen Glenn is less than ten years old and does not have any recurring operation or maintenance issues; however, the station was apparently designed without a quick connect pump bypass connection. This feature is required by Circular DEQ-2 to facilitate pump bypassing during repairs or maintenance. It is also the only lift station that does not record the timing of pump events and alarms in the SCADA system event log. It is recommended to add a bypass connection and to adjust the pump control panel or central SCADA system to record alarms and pumping events. 3.8.3 Force Main The velocity in the 8-inch PVC force main was analyzed to determine if the minimum cleaning velocity of 2 ft/sec is provided. When the pumps operate at the design flow of 520 gpm, the velocity in the force main is 3.3 ft/sec. The force main achieves a satisfactory cleaning velocity. 3.9 LIFT STATIONS PLANNED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION Several developers have approached the City of Belgrade with plans for new subdivisions in the northeast corner of the planning area. As of May 2017, a new lift station for Phase 1 of the Henson subdivision is under contract and should begin construction in the summer of 2017. Some aspects of the design of the station were selected based on plans for other future subdivisions and growth in the area. An explanation of those provisions will be provided in Chapter 6 of this Master Plan. The location of the lift station and the new lots is provided in Appendix 3. The proposed lift station will be located at the intersection of Beeker Lane and Westwood Circle. The force main will be connected directly to the existing 10-inch force main in Cruiser Lane. The engineer’s design report indicates the peak hour sewer flow for the Phase 1 improvements is 175 gpm. Final design of various aspects of the station is underway; however, the capacity of the pumps is expected to remain at 175 gpm. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-1 B16-048 4.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL EXISTING FACILITY REVIEW The existing Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant (BWTP) is located northeast of the City of Belgrade. It is a 3-celled, partially aerated lagoon system, constructed in 2004. The plant discharges treated wastewater to 3 IP Beds and a spray irrigation system. The following chapter details the components, condition and capacity of the existing treatment and disposal systems and the plant’s existing controls. All raw data downloaded from the City’s SCADA system and the DEQ’s Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) is available for review in electronic form in the Appendix. 4.1 Existing Plant Loading In order to gain a thorough understanding of the existing treatment plant, it is necessary to assess the hydraulic, nutrient and organic loading. The available flow and water quality data are evaluated in the following sections. 4.1.1 Hydraulic Loading The BWTP includes four flow meters. The influent flow is measured at the head of treatment plant with an ultrasonic open channel flow meter. Two magnetic flow meters have been installed on the discharge piping to measure effluent. An additional meter measures the recycle stream. Each flow meter is connected to the City’s SCADA system and records flow rates in gpm at six minute intervals. 4.1.1.1 Influent Flow The influent flow data, originally presented in Chapter 3, was measured at the head of the BWTP. This analysis estimates the existing average day flow rate at 716,737 gpd. The maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flow rates were estimated in Chapter 3 from available SCADA data. Average peaking factors for each flow type were determined and multiplied by the average day flow. It was estimated that the maximum month flow rate is 1,032,101 gpd, the maximum day flow is 1,426,307 gpd and the peak hour and peak instantaneous flows are 2,365,232 and 3,003,128 gpd, respectively. This information is summarized in Table 4-1. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the inflow meter may not be extremely accurate. A technician recently inspected the meter calibration which indicated the setup data may have included an error. The type of meter currently in use does not provided a high level of accuracy. A comparison was made versus water system metered flow records which further indicates the inflow meter may be overestimating the influent data. For the purposes of this master plan the data should be considered relatively conservative and should be confirmed prior to final design for any new improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-2 B16-048 Table 4-1 Existing Influent Flow Rates Flow Rates Demand (gpd) Average Day Flow 716,737 Maximum Month Flow 1,032,101 Maximum Day Flow 1,426,307 Peak Hour Flow 2,365,232 Peak Instantaneous Flow 3,003,128 4.1.1.2 Effluent Flow The BWTP discharges treated wastewater to four separate outfalls, 3 IP beds (known as IP Beds A, B and C) and a spray irrigation system. Two discharge pipes transport treated effluent from the lagoons; one discharge main conveys effluent to IP Beds A and B and the second transports treated wastewater to the irrigation system and IP Bed C. A magnetic flow meter exists on each discharge pipe. average discharge rates are illustrated in Chart 4-1. Raw SCADA data is provided in electronic form. The recent meter verification performed by M.E.T. Automation and Controls confirmed the magnetic flow meters on the discharge piping were producing accurate measurements. The detailed calibration report is included in Appendix 3. Chart 4-1: Existing Effluent Flow Rates ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-3 B16-048 The City discharges its treated wastewater year-round. Average discharge rates are notably larger in the warmer months, during which most of the treated wastewater is discharged to the irrigation system and IP Bed C. In the winter months, when irrigation is not available, average flow rates through both discharge lines are roughly equivalent. The total effluent flow rate has steadily increased since 2010. The yearly average effluent flow rate in 2010 was roughly 480,000 gpd; the yearly average effluent flow rate in 2016 was approximately 600,000 gpd. Due to the increase in Belgrade’s population, a gradual increase in wastewater flow over the past 6 years was anticipated. Similar to the influent flow measurements, the average day combined effluent flows were compared against estimated populations to calculate a per capita effluent flow. From 2014 to 2016, the per capita combined effluent flow ranged from 66.4 gpcd to 71.8 gpcd. This data is summarized in Table 4-2. Effluent flow is noticeably less than the influent per capita flow rate and recommended DEQ values. When comparing the combined effluent flows to the influent flows previously discussed, the average influent flow rate is consistently 100,000 gpd greater than the average day effluent flow. Because the effluent flow meters were confirmed to be accurate during the meter calibration tests, influent vs effluent flow comparisons further suggest the influent flow meter may not be providing highly accurate information. It is also possible that the basin liners may be leaking. Prior to any major system improvements, a more accurate inflow meter and a hydrostatic leakage test of the ponds is recommended. Table 4-2 Historic Average Day Effluent Flows Year Average Day Combined Effluent Flow Estimated Population Calculated Per Capita Effluent Flow (gpd) (persons) (gpcd) 2014 541,407 7,798 69.4 2015 536,020 8,071 66.4 2016 599,631 8,353 71.8 4.1.2 Nutrient and Organic Loading The City of Belgrade collects influent and effluent water samples to monitor water quality. The samples are sent to Energy Laboratories, Inc. in Billings, MT to determine concentrations of ammonia, TN, TSS, TKN and phosphorous. As discussed in Chapter 2, the City’s treatment and disposal system is designed to meet the permit allowable TN concentrations. Measured TN concentration in the influent and effluent are presented in Chart 4-2. Additional contaminant charts as well as the raw tabular data are available for review in Appendix 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-4 B16-048 Chart 4-2: Treatment Plant Influent and Effluent Total Nitrogen Concentrations Influent TN concentrations range from roughly 80 mg/l to than 45 mg/l.. These influent nitrogen concentrations are higher than typical domestic nitrogen levels which are commonly in the range of 20 to 85 mg/l and average roughly 40 mg/l (Metcalf and Eddy). The higher concentrations may be a result of the use of low flow fixtures as well as any industrial customers which may discharge high nutrient concentration waste. Food processors handling meet, cheese, or plant waste could be contributors. Many communities track high strength waste customers and either require pretreatment or increased user rates for those types of customers. The effluent TN concentrations have experienced a seasonal pattern over the past 4 years. Concentrations are consistently lowest in the late summer and fall. This is most likely due to the elevated temperature in the summer months. As the ambient air temperature decreases, the nitrification process in the lagoons becomes considerably less effective. Thermal regulation of the treatment lagoons could significantly increase the treatment efficiency and reliability. 4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant The BWTP is located in Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 3 East. It was converted from a 4-celled facultative system to a lined, 3-celled partially mixed aerated system in 2004. The current treatment basins are lined with a 60 mil HDPE liner. The flow through mechanically aerated system operates with 2 lagoons for treatment and one for storage. Aerated lagoons are similar to conventional facultative lagoons in that they rely on natural microorganisms to treat the impounded wastewater. Aerated lagoons include the mechanical addition of air to provide oxygen, minimize algae growth and provide mixing that accelerates and improves the treatment efficiency. The microorganisms, primarily algae and bacteria, utilize the constituents of wastewater as a food source for growth. The microorganisms either settle to the bottom of the treatment pond or are discharged to the receiving water. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-5 B16-048 The BWTP was designed to achieve secondary treatment. Secondary treatment involves the removal of settleable and dissolved solids and the stabilization of organic compounds. Piping within the plant allows for both parallel and series operations. In recent years, the plant has been operated in series during the summer months and parallel in the winter months in an attempt to mitigate odor issues. The most recent discharge permit application proved that the BWTP was achieving levels of TN reduction equal to or better than DEQ’s Level 2 designation. Components of the BWTP, including lagoons, piping and aeration system, are detailed in the following sections. An overall schematic of the BWTP, including piping and control structures, is shown in Figure 4-1. Photographs from TD&H Engineering’s 2016 site visit are provided in Appendix 4. 4.2.1 Lagoons As mentioned previously, the BWTP is a system of three lagoons. The two smaller lagoons, located on the south side of the plant, are partially mixed aerated treatment lagoons. For the purpose of this Master Plan, the treatment cells will be referred to as Lagoon #1 and The larger lagoon on the north side, Lagoon is the storage and polishing pond. Existing conditions of the three lagoons are detailed below and summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Current Treatment System Lagoon 1 2 3 Total Purpose Treatment Treatment Storage Operating Surface Area (acres) 7 7 15.8 29.8 Operating Liquid Level (ft) 10 10 19.25 39.25 Sludge Depth (ft) 2 2 1 5 Freeboard (ft) 7 7 3 17 Detention Time (days) 17.7 17.7 90 125.4 Operating Capacity (MG) 16 16 81.5 113.5 Design Capacity (MGD) 903,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-1 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT B16-048 04/05/2017 .DWG 4-1 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-1.dwg, 3/30/2018 4:42:15 PM, NMR ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-7 B16-048 4.2.1.1 Treatment Lagoons Lagoons #1 and #2 are the primary treatment lagoons located at the southwest and southeast sections of the treatment system, respectively. Per the record drawings, each treatment lagoon is lined with unprotected 60 mil High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner and has an operating capacity of roughly 16 million gallons (MG). The water surface area and operating depth of each lagoon is approximately 7 acres and 10 feet, respectively. Seven feet of freeboard is available to each lagoon. The bottom two feet are reserved for sludge accumulation. Each of the treatment lagoons have a 17.7 day detention time at the plant’s design capacity of 903,000 gpd. 4.2.1.2 Storage Lagoon Lagoon #3 is the storage and polishing cell and is located at the northern end of the BWTP. The record drawings indicate it has an operating depth of 19.25 feet with 1 foot at the bottom reserved for sludge accumulation and 3 feet of freeboard. The storage lagoon has an operating capacity of approximately 81.5 MG with a 90 day detention time at design capacity. The water surface area of the Lagoon #3 is 15.8 acres. Unlike the treatment basins, the storage lagoon has a thin layer of rip rap along the interior slopes of the pond to protect the HDPE liner from damage caused by the fluctuating water level and wave action. A quiescent zone is located at the west end of the storage lagoon prior to discharge. This allows the remaining suspended solids to settle to the bottom. The treated wastewater then passes through one of two 18-inch stainless steel screens prior to being discharged. Each screen has 1/8-inch openings and a 3,400 gpm (4.9 MGD) capacity. An air-burst back flush system is included to clean the screens when necessary. A 175 psi Quincy compressor with a 120 gallon storage tank is capable of providing 24 cfm air flow to the screens. The compressor builds up air pressure and discharges to the intake screens to clean off debris, algae or other particles. The compressor is located on the top floor of the pump house. 4.2.1.3 Condition Interviews with the City of Belgrade staff and a site walk through inspection suggest the plant is generally in good condition. No major issues associated with dike erosion or lagoon quality were reported; nor were any problems associated with the air-burst black flush system indicated. The plant operator, Mr. Paul Burkardt, estimates the air-burst back-flush system has been used 3 or 4 times since it was installed in 2004. Because it has been rarely used, Mr. Burkardt reports the system is in good condition. Effluent flow rates are low when compared to estimated populations and influent flow meter rates. A detailed water balance was performed for November 2016 to January 2017. This water balance considered the influent flow rate (with corrections as applied based on calibration settings discovered by MET) and measured precipitation from the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport’s weather station as the inflow data. Outflows were defined as all recorded discharge flows including flows to both irrigation and IP beds. Evaporation was not considered an outflow as the water balance only included winter months, when evaporation was considered negligible. Additionally, changes in water depth in Lagoon as reported by the SCADA system, were utilized to account for change in water storage within the ponds. According to City staff, the level transducer originally used to measure water depth in the treatment ponds is no ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-8 B16-048 longer functioning. However, the plumbing of the BWTP, discussed in the following section, has been designed to allow for gravity flow between ponds and will likely maintain relative constant water depths within Lagoons #1 and For this reason, the water depths in the treatment lagoons were assumed to be constant for the purpose of the water balance. The volume of unaccounted for water was then calculated by applying the basic mass balance concept, assuming the volume is a conserved quantity. As such, the unaccounted-for water was calculated as the inflow (measured SCADA influent flow and precipitation) minus the effluent flows minus the measured change in Lagoon #3’s water volume. Percent unaccounted for water was determined by taking the calculated unaccounted for water divided by the total inflow. Finally, estimated seepage was found by dividing the amount of unaccounted for water by the overall area of the three lagoon cells. It was estimated that between November 2016 to January 2017 the percent of unaccounted for water ranged from 14.0% to 26.5%, this equates to a seepage rate of roughly 50 in/year. The results of the water balance are summarized in Table 4-4; the detailed water balance is provided in Appendix 4. Table 4-4 Treatment Plant Water Balance Summary Month Inflow Adjusted Inflow(2) Outflow Change in Water Volume Unaccounted for Water % Unaccounted for Water Estimated Seepage (CF) (CF) (CF) (CF) (CF) (in/year) November 2016 3,090,113 2,218,268 907,791 722,446 588,031 26.5% 66.1 December 2016 3,147,375 2,273,704 1,051,758 828,059 393,887 17.3% 42.9 January 2017 1,485,182 1,065,668 430,228 486,475 148,965 14.0% 16.8 Inflow data considered elevated due to meter influent water meter malfunctions. See M.E.T. Automation and Control's Flow Verification Report, included in Appendix 3. Influent flow adjust by 71.5% based on information presented in flow verification report. Adjust inflow data values include both the adjusted influent flow rates and available precipitation data. Even with the influent flow measurement calibration correction factor, the influent flow estimates are not considered sufficiently accurate. Thus, any potential for leakage should be field verified through a hydrostatic test before major capital improvements are considered. A separate analysis was completed comparing estimated annual drinking water consumption versus wastewater effluent discharge for 2015. The City’s Waster Master Plan, being prepared in conjunction with this Master Plan, was referenced for the 2015 water production rate. This value included residential, small commercial and large commercial flow rates for winter months in 2015. The water production rate was added the total precipitation rate to estimated total inflow. Precipitation data was obtained from the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport’s weather station records for 2015. Total effluent was calculated by adding the BWTP average discharge rate for 2015 and the estimated lake evaporation value. Lake evaporation was estimated at 70% of the weather station’s pan evaporation data. This analysis estimates nearly 20 inches of seepage in 2015. This analysis is summarized in Table 4-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-9 B16-048 Table 4-5 Drinking Water Consumption vs. Wastewater Effluent Water Production 608,000 gpd BWTP Discharge 536,000 gpd Evaporation 26.4 in 58,027 gpd Precipitation 13 in 29,931 gpd Total Inflow 637,931 gpd Total Effluent 594,027 gpd Estimated Leakage 43,904 gpd 19.9 in Evidence of minor liner damage above the high water mark was noted in the October 2016 site visit, performed by TD&H Engineering staff. Photo 4-1, taken during the recent site visit, shows a puncture in one of the treatment lagoon liners. Given the high hydraulic conductivity of the soils beneath the liner, even minor liner punctures can cause significant seepage. Photo 4-1: Treatment Lagoon Liner Puncture The above analysis suggests a possibility that treatment lagoon liners could be leaking. However, due to the high cost of liner replacement and questionable inflow and water level data, it is strongly suggested to assess a more detailed water balance after more accurate inflow data is available. If analysis confirms significant leakage, the advantages and disadvantages of a spot repair over a complete liner replacement should be considered. In both cases, the ponds would need to be drained and sludge removed. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-10 B16-048 Research performed by the Institute in June 2005 and updated in February 2011 suggests that exposed HDPE liner has a life expectancy of greater than 36 years. Based on this information, the City’s current liner could last another 20 years. Additionally, the capital costs associated with a complete liner replacement would be considerably higher than spot repair. However, spot repair is not an exact science and multiple attempts to repair the liner and stop leaks could be needed. Each attempt to repair the liner will cause an increase in overall construction costs. Another issue associated with the lagoons is the sludge accumulation. A June 20, 2015 site visit by H&S Environmental, LLC was completed at the request of DEQ. During that site visit an estimated 1.55 feet of sludge accumulation has occurred in Lagoon It has been conservatively assumed that equal amounts of sludge exist in Lagoons #1 and H&S Environmental approximated the total sludge volume at 5.6 MG. Using the average end area method to verify the sludge volume estimate, approximately 5.3 MG of sludge was calculated. This calculation is provided in Appendix 4. Not only does the sludge take away from the normal operating capacity and detention time of the system, it can also cause nutrient feedback that results in excessive algae bloom, high TSS levels and possible TN permit failures. The complete evaluation report by H&S Environmental is available in Appendix 4. 4.2.1.4 Capacity In order to accurately assess the capabilities of the current lagoons, both the hydraulic, nutrient and organic influent loads must be evaluated. This evaluation is presented in the following sections. 4.2.1.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity The existing BWTP was constructed in 2004 with a 20-year design life. The record drawings and Design Report present the design average day, max day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flow rates for the plant. According to these documents the design average day flow rate is 903,000 gpd, the maximum day flow rate is 1,915,200 gpd and the peak hour and peak instantaneous flow rates are 2,697,120 gpd and 2,880,000 gpd, respectively. When compared to the existing flows discussed previously, the BWTP is roughly 85% of its hydraulic design capacity. This information is presented in Table 4-6. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-11 B16-048 Table 4-6 BWTP Design Capacity Flow Type Design Capacity Existing Influent Flow Rate(1) % of Design Capacity (gpd) (gpd) Average Day 903,000 716,737 79.4% Maximum Day 1,915,200 1,426,307 74.5% Peak Hour 2,697,120 2,365,232 87.7% Peak Instantaneous 2,880,000 3,003,128 104.3% Existing influent flow rates are conservatively based on available SCADA data. Based on recent meter verification, actual flow rates are likely less. 4.2.1.4.2 Nutrient and Organic Capacity The record drawings, design reports and O&M Manual define the design criteria for the influent BOD, TSS, TN and TP loading. These criteria are presented in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 Design Treatment Plant Loading Contaminant Design Load Biological Oxygen Demand 2,100 lb/day Total Suspended Solid 2,310 lb/day Total Nitrogen 294 lb/day Total Phosphorus 73.5 lb/day Referencing the average day influent flow rates with the Energy Laboratory’s water quality reports, average loading was calculated from November 2013 to October 2016. It was found that, although pollutant loads did exceed design conditions occasionally for TSS and TP, the pollutant loads did remain below design conditions for the majority of the period of record. TN loading, however, has exceeded design conditions for 25 of the 36 months of measurements, or nearly 70% of the time. Because of the previously discussed questionable influent meter reading, flow rates are believed to be high. This would cause calculated loading rates to be elevated. Chart 4-3 presents the total nitrogen loading data. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-12 B16-048 Chart 4-3: Total Nitrogen Influent Loading Another factor critical to the performance of biological treatment lagoons is the influent BOD loading. Required oxygen transfer and mixing is largely dictated by the quantity of BOD entering the treatment plant. According to record drawings and the treatment plant’s design report, the current BWTP was design BOD loading is 2,100 pounds per day (ppd). Influent flow rates and BOD concentrations were referenced from the City’s DMRs. This data suggests overall BOD loading has steadily increased over the life of the current permit. Large spikes in calculated BOD loading have occurred periodically throughout the past 5 year, and have occurred more frequently in recent years. Since October of 2015, the calculated BOD loading has remained relatively consistently at or above the design loading value. Only three of the past 13 months have recorded BOD loading values noticeably below the design value. As with calculated TN loading, calculated BOD loading for recent years is expected to be elevated due to questionable influent meter readings. This information is illustrated in Chart 4-4. Remaining pollutant figures are available in Appendix 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-13 B16-048 Chart 4-4: Treatment Plant Influent BOD Loading Based on the lagoon capacity data, the BWTP has reached its design capacity. Upgrades to the treatment plant should be considered in the near future. 4.2.1.5 DEQ-2 Criteria As previously discussed in Section 2.3.2.2, Circular DEQ-2 defines design standards for aerated lagoon systems with controlled discharge in Table 93-2. The existing system was reviewed against these standards; the findings are presented in Table 4-8. Table 4-8 DEQ-2 Aerated Lagoon Design Standards vs Existing Conditions Criteria Circular DEQ-2 Standard Existing Condition Minimum Number of Cells 3 3 Depth 10-15 feet 10 to 19.25 feet Minimum Detention Time Under Aeration 20 days 44.6 days Maximum Seepage Rate 6 inches per year requires verification to confirm Indicates the existing condition is not in compliance with DEQ-2 standard Aerated lagoons with controlled discharge are required to have at least 3 cells with minimum depths of 10-15 feet. The BWTP has 3 cells, two treatment and one storage. The treatment cells both have an operating depth of 10 feet while the storage lagoon has an operating depth of 19.25 feet. The minimum detention time under aeration is 20 days. The two treatment lagoons each have an operating capacity of 16 MG, or 32 MG combined. The existing average day flow was calculated at 717,000 gpd in Section ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-14 B16-048 4.1.1.1. Therefore, the existing detention time in the treatment cells is 44.6 days. As such the number of cells, cell depths and detention times are all compliant with DEQ-2 standards. Circular DEQ-2 only permits 6 inches per year of seepage. A field test would be required to confirm leakage rate. Because of limited accuracy on influent data, a reliable estimate of leakage cannot be made at this time. 4.2.2 Piping, Pumps and Control Structures A piping system consisting of various valve vaults and control structures to direct flow throughout the BWTP. Distribution, bypass, transfer and recycle pipelines are all utilized to convey wastewater within the treatment plant. Additionally, outlet and overflow piping are included. The pipelines and control structures are detailed in the sections to follow. The existing pipelines are illustrated in Figure 4-1. 4.2.2.1 Distribution Piping The plant’s distribution piping includes approximately 450 LF of PVC sewer main ranging in size from 15- to 21-inch and runs north-south along the dike east of Lagoon The distribution main receives wastewater from the diversion vault on the outfall sewer and discharges to Lagoon Components of the pipeline are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Distribution Piping Components Pipeline 15-inch PVC 137 LF 18-inch PVC 137 LF 21-inch PVC 170 LF Valve Vault No. 1 Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlet 21-inch PVC (south) 8-inch DI (west) Outlet 12-inch DI (east) 18-inch PVC (north) Valves Swing Gate Valve Vault No. 2 Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlet 18-inch PVC (south) Outlet 12-inch DI (east) 15-inch PVC (north) Valves Swing Gate ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-15 B16-048 Table 4-9 (cont.) Distribution Piping Components Valve Vault No. 3 Structure 48-inch Precast Concrete Manhole Inlet 15-inch PVC (south) 4-inch PVC (north) Outlet 12-inch DI (east) Valves none Three valve vaults exist along the distribution main. Valve Vault No. 1 is the southernmost vault and receives wastewater directly from the diversion vault as well as from the recycle pipeline discussed later. It is a 72-inch precast concrete manhole with rim access and steps. Valve Vault No. 2 is connected to Valve Vault No. 1 by approximately 137 LF of 18-inch PVC sewer main; it is a 72-inch concrete manhole with steps and manhole rim access. Valve Vault No. 3 is the northernmost vault on the distribution pipe and receives raw wastewater from the upstream distribution main as well as the pump building’s 4-inch sanitary sewer connection. Valve Vault No. 3 is connected to Valve Vault No. 2 by roughly 137 LF of 15-inch PVC pipe. It is a 48-inch concrete structure with manhole rim access and steps. Each of valve vaults are linearly connected with the distribution pipeline and discharge to Lagoon #1 through 12-inch ductile iron (DI) pipes. Swing gates are present in Valve Vault No. 1 and No. 2 to manually direct the wastewater. 4.2.2.2 Bypass Piping The BWTP bypass pipeline consists of roughly 920 LF of 21-inch PVC pipe and connects the diversion vault on the outfall sewer to Lagoon The bypass pipeline runs east-west along the plant’s southernmost dike for roughly 620 LF, then turns and jogs north along the dike separating Lagoons #1 and This pipeline is employed when the plant is operated in parallel or when Lagoon #1 is to be bypassed. Valve Vault No. 4 is included on the bypass pipeline. It is a 48-inch precast concrete manhole with rim access and concrete steps. Wastewater enters the vault through the pipeline and is discharged to Lagoon #2 though a 12-inch DI pipe. 4.2.2.3 Transfer Lines Four pipelines, Transfer Lines A, B, C and D, were constructed to transport wastewater throughout the plant. Transfer lines B and C each have a series of control structures to direct the flow. Transfer piping and control structures are summarized in Table 4-10 and 4-11. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-16 B16-048 Table 4-10 Transfer Line Piping Transfer Line A 16-inch PVC 1,273 LF Transfer Line B 12-inch PVC 274 LF 16-inch PVC 486 LF Transfer Line C 12-inch PVC 274 LF 16-inch PVC 170 LF Transfer Line D 12-inch PVC 1,569 LF Table 4-11 Transfer Line Control Structures Control Structure 1 (CS1)- Transfer Line C Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch DI (west) Outlets 12-inch DI (east) 12-inch PVC (north) Valves Gate Valves Control Structure 2 (CS2)- Transfer Line C Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch PVC (south) 12-inch DI (west) Outlets 12-inch DI (east) 12-inch DI (north) Valves Gate Valves Other Level Transducer Control Structure 3 (CS3)- Transfer Line C Structure 84-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch PVC (south) 12-inch DI (west) Outlets 12-inch DI (east) 16-inch PVC (north) Valves Gate Valves Butterfly Valve Mud Valve ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-17 B16-048 Table 4-11 (cont.) Transfer Line Control Structures Control Structure 4 (CS4)- Transfer Line B Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch DI (west) Outlets 12-inch PVC (north) Valves Gate Valves Control Structure 5 (CS5)- Transfer Line B Structure 72-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch DI (west) 12-inch PVC (south) Outlets 12-inch PVC (north) Valves Gate Valves Control Structure 6 (CS6)- Transfer Line B Structure 84-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 12-inch DI (west) 12-inch PVC (south) Outlets 16-inch PVC (north) Valves Gate Valves Butterfly Valve Mud Valve Control Structure 7 (CS7)-Transfer Line B and D Structure 60-inch Pre-Cast Concrete Manhole Inlets 16-inch PVC (south) 12-inch PVC (southwest) Outlets 16-inch DI (west) Valves Gate Valve • Transfer Line A Transfer Line A is roughly 1,300 LF of 16-inch PVC and runs east-west along the dike separating the treatment lagoons from the storage lagoon. It is required when gravity flow is not possible between the treatment and storage lagoons. Transfer Line A will convey wastewater from Line B to the pump house when water levels within the lagoons prevent gravity flow. Additionally, when the plant is operated in parallel, wastewater may be discharged to Line A if water levels within the control structures exceed acceptable levels. • Transfer Line B Transfer Line B runs along the eastern edge of the BWTP and connects Lagoon #2 to Lagoon The southern section of the pipeline is roughly 275 LF of 12- inch PVC with 3 control structures. Control Structure 4 (CS4) is the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-18 B16-048 southernmost control structure; Control Structure 5 (CS5) is 137 LF north of CS4. CS4 and CS5 are both 72-inch concrete structures with 24-inch manhole rim access covers and steps provided. Control Structure 6 (CS6) is a 137 LF north of CS5. It is an 84-inch pre-cast concrete manhole with steps and rim access. Each structure has two 12-inch DI inlets with gate valves. The two inlet pipes have been installed at different elevations to allow the City to control Lagoon #2 draw off levels. All control structures have gate valves included on all inlet and outlet piping to allow for manual control of flow, apart from CS6. The outlet piping on CS6 includes a butterfly and a mud valve. The mud valve is 10.7 feet above the bottom of the structure. It is closed for all flow patterns except when the plant is operated in parallel with gravity flow from Lagoons #2 to The mud valve is open while the butterfly valve is closed. The mud valve acts as a spillway and controls flow to Lagoon When water levels within the lagoons allow for gravity flow, the wastewater travels though the northern portion of Transfer Line B. This includes roughly 500 LF of 16-inch PVC pipe to Control Structure 7 (CS7). CS7 is a 60-inch precast concrete manhole with step and rim access an accepts wastewater from Lines D and B and discharges to Lagoon #3 through a 16-inch DI pipe. A 16-inch buried gate valve is installed on Transfer Line B upstream on CS7. When the water level is too high in Lagoon #3 to allow for gravity flow, Transfer Line B discharges to Line A, as previously discussed. • Transfer Line C Transfer Line C runs north-south along the dike separating the two treatment lagoons. Roughly 275 LF of 12-inch PVC, 170 LF of 16-inch PVC and 3 control structures are included in Transfer Line C. Control Structure 1 (CS1) is the southernmost. Both Control Structure 2 (CS2) and CS1 are 72-inch concrete structures with 24-inch manhole rim access and steps included. Control Structure 3 (CS3) is the northern most structure on Line C. It is an 84-inch pre- cast concrete manhole with rim access and steps. The 3 control structures are linearly connected to each other with a 12-inch PVC pipe. Wastewater from Lagoon #1 flows into each control structure though a 12-inch DI pipe. The control structures discharge to Lagoon #2 through 12-inch DI pipes. Gate valves are included in each control structure to direct flow, CS3 includes a mud valve and a butterfly valve on the outlet pipe. Similar to CS6 on Transfer Line B, the mud valve is 10.7 feet above the bottom of the control structure. When the plant is operated in series with gravity flow to Lagoon the mud valve is open and acts as an emergency overflow. For all other flow patterns, the mud valve is closed. Per the record drawings, CS2 includes a level transducer to measures water level in Lagoons #1 and However, as previously mentioned this transducer is no longer functioning. • Transfer Line D Transfer Line D is roughly 1,600 LF of 12-inch PVC and runs parallel to Line A. It conveys wastewater from the pump building to Lagoon It is operated when the water level within the storage lagoon nears or exceeds water levels in the treatment lagoons and gravity flow is no longer available. The transfer pump, housed in the pump building, has a capacity of 1,330 gpm at 17 feet of total dynamic head (TDH). The piping and pumps included in the pump house are ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-19 B16-048 shown in Figure 4-2. 4.2.2.4 Recycle Piping Roughly 470 LF of 8-inch PVC exists in the BWTP as a recycle line. The recycle line conveys treated wastewater from the pump house to the beginning of the plant and includes a magnetic flow meter M-3. According to the 2004 Operations and Maintenance Manual, the recycle pipeline is to be used when the concentration of nitrate in the effluent exceeds 4 mg/l. The recycle pipeline discharges to Valve Vault No. 1, on the distribution pipeline. A recycle pump, with a capacity of 1,330 gpm at 17 feet of TDH, is located in the pump house. The recycle pump discharges to the recycle pipeline. It may also be used as a backup to the transfer pump when necessary. Refer to Figure 4-2 for the pump house pumps and piping schematic. ---PAGE BREAK--- A 4-A SECTION A 4-A REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-2 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA BWTP PIPING AND PUMPS B16-048 04/20/2017 .DWG 4-2 CJS LOWER LEVEL PIPING Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-2.dwg, 4/28/2017 1:41:30 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-21 B16-048 4.2.2.5 Outlet Line The outlet pipe is roughly 400 LF of 16-inch PVC. It conveys treated wastewater from the discharge screens in Lagoon #3 to the pump building. From there, the treated water is pumped to one of the two disposal options, discussed later in this chapter, or to the recycle pipeline. 4.2.2.6 Overflow Piping Three overflow pipes exist in the BWTP. An 18-inch DI pipe intersects the dike separating Lagoons #1 and #2 and is at an elevation at 4412.00 feet, or 11.35 feet above the bottom of Lagoon #1 and 11.55 feet above the bottom of Lagoon The operating depth of Lagoons #1 and #2 are 1.1 feet below the overflow pipe. The top of the dike is at an elevation of 4418.25 feet, 6.25 feet above the overflow piping. A second overflow is in the southern dike of Lagoon It is an 18-inch DI pipe at an elevation of 4414.00 feet. This is 13.55 feet above the bottom of Lagoon 3.1 feet above the operating depth and 4.25 feet below the top of the dike. The final overflow piping is an 18-inch DI pipe intersecting Lagoon #3’s northern dike. The inlet of the pipe has an invert elevation of 4415.25 feet. The elevation of the overflow piping is equal to the maximum allowable water surface elevation in Lagoon it is 19.25 feet above the bottom of the Lagoon #3 and 3.00 feet below the top of the dike. Lagoon #3 emergency overflow discharges to IP Bed A at an elevation of 4404.00 feet. Overflow piping elevations are summarized in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 Overflow Piping Elevation Lagoon #1 Bottom of Lagoon #1 4,400.65 Lagoon #1 Water Surface 4,410.90 Lagoon #1 Overflow 4,412.00 Top of Dike 4,418.25 Lagoon #2 Bottom of Lagoon #2 4,400.45 Lagoon #2 Water Surface 4,410.90 Lagoon #2 Overflow 4,414.00 Top of Dike 4,418.25 Lagoon #3 Bottom of Lagoon #3 4396.00 Lagoon #3 Water Surface 4415.25 Lagoon #3 Overflow 4415.25 Top of Dike 4418.25 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-22 B16-048 4.2.2.7 Pumps and Piping Conditions Conversations with City staff and visual inspection indicate the BWTP’s piping and control structures are in generally good condition. No issues associated with the valve vaults, pumps or piping have been reported. The only concern regarding the condition of the existing piping structure was reported in a March 21, 2017 e-mail. According to the City of Belgrade, treatment lagoon’s level transducer is not functioning properly. As such, the City is unable to accurately measure the water depth in the treatment lagoons. Plant operator Mr. Paul Burkardt, has described maintenance issues associated with the transducer unit being located within the control structure. It was suggested that moving the unit out the manhole would alleviate some of the maintenance frustrations. 4.2.2.8 Pumps and Piping Capacity The hydraulic capacity of the existing interpond piping is discussed in the following sections. Manning’s equation was utilized to assess the capacity of pipeline where open channel flow is assumed. For pipelines that are considered low head systems were evaluated using the energy equation. All existing pipeline capacity calculations are available in Appendix 4. • Distribution Piping The BWTP distribution piping is roughly 450 feet of gravity main. The portion is a 21-inch PVC pipe is laid at a 0.10% slope. The main transitions to smaller diameter pipe at each valve vault. First to an 18-inch PVC and later a 15-inch PVC pipe, both laid at 0.20% slopes. Assuming open channel flow at 85% pipe depth and a Manning’s n value of 0.001, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)s Hydraulic toolbox calculates the capacity of the portion of the distribution piping at 6.102 cfs (3.94 MGD). The 18-inch and 15--inch segments’ capacities are 5.721 cfs (3.70 MGD) and 3.512 cfs (2.27 MGD), respectively. The current peak hour flow is approximately 2.37 MGD. The current distribution pipeline has more than sufficient capacity to handle the existing flows. • Bypass Piping The Bypass pipeline is a 21-inch PVC main laid at a minimum slope of 0.10%. Assuming open channel flow, a Manning’s n value of 0.011 and 85% flow depth, the minimum capacity of the bypass pipeline is 6.10 cfs (3.49 MGD). Sections with greater slopes will have larger capacity. The current peak hour and peak instantaneous flows are estimated at 2.37 MGD and 3.00 MGD, respectively. The Bypass Pipeline has sufficient capacity to handle the existing flows. • Transfer Line B The southern portion of Transfer Line B is a 12-inch PVC laid at a 0.00% slope used to control water level and flow from Lagoon The northern portion of Line B is 16-inch PVC pipe installed to transport wastewater from Lagoon #2 to Lagoon #3 and is considered a low head system. The maximum water surface elevation of Lagoon #2 is 4410.9 ft. Assuming the water surface elevation in Lagoon #3 is 4410.8, Transfer Line B’s hydraulic capacity is 650,898 gpd. As the water level in Lagoon #3 decreases, the capacity of pipeline increases. The ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-23 B16-048 capacity of Line B exceeds the existing peak hour flow when the water surface elevation in Lagoon #3 is 4409.69 ft. If the water level in Lagoon #3 exceeds the water level in Lagoon gravity flow is no longer available and the treated wastewater will flow through Transfer Line A to the pump house. • Transfer Line C The southern portion of Transfer Line C is a 12-inch PVC laid at a 0.00% slope used to control water level and flow between the treatment ponds. The northern portion Line C is a 16-inch PVC laid at a 0.97% slope and used to convey wastewater to Line A. The FHWA Hydraulic toolbox calculates the capacity of this main at 9.203 cfs (5.95 MGD), assuming open channel flow, Manning’s n of 0.011 and 85% pipe depth. This is nearly 2 times greater than the peak instantaneous flow of 3.00 MGD. • Transfer Lines A and D Transfer Line A is used in conjunction with Line D and the transfer pump to convey wastewater to Lagoon #3 when gravity flow is not available. To assess the capacity of the existing pipelines and transfer pump, pump run times for the transfer pump were downloaded from City’s SCADA system. Records indicate the transfer pump has reported run times greater than 0.0 hr/day for only 3 months from January 2010 to October 2016. Those months were July 2010, August 2011 and May 2014. This indicates water levels in the storage lagoon rarely exceed elevations that restrict gravity flow. As such, Transfer Lines A and D are rarely needed. The design capacity of the Transfer pump is 1,330 gpm, or 1.92 MGD. This exceeds current the current maximum day flow rate. The transfer pump run time figures are available in Appendix 4. • Recycle Piping To test the efficiency of the recycle pump, the pump’s nominal capacity of 1,330 gpm was used to convert average pump run times reported by the SCADA system to average flow rates. The measured flow rates in the SCADA system were compared to the calculated rates. This comparison is presented in Chart 4- 5. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-24 B16-048 Chart 4-5: Average Recycle Flow Rate Measured flow through the recycle pipeline occurs simultaneously with measured pump run times. This indicates the recycle pump has not been needed as a backup for the transfer pump in recent years. However, average flow rates calculated based on average pump run times are considerably larger than measured average flow rates. This indicates the pump is not running as efficiently as designed. The decrease from expected efficiency may be due to additional head loss in the recycle line. Depending on the shape of the pump curve, this could have a significant impact on the actual flow rate. Addition head loss may be caused by, but not limited to additional fittings, partially open valve or solids deposition in the pipeline. Additionally, the 2004 Operations and Maintenance Manual suggests running the recycle pump continuously whenever nitrate effluent concentrations exceed 4 mg/l. According the water quality data received from Energy Laboratories, Inc. nitrate concentrations in the effluent have consistently exceeded 4 mg/l in the warmer months, June to September, from 2014 to 2016. Average pump run times show the pump was operated between April and June of 2014 and 2015, and was not operated at any time in 2016. This information is presented in Chart 4-6. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-25 B16-048 Chart 4-6: Recycle Pump Runtimes vs Effluent Nitrate Concentrations 4.2.2.9 DEQ-2 Piping and Control Structure Criteria Section 93.44 of Circular DEQ-2 describes the minimum piping and control structure requirements for treatment pond design. Per DEQ-2 design standards, treatment ponds must contain a series of control structures for water level and flow control. The structures must be constructed of non-corrodible materials and located to minimize short circuiting. They must be accessible for maintenance with adequate ventilation for safety. Additionally, City staff must be able to lock control structures to prevent vandalism. The existing control structures are all pre-cast concrete manholes with rim and step access. The structures are located along the dikes running north-south to control the flow and water levels within the ponds and provide several inlet and outlet locations to minimize short circuiting in the treatment process. Only one inlet and outlet structure serve Lagoon However, due to the controlled discharge with the aerators included in the pond, short circuiting is not believed to be a problem. All piping must be either ductile iron or PVC. For ponds large enough to encounter stratification, like the BWTP, DEQ-2 requires multiple outlet pipes at varying elevations; three outlet pipes are recommended. For irrigation storage ponds, multiple outlet elevations are also recommended. The bottom pipe must be 10-feet from the toe of the dike, 1 foot above the bottom of the pond and must employ a vertical withdrawal. Biological treatment ponds must also be equipped with overflow piping capable of conveying the peak instantaneous flow. The BWTP includes only DI and PVC piping to convey wastewater. Two pipes, at varying elevations, control draw off levels in Lagoon this feature is not available in ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-26 B16-048 Lagoon #1 however. The discharge pipe from Lagoon #3 has two intake screens with vertical withdrawal. Per the record drawings, the inverts the discharge screens are 9 inches above the bottom of the pond; the top of the screens are 27 inches from the pond bottom. The eastern screen is only 4 feet from the toe of the dike and the west screen is 10 feet from the dike. The treatment pond overflow piping has a 0.0% slope. The storage lagoon’s overflow pipe has a slope of 10.2%, Calculations applying the FHWA Hydraulic toolbox with an 85% pipe depth and a Manning’s n of 0.011 indicate the capacity of storage overflow at 8.518 cfs (5.5 MGD). The existing plant’s peak instantaneous flow is 3.00 MGD. The treatment lagoon overflow piping does not have sufficient capacity to handle the peak instantaneous flow rate; however, the storage lagoons piping is more than sufficient. Although the existing plant’s piping and controls do not meet all of DEQ-2’s design standards. These issues are not considered to be largely impacting the efficiency of the treatment system and immediate action is not believed to be necessary. 4.2.3 Aeration System As previously mentioned, the BWTP is a partially aerated lagoon system. Air is pumped into the lagoons to provide both mixing and the required oxygen to sustain aerobic digestion. Lagoons #1 and #2 are considered the treatment lagoons; Lagoon #3 is the storage and polishing lagoon. Oxygen is introduced into each pond through a series of static tube and surface aerators. Blowers located in the pump house supply oxygen to the static tube aerators in the treatment ponds and the coarse bubble diffusers in the storage lagoon. The blower configuration is illustrated in Figure 4-3. The following sections detail the components of the BWTP aeration system. Tables 4-13 and 4-14 summarize the aeration system; a schematic of the system is shown in Figure 4-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- A 4-B REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-3 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA BWTP BLOWERS B16-048 04/20/2017 .DWG 4-3 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com SECTION 4-B A FLOOR PLAN J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-3.dwg, 4/28/2017 1:46:02 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LAGOON #1 LAGOON #2 LAGOON #3 LATERAL PIPE LEGEND HEADER PIPE LEGEND REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-4 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA AERATION SYSTEM B16-048 04/12/17 .DWG 4-4 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-4.dwg, 4/28/2017 1:57:05 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-29 B16-048 4.2.3.1 Treatment Lagoon. Table 4-13 Treatment Lagoons' Aeration System Blowers Number 3 Type Centrifugal Motor (each) 100 HP Capacity (each) 2,160 cfm Header Pipe Length (total) 1,175 LF Size 10- to 18-Inch Materials Above-Ground Steel Buried DI Lateral Pipes Number (per pond) 12 Length per lateral 550 Size 2- to 6-Inch Material HDPE Aerators Number (per pond) 144 Type Static Tube Each of the two treatment lagoons has 12 laterals running north-south along the pond bottom. There are 12 static tube aerators on each lateral, totaling 144 aerators in each treatment lagoon. The 6-foot high aerators are configured in a grid pattern to maximize mixing. The aerators breakdown the air supply into course bubbles to provide oxygen transfer . The laterals along the bottom of the lagoons are roughly 550 LF long, HDPE pipe. The northern segment of each lateral is 6-inch pipe. As the lateral extends the length of the lagoon, it decreases in size to a 2-inch pipe at the southern end. The laterals are fed by a header pipe running roughly 1,175 LF east-west along the plant’s center dike. The header pipe ranges in size from 10- to 18-inches and is primarily above ground steel pipe, while the rest is buried DI. Twenty-four shut-off/throttling valves are installed along the header pipe, one for each lateral. Three centrifugal blowers are housed on the mid level of the pump house and are illustrated in Figure 4-3. Each blower has a 100 HP motor, is rated at 2,160 cfm for a discharge pressure of 6.0 psi and is equipped with a control panel to provide limited local control. One intake filter with a ¼-inch mesh screen supplies air to all blowers. The treatment system was designed to function properly with two blowers running. The third provides redundancy, however may be necessary as the plant nears its design capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-30 B16-048 4.2.3.2 Storage Lagoon Table 4-14 Storage Lagoon Aeration System Blowers Number 1 Type Rotary Positive Displacement Motor 50 HP Capacity 428 cfm Header Pipe Length 275 LF Size 6-inch Materials Above-Ground Steel Buried DI Lateral Pipes Number 2 Length per lateral 1,100 Size 2- to 6-Inch Material HDPE Aerators Number 24 Type Surface Surface aerators are installed in the storage lagoon to provide additional treatment as well as mitigate issues associated with odor. Twenty-four floating surface aerators run the length of the storage pond in two rows. Twelve support cables have been installed perpendicular to the laterals. Two HDPE laterals, ranging in size from 2- to 6-inches, run the length of the storage lagoon. Four small orifices have been drilled into the pipes under each floating aerator. The orifices are to act as coarse bubble diffusers and prevent icing around the surface aerators. A positive displacement blower, known as the small blower and shown in Figure 4-3, is housed in the pump house. It draws air from the same intake filter as the larger blowers. The small blower is powered by a 50 HP motor and is rated at 428 cfm. This blower supplies air to the storage lagoon laterals though a header pipe consisting of buried 6- inch DI and above ground 6-inch steel pipe. 4.2.3.3 Aeration System Conditions A number of issues with the BWTP’s aeration system were noted during a site visit performed by TD&H Engineering in October 2016. Multiple static tube aerators were spotted floating on the surface of the treatment lagoons. It was also reported that the airline in the storage lagoon is floating and approximately half of Lagoon #3’s floating aerators are not functional. The floating aerators have been high maintenance and ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-31 B16-048 prone to electrical damage. In addition the cable and floating support system is not currently performing as intended. Many of the cable supports were upside down. The gas spring system which is supposed to allow for slack to be automatically released as the water level drops may not be functioning properly and causing the floats to flip upside down. The floating airline can be seen in Photo 4-2. Notes and additional photographs from the October 2016 site visit are included in Appendix 4. Photo 4-2: Storage Lagoon Floating Airline 4.2.3.4 Aeration System Capacity 4.2.3.4.1 Treatment Lagoons The aeration system was designed to have two of the large blowers operating simultaneously under normal conditions. The City’s SCADA system records run times for each of the three large blowers that supply air to the treatment lagoons. Nearly 5 years of data, from January 1, 2012 to October 31, 2016, was reviewed to assess the efficiency of the current aeration system. For the past five years, the City has been running 2 of the 3 large blowers continuously. Run times for the three large blowers are presented in Chart 4-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-32 B16-048 Chart 4-7: Treatment Lagoon Blowers’ Average Run Times At the DEQ’s request, an inspection of the BWTP was performed on July 20, 2015 by H&S Environmental, LLC. During the field inspection, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were collected at 9:00 am in Lagoon concentrations ranged from 0.01 mg/l to 0.40 mg/l. The relatively low DO concentrations recorded in the morning indicates portions of the BWTP experiences anaerobic conditions throughout the evening and early morning. The bacteria used for the nitrification of ammonia require oxygen to thrive. As such, anaerobic conditions decrease the efficiency of the treatment plant. DO measurements were taken again in the afternoon, and concentrations had lifted to just over 1 mg/l. In order to ensure constant aerobic conditions and improve the efficiency of aeration systems, it is recommended to maintain DO concentrations above 2 mg/l. The current nutrient and organic loading is in excess of the aeration system design and the likely cause of depressed oxygen concentrations. 4.2.3.4.2 Storage Lagoon The coarse bubble diffusers in Lagoon #3 are supplied by the small blower in the pump house. The small blower run times were obtained from the City’s SCADA system and are presented below in Chart 4-8. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-33 B16-048 Chart 4-8: Average Small Blower Run Time From January 2012 to October 2016, the small blower has essentially run constantly; average run times have remained at or near 24 hours/day. Conversations with the City suggest there have been no issues with icing around the lagoon’s surface aerators. The June 2015 inspection by H&S Environmental noted that although the DO concentrations were low in Lagoon concentrations greater than 12 mg/l were recorded in the storage cell and no odor related issues have been reported. This indicates more than sufficient oxygen is being supplied to the Lagoon 4.2.3.5 Aeration DEQ-2 Standards Circular DEQ-2 design criteria for partially mixed aerated lagoons includes a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 2 mg/l and provided mixing in the aerated cells of 5-10 HP/ MG. As previously discussed, a recent evaluation performed by H&S Environmental found DO concentrations as low as 0.01 mg/l in the primary treatment lagoon. Air is supplied to the treatment lagoons by three 100 HP motors; two of which have run continuously for the life of the current permit. The design operating capacity of each of the treatment cells is 16 MG, or 32 MG combined. According to Wastewater Engineering, Treatment Disposal Reuse, Third Edition by Metcalf and Eddy, typical efficiencies for blowers is 70% to 90%. These efficiencies estimated the mixing supplied to the treatment lagoons between 4.38 HP/MG and 5.63 HP/MG. 4.2.4 Pump Building The existing pump building is a three-story, 3,000 SF concrete structure. The structure is located west of the lagoons, partially embedded in the dike. All electrical controls, pumps and blowers are in the pump building to simplify operations by providing a central control location. The top floor of the building includes industrial work areas, air compressor, air intake filter and work benches. The blowers and associated motors, shown in Figure 4-3, along with electrical equipment are house on the mid-level. The bottom floor contains the five pumps and piping, shown in Figure 4-2. Conversations with City staff indicate the pump building is in good condition; during the October 2016 TD&H site inspection it was noted that the roof downspouts should be repaired or replaced. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-34 B16-048 4.3 Disposal The City of Belgrade has two primary means of treated wastewater disposal, groundwater discharge through a series of IP beds and land application through spray irrigation. A minimal volume of treated water will evaporate from the ponds. Past design reports and Facilities Plans have estimated the yearly volume of evaporation at 5.5 MG or an average of 15,000 gpd. The remainder of the water is discharged through one of the two disposal methods detailed below. 4.3.1 Infiltration/Percolation (IP) Beds IP beds are a method of controlled, high rate land application to open, shallow, earthen basins that ultimately discharge to groundwater. The City’s current groundwater discharge permit authorizes the BWTP to discharge treated residential strength domestic wastewater and sets limits on TN loading to each IP bed. The limits are set to maintain groundwater Nitrate concentrations below the human health standard of 10 mg/l. TN concentration are calculated as the sum of the concentrations of nitrates, nitrites, ammonia and TKN. Effluent from treatment lagoons similar to the BWTP generally have elevated concentrations of nitrates and nitrites due to the nitrification of ammonia that occurs in the lagoons. Denitrification converts the excess nitrates and nitrites to diatomic nitrogen (N2). N2 is a stable, mostly inert compound. It is only soluble in water and will therefore leave the groundwater and evaporate into the surrounding air, which is comprised mostly of N2. The denitrification process is facilitated by naturally occurring bacteria in the soil. Additionally, within the groundwater mixing zone, the natural groundwater flow will dilute and disperse the nitrogen compounds present in the treated effluent. The three IP beds, known as Beds A, B and C, were constructed between 2000 and 2004. Bed A is the most recently constructed and was added to the BWTP in 2004 as part of the lagoon upgrade project. Bed B was the original IP bed and was installed in 2000. Both Beds A and B are in the SE ¼ of Section 36, Township 1 N, Range 4 E. Bed A is north of the lagoons, directly adjacent to Lagoon Bed B is northwest of the lagoons, directly west of Bed A. Bed C was constructed in 2001, however effluent was not discharged to the bed until the transmission main was completed in 2004. Bed C is roughly 2,500 feet south east of the lagoons in NW ¼ of Section 6, Township 1 S, Range 5 E. A map of the IP bed locations is provided in Figure 4-5. The treated wastewater is fed to each of the IP beds through two 12-inch force mains. IP Beds A and B are fed by the same transmission main; as such, the City is unable to discharge to Beds A and B simultaneously. The treated effluent is conveyed to the Beds by gravity or pressurized flow. Pump IP-1 has a 1,400 gpm capacity at 28 feet TDH. It is located in the lower level of the pump house and is utilized when gravity flow is not possible, generally in the winter months. When gravity flow is possible, the treated wastewater flows through a 10-inch PVC pipe, bypassing pump IP-1 and discharging to the 12-inch transmission main upstream of the magnetic flow meter, M-1. Figure 4-2 displays the pump and piping configuration for the BWTP. A second 12-inch transmission main is used to discharge effluent to IP Bed C. Due to the topography of the area, gravity flow is not possible. Pump IP-2 is needed to convey treated wastewater through the transmission main to Bed C. IP-2 has a 1,400 gpm capacity at 67 feet TDH and is house in the lower level of the pump house; it can be seen in Figure 4-2. This transmission main is used to transport effluent to both IP Bed C and the irrigation system, and as such the City cannot discharge to both simultaneously. A separate pump is used for the irrigation system, however. A magnetic flow meter, M-2, has been installed on the transmission main to measure flow. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-5 DISPOSAL SYSTEM LOCATIONS BELGRADE, MONTANA BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CJS 04/11/2017 B16-048 FIGURE S ource : Esri, Dig italGlobe , Ge oEye , Earth star Ge og raph ics, CNES /Airbus DS , US DA, US GS , AEX, Ge tm apping , Ae rog rid , IGN, IGP, sw isstopo, and th e GIS Use r Com m unity ³ 0 500 1,000 Fe e t 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS , MONTANA 59401 J:\2016\B16-048 Be lg rad e Maste r Plan\CADD\CIVIL\B16-048 Fig 4-5.m xd B16-048 Fig 4-5.MXD DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: DATE DRAWN: JOB NO.: FIELDBOOK: REV DATE REVIS ION [PHONE REDACTED] • td h e ng ine e ring .com S PRAY IRRIGATION AREA IP BED C BOZEMAN-YELLOWS TON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY IP BED A IP BED B TREATMET LAGOONS TUBB RD BASELINE RD LAGOON RD ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-36 B16-048 Each of the three IP beds are constructed in the same manner. Five cells are arranged linearly from east to west. Each cell is approximately 100 feet by 200 feet, providing nearly 20,000 SF of infiltration area in each cell, or 100,000 SF in each bed. The cells are 5 feet deep with 4:1 side slopes. Approximately 1,100 LF of 12-inch PVC runs east-west along the southern dike of each bed. Ten 8-inch laterals branch off the 12-inch main, two into each of the 5 cells. Each lateral has an 8-inch remote operated gate valve to direct effluent into the cells. A concrete pad is included at the outfall of each lateral to help prevent erosion. A 10-inch emergency overflow DI pipe connects each cell to the adjacent cell. A summary of the IP Bed components is available in Table 4-15 and a schematic of the is presented in Figure 4-6. Table 4-15 Infiltration/Percolation Components Number of Beds 3 Cells per Bed 5 Cell Length 100 feet Cell Width 200 feet Cell Depth 5 feet Pump IP-1 1,400 gpm at 28 feet TDH Pump IP-2 1,400 gpm at 67 feet TDH Header Pipe 1,100 LF of 12-inch PVC Lateral Pipe 8-inch PVC Number of Laterals (per bed) 10 A system of monitoring wells has been installed to measure groundwater quality of each IP Bed. One monitoring well is upstream of Beds A and B and a second upstream of Bed C. These wells are used to determine background levels of contaminants in the groundwater. Monitoring well locations can be seen on Figure 4-7. 4.3.1.1 IP Bed Conditions Conversations with City personnel suggest the overall condition of the IP Beds is good. No issues with dike erosion or header or lateral pipe failures have been reported. However, concerns involving existing vegetation were expressed. According to the plant operator, Mr. Paul Burkardt, the existing vegetation consists mainly of native weeds; a more site specific plant to facilitate denitrification would be preferable. In a recent site visit by TD&H Engineering it was noted that the City would prefer more automated controls for directing flow between IP Beds A and B rather than the current manual operations. Additionally, programming issues with the remote-controlled values directing flow into the separate IP cells were described in more recent conversations with City staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-6 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT TYPICAL IP BED SCHEMATIC B16-048 04/05/2017 .DWG 4-6 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com A A B B SECTION A-A SECTION B-B J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-6.dwg, 4/28/2017 2:34:08 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 4-7 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS B16-048 04/12/2017 .DWG 4-7 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 4-7.dwg, 4/28/2017 2:39:52 PM, cjs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-39 B16-048 4.3.1.2 IP Bed Capacity 4.3.1.2.1 Hydraulic Capacity As previously mentioned, each of the IP Beds is fed by a 12-inch transmission main. IP Beds A and B may be fed by either gravity or pressurized flow, while treated wastewater can only be conveyed to IP Bed C through pressurized flow. The magnetic flow meter M-1 measures flow to IP Beds A and B and records flow rates to the City’s SCADA system. Flow data from M-1 was downloaded and evaluated to calculate the average day flows from December 2012 to October 2016. It was determined that average flows to IP Beds A and B peaked in winter months. Average flows ranged from 0 gpd in July 2014 to 303,411 gpd in September 2016 and averaged roughly 142,000 gpd. Pump IP-1 is used to convey treated wastewater to Beds A and B. Run times were downloaded from City’s SCADA system. Pump run times are recorded daily in hours per day (hr/day). Pump runs indicate pressurized flow occurs mainly in the winter months. The minimum run time for each month from December 2012 to October 2016 was 0 hr/day, indicating the pump does not run every day, even during peak discharge months. The maximum run time peaked in February 2016 with 14 hours per day. Average run times for months with pressurized flow ranged from 0.0027 hr/day to 3.845 hr/day and averaged 1.86 hr/day. Calculations are available in Appendix 4. Pump IP-1’s nominal capacity of 1,400 gpm was used to calculate flow rates based on average run times. This information is presented in conjunction with measured average day flow rates to IP Beds A and B, as calculated from the available SCADA data in Chart 4-9. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-40 B16-048 Chart 4-9: Average Flow Rates to IP Beds A and B Combined Average flow rates based on pump run times match closely with measured flow rate from the SCADA system in the winter months. This suggests pump IP-1 is operating as designed. During the summer months, average flows calculated from pump run times are consistently 0 gpd; average flow rates measured from M-1 show active flow, indicating only gravity flow occurs in the summer. Further analysis of the effluent discharge was completed using the data reported to the DEQ through the required DMR. DMR data indicates the City has not discharge to IP Bed B for the duration of the current permit, December 2012 to the present. According to City Staff, discharge of treated wastewater to IP Bed B led to number of permit violations during the previous permit cycle. As such, the City has decided to discharge to Beds A and C as much as possible, and use Bed B only if necessary. The average day flow rates reported for IP Bed A closely match the data collected from the SCADA. It is unclear at this time what caused the elevated groundwater nitrate concentrations in IP Bed B’s mixing zone. One possible explanation is leakage from the treatment lagoons. However, as discussed previously, more accurate is needed before leakage can be confirmed. At a minimum, 30 consecutive days of accurate flow measurements from a new, reliable influent flow meter will be required to complete a system water balance and confirm if the pond liners are damaged and leaking. As the population and flow rate continue to increase, the City will need to utilize the available disposal capacity of IP B. A second transmission main conveys treated wastewater to IP Bed C and the irrigation system. Pump IP-2 is used to transport the effluent to Bed C, while the irrigation pump, discussed in detail later, pumps water to the irrigation system. A single magnetic flow meter, M-2, measures flow through the shared transmission ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-41 B16-048 main. M-2 records effluent flow rates to the City’s SCADA system but does not distinguish which pump is running. To comply with the City’s discharge permit, operators manually record specific IP Bed flow data to the DMR. Daily run times for pump IP-2 were downloaded from the City’s SCADA system. Minimum run times were consistently 0.0 gpd for all months from December 2012 to October 2016, indicating IP-2 has not run every day for any one month during the current permit. The maximum flow rate peaked at 24 hr/day in March and February of 2014. It is unclear at this time what caused the pump to run continuously for 24 hours, however this is believed to be an anomaly and not representative of the system. The average run times for IP-2 for the winter months ranged from 0.55 hr/day in April 2014 to 3.99 hr/day in February 2014 and averaged 1.41 hr/day. The nominal capacity of IP-2 is 1,400 gpm. Flow rates were calculated based on average run times and compared to measure SCADA flow rates for winter months. DMR data shows IP Bed C does not receive treated wastewater during summer months. The average flow rate reported to the DMR was also compared to the recorded SCADA average flows. A few discrepancies were found where the reported DMR flows were noticeably higher then measured SCADA flow rates. A recent test of the City’s flow meters confirmed M-2 was performing as expected and measured flows could be considered accurate. For that reason, flow measurements taken directly from the SCADA system were referenced to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of pump IP-2. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 4. The comparison is presented in Chart 4-10. Chart 4-10: Average Flow Rates to IP Bed C ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-42 B16-048 The analysis presented in Chart 4-9 shows the actual flow recorded by the City’s SCADA system closely matches the average flow rate calculated using average pump run times for the winter months This indicates IP-2 is operating as designed and has not consequentially decreased in efficiency with time. This analysis also verified the assumption that treated wastewater is not discharged to IP Bed C during summer months as flow based on recorded pump run time equal 0.0 gpd through the warmer months. 4.3.1.2.2 Nutrient and Organic Capacity As mentioned in Chapter 2, the City of Belgrade is allowed to discharge 72 ppd of TN to IP Beds A and B and 74 ppd of TN to IP Bed C per their groundwater discharge permit. The City’s DMR were downloaded from the DEQ website and referenced to evaluate the capacity of the existing IP Beds. As mentioned previously, the City has not discharged to IP Bed B since November 2012. Average day TN loading for IP Beds A and C from December 2012 to October 2016 is presented in Chart 4-11 and 4-12. Chart 4-11: IP Bed A Historic Total Nitrogen Loading The BWTP has increased the TN loading to IP Bed A over the life of the current permit. Average day TN loading to Bed A has remained consistently below the permit level of 72 ppd except for a brief exceedance of the allowable limit in May and June of 2016 with 73.89 and 85.50 ppd, respectively. This exceedance has been attributed to spring turnover. In the short term, the exceedances may be avoidable if the IP Bed B could be used to for disposal for a portion of the volume discharged when concentration spikes occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-43 B16-048 Chart 4-12: IP Bed C Historic Total Nitrogen Loading The TN loading to IP Bed C has steadily increased over the life of the permit. A slight exceedance of the 74 ppd loading limit was witnessed in April of 2016 with an average recorded TN loading of 76.42 ppd. Based on the above information, IP Beds A and C are at or near their nutrient capacity. As the effluent flow rate increases with time, the BWTP will need to consider discharging to IP Bed B, discharging to A more frequently or altering the system to allow treated wastewater to be discharged to all disposal methods simultaneously. 4.3.1.2.3 Monitoring Wells As mentioned previously, the City has a system of monitoring wells to measure groundwater concentrations. samples are tested each month for groundwater concentrations of chloride, Nitrate + Nitrite (as TKN (as N) and TN. Figure 4-7 shows the locations of all monitoring wells. For the duration of the current permit, sampling is not required for six of the existing wells. Samples have been taken from wells 1A, 3A, 5A, 6A, 4B, 5B, 6B, 1C, 3C, 5C and 6C. The letters in each of the monitoring well names corresponds to the specific IP Bed’s mixing zone the well is monitoring. Wells 1A and 1C are installed upstream of the IP beds and are tested for background concentrations. Per the City’s discharge permit, groundwater TN concentrations must remain below the human health standard of 10 mg/l TN. As shown in Chart 4-13, TN concentrations of the monitoring wells are generally below 5 mg/l. A minimal number of samples have reported values between 5 and 10 mg/l TN and one sample take from well 6B in September of 2016 reported a TN concentration of 27.6 mg/l. It is ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-44 B16-048 unclear at this time what caused the spike, however no other well reported high values. Additionally, the City has not discharged to Bed B since the current permit became effective in 2012. For these reasons, it is believed that this value is an anomaly and not representative of the system. Raw groundwater quality data is included in Appendix 4. Chart 4-13: Total Nitrogen Groundwater Concentrations 4.3.1.3 DEQ-2 Design Standards for Infiltration/ Percolation Systems Section 122 of Circular DEQ 2 Details the design standards for new IP beds. According to the Circular, IP beds must not be located within the 100-year flood plain or within 500- feet of a water supply well. All IP cells must have an inlet structure designed to mitigate erosion within the cells and flow should be distributed evenly among the entire IP system. Side slopes are not to be steeper than 3:1 and an access road is to be provided for maintenance. Intercellular overflow piping is to be included; however, overflow piping that discharges outside of the basin area is not permitted. The BWTP has not discharged to IP Bed B for the duration of the current permit, and therefore does not evenly distribute the treated wastewater flow through the IP system. All other aspects of the IP system are in compliance with DEQ-2 standards. 4.3.2 Irrigation The City’s spray irrigation system is considered a non-discharging outfall. It is therefore exempt from the TN loading requirement, provided the treated effluent is irrigated at agronomic rates and does not introduce additional nitrogen to the groundwater. The BWTP irrigation system was designed by Morrison Maierle, Inc in 2002 and is owned by the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-45 B16-048 Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport. The system is located south and west of the treatment lagoons, extending in a strip parallel to the Airport’s runway. It covers approximately 117 acres. Figure 4-5 shows the location of the irrigation system in relation to the rest of the BWTP. Table 4-16 summarizes the irrigation components. Table 4-16 Irrigation Components Pump 1,200 gpm at 237’ TDH Irrigated Area 117 acres Transmission Main 5,400 feet of 12-inch PVC 4,800 LF of 10-inch PVC Number of Laterals 26 Number of Sprinkler Heads 52 Individual Sprinkler Coverage Radius 200 feet The 12-inch transmission main used to transport treated wastewater to Bed C is also used for the irrigation system. As such, the City is not able to discharge to Bed C and the irrigation system simultaneously. Treated wastewater is discharged to the transmission main from the irrigation pump. The irrigation pump is located in the pump house with a capacity of 1,200 gpm at 237 feet TDH. The 12-inch main extends approximately 5,400 LF to IP Bed C, the main then reduces to a 10-inch PVC and travels roughly 4,800 LF parallel to the airport runway. Pressure relief valves are installed near the upper end of the line to protect the system from high pressures. Additionally, several combination air relief and vacuum valves are included at the high points along the main. Twenty-six laterals branch off the transmission main. There are two fixed sprinkler heads on each lateral, each with a coverage radius of 200 feet. The irrigation system is automatically controlled by the irrigation controller. The irrigation system is designed to only be used as a disposal method in the summer months, for 127 days from May to September. Under normal operating conditions, only two laterals are open at a time, with a total flow of 1,200 gpm. Occasionally, three laterals may be opened for a total flow of 1,800 gpm. 4.3.2.1 Irrigation Conditions During the October 2016 site inspection, it was noted that the existing irrigation system requires extensive maintenance. Further discussions with City staff indicated continual maintenance is required for the sprinkler heads. Additionally, the plant operator, Mr. Paul Burkardt, described the irrigation chart recorder as difficult to read. Mr. Burkardt also expressed concerns regarding time conflicts with local farmers. The irrigation system is not able to run for two to three weeks in both the spring and fall to allow the hay to be bailed. The City has indicated its desire for additional irrigation area to mitigate the inconvenience of these conflicts. No issues specific to the piping of the irrigation system were noted. The pump seal on the irrigation pump is to be replaced by City staff; no other O&M issues with the irrigation pump were identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-46 B16-048 4.3.2.2. Irrigation Capacity As discussed previously, treated wastewater is conveyed to the irrigation system through a 12-inch force main shared with IP Bed C. A magnetic flow meter, M-2, measures flow through the transmission main. Run times for the irrigation pump, shown in Figure 4-2, were downloaded from the City’s SCADA system for December 2012 to October 2016. Based on this information, the BWTP has not discharged to the irrigation system during the winter months for the duration of the current permit. During the irrigation season, average run times range from 0.085 to 21.46 hr/day and averaged 9.94 hr/day. The irrigation pump was designed with a nominal capacity of 1,200 gpm. average day flow rates to the irrigation system were calculated by multiplying the nominal capacity by the average pump run time. These calculated flow rates were compared to flow rates recorded to the SCADA system by M-2. Flow rates recorded during the winter months were not included because the analysis performed in Section 4.3.1.2.1 confirms flow measured by M-2 during the colder months was discharged to IP Bed C. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 4. The comparison is presented in Chart 4-14. Chart 4-14: Irrigation Average Day Flow Rates Comparison The predicted average day flow rates, based on pump run times, have been consistently higher than the measured flow from the SCADA system. This indicates the irrigation pump may not be operating as efficiently as designed. Because of the high average run times during the irrigation season, it is likely that the pump has begun to wear and the efficiency has decreased. This may also be caused unanticipated head loss within the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-47 B16-048 irrigation system. It is also possible that the buildup and mineralization within the transmission piping has occurred with time, increasing the TDH. Through the duration of the current permit, the flow rate calculated based on pump information has ranged from approximately 10% to 45% higher than the measured flow, averaging 26% higher. Because this irrigation system is classified as a non-discharging disposal method, it is not included as an outfall on the City’s discharge permit. Therefore, the City is not required to report irrigation flow to the DMRs. For this reason, the recorded SCADA data could not be compared to the reported DMR average day flow. In order to maintain the irrigation system’s status and a non-discharging outfall, the BWTP must not exceed the irrigation agronomic rates. The system was designed to discharge 744,000 gpd over 117 acres for a 127-day irrigation season, from May 16 to September 20. The design calculations assumed 28.0 mg/l TN in the treated wastewater. Based on these parameters, Morrison Maierle, Inc. calculated allowable application rates for the 2002 Effluent Spray Irrigation System Gallatin Field Airport Design Report. This report was included as part of the 2004 Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual. The application rates are presented below in Table 4-17. Table 4-17 Agronomic Rates Month Operating Day Application Rate (inches) (gpd) January 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 March 0 0 0 April 0 0 0 May 16 3.5 694,980 June 30 7 741,312 July 31 10.1 1,035,104 August 31 9.4 963,364 September 20 4.8 762,492 October 0 0 0 November 0 0 0 December 0 0 0 Irrigation flows recorded in the City’s SCADA system were compared to these agronomic rates. SCADA data for the summer months was utilized because no irrigation DMR records exist. Irrigation flow rates have increased over the life of the current permit. During the summer of 2013, the City discharged at an average of 71% of the agronomic rates. The summer of 2016 saw a discharge rate that averaged 75% of the design agronomic rates. The irrigation system’s agronomic rates were calculated assuming 28 mg/l TN in the effluent. samples are collected at the effluent tap in the pump house and analyzed by Energy Laboratories, Inc. Effluent TN concentrations are highest in the first part of summer and have consistently exceeded the design concentration of 28 mg/l. TN ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-48 B16-048 concentrations ranging from roughly 30 to 40 mg/l in April, May and June from 2014 to 2016. In the later summer months, July, August and September, TN concentrations significantly decreased and remained below the design concentrations. Appendix 4 includes Charts showing the effluent TN concentration trend. The actual agronomic rates for the City of Belgrade were calculated using historic total nitrogen concentration data along with the soil and nutrient data used in the 2002 irrigation system design calculations. The actual agronomic rates in the late summer months are larger than originally predicted. Chart 4-15 compares actual agronomic rates to actual flow data, calculations provided in Appendix 4. Chart 4-15: Existing Irrigation Rates vs Calculated Agronomic Rates As Chart 4-14 shows, the historic irrigation flows have been below actual agronomic rates for most of the irrigation seasons from 2013 to 2016. The City has extended the irrigation season past the design conditions for the past four year. The irrigation flows during this time are not considered to be large enough to effect groundwater quality, however. Additionally, because the magnetic flow meter measuring flow to the irrigation system also records flow to IP Bed C, it is possible that a portion of the flow reported during the spring and fall months may have been discharged to IP Bed C. This analysis indicates that the current irrigation system has sufficient capacity to serve the existing system. 4.4 Belgrade SCADA Planning As part of the infrastructure improvements previously discussed, the City will need to upgrade the current control system to have the ability to efficiently monitor and control new and existing infrastructure and equipment. Currently, the control system is Microcomm-based equipment and provides minimal monitoring, reporting, or automated control of the existing facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-49 B16-048 4.4.1 Monitoring and Reporting The existing SCADA system provides system monitoring and reporting for the facilities listed in the screen capture, below. 4.4.2 Automated Control Additionally, the system allows automated controls for the water tower and four wellheads within the City’s wellfield (East, Broadway, Park and Shop Wells), shown in the SCADA “human- machine interface” (HMI) on the following page. The HMI for the City’s SCADA system is physically located and monitored at the City Shop. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-50 B16-048 : 4.4.3 Security Through Ultra-VNC software, the existing SCADA information is accessible via internet connection with a username and password. Currently, other than this username and password, virtually no security system in place to protect the City’s existing SCADA information. Additionally, the existing username and password are relatively generic and therefore easily decoded by modern hacking software. The existing configuration leaves the City’s SCADA system and network vulnerable to hacking. A new SCADA system would be set up using a VPN connection to the network, adding layers of security and protection for the City’s SCADA information and network. 4.4.4 SCADA Upgrades To provide the most effective strategy moving forward for the City, AE2S recommends the development of a SCADA Master Plan to identify the City’s needs, desires and best long-term approach to SCADA. A typical SCADA Master Plan would include the following: • A Kickoff Meeting with City water and wastewater staff to gather input on needs • Perform a full review of the existing control system and associated instrumentation • Work in conjunction with City staff to determine required and recommended level of control system functionality and performance • Establish control system alternatives and estimated costs for system improvements • Review potential improvement strategies with the City to finalize direction • Provide a SCADA Master Plan report detailing the chosen improvement approach, along with updated opinions of probable costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Final Treatment and Disposal Existing Facility Review April 2018 Page 4-51 B16-048 Once the SCADA Master Plan is approved and accepted, the City could implement the improvements comprehensively, or in a phased approach. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-1 B16-048 5.0 FUTURE DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS Design conditions regarding hydraulic flows, nutrient and organic loading and disposal rates have been defined to ensure all proposed alternatives will provide sufficient capacity to serve the City of Belgrade for a 20-year design life. This chapter describes the methodology behind establishing the future design conditions. 5.1 Hydraulic Flows Data from a variety of sources was referenced to determine the most appropriate design flows. Historic treatment plant inflow data was considered in conjunction with metered water usage data, Belgrade’s pervious system upgrade design conditions, population estimates and industry standards. The applied rationale is presented in the sections to follow. 5.1.1 Population As detailed in Chapter 2, population data from the United States Census Bureau was used to evaluate population trends for both the City of Belgrade and Gallatin County. Through that process, an annual growth rate of 3.5% was recommended to project future populations. The City approved the proposed growth rate in an e-mail from the City Planner’s office on October 24, 2016. The aforementioned email is provided in Appendix 2. Table 5-1 reiterates the populations originally presented in Chapter 2. US Census data was used to estimate yearly populations from 2010 to 2014. The approved growth rate of 3.5% was used to estimate populations from 2015 to the design year of 2038. These population estimates will be referenced to establish the per capita wastewater production rate and project future flows. Table 5-1 Population Estimate Summary Year Population (persons) 2010 7,389 2011 7,489 2012 7,591 2013 7,693 2014 7,798 2015(1) 8,071 2016(1) 8,353 2020(1) 10,423 2030(1) 14,703 2038(1) 19,360 Estimated with approved 3.5% annual growth rate ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-2 B16-048 5.1.2 Wastewater Data Treatment plant influent data from the City’s SCADA system was referenced for an initial evaluation of the City’s wastewater production rate. As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the influent flow meter’s accuracy is questionable. Recorded flow rates from October 2014 to January 2015 showed a dramatic spike. Conversations with City staff indicated that the influent flow meter had been damaged and was not properly seated in the control structure. The City replaced the damaged meter. In preparation for this Master Plan, M.E.T. Controls and Automation was hired to verify the accuracy of the BWTP’s flow meters. It was determined that the new influent flow meter was not the recommended type for open channel volumetric flow measurements. Additionally, system variables such as pipe slope were entered into the meter’s software with incorrect information. This resulted in elevated flow measurements. In order to assess the applicablility of the available SCADA influent data, recorded average flow rates were compared to population data to define a wastewater production rates. Production rates average 88.8 gpcd from 2014 to 2016. Although this number is believed to be high due to meter inaccuarcies, it is considered reasonably but not inorbanantly conservative. 5.1.3 Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Inflow and infiltration (I/I) may add to the overall wastewater flow, artificially elevating wastewater production rates. Seasonal fluctuations in flow rates are tyipcal of systems experiencing significant I/I. Chart 5-1 graphically displays the average flow rates. No obvious seasonal trend is present. As mentioned previously in this Master Plan, the groundwater table is more than 20 feet below the ground surface in and around Belgrade. As such, the City’s sanitary sewer system is significantly above the water table and is not believed to experience consequential amounts of I/I. Chart 5-1: Historic Average Day Flows ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-3 B16-048 5.1.4 Water Usage Data Water usage data has historically been used to estimate wastewater flow when measured records are not available. While the City of Belgrade does monitor lagoon influent rates, water data is also available and therefore was considered as a secondary means of estimating wastewater production rates. Water usage data is available in two forms: water well production data and metered water sale records. Water usage rates for the winter months (November to March) were calculated for January 2013 to December 2015 using estimated yearly populations previously discussed. In order to eliminate water usage which does not discharge to the sewage system, such as car washing and lawn irrigation, the spring, summer and fall months were excluded from the analysis. Table 5-2 reports calculated water usage rates. Raw water usage data is available in electronic form in the Appendix. Average water usage calculations are provided in Appendix 5. Table 5-2 Average Water Usage (gpcd) Month 2013 2014 2015 January 92.0 75.3 65.1 February 73.0 75.5 71.3 March 69.0 64.4 68.0 November 65.2 67.8 68.1 December 76.5 83.0 85.7 Winter Months Average 75.1 73.2 72.0 Data presented in Table 5-2 was obtained from the municipal well meters and individual service meters. These meters are considered to be operating properly and providing reliable data. The average winter month water production rates for 2014 and 2015 are roughly 17% and 25% less than the average wastewater production rates reported in Table 5-2. The elevated wastewater production relative to the water usage is not likely caused by I/I, as previously discussed. It may be explained by unmetered water customers and any residential home or business with private drinking water wells that utilize the public sewer system. However, the most likely cause is the elevated influent wastewater data caused by meter error, as previously mentioned. 5.1.5 Previous Design Conditions The original Facilities Plan, prepared in 1997, calculated an average wastewater production rate of 86 gpcd for the City of Belgrade. This was based on a series of flow measurements taken from the BWTP inlet and the airport from December of 1993 and January of 1994. The wastewater production rate was reevaluated in October 2001 for the Wastewater Treatment Facility and Outfall Sewer Design Report. Flow measurements were taken for 11 consecutive days at the outfall sewer. Based on the data reported in the 2000 Census, the average recorded flow equated to 88.5 gpcd. Based on an estimated 2001 population, the average flow was equivalent to 85.1 gpcd. These values confirmed that 86 gpcd remained appropriate for estimating future flows in the Belgrade area. Additionally, the 2001 Design Report noted sewer flows averaged about 15.5 % higher than average water use from December 2000 to February 2001. At that time, it was believed that some dwellings and businesses had private water wells ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-4 B16-048 but still utilized the public sewer system. Additionally, City staff have indicated the Airport has been known to require more water than previously believed. 5.1.6 DEQ Standards Circular DEQ-2 Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems, published in 2016, provides guidance for sizing wastewater facilities. Section 11.243.a recommends 100 gpcd for projecting future design flows, unless water use data or other justification upon which to better estimate flow is available. 5.1.7 City of Belgrade Design Standards The City of Belgrade published a new Design Standards and Specification Policy in 2017. The Policy states, “New sanitary sewer lines to serve residential area shall be designed to accommodate an average daily flow rate of 90-gallons per capita per day. An infiltration rate of 50-gallons/acre/day shall be added to all flow calculations when designing new sewers.” The policy indicates in non-residential areas, new sanitary sewer lines are to be designed to accommodate 140 gpd per person within the corresponding land use zone. The equivalent population per land use zone is provided as persons per acre and is available in the Belgrade Design Standards and Specification Policy. The Policy also indicates that gravity sewers shall be designed to flow no more than 75% full at peak hour design flows at full build-out. 5.1.8 Design Flows Current wastewater production and water usage rates remain relatively consistent with previous evaluations for the City of Belgrade. Although meter error is believed to cause elevated wastewater production rates, it is recommended to maintain the design wastewater production rate of 86 gpcd for reasonably conservative flow projections. Population projections discussed previously were used in conjunction with 86 gpcd to estimate treatment lagoon design flows. Population was projected over the 20-year planning period ending in 2038. The City of Belgrade’s population in 2038 is projected to be 19,360 persons. This equates to a treatment facility design flow of 1,670,000 gpd. Peaking factors calculated from available SCADA data for maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flow were detailed in Chapter 3. It was determined that the peak factors for maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flows are 1.44, 1.99, 3.30 and 4.19, respectively. Used in conjunction with the projected average day flow, these peaking factors result in a projected maximum month flow of 2,404,808 gpd, a maximum day flow of 3,323,300 gpd and peak hour and instantaneous flows of 5,511,000 gpd and 6,997,330 gpd, respectively. This information is summarized in Table 5-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-5 B16-048 Table 5-3 Design Flows Flow Type Peaking Factor Design Flow (gpd) Average Day - 1,670,000 Maximum Month 1.44 2,404,800 Maximum Day 1.99 3,323,300 Peak Hour 3.30 5,511,000 Peak Instantaneous 4.19 6,997,300 Future collection system improvements will be designed using the City of Belgrade design standards and the projected zoning. These flows are defined and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. 5.2 Organic Loading 5.2.1 Treatment Plant Influent Nutrient and Organic Loading The design nutrient and organic loading into the BWTP is based on historic pollutant concentrations in the raw wastewater. samples have been collected and sent to analytical laboratories for analysis. Water quality data from November 2013 to December 2016 was averaged and multiplied by the projected average day flow to determine design organic loading. Raw data is provided in Appendix 4. Table 5-4 defines the BWTP’s design loading criteria. Table 5-4 Treatment Plant Design Influent Nutrient and Organic Loading Pollutant Concentration Average Day Loading (mg/l) (ppd) BOD 407.7 5,689 TSS 271.3 3,786 Ammonia 34.3 479 Nitrate + Nitrite 0.5 7 TKN 63.0 879 TN 63.5 886 TP 8.1 113 5.2.2 Treatment Plant Effluent Nutrient and Organic Loading Effluent design criteria were calculated under the assumption that the City’s current TN loading limits to the existing IP beds would remain at current limits in future permits. This assumption is based on conversations with the DEQ during a February 8, 2017 meeting and subsequent correspondence. Meeting notes and e-mail correspondence regarding the City’s discharge permit are included in Appendix 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-6 B16-048 The design effluent TN concentration was calculated using a simple water balance for the treatment plant. The allowable nitrogen loading in the discharge permit is presumed to remain constant for future permit cycles. Since the groundwater monitoring wells have rarely indicated exceedance of permit values, it seems reasonable to assume the loading limits for Nitrogen will not decrease in the future. The influent flow rate was defined by the design average day flow of 1.67 MGD. Agronomic rates defined in the 2002 Spray Irrigation Design Report were used to calculate discharge volumes to the irrigation system. discharge volumes to the three IP beds were assumed to be equivalent among all three existing beds. IP bed discharge volumes were calculated so that cumulative storage within Lagoon #3 is equal to 0.0 gallons at the end of September; meaning the storage lagoon will drain at the end of the irrigation season. Estimated discharge volumes to the three IP beds were then referenced with TN loading limits to calculate the maximum allowable effluent TN concentration. A 10% safety factor was applied; the design effluent TN concentration for the BWTP is 13.5 mg/l. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 5. To remain compliant with DEQ standards, the City will also need to achieve 85% TSS and BOD removal in all proposed upgrades. No permit limits have been set on effluent phosphorous concentrations. 5.3 Disposal Rates Design disposal rates and required storage volume will be specific to each disposal alternative described in Chapter 7. The maximum allowable discharge flow rates based on IP bed available hydraulic capacity and calculated agronomic rates are detailed in the following sections. 5.3.1 IP Bed Hydraulic Loading The design IP bed hydraulic loading was calculated based on Circular DEQ-2 design criteria, existing IP bed characteristics and the allowable total nitrogen loading. An infiltrometer test performed for the 2004 Design Report found the most restrictive soils layer in the area consisted of sandy gravel soil and reported an infiltration rate of 0.25 inches/min. Circular DEQ-2 recommends using 7-10% of the measured infiltration rate for IP bed design. To ensure a conservative design, 7% of the measured rate, 0.0175 inches/min, was applied to the design criteria calculations. As discussed in Chapter 4, each of the three IP beds consists of 5 cells. The cells are approximately 100 feet by 200 feet and provide 20,000 SF of infiltration area per cell, or 100,000 SF per bed. Based on measured infiltration rates, the maximum allowable flow rate into each cell is 314,000 gpd, or 1,571,000 gpd into each IP Bed. Varying wetting and drying periods are recommended for winter and summer months. Circular DEQ-2 suggests applying the treated wastewater to the cells for 1 to 3 days followed by 4 to 5 days of drying time during summer months. For the winter months, an application period of 1 to 3 days followed by 5 to 10 days of drying is suggested. To remain conservative, the summer application and drying periods are assumed to be 3 and 5 days, respectively. The winter application period is 3 days and the drying period is 10 days. Based on the calculated maximum allowable application rate of 1,571,000 gpd per IP bed and the assumed application and drying periods, the allowable average day discharge to each of the IP beds in the summer is 589,000 gpd and 362,000 gpd in the winter months. With the design TN effluent concentration of 13.5 mg/l, the average day TN loading to each bed in the summer months is estimated at 66.5 ppd and 40.9 ppd in the winter months. This is in accordance with the current ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-7 B16-048 permit’s limits on maximum average day loading per month. Calculations provided in Appendix 5. 5.3.2 Agronomic Rates Design agronomic rates were calculated assuming a TN effluent concentration of 13.5 mg/l. Precipitation and evaporation data was downloaded from the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport’s weather station. Soil data was taken from the Web Soil Survey provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS. Crop uptake values utilized in the Morrison Maierle, Inc. 2002 design were assumed for the future agronomic rates. Table 5-5 summarizes the design agronomic rates; detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 5. Table 5-5 Design Agronomic Rates Month Irrigation Days Application Rate (inches) May 15 6.73 June 30 13.73 July 31 19.11 August 31 17.76 September 15 9.15 The maximum allowable average day disposal rates to the irrigation system are defined below in Table 5-6. These rates were calculated based on the 117 acres of irrigation land currently available to the City and the irrigation days and agronomic rates defined in Table 5-5. Table 5-6 Design Irrigation Flow Rates Month Rate (inches) (gallons) (gpd) May 6.73 21,382,930 1,425,529 June 13.73 43,623,718 1,454,124 July 19.11 60,717,353 1,958,624 August 17.76 56,428,058 1,820,260 September 9.15 29,071,888 1,938,126 October 0.00 0 0 Annual 66.48 211,223,946 1,731,344 5.4 Miscellaneous Concerns regarding large water surface areas were expressed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Gallatin County Airport in response to the 1998 Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan. A Facility Plan Amendment was published in 2000 to address concerns with the surface water attracting water fowl to the area. An elevated waterfowl population increases the risk of aircraft strikes. To minimize these risks, efforts are to ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Future Design Criteria and Conditions April 2018 Page 5-8 B16-048 be taken to limit the total water surface area of any of the proposed improvements under consideration. Additionally, all improvements will comply with all applicable state and federal regulations. All final designs will abide by Montana Public Works Standard Specifications and generally accepted engineering practices. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-1 B16-048 6.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Chapter 6 identifies the recommended sewer collection system improvements for both future development and existing infrastructure. This chapter estimates demands in areas of future growth, proposes improvements to serve future growth, and evaluates the impacts to existing infrastructure. Calculations are provided in Appendix 6. In addition, the chapter will summarize existing deficiencies in the collection system. All recommendations were prepared prior to June 2017 and may not reflect recent construction or development in the planning regions. 6.1 FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The areas of future growth between the City limits and planning boundary were identified and delineated through discussions with City personnel and by reviewing property ownership and aerial imagery. Seven future planning regions were delineated and referenced to develop design flow rates, gravity trunk main sizing, lift station location, and force main diameter. Table 6-1 presents the nominal capacity of gravity mains at DEQ-required minimum slopes and at two flow depths. No costs were developed for the planning regions since, in most cases, it is difficult to predict when the development will occur and how costs may be distributed between the City and the developer. Table 6-1 Gravity Sewer Capacity at Minimum Slope Sewer Diameter DEQ Minimum Slope (ft/ft) City Design Criteria 75% Full 90% Full Flow Rate (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Rate (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) 6-inches 0.0060 178 2.5 210 2.4 8-inches 0.0040 313 2.5 369 2.4 10-inches 0.0028 474 2.4 560 2.3 12-inches 0.0022 684 2.4 807 2.3 15-inches 0.0015 1,024 2.3 1,208 2.3 18-inches 0.0012 1,489 2.3 1,757 2.3 21-inches 0.0010 2,051 2.4 2,419 2.3 The planning regions do not include all parcels between the City limits and the future planning boundary. Figure 6-1 identifies the planning regions and the zoning. Property owned by the Gallatin Airport Authority (GAA), labeled in Figure 6-1, is not included in the planning regions; future development on GAA property will be accomplished through private wastewater conveyance. Finally, parcels exist within the planning area that were previously developed as private homes, businesses, or subdivisions. It is not expected that land owners would pay to connect to the City’s system considering their previous investment in DEQ-approved private water and sewer systems. The design peak hour flow for each future development region was estimated by applying the City’s design standards and the mapped zoning. Lift station and force main sizing was based on peak hours flows. Gravity mains were sized using the City’s “75% full” standard at the design peak hour flow; during design, gravity mains should be designed based on their contributing tributary area, not the peak hour flow in the planning region. Sewer main are conceptual ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-2 B16-048 and represent the sewer interceptors in the planning regions; smaller collector mains were not considered in this Master Plan. Calculations are provided in Appendix 6. Pipe sizing is not intended to be final; local conditions, primarily topography and final routing, may affect gravity main sizing and should be considered during design. 6.1.1 Northwest Planning Region The northwest region consists of multiple parcels totaling 523 acres. The parcels are located west and north of the Cruiser Lift Station. The region is zoned for M-1, BP-10, BP, R-2, and R-3. The estimated peak hour flow, calculated from the mapped zoning, is 2,024 gpm; however, unlike the other planning regions, significant preparation for improvements in the region is already underway. As a result of those efforts, a local design flow was estimated from design reports for two proposed subdivisions and conservative zoning changes not depicted in Figure 6-1. In addition, the planning efforts include provisions to receive wastewater from the existing Cruiser Lift Station. The resulting ultimate design flow in the northwest planning region is 2,664 gpm (3.83 MGD). The ultimate design flow calculations are provided in Appendix 6. Preliminary planning efforts in the northwest region propose the following improvements: • A Northwest Regional Lift Station which would receive wastewater from the planning region and the Cruiser Lift Station. • A temporary lift station in the Henson subdivision, north of Cruiser Lane, to serve the Henson Phase I subdivision. The station would eventually be abandoned after construction of the Northwest Regional Lift Station. • Improve the Cruiser Lift Station according to the recommendations in Chapter 3 and install a short force main to facilitate conveyance to the Northwest Regional Lift Station. • The recommended gravity trunk main, assuming minimum DEQ slopes, is 27 inches in diameter. • The recommended force main from the Northwest Regional Lift Station is 12 inches in diameter. The description and analysis of future wastewater infrastructure in the northwest planning region are more detailed than other planning areas as a result of independent studies prepared by TD&H Engineering and developer consultants. The following sections provide background information from those efforts and summarize the status of the planned improvements. Preliminary planning documents from the subdivision developers, the City, and TD&H are provided in Appendix 6. Figure 6-2 presents an overview of the planning region and the proposed improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-1 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA PLANNING REGIONS B16-048 2017-06-20 .DWG 6-1 CEVJ CEVJ/DDN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND ZONING INDEX J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-1.dwg, 6/20/2017 3:55:30 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-2 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA NORTHWEST PLANNING REGION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B16-048 2018-03-09 .DWG 6-2 CJS CEVJ/DDN [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com Engineering 234 E. BABCOCK ST., SUITE 3 • BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING INDEX NORTHWEST PLANNING REGION J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-2.dwg, 3/9/2018 3:13:02 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-5 B16-048 6.1.1.1 Proposed Subdivisions The northwest planning region includes two proposed subdivisions: Henson and DLM/Prescott. Preliminary documents indicate the Henson subdivision will be constructed in three phases. As mentioned in Chapter 3, new gravity mains, a lift station, and force main are planned for the Henson Phase I subdivision. The gravity mains and lift station are intended to serve Phase I of the new subdivision; however, the new force main will be sized to accommodate the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station. Construction of the Henson Phase I improvements are expected to begin in June 2017; however, at the time of this report preparation, final design of the new force main is not complete. The peak hour design flow in the Henson Phase I subdivision is 175 gpm (0.25 MGD). The DLM/Prescott subdivision is currently in the planning stages. Design flows submitted by the developer indicate aggressive growth in the subdivision, resulting in peak hour flows of 705 gpm (1.02 MGD) at full buildout. 6.1.1.2 Northwest Regional Lift Station The proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station is expected to eventually replace the Henson Phase I Lift Station. An analysis of the proposed regional lift station capacity was completed by TD&H Engineering exclusive of this Master Plan; however, at the time, the “event log” analysis was not complete at the Cruiser Lift Station, so the nominal pump capacity was assumed to equal the peak hour flow. Those preliminary calculations should be revised to account for the updated ultimate peak hour flow, or 2,664 gpm. A submersible triplex station with three identical pumps is proposed. Based on the new peak hour flow, each pump should convey 1,335 gpm. Triplex stations require larger wet wells and valve vaults to accommodate the piping and pumps. It is recommended to construct a controls/generator building to house the backup generator and control panels. 6.1.1.3 Cruiser Lift Station Improvements In addition to the repairs and improvements recommended at the Cruiser Lift Station in Chapter 3, the station will eventually require a redesign to convey wastewater to the Northwest Regional Lift Station. It is proposed to minimize the size of any new pumps by redirecting the Cruiser Lift Station flows to a new 12-inch gravity main in Jackrabbit Lane. A short 6-inch force main is necessary to elevate raw wastewater and permit gravity flow to the proposed regional lift station. Originally, it was proposed to abandon the Cruiser Lift Station in favor of conveying all the flows by gravity to the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station; however, the sewer manholes in the vicinity were recently revealed to be quite deep. Sections of piping are 13 to 15 feet below grade. It may not be feasible to design and construct deep gravity mains from Cruiser Lane to the proposed location of the Northwest Regional Lift Station; therefore, it is proposed to install new pumps and force main to discharge to a manhole a short distance from the Cruiser Lift Station in Jackrabbit Lane. Coordinating the design and construction of the various components at the Cruiser Lift Station and the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station will require cooperation between ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-6 B16-048 developers and the City. In the interim, the City will be required to continue to maintain and repair the Cruiser Lift Station until the new regional lift station is operational. 6.1.1.4 Impacts to Existing Infrastructure Development in the northwest planning region will affect the Cruiser Lift Station, the 10- inch force main in Dry Creek Road, and the Outfall Sewer. The capacity of the Outfall Sewer is discussed in the following sections. The 10-inch force main will exceed recommended velocities when the Northwest Regional Lift Station is constructed. The velocity is estimated at greater than 10 ft/sec, above both DEQ’s and the EPA’s maximum velocity recommendations. It is recommended to request a deviation from Montana DEQ; however, if a deviation is not granted, then the force main must be upsized. Effects to the Cruiser Lift Station were previously discussed. 6.1.2 Northeast Planning Region The northeast planning region consists of a single 82-acre parcel located north of the Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision. The parcel is zoned as R-1 and the estimated peak hour flow is 308 gpm. The ground generally slopes to the north; sewer flows can be expected to flow by gravity to the existing Ryen Glenn Lift Station. An 8-inch trunk main will be necessary to convey ultimate buildout flows to the lift station. The length of the trunk main will vary depending on the configuration of future growth or subdivision; however, the length could range from 1,500 LF to 2,500 LF. Smaller collector gravity mains will also be required throughout the planning region. Figure 6-3 presents the proposed improvements in the planning region. Development in the northeast planning region will affect the Ryen Glenn Lift Station and force main. These impacts will be discussed in Section 6.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-3 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA NORTHEAST AND EAST PLANNING REGIONS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B16-048 2018-03-09 .DWG 6-3 CJS CEVJ/DDN [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com Engineering 234 E. BABCOCK ST., SUITE 3 • BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 ZONING INDEX NORTHEAST PLANNING REGION EAST PLANNING REGION EAST PLANNING REGION 2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-3.dwg, 3/9/2018 3:17:28 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-8 B16-048 6.1.3 East Planning Regions The east planning regions are located south of the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision, adjacent to Gallatin Airport Authority property. The east regions are divided by GAA property: East Region 1 is 155 acres with a peak hour flow of 456 gpm (0.66 MGD) and East Region 2 is 125 acres with a peak hour flow of 402 gpm (0.58 MGD). The areas are zoned for R-1, R-2, R-3, PL-1, and M- 1; the total peak hour flow is 858 gpm (1.24 MGD). According to the USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), the east regions are located upgradient from both the Meadowlark Ranch and Ryen Glenn Estates subdivisions; therefore, it is proposed to route both regions to the Meadowlark Ranch sewer system. A 10-inch diameter trunk main is proposed to convey flows from East Region 2 to East Region 1, at approximately 7,400 LF. The trunk main diameter should be increased to 15 inches, for approximately 4,500 LF, to convey both east regions to the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision. The anticipated improvements in the planning region are presented in Figure 6-3. Development in the east region will affect infrastructure in both the Meadowlark Ranch and Ryen Glenn Estates subdivisions. The existing sewer infrastructure in the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision was designed to accommodate full build-out of the 430 subdivision lots and not necessarily from future development outside City limits. The gravity main connecting the east planning regions and the Meadowlark Lift Station must be upsized to at least a 15-inch main to accommodate the design peak hour flow in the planning region. In addition, the pumping capacity at the station is not sufficient for full build-out of the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision plus the peak flow from the east planning regions. The capacity should be increased to be equal to the peak hour flow from both areas, or: 283 gpm + 858 gpm = 1,141 gpm. The force main should be upsized to an 8-inch diameter pipe, resulting in a force main velocity of 7.3 ft/sec. Impacts to the Ryen Glenn lift station and force main will be discussed in Section 6.2 in conjunction with impacts from the northeast region; however, some of the gravity mains in the subdivision will be affected by development in the east planning region. The 8-inch gravity main which conveys flows from the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision to the Ryen Glenn Lift Station does not have sufficient capacity for the estimated peak hour flow; an 18-inch gravity main is necessary to convey the peak hour demand when flowing half full. 6.1.4 Southeast Planning Region The southeast planning region consists of several parcels south of Interstate 90. The 295-acre area is zoned B-2 and M-1, resulting in a peak hour flow of 750 gpm (1.08 MGD). The region generally slopes to the north and northeast and is not near any existing sewer infrastructure. The topography indicates it is not feasible to convey the flows to the existing SID #78 Lift Station by gravity; rather, it is proposed to convey flows from the southeast region through a new trunk main under Interstate 90. The proposed crossing would be near the recently-constructed East Belgrade Interchange – North (UPN 5897001). The trunk main would connect to existing sewer mains in Idaho Street and eventually would discharge into the sewer vault in Dry Creek Road. A single 15-inch gravity main can convey the design flow at the City’s design criteria; however, it may be necessary to install two smaller, parallel mains under the interstate, similar to the existing crossing. It may be possible to install the proposed sewer main under the I-90 bridge on Alaska Road; all crossing options should be evaluated during design and should consider MDT right-of- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-9 B16-048 way concerns and accessibility. Figure 6-4 presents the proposed improvements in the southeast planning region. Development in the southeast planning region will impact the existing 8-inch gravity mains in Idaho Street and Yellowstone Avenue. For planning purposes, the residential flows contributing to the existing sewer main in Idaho Street can be considered negligible; therefore, it is proposed to upsize the existing main to 15-inches to accommodate the peak hour flow from the planning region. Future flows in the southwest planning region will also affect the existing north-south 21- inch trunk main and the outfall sewer. The capacities of the trunk main and outfall sewer are discussed in Section 6.2. 6.1.5 South Planning Region The south planning region consists of 132 acres adjacent to the SID #78 Lift Station planning area. It is zoned for B-2 and M-1, resulting in a peak hour flow of 445 gpm (0.64 MGD). It is proposed to connect the south planning region to existing or future sewer mains in the SID #78 planning area; flows from the south planning region would be conveyed across the interstate by the SID #78 Lift Station. A 10-inch gravity trunk main could convey the flows to the south extents of the SID #78 gravity system. The existing 8-inch mains which convey SID #78 flows to the north should be upsized to at least 10-inch pipes. Figure 6-5 presents the proposed improvements. Growth in the south region will also affect the existing I-90 crossing, the 21-inch trunk main, and the outfall sewer. The impacts to these pipes are discussed in Section 6.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-4 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA SOUTHEAST PLANNING REGION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B16-048 2018-03-09 .DWG 6-4 CJS CEVJ/DDN [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com Engineering 234 E. BABCOCK ST., SUITE 3 • BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 ZONING INDEX SOUTHEAST PLANNING REGION LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED SOUTH PLANNING REGION SID #78 FUTURE PLANNING AREA J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-4.dwg, 3/9/2018 4:07:51 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-5 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA SOUTH PLANNING REGION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B16-048 2018-03-09 .DWG 6-5 CJS CEVJ/DDN [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com Engineering 234 E. BABCOCK ST., SUITE 3 • BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 ZONING INDEX SOUTH PLANNING REGION LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED SOUTHEAST PLANNING REGION SOUTHWEST PLANNING REGION SID #78 FUTURE PLANNING AREA J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-5.dwg, 3/9/2018 4:18:35 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-12 B16-048 6.1.6 Southwest Planning Region The southwest planning region is located west and south of SID #78. The region includes 709 acres which are zoned for AS, R-1, R-2, and B-2. The design peak hour flow is estimated to be 2,138 gpm (3.08 MGD). The northwest corner of the southwest planning region is at a lower elevation than the existing SID #78 Lift Station; therefore, it is proposed to collect the entire planning region with a 24-inch gravity trunk main and discharge to a new lift station near the intersection of Amsterdam Road and Thorpe Road. Like the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station, the design of the proposed Southwest Regional Lift Station should consider a triplex design. Reference previous Northwest Regional Lift Station discussions for further detail. A new 12-inch force main would convey the flows to either the SID #78 Lift Station or the sewer manhole in Amsterdam Road where the SID #78 force main ends. Discharging to the existing manhole is expected to be the least expensive option. Depending on the development in the Southwest Planning Region, it may be possible to abandon the SID #78 Lift Station by conveying it to the Southwest Regional Lift Station through new gravity mains. If, instead, the new force main discharges to the SID #78 Lift Station, then significant improvements are expected. The SID #78 Lift Station was not designed for flows occurring outside the extents of the SID #78 planning area; therefore, the lift station and force main must be modified to accommodate the additional flows. The new peak hour flow at the SID #78 Lift Station would be: 590 gpm + 2,138 gpm = 2,728 gpm. The proposed peak hour flow is significantly higher than the projected peak hour flow in the SID #78 planning area; significant changes to the wet well and pumps will be necessary to accommodate the new design flow. A triplex lift station, similar to the proposed Northwest and Southwest Regional Lift Stations, is likely warranted; however, the existing wet well dimensions are unlikely to accommodate three larger pumps. The force main from the existing station must be upsized to 12-inch diameter to maintain velocities below 8 ft/sec under ultimate buildout conditions. All alternatives should be considered when development in the Southwest Planning Region begins to determine the most cost-effective alternative for the City. Development in the southwest planning region will affect the SID #78 Lift Station, 6-inch force main, the I-90 crossing, the 21-inch trunk main, and the outfall sewer. Impacts to the interstate crossing and trunk mains are discussed in Section 6.2. Figure 6-6 presents the proposed improvements in the southwest planning region, including the new lift station. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 6-6 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA WEST AND SOUTHWEST PLANNING REGIONS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS B16-048 2018-03-09 .DWG 6-6 CJS CEVJ/DDN [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com Engineering 234 E. BABCOCK ST., SUITE 3 • BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 ZONING INDEX SOUTHWEST PLANNING REGION WEST PLANNING REGION LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED SOUTH PLANNING REGION SID #78 FUTURE PLANNING AREA J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 6-6.dwg, 3/9/2018 4:26:01 PM, CEJ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-14 B16-048 6.1.7 West Planning Region The final planning region, the west region, is the smallest at just 37 acres. It is zoned for M-2 and B-2, resulting in a peak hour design flow of 99 gpm. The region appears to slope to the north with a potential point of connection into one of two existing sewer mains near West Madison Avenue. North of the street, an 8-inch sewer flows from the Town Pump to the Jackrabbit Lift Station. South of West Madison Avenue, an existing 8-inch sewer main near the Albertsons grocery store conveys flows to a 10-inch crossing under the railroad and Frontage Road. Given the small peak hour flow rate, an 8-inch gravity main is sufficient to convey the flows to either sewer. Figure 6-6 identifies the available connections for a new main in the west planning region. The west planning region and estimated peak hour flow are relatively small, so impacts to the existing gravity mains are not expected to be significant; however, as development occurs, flow monitoring is recommended at key infrastructure such as the Jackrabbit Lift Station and the 10- inch crossing under the Frontage Road. 6.2 IMPACTS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The impacts of development in the planning regions were briefly discussed in Section 6.1; however, only localized impacts were addressed. This section will evaluate the impacts to key crossings, lift stations, and trunk mains caused by full development in the planning regions. Unless otherwise noted, recommended improvements should not be initiated until they are needed. Impacts to existing infrastructure will be analyzed based on flow estimates referencing the City’s zoning mapping and associated unit flow criteria. Flow rates calculated based on this methodology are expected to be conservative, especially for existing development, and essentially represent ultimate buildout. It is impractical to accurately predict the rate of development or buildout date for any developed area. As a result, scheduling infrastructure needs to serve future development provides no beneficial value. Although wastewater design flows in developed and undeveloped basins are estimated in accordance with current City zoning, acreage, and per capita daily design criteria, the outfall sewer capacity will be evaluated relative to the 20-year design flow presented in Chapter 5: 5.511 MGD or 3,827 gpm. Differentiating localized design standards from comprehensive collection system conditions accounts for attenuation of sewage flow through the miles of piping and eliminates the overconservative nature of applying criteria meant for individual developments. More simplistically, this approach essentially considers the trunk main an extension of the Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant. 6.2.1 Ryen Glenn Lift Station and Force Main The peak hour design capacity of the Ryen Glenn Lift Station was intended to accommodate full development of both the Ryen Glenn Estates and Meadowlark Ranch subdivisions, or a peak hour flow of 520 gpm. The estimated peak hour flows in the northeast and east planning regions are 308 gpm, 456 gpm, and 402 gpm. The estimated future peak hour flow contributing to the Ryen Glenn Lift Station is calculated in Table 6-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-15 B16-048 Table 6-2 Ryen Glenn Lift Station Design Flow Location Peak Hour Flow Ryen Glenn Estates & Meadowlark Ranch 520 gpm (0.75 MGD) Northeast Planning Region 308 gpm (0.44 MGD) East 1 Planning Region 456 gpm (0.66 MGD) East 2 Planning Region 402 gpm (0.58 MGD) Total 1,686 gpm (2.43 MGD) The future peak hour flow rate is more than triple the existing pumping capacity of 520 gpm. As development in the planning regions occurs, the Ryen Glenn Lift Station will be insufficient. The station should be re-evaluated and upsized as contributing flows near the current station capacity. Larger flows will require larger pumps, motors, and increased emergency power capacity. Under the future peak hour flow, the velocity in the existing 8-inch force main would be 10.8 ft/sec. Montana DEQ allows a maximum velocity of only 8 ft/sec and the EPA recommends that the velocity not exceed 10 ft/sec; therefore, it is recommended to upsize the force main to at least 10 inches. The velocity in a 10-inch force main with 1,686 gpm is 6.9 ft/sec. 6.2.2 Existing Interstate 90 Crossing As discussed in Chapter 3, the capacity of the existing I-90 crossing is 1,850 gpm at 75%-full flow and 2,030 gpm at full pipe flow. According to design drawings, the existing dual 12-inch pipes slope at 0.444%. Two planning regions are proposed to contribute flow to the crossing: south and southwest. The crossing currently serves SID #78 and the future planning area surrounding the SID. The estimated peak hour flow which could contribute to the crossing includes full development of the SID #78 planning area, the south planning region, and the southwest planning region. Table 6-3 summarizes the peak hour demands contributing to the crossing. Table 6-3 Existing Interstate 90 Crossing Design Flow Location Peak Hour Flow SID #78 Future Planning Area 590 gpm South Planning Region 445 gpm Southwest Planning Region 2,138 gpm Total 3,173 gpm The capacity of the existing crossing is not sufficient for full development of the planning regions and SID #78. To meet the City’s design policy, a single 21-inch pipe, sloping at 0.444%, would be necessary to convey the peak hour flow. Depending on the site conditions, it may be necessary to upsize the existing 12-inch pipes or to add a third pipe. If significant development is proposed in the planning regions, it is recommended to monitor the flow conveyed by the existing crossing and to evaluate whether sufficient cover and space exist to upsize the existing crossing. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-16 B16-048 6.2.3 East Interceptor As discussed in Chapter 3, the theoretical maximum capacity of the 21-inch diameter east interceptor is 2,419 gpm or 2,050 gpm at 75%-full flow. Development in the southeast, south, and southwest planning regions will all contribute new wastewater flows to the east interceptor. The existing flow contributing to the east interceptor was conservatively estimated by examining the zoning in the area north of I-90. The contributing area is approximately 203 acres with a peak hour flow of 925 gpm. Calculations are provided in Appendix 6. The total flow contributing to the interceptor is calculated in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 East Interceptor Design Flow Location Peak Hour Flow Existing Service Area North of Interstate 90 925 gpm SID #78 Future Planning Area 590 gpm Southeast Planning Region 750 gpm South Planning Region 445 gpm Southwest Planning Region 2,138 gpm Total 4,848 gpm (7.0 MGD) The peak flow which will contribute to the interceptor is significant. As previously discussed, the peak hour flows estimated from the City’s zoning methodology are conservative and result in higher flows than the population analysis documented in Chapter 5. The peak hour demand presented in Table 6-4 is approximately 1.5 MGD higher than the projected 20-year design peak hour flow for the outfall pipe and wastewater treatment plant. The capacity of the existing 21-inch interceptor, at full flow, is clearly inadequate for the conservative peak hour flow of 7.0 MGD. If a new pipe were installed parallel to the existing interceptor, assuming both pipes were flowing no more than 75% full and at minimum slopes, a 27-inch diameter main would be required. Given the conservative nature of the estimated peak hour flow contributing to the east interceptor, it is recommended to implement flow monitoring as development is proposed in the interceptor’s contributing area. Establishing a baseline flow for existing development will provide more accurate data toward assessing the existing gravity main and scheduling improvements. 6.2.4 Outfall Sewer The existing 21-inch outfall sewer is a critical component in the gravity collection system. As discussed in Chapter 3, the full flow capacity of the outfall sewer is 3.24 MGD (2,250 gpm). It will convey all wastewater flows from the City except those originating east of the Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant: Ryen Glenn Estates subdivision, Meadowlark Ranch subdivision, northeast planning region, and east planning regions. The projected design peak hour flow, presented in Chapter 5, is 5.511 MGD, and includes the entire City of Belgrade. Table 6-2 presented the peak hour flow rates that will not contribute to the outfall sewer: 1,686 gpm (2.43 MGD). Therefore, the estimated peak hour flow which will be conveyed by the outfall sewer is equal to: 5.511 MGD – 2.43 MGD = 3.08 MGD The estimated peak hour design flow of the outfall sewer is 3.08 MGD, or below the full flow capacity of the 21-inch piping. While the analysis indicates the sewer should not reach full capacity during the planning period, it is recommended to monitor the sewer flows over time. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-17 B16-048 The flow meter, currently located in the weir box, reports flows from both the outfall sewer and Ryen Glenn Lift Station. When the influent meter indicates the peak hour flow to the wastewater treatment plant is equal to the capacity of the outfall sewer and the pump capacity at Ryen Glenn, the outfall sewer should be reassessed. According to the nominal pump capacity at Ryen Glenn, the target flow rate is: 0.75 MGD + 3.24 MGD = 3.99 MGD 6.3 EXISTING DEFICIENCIES Several deficiencies were identified within the collection system and lift stations in Chapter 3. Recommended improvements ranged from minor repairs to major replacement. The following sections will summarize the recommended improvements and any available alternatives. Planning level construction cost estimates were prepared for the lift station improvements in 2017. Costs have been adjusted for inflation with the Engineering News-Record (ENR) 20-City Construction Cost Index. The average inflation rate during the past five years, according to the ENR, is 3.0%. 6.3.1 Collection System The physical condition of the collection system is generally good; City personnel did not report any major issues except at the RV dump stations. In the past, the City has been required to repair pumps and equipment at the Jackrabbit Lift Station after a flexible drain hose entered the sewer system. It is recommended that the City consider the solutions presented in Chapter 3 and implement City standards for future RV dump stations to minimize the chance of hoses or debris entering the City sewer system. Various deficiencies reported in the 1998 Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities Plan have not been addressed including replacement of clay tile pipe and disconnecting a storm drain inlet which discharges to the sewer system. The 1998 report indicates the clay tile pipe is in the vicinity of North Quaw Boulevard, North Kennedy Street, West Central Avenue, and West Main Street. It is recommended that the clay tile pipe, if it remains, be replaced. In addition, the storm drain inlet which is reportedly connected to the sewer system, location unknown, should be disconnected. No increases to the City’s operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are anticipated from the proposed improvements. 6.3.2 Lift Station Jackrabbit The Jackrabbit Lift Station is nearly at capacity, yet appears to be in relatively good working condition. The recommended improvements include cleaning the valve vault floor drain, modify the level alarms to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements, enable flow measurement and reporting capabilities, install transducer protection from turbulent inflow conditions and replace the level transducer. The recommendations are considered maintenance and could be completed by City staff; however, a construction cost estimate has been prepared for the work to provide a conservative budget. Table 6-5 presents the proposed construction budget assuming a bid date of 2018. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-18 B16-048 Table 6-5 Jackrabbit Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 2,100.00 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Clean Wet Well 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Remove and Replace Level Measurement System 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Perforated 8" PVC Pipe Stilling Basin 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Stainless Steel Stilling Basin Supports 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Flush Valve Vault Floor Drain 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Pump Control Modifications 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 5,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 43,600.00 Contingency 15% $ 6,540.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 50,140.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 12,535.00 Total $ 62,675.00 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 1,880.25 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 65,000.00 Replacing the pressure transducer and installing a stilling basin will require bypass pumping. Several gravity mains discharge into the wet well, therefore bypass piping will be a significant expense and effort. The proposed improvements are not expected to increase City O&M costs. The budgetary 2018 construction cost is $65,000. 6.3.3 Lift Station Cruiser The condition of the Cruiser Lift Station has deteriorated in the past few years. Major issues include excessive pump run times, aging equipment, and lack of a backup power supply. The peak hour flow to the station also currently exceeds the pumping capacity. Repair or replacement of the lift station was recommended in Chapter 3. As mentioned in Section 6.1, work at the Cruiser Lift Station will be affected by improvements in the northwest planning region. Several alternatives are available to remediate the Cruiser Lift Station: Alternative LS2-1: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Existing Force Main, Alternative LS2-2: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Northwest Regional Lift Station, and Alternative LS2-3: Abandon Lift Station and Reconstruct Gravity Mains to Northwest Regional Lift Station. Each alternative is evaluated below. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-19 B16-048 6.3.3.1 Alternative LS2-1: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Existing Force Main Alternative LS2-1 would allow the City to implement repairs and improvements at the Cruiser Lift Station more quickly than either of the other alternatives. The work would not be dependent on the construction of the Northwest Regional Lift Station; therefore, the pump and wet well design would be based on discharging to the existing 10-inch force main in Dry Creek Road. Increased pumping capacity is recommended to accommodate the peak hour flow calculated in Chapter 3. All aspects of the lift station would be modified to meet current Circular DEQ-2 standards including installing an emergency generator. The existing site may not be sufficient to construct a generator building. As a result, the station footprint and associated security fencing should be increased within City right-of- way. Table 6-6 presents a budgetary construction cost estimate to repair the Cruiser Lift Station. While Alternative LS2-1 would allow the City to implement repairs to the Cruiser Lift Station independent of development in the northwest planning region, the alternative is not compatible with the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station. The Northwest Regional Lift Station is proposed to connect to the 10-inch force main in Cruiser Lane and Dry Creek Road. At that time, the hydraulic conditions at the Cruiser Lift Station are expected to change. The adjustment may be sufficient to affect the operation of the pumps and motors, requiring different equipment and additional capital costs to adapt the lift station to the new hydraulic conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-20 B16-048 Table 6-6 Cruiser Lift Station - Alternative LS2-1 Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 21,000.00 Temporary Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 Demo Piping and Appurtenances in Wet Well 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Clean and Refurbish Concrete Wet Well 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Install Valve Vault Drain 1 LS $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 Two Submersible Pumps, Motors, and Accessories 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 6" Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings 50 LF $ 160.00 $ 8,000.00 Miscellaneous Pipe Supports 1 LS $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 Remove and Replace Level Measurement System 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Perforated 8" PVC Stilling Basin 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Stainless Steel Stilling Basin Supports 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Lift Station Site Grading and Restoration 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Bollard 6 EA $ 700.00 $ 4,200.00 Chain Link Fence with Barbed Wire and Gate 160 LF $ 25.00 $ 4,000.00 Gravel Access Road and Parking 135 SY $ 30.00 $ 4,050.00 Geotextile Separation Fabric 135 SY $ 2.00 $ 270.00 Backup Generator and ATS 1 EA $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Electrical Modifications and Upgrades 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 Concrete Housekeeping Pad 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Remove and Replace Controls and Communication 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 40,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 40,000.00 Subtotal $ 429,520.00 Contingency 15% $ 64,428.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 493,948.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 123,487.00 Total (rounded) $ 618,000.00 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 18,540.00 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 640,000.00 The 2018 construction cost is estimated to be $640,000. The proposed changes are not expected to significantly increase City O&M efforts. Some additional tasks associated with maintaining the emergency generator will be required; however, the City’s current efforts to repeatedly repair the Cruiser Lift Station would be eliminated. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-21 B16-048 6.3.3.2 Alternative LS2-2: Repair Lift Station and Discharge to Northwest Regional Lift Station Alternative LS2-2 proposes to implement repairs at the Cruiser Lift Station in conjunction with construction of the Northwest Regional Lift Station. The alternative would address the deficiencies at the lift station; however, the work would necessitate redesigning the pumps and wet well levels to accommodate new hydraulic conditions. A new force main would convey flows from the lift station to a manhole north of Cruiser Lane, in Jackrabbit Lane. New gravity mains in Jackrabbit Lane would then carry flows north to the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station. Construction costs for Alternative LS2-2 cannot be accurately presented without accounting for costs associated with the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station, new gravity main, and new force main. In addition, the total cost would not be the sole responsibility of the City of Belgrade. Costs would be shared amongst the City and the developers whose projects will contribute wastewater to the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station. 6.3.3.3 Alternative LS2-3: Abandon Lift Station and Reconstruct Gravity Mains to Northwest Regional Lift Station Alternative LS2-3 proposes to abandon the Cruiser Lift Station and redesign the existing gravity sewer mains near the intersection of Cruiser Lane and Jackrabbit Lane. As discussed in Section 6.1, the existing sewer mains and manholes near the lift station are quite deep and it may not be feasible to simply design and construct a new gravity main from Cruiser Lane to the proposed Northwest Regional Lift Station. Based on limited topographical data, it appears the wet well at the Northwest Regional Lift Station would need to be extremely deep and in turn prohibitively expensive to build and operate. In order to abandon the Cruiser Lift Station, the existing gravity mains must be replaced at a shallower depth. Several blocks of reconstruction or replacement may be necessary as it is not apparent whether the sewer mains are deep throughout the Cruiser Lift Station service area. Given the unknowns associated with Alternative LS2-3, it is recommended that the City eliminate it from further consideration; however, if the City strongly prefers to attempt to remove the Cruiser Lift Station from service, then it is recommended that a field investigation be scheduled. Topographic surveying and manhole depth measurements should be collected at sewer manholes surrounding and feeding the wet well to assess the extents of any reconstruction efforts. Limited surveying of the proposed Northwest Regional List Station site is also recommended to confirm elevations relative to the existing gravity main system. 6.3.4 Lift Station Gallatin Farmers The Gallatin Farmers Lift Station only serves one block of commercial properties; however, its condition and functionality have decreased significantly in recent years. The station experiences significant pump run times, is reaching the end of its useful life, and has no backup power supply. The check valves have failed in the past and there may be an issue with industrial dyes and trash entering the station. In addition, the capacity of one pump is significantly less than the other. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-22 B16-048 Prior to any significant efforts at the lift station, it is recommended the City contact local business owners and request they do not dump trash or debris into sewer lines or drains. It is also recommended to investigate the source and effects of the dye which has been observed in the wet well, valve vault, and equipment. If the dye if found to detrimentally affect mechanical equipment and instrumentation or biological activity in the wastewater treatment facility, pretreatment at the source may be necessary. The recommended improvements include either repairing or replacing the station. Replacing the station would be appropriate if the physical condition of the wet well and valve vault are beyond repair. Chapter 3 concluded the concrete structures are in good condition; therefore, it is recommended to repair the Farmers Lift Station rather than replace it. The project should include replacing all mechanical and electrical components including submersible pumps, motors, valves, piping, and controls. A backup power supply will be required; the station appears to be located within City right-of-way, so the generator will probably have to be housed in a weather proof enclosure rather than in a building. The capacity of the station is not expected to increase dramatically; however, the capacity of the pumps should be evaluated during design. The wet well and valve vault should be cleaned, inspected, and repaired or coated, if necessary. Table 6- 7 presents a budgetary construction cost estimate to repair the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-23 B16-048 Table 6-7 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 17,000.00 Temporary Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Demo Piping and Appurtenances in Wet Well 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Clean and Refurbish Concrete Wet Well 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Clean Concrete Valve Vault and Drain 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Two Submersible Pumps, Motors, and Accessories 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 4" Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings 50 LF $ 140.00 $ 7,000.00 Miscellaneous Pipe Supports 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Remove and Replace Level Measurement System 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Perforated 8" PVC Stilling Basin 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Stainless Steel Stilling Basin Supports 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Lift Station Site Grading and Restoration 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Bollard 6 EA $ 700.00 $ 4,200.00 Gravel Access Road and Parking 90 SY $ 30.00 $ 2,700.00 Geotextile Separation Fabric 90 SY $ 2.00 $ 180.00 Backup Generator and ATS 1 EA $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Electrical Modifications and Upgrades 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 Concrete Housekeeping Pad 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Remove and Replace Controls and Communication 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 30,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 30,000.00 Subtotal $ 341,580.00 Contingency 15% $ 51,237.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 392,817.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 98,204.25 Total (rounded) $ 492,000.00 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 14,760.00 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 510,000.00 The budgetary 2018 construction cost is $510,000. The repair project is not expected to increase O&M costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-24 B16-048 6.3.5 Lift Station SID #78/Truck Stop The SID #78 Lift Station has been in operation since 2009 and is generally in good condition. As discussed in Chapter 3, the station has a history of probe errors and questionable pumping frequency. It also does not have a bypass pumping connection. It is recommended to investigate the probe errors by inspecting, cleaning, and calibrating the probe. If the probe is found to be defective, then it should be replaced and a stilling basin installed. Once the probe is repaired or replaced, then the capacity of the pumps should be reassessed to ensure they are operating as designed. Table 6-8 presents a budgetary construction cost to replace the probe, install a stilling basin, and plumb a bypass pumping connection. Table 6-8 SID #78 Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 2,100.00 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Clean Wet Well 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Install Bypass Pumping Connection in Valve Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Remove and Replace Level Measurement System 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Perforated 8" PVC Pipe Stilling Basin 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Stainless Steel Stilling Basin Supports 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Clean Valve Vault Floor Drain 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Pump Control Modifications 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 5,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 43,600.00 Contingency 15% $ 6,540.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 50,140.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 12,535.00 Total $ 62,675.00 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 1,880.25 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 65,000.00 The budgetary 2018 construction cost is $65,000. No change in City O&M costs is expected. 6.3.6 Lift Station Meadowlark/Powers There have been no operational issues reported at the Meadowlark Lift Station. A few deficiencies were revealed in the evaluation documented in Chapter 3 including no emergency bypass pumping connection and a low-level alarm not reporting to the SCADA system. The capacity of the station also appears to be adequate. It is recommended that a bypass pumping connection be installed and that the low-level alarm be activated in the pump controller, if available. In addition, the investigation revealed flow measurement capabilities exist in the control panel. It recommended to enable that function and ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-25 B16-048 report the flows to the SCADA system. These tasks could be completed as City maintenance activities; however, a budgetary construction cost has been prepared for planning purposes. Table 6-9 presents the budgetary cost. Table 6-9 Meadowlark Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 1,600.00 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Clean Wet Well 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Install Bypass Pumping Connection in Valve Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Clean Valve Vault Floor Drain 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Pump Control Modifications 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 5,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 33,100.00 Contingency 15% $ 4,965.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 38,065.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 9,516.25 Total $ 47,581.25 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 1,427.44 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 50,000.00 The budgetary 2018 construction cost is $50,000. No change in City O&M costs is expected. 6.3.7 Lift Station Ryen Glenn/Penwell Bridge The Ryen Glenn Lift Station is less than ten years old and has not experienced any significant operational deficiencies. The assessment in Chapter 3 recommended the following: install a bypass pumping connection, enable station event log reporting to the SCADA system, and complete a draw down test to provide an updated pumping rate in the SCADA records. These tasks are considered maintenance; however, a budgetary construction cost has been prepared for planning purposes. Table 6-10 presents the cost estimate. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Collection System Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 6-26 B16-048 Table 6-10 Ryen Glenn Lift Station Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $ 2,100.00 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Clean Wet Well 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Install Bypass Pumping Connection in Valve Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Clean Valve Vault Floor Drain 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Pump Control Modifications 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 5,000 Units $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 43,600.00 Contingency 15% $ 6,540.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 50,140.00 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $ 12,535.00 Total $ 62,675.00 Inflation (1 year) 3.0% $ 1,880.25 Estimated Future Cost (rounded) $ 65,000.00 The budgetary 2018 construction cost is $65,000. No change in City O&M costs is expected. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-1 B16-048 7.0 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION One of the objectives of this Master Plan is to develop and evaluate various treatment and disposal alternatives and select the most appropriate options for solving the issues facing the BWTP. It is crucial for the recommended improvements to provide a feasible method of meeting applicable design criteria and public health requirements over the design life of the project. Alternatives considered are presented below. Treatment and disposal alternatives are considered in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. A description of each alternative and the rationale for inclusion as a viable option are discussed. Where an alternative is excluded from further consideration, justification for elimination is provided. Feasible alternatives are accompanied by general design description, site map and estimated capital and O&M costs. 7.1 Treatment Alternatives Potential improvements to the City’s existing treatment system are discussed in the sections to follow. An updated treatment system will be required to maintain compliance with state and federal discharge requirements as the City’s population and raw wastewater flows increase with time. 7.1.1 Common Improvements A headworks facility should be included in any treatment system upgrades, regardless of final recommendations. A new headworks should be included upstream of the primary treatment for each alternative presented in this Chapter. The purpose of a new facility is removal of large suspended solids and debris from the raw wastewater prior to primary treatment, ultimately improving the efficiency of the treatment system. Because a headworks facility is included in each of the treatment system alternatives, a standalone construction cost estimate for the headworks facility has been prepared independent of any specific treatment alternative. Table 7-1 summarizes estimated construction costs. This cost estimate details anticipated construction expenses, including undeveloped design details equal to 10% of the construction subtotal, a 15% contingency, and anticipated engineering, administrative, and legal costs. The total estimated project cost for a new headworks facility is $2,662,500. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-2 B16-048 Table 7-1 Headworks Facility Construction Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION COSTS General Conditions Bonding / Insurance / Project Mgmt & Admin / Mobilization $111,500 Site Work Site Prep - Clearing and Grubbing $1,600 Excavation & Backfill $11,000 SUBTOTAL: SITE WORK $12,600 Structural & Architectural Geotech & Foundation Systems $58,000 Building Cost $315,000 Channels & Grit Chamber $70,800 Bridge Cranes and Specialties $100,000 SUBTOTAL: STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL $544,000 Process Equipment & Piping Screens $115,000 $236,900 Washer / Compactor $50,000 $51,500 Grit Equipment $225,000 $231,800 Instrumentation $30,000 $30,900 Influent Flow Sampler $12,000 $12,400 Process Gates, Piping, Flow Control, etc. $57,500 $59,300 Process Pumps $10,000 $10,300 SUBTOTAL: EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $633,100 Mechanical HVAC $9,000 PLUMBING $5,300 SUBTOTAL: MECHANICAL $14,300 Electrical Electrical / Instrumentation & Controls $388,500 SUBTOTAL $1,704,000 Underdeveloped Design Details 10% $170,400 Construction Contingencies 15% $255,600 SUBTOTAL: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,130,000 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL: ADMINISTRATIVE, ENGINEERING AND LEGAL 25% $532,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,662,500 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-3 B16-048 7.1.2 Alternative T-1: No Action This alternative entails allowing the existing treatment system to remain operational without improvements. Based on previously described conversations with City personnel and site inspections, the current treatment plant is experiencing issues such as floating air lines, failing surface aerators and level transducers, and low accuracy inflow measurements. The BWTP is also nearing its design capacity. According to population projections and wastewater production rates previously discussed, the existing plant’s average day design capacity of 903,000 gpd will be exceeded in the year 2023. Analysis performed in Chapter 4 also indicates the existing BWTP is currently at or exceeding its design loading capacity. Finally, to ensure maintained compliance with the City’s existing TN loading limits, supplementary nutrient removal is required. For these reasons, Alternative T-1: No Action is not considered a feasible option for the City and will not be discussed further. 7.1.3 Alternative T-2: Total Retention Lagoons Alternative T-2: Total Retention involves converting the existing aerated lagoons to total retention basins. Total retention lagoons are entirely evaporative systems, and as such, treated wastewater would not be discharged to the existing land application or IP beds. Because no wastewater is discharged from these systems, they are considered to have a number of environmental benefits. Additionally, the O&M tasks and utility costs would be minimal. In order to facilitate sufficient evaporation, total retention lagoons must be shallow with large surface area. Due to the high projected average day flow rates for the City of Belgrade, the required pond size would be excessively large. The proximity of the lagoons to the Bozeman- Yellowstone International Airport limits the allowable water surface area, and as such, total retention is not considered feasible for the City of Belgrade. 7.1.4 Alternative T-3: Facultative Lagoons Facultative lagoons are similar to aerated lagoons in that they rely on the naturally occurring bacteria to treat the impounded wastewater. Prior to the 2004 lagoon upgrades, the BWTP was a system of 4 facultative basins. Because air is not supplied to the lagoons to optimize mixing and oxygen transfer, the biological treatment happens much slower, requiring basin sizing to be much larger. As mentioned with Alternative T-2, the proximity to the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport limits the BWTP available water surface area. Therefore, Alternative T-3: Facultative Lagoons does not comply with design standards and is not a feasible option for the BWTP upgrades. 7.1.5 Alternative T-4: Existing Lagoon Upgrades This alternative involves retaining existing system as is practical, in combination with upgrades to increase the capacity of the treatment system and allow the City to continue meeting allowable effluent limitation. Two sub-alternatives are considered within Alternative T-4, Alternative T-4A: Advanced Aeration with Tertiary Nutrient Removal and Alternative T-4B: Sequencing Batch Reactor with Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoons. Each sub-alternative is detailed in the following sections. These sub-alternatives will allow the treatment plant to remain at the current location. Benefits to upgrading the existing system include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint of secondary treatment, minimal operational complexity, minimal solids handling costs, and available onsite emergency retention. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-4 B16-048 7.1.5.1 Alternative T-4A Advanced Aerated Lagoons with Tertiary Nutrient Removal Alternative T-4A involves retrofitting the existing lagoons to include an advanced aeration system with tertiary nutrient removal. The improvements include replacing the existing aeration equipment with high efficiency fine bubble diffusers. The wastewater will be conveyed from the treatment basins to a series of nitrification and denitrification reactors. The treated wastewater will then be pumped to the storage lagoon for polishing and storage. A process flow diagram (PFD) is provided in Figure 7-1. Descriptions of each process are provided in the sections to follow. Two proprietary processes were referenced for the conceptual planning of Alternative T- 4A: LEMNA Environmental Technologies and Triplepoint Environmental. As a result, a number of options involving thermal regulation, denitrification and final storage are included in this alternative. The available options are described throughout the following sections; estimated capital improvement cost and annual O&M budgets were calculated with conservative assumptions. Should Alternative T-4A be selected for final design, consultation with City staff will be necessary to arrive at a detailed design most beneficial to the City of Belgrade. Proposals from LEMNA and Triplepoint, including preliminary design calculations and product literature, are included in Appendix 7. 7.1.5.1.1 Treatment Lagoons The primary purpose of the treatment lagoons will be BOD removal. High efficiency fine bubble diffusers will replace the existing static tube aerators. These diffusers will optimize both mixing and oxygen transfer to maximize aerobic digestion while minimizing required energy consumption. Preliminary designs provided by both Triplepoint and LEMNA recommend tapered aeration. More aggressive oxygenation and mixing will occur within the first treatment basin, limiting with this system’s available flow patterns. As such, the system will only operate in series; raw wastewater will flow from the new headworks facility to Lagoon then on to Lagoon The parallel flow configuration currently available to the City will no longer be an option. Information provided by LEMNA and Triplepoint indicates between 6,000 scfm and 7,500 scfm of air flow at 5.6 psi to 6.2 psi discharge pressure will be required for the new system. Preliminary calculations estimate the air header pipe will need to be increased from an 18-inch diameter to a minimum size of 20-inches to maintain air velocities below 30 ft/sec. Preliminary calculations are provided in Appendix 7. Four new blowers, three for continuous operation and one for standby, are needed. The existing blowers occupy much of the available space in the existing pump house. Careful planning will be necessary during final design to ensure enough space is provided for the new blowers. Modifications to the existing pump house may result. Additionally, a real-time DO probe connected to a blower variable frequency drive (VFD) is recommended. This VFD will control blower run times based on DO concentrations; ultimately improving the energy efficiency of the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: T-4 PFD NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7-1 FIGURE B16-048 05-17-2017 NMR PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM ALTERNATIVE T-4A: ADVANCED AERATION WITH TERTIARY NUTRIENT REMOVAL BELGRADE, MT BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-6 B16-048 7.1.5.1.2 Nitrification Reactor After initial BOD removal, the impounded wastewater will be conveyed to a series of nitrification reactors for ammonia removal. Nitrification converts ammonia to nitrates and nitrites in oxygen rich environments. The nitrification reactors consist of buried, flow-through concrete basins and include an aeration grid. Additional blowers will be connected to the aeration grid to supply the required oxygen for the reaction. Preliminary calculations, available in Appendix 7, indicate a minimum air header diameter of 10-inches is necessary to maintain acceptable air velocities. A separate blower house or an addition to the existing building will be required as space is limited within the current pump house. Plastic, porous media will be installed in each nitrification reactor to provide ample surface area for the nitrifying bacteria to form colonies. Additionally, the reactors will include an insulated cover to provide thermal regulation and optimize the nitrification process. Figure 7-2 illustrates the channelized, flow through nitrification reactor. 7.1.5.1.3 Denitrification Reactor Following ammonia removal, wastewater will be conveyed to the denitrification reactor for final TN treatment. Denitrification occurs under anoxic conditions and converts nitrates and nitrites to diatomic nitrogen (N2), a non-toxic substance. An external carbon source will be required to act as an electron acceptor for the reaction. An estimated 365 gpd of organic carbon will be required to feed the denitrification reaction. Based on installation of a 5,500-gallon storage tank, carbon materials must be delivered on a 15 day schedule. This storage tank may be housed in a new blower building. A common organic carbon source used by many municipalities is methanol due to its low cost and availability. Methanol is flammable, however, and would require additional capital cost for fire suppression systems and blast walls around the carbon storage. Other options, such as proprietary formulations like MicroC, produced by Environmental Operating Solutions, Inc. are non-flammable and would therefore not require the same level of safety precautions. These proprietary options are more expensive, however, and will cause increased O&M costs. Porous media will be necessary to provide sufficient surface area for the denitrifying heterotrophs to form colonies. A number of denitrification reactor configurations are available. An upflow sand filter or buried flow-through basin are potential choices. Upflow sand filters are common for total nitrogen removal in municipal wastewater treatment. Wastewater is pumped to the top of the sand filter, where it enters the tank and flows down through the feed pipe. The water exits the feed pipe through a distributer and flows up though the filter bed where denitrification occurs. As the wastewater travels through the filter media, used sand travels downward to an air lift pipe. Compressed air will draw the sand upward while scouring it. The clean filter media is discharged from the air lift pipe at the top of the filter and returned to the filter bed. A small portion of the treated wastewater will wash over the filter media prior to the media’s return to the filter bed. This water will rinse off any remaining impurities from the sand and be discharged from the filter through a weir. The treated wastewater will be discharged from the filter at the top of the tank. Preliminary calculations suggest a series of six upflow sand filters, each with an approximate footprint of 100 SF, will be required to ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-7 B16-048 maintain effluent TN concentrations at or below 13.5 mg/l. Additionally, an enclosure around sand filters is recommended to provide thermal regulation, especially in the colder months. A schematic of an upflow sand filter, as shown in the EPA’s Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Denitrifying Filters, is provided in Figure 7-3. Optionally, denitrification may also occur in a buried, channelized concrete basin. The basin would include an insulted cover to provide thermal regulation. Plastic porous media, similar to the media in the nitrification reactors, would be included to allow formation of denitrifying heterotrophic colonies. Preliminary design calculations suggest one 100,000-gallon denitrification basin would produce treated wastewater with TN concentration at or below 13.5 mg/l. This basin would be constructed in the same manner as the channelized, flow through nitrification reactor shown in Figure 7-2. The aeration grid along the bottom would be removed and a carbon source feed pipe would be included. 7.1.5.1.4 Storage Lagoon Wastewater discharged from the denitrification reactor will comply with all design standards discussed in Chapter 5. The treated wastewater will be pumped to the storage lagoon until it can be discharged from the BWTP. Transfer pump details, O&M and capital costs are discussed later within this Alternative T-4. The treated wastewater will be anoxic as it leaves the denitrification reactor; anoxic water is known to cause odor issues. To prevent odors within the storage lagoon, new high efficiency fine bubble diffusers will be installed, replacing the existing surface aerators. The new fine bubble diffusers will extend 2 feet vertically. Available storage will be discussed in greater detail in section 7.2 Disposal Alternatives. The far west portion of Lagoon #3 will not include aeration to provide a quiescent zone for any remaining solids to settle prior to final discharge. ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: T-4 NITRIFICATION BASIN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7-2 FIGURE B16-048 05-17-2017 NMR NITRIFICATION BASIN ALTERNATIVE T-4A: ADVANCED AERATION WITH TERTIARY NUTRIENT REMOVAL BELGRADE, MT BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com ---PAGE BREAK--- QUALITY CHECK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CAD NO. JOB NO. DATE: T-4 UPFLOW SAND FILTER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT ALTERNATIVE T-4: ADVANCED AERATION DENITRIFICATION REACTOR (UPFLOW SAND FILTER) NMR 5-17-2017 B16-048 FIGURE 7-3 Engineering tdhengineering.com ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-10 B16-048 7.1.5.2 Map The retrofitted treatment plant will be constructed within the footprint of the existing lagoons. Each proprietary system referenced for this alternative proposed a different layout for overall treatment system. As a result, two possible treatment plant concept layouts are included. The layout for Alternative T-4A(1) involves retaining Lagoon #1 and #2 as the treatment lagoons. Wastewater will be conveyed to a series of three channelized nitrification reactors and single channelized concrete denitrification reactor. A heat exchanger is included upstream of the nitrification reactors to provide thermal regulation during colder months. Treated wastewater will be pumped to and stored in Lagoon #3 until final discharge. Alternative T-4A(1) is shown in Figure 7-4. The second possible treatment plant layout is described as Alternative T-4A(2). In this option, Lagoon #1 will be the solitary treatment basin. A hydraulic baffle will be included in this option to divide Lagoon #1 into two treatment cells. An insulated cover, rated at R8 will be installed over Lagoon #1 for thermal regulation. Water will be conveyed to a channelized nitrification reactor, followed by six upflow sand filters operated in parallel, for denitrification. The upflow sand filters will be housed in a new building with the carbon source storage and nitrification blowers. Treated wastewater will then be pumped to Lagoons #2 and #3 for storage. Figure 7-5 illustrates Alternative T-4A(2). It should be noted that the components of these two figures are not mutually exclusive. The treatment lagoon aeration system from one option can be used in conjunction with nitrification and denitrification system proposed in the other option. Final configuration will be defined during final design, should Alternative T-4A be selected. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 7-4 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT ALTERNATIVE T-4A: ADVANCED AERATION OPTION T-4A(1) LAYOUT B16-048 04/05/2017 .DWG 7-4 CJS NMR Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 7-4.dwg, 3/27/2018 12:48:34 PM, nmr ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 7-5 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT ALTERNATIVE T-4A: ADVANCED AERATION OPTION T-4A(2) LAYOUT B16-048 04/05/2017 .DWG 7-5 CJS NMR Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 7-5.dwg, 3/27/2018 12:49:36 PM, nmr ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-13 B16-048 7.1.5.3 Other Improvements 7.1.5.3.1 Interpond Piping and Controls The two layout options within this alternative will require different interpond piping. The function and capacity of the Distribution and Bypass pipelines are consistent between the two options. Transfer piping function varies however. Table 7-2 summarizes the design flow rates and the estimated capacities of the piping within each option; calculations are provided in Appendix 7. Pipeline nomenclature is consistent with Figures 7-4 and 7-5. Capacity estimate calculations for each pipeline are described in the following sections. Additionally, some of the existing valves utilized for flow control between ponds will likely need to be modified to control the increased flow. Table 7-2 Alternative T-4A – Interpond Piping Capacities Design Flows Flow Type Flow Rate (gpd) Average Day 1,670,000 Maximum Month 2,404,000 Maximum Day 3,323,000 Peak Hour 5,511,000 Peak Instantaneous 6,997,000 Alternative T-4A(1) Estimated Hydraulic Capacities Pipeline Gravity or Pressurized? Capacity (gpd) Distribution Pipeline Gravity 2,270,000 to 3,940,000 Bypass Pipeline Gravity 3,490,000 Transfer Line B-1 Gravity 2,660,000 Transfer Line C-1 Gravity 5,950,000 Transfer Line D-1(1) Pressurized 2,880,000 Alternative T-4A(2) Estimated Hydraulic Capacities Pipeline Gravity or Pressurized? Capacity (gpd) Distribution Pipeline Gravity 2,270,000 to 3,940,000 Bypass Pipeline Gravity 3,490,000 Transfer Line B-2 Gravity 1,680,000 Transfer Line C-2(2) Gravity 3,180,000 Transfer Line D-2(1) Pressurized 3,312,000 Transfer Line D hydraulic capacity based on an upsized Transfer Pump Estimated capacity based on maximum water level in Lagoon As water level decreases, capacity will increase. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-14 B16-048 The following narrative details interpond piping and capacity relevant to Alternative T-4A(1). Pipe nomenclature is consistent with Figure 7-4. The analysis performed in Chapter 4 indicates the upstream segment of the existing Distribution Pipeline has a capacity of 3.94 MGD. The pipeline diameter and capacity decrease after each valve vault and a fraction of the raw wastewater flow is directed to Lagoon The minimum capacity of the Distribution Pipeline is 2.27 MGD. All sections of the pipeline have adequate capacity to convey the design average day flow and the upstream section pipe segment capacity is larger than the design maximum day flow. For Alternative T-4, the Bypass Pipeline will only be required if Lagoon #1 must be taken off-line for maintenance issues. Calculations performed in Chapter 4 indicate the minimum capacity of the line is 3.49 MGD. This is larger than the maximum day flow, however less than the design peak hour flow rate. Due to the anticipated infrequent use, the existing capacity of the Bypass Pipeline is considered sufficient to manage the design flow rates. For this option, wastewater will no longer flow directly from Lagoon #2 to Rather, discharge from Lagoon #2 will flow through the upstream portion of Transfer Line B to Transfer Line A, where it will be transported to the nitrification reactors. Therefore, for the purposes of this option, Transfer Lines A and B will be combined into one pipeline, known as Transfer Line B-1. Transfer Line B-1 is considered a low head system. Based on ground surface elevations in the area, the water surface elevation of the nitrification reactors is assumed to 4404 feet. The water surface elevation of Lagoon #2 is assumed at 4410.9, the existing lagoons maximum water surface elevation. The number of fittings has been conservatively estimated at 30 to account for a possible heat exchanger. The friction head loss through the pipe is estimated at 3 feet. Based on these assumptions, Transfer Line B-1’s hydraulic capacity is 2.66 MGD. Due to the high volumes and detention times associated with these lagoons, it is assumed that the peak hour and peak instantaneous flows will be attenuated within the basins. Therefore, the capacity of Transfer Line B-1 will be compared against the design maximum month flow rate. The estimated capacity of Transfer Line B-1 is greater than the design maximum month flow by roughly 200,000 gpd; as such, the transfer line is considered adequately sized for this option. Pipeline calculations are available for review in Appendix 7. Transfer Line C-1 will rarely be utilized to convey wastewater to Line B-1 in this option, as the tapered aeration will eliminate the availability of parallel flow. However, the existing pipeline will remain as an emergency overflow should water levels within the existing control structures exceed acceptable levels. Assuming open channel flow, the pipeline has a hydraulic capacity of 5.95 MGD. This pipeline is considered to have sufficient capacity. For Alternative T-4A, Transfer Line D-1 will convey pressurized flow from the denitrification tank to Lagoon It was assumed that the existing Line D would remain; the Transfer Pump was then sized according to existing Line D. The water surface elevation of the denitrification tank is assumed at 4404 feet and Lagoon #3 water surface is equal to the current maximum allowable water elevation, 4415.25 feet. This analysis suggests the Transfer Pump will require ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-15 B16-048 upsizing to pump the projected flows. Preliminary design calculations, available in Appendix 7, calculate the Transfer Pump will need to be sized to provide 2,000 gpm at 40 feet TDH. 7.1.5.3.2 Alternative T-4A(2) Figure 7-5 illustrates Alternative T-4A(2) and required piping. The following section details applicable piping considerations. The Distribution and Bypass Pipeline discussion presented with Alternative T-4A(1) remains applicable for Alternative T-4A(2). For Alternative T-4A(2) wastewater will flow through the existing Transfer Lines C and A to the nitrification tank. For the purposes of this option, these two Transfer Lines will be combined into one line, Transfer Line C-2. Line C-2 is considered a low head system. Water surface elevations for Lagoon #1 and the nitrification tank are assumed to be 4410.9 ft and 4404 ft, respectively. With these assumptions, the capacity of the existing Line C-2 is 3.18 MGD. This is greater than the peak month design flow rate by 780,000 gpd. As discussed previously, the volume and detention time of the treatment lagoons is expected to attenuate the peak instantaneous and peak hour flows and interpond piping must be sized to handle the maximum month flows. The existing line is sufficiently sized to convey the projected flows. Calculations are provided in Appendix 7. Transfer Line D-2 will convey pressurized flow from the denitrification tank to Lagoon As with Alternative T-4A, it was assumed that the existing Line D would remain; and the Transfer Pump was sized accordingly. The water surface elevation of the denitrification tank is assumed at 4404 feet and Lagoon #2 water surface is equal to the current maximum allowable water elevation, 4410.9 feet. These assumptions indicate the Transfer Pump will require upsizing to provide 2,300 gpm at 40 feet TDH. Preliminary design calculations are available in Appendix 7. Finally, Transfer Line B-2 will transport water between the two storage Lagoons in the option. This pipeline is considered a low head system and flow rates are dependent on water levels within the lagoons. For the purposes of capacity determination, it is assumed water level within Lagoon #2 remains constant at 4410.9 ft. At times when the water level within Lagoon #3 is near the level in Lagoon the capacity of Transfer Line B-2 is estimated at roughly 1.68 MDG, roughly 10,000 gpd greater than the projected average day flow. As the water level within Lagoon #3 decreases, the capacity of Transfer Line B increases. At a water surface elevation of 4407 ft in Lagoon the capacity of the pipe is 3.55 MGD, which is significantly greater than the projected design maximum month flow rate. The bottom of Lagoon #3 is at an elevation of 4397 ft. 7.1.5.3.3 HDPE Liner Because of questionable treatment plant influent flow data and the absence of treatment lagoon water level data, confirmation of lagoon leakage is recommended prior to any capital improvement projects. Should leakage be confirmed, liner spot repair will most likely be recommended rather than complete liner replacement due to the high cost of replacement. Research performed by ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-16 B16-048 the Institute indicated exposed HDPE liner has a life expectancy of greater than 36 years. Therefore, the BWTP’s linear could remain effective for another 20 years. 7.1.5.3.4 Sludge Removal and Disposal Removal of accumulated sludge is necessary to install the proposed aeration system. To protect the existing liner, heavy equipment such as a backhoe or frontend loader will not be permitted to remove sludge. Rather, specialty equipment, such as a floating dredge, will be necessary to remove the sludge from the bottom of the lagoon while avoiding further damage to the liner. As mentioned in Chapter 4, an average sludge depth of 1.55 feet was measured in Lagoon #1 during a June 2015 site visit. It is assumed that there are equal sludge depths in Lagoon #1 and Lagoon H&S Environmental estimated the total sludge volume at 5.6 MG. Calculations performed by the design team using the average end area method estimate the total sludge in the treatment ponds at 5.3 MG. Crisafulli Sludge Removal Systems suggests sludge removal will take approximately one month to complete. Correspondence with Crisafulli representatives and available dredge literature is included in Appendix 7. During the 2004 treatment lagoon upgrades, the accumulated sludge was removed from the facultative lagoons and land applied to agricultural fields near the treatment plant. As such, sludge dewatering was not necessary. A number of options are available to dispose of the removed sludge including landfill disposal, composting, surface disposal and land application. Final decisions regarding sludge disposal will be made during final design. The selected sludge disposal method must comply with EPA Part 503 requirements as well as all state and county biosolid disposal regulations 7.1.5.3.5 Miscellaneous Improvements At the request of City staff, Alternative T-4A includes improvements to reduce O&M practices. Relocating the treatment lagoon’s level transducer unit from inside control structure 2 will allow for maintenance work on the unit without staff entering the manhole. Additionally, automatic samplers at the plant’s influent and effluent will decrease the effort required to report pollutant concentration test results to the DEQ. This will be especially beneficial should sampling frequencies increase during the design life of the new plant. Finally, to ensure the City has the most accurate record of lagoon flows, a new volumetric ultrasonic flow meter should be installed in the existing weir box. 7.1.5.4 Design Criteria Circular DEQ-2 outlines design criteria for partially mixed aerated lagoons with controlled discharge. Although this alternative is more accurately classified as a complete mix treatment system, there are no formal DEQ design standards for complete mix aerated lagoons. Conversations with Mr. Terry Campbell from the DEQ’s Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund indicated similar projects in Montana have been reviewed under the partially mixed aerated lagoons standards. Correspondence with Mr. Campbell are provided in Appendix 7. Table 7-3 summarizes these criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-17 B16-048 Table 7-3 Treatment Standards for Partially Mixed Aerated Lagoons With Controlled Discharge Circular DEQ-2 Criteria Standard Location Minimum 1/4 mile from human habitation Groundwater Separation Minimum 4 feet from bottom of pond Bedrock Separation Minimum 10 feet from bottom of pond Number of Aerated Cells 3 Recommended Mode of Aeration Tapered Minimum System Oxygen Requirements 2.5 lbs O2/ lbs BOD Removed Minimum Dissolved Oxygen 2.0 mg/l Depth 10-15 feet Minimum Detention Time Under Aeration 20 days Maximum Seepage Rate 6 inches/year Emergency Storage to Infiltration/ Percolation 30-90 Winter Storage for Irrigation Mixing in Aerated Cells 5-10 HP/MG An annual month-by month water balance must be submitted with each land application plan to determine winter storage All proposed upgrades will meet requirements of the Montana Water Quality Act (MWQA) including the DEQ review and approval of the project plans and specifications in accordance with Circular DEQ-2 standards. Additionally, any treatment upgrades must provide sufficient TN removal to comply with the IP beds’ total nitrogen loading limits set by the City’s groundwater discharge permit. Alternative T-4A has been designed to meet effluent concentration limits discussed in Chapter 5, including 85% TSS and BOD removal and 13.5 mg/l TN. Predicted effluent water quality is summarized in Table 7-4. Table 7-4 Alternative T-4A Estimated Effluent Quality Constituent Effluent Concentration Percent Removal (mg/l) BOD 30.0 93% TSS 30.0 89% TIN 11.0 N/A TN 13.5 N/A Ammonia 2.0 N/A Detailed preliminary design calculations provided by Triplepoint and LEMNA are available in Appendix 7. Option T-4A(1) includes 23.4 days of total detention time in the treatment lagoons. Option T-4A(2) includes a detention time of 12.5 days under aeration. This is under the 20 day detention time standards, however, an insulated cover is included to provide high BOD removal efficiencies. Mr. Terry Campbell of the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-18 B16-048 DEQ and a LEMNA sales representative indicate similar projects have received DEQ approval in the past. 7.1.5.5 Treatment During Construction Careful construction planning would be required for this alternative as the existing BWTP would need to remain operational while the proposed upgrades are installed. Simultaneous construction of individual treatment ponds would not be permitted; one treatment pond must stay on-line at all times. Existing piping would allow each treatment pond to be bypassed for construction. Additionally, the storage lagoon would need to be drained, cleared of all sludge and new aeration equipment installed. Construction would be optimal during the summer when ambient air temperatures are elevated and aerobic digestion will happen most efficiently. Nitrification and denitrification reactors can be installed at any time, as their construction is not expected to affect the existing plant operation. 7.1.5.6 Operations and Maintenance General O&M procedures for the City are not expected to be drastically altered due to Alternative T-4A. Improvements such as an automatic sampler and VFD to control blower run times based on real time DO concentrations will decrease required labor and energy. However, the addition of the nitrification and denitrification reactors will likely increase O&M procedures and costs. The added blowers, possible heat exchanger and use of organic carbon will also add to the overall O&M costs. The following sections detail the anticipated primary changes to the BWTP annual O&M budget. Estimated costs at design conditions are summarized in Table 7-5. Detailed O&M estimate calculations are available in Appendix 7. 7.1.5.6.1 Staffing Requirements Minimal staffing changes are anticipated due to the addition of nitrification and denitrification reactors with blowers and chemical feed. It is difficult to accurately predict future staffing requirements for the City of Belgrade as the existing treatment plant is the largest biological lagoon treatment system in the State. The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately-Owned Table 7-5 Alternative T-4A Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Staffing 3 FTE $60,000 $180,000 Utilities 1 LS $247,000 $247,000 General Maintenance and Repairs 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 Chemical Additives 1 LS $124,500 $124,500 Total Annual O&M Budget $751,500 Real Interest Rate 0.20% Present Worth for 20 Years (rounded to the nearest thousand) $14,719,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-19 B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plants, published by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission was referenced to estimate staffing requirements. The manual estimates 3 full time employees (FTE) will be needed to run and maintain the new treatment plant. Detailed estimates are included in Appendix 7. At an hourly rate of $30 to include salary, insurance and payroll taxes, $60,000 per year per FTE is needed for staffing costs. 7.1.5.6.2 Carbon Source The required denitrification carbon source will elevate the annual O&M costs further. An estimated 365 gpd of organic carbon will be fed into the denitrification reactors. Proprietary formulations like MicroC cost about $2.10 per gallon; this would equate to an annual chemical cost for the City of $279,773. Although methanol would require additional safety precautions, unit costs would be approximately $1.30 per gallon. This results in an annual chemical cost of $173,192 at design conditions. For the purposes of budgetary O&M costs, the required carbon feed cost has been based on the cost of the methanol. Should the City elect to go with a proprietary formula, O&M cost could increase by $100,000 per year. For the sake of comparison, current average day flow is estimated at 716,737 gpd, requiring 157 gpd of organic carbon for denitrification. At $1.30 for methanol, the annual O&M cost for a carbon sources assuming current conditions is $75,000. For the purposes of preliminary planning, the average annual cost of the required carbon assuming full build out and current conditions, $124,000, will be used for budgetary O&M costs. 7.1.5.6.3 Energy Consumption Power will need to be supplied to the blowers, transfer pump and potentially a heat exchanger. Alternative T-4A requires all impounded wastewater to be pumped from the denitrification reactor to the storage lagoon; gravity flow will no longer be possible. Power consumption of the Transfer Pump will increase as a result of this alternative. Conversations with Industrial Solutions Inc. sales representatives suggest a 40 HP motor will be required. The pump size is estimated at 2,000 gpm (2.88 MGD). The design average day flow is 1.67 MGD, or 58% of the design pump capacity. It is estimated that the pump will run for 14 hours per day at design capacity (24 hrs/day * 58%=14 hrs/day). Assuming an electrical cost of $0.10 per kW-hr, the estimated annual cost of the Transfer Pump is $15,300. Blower energy costs were estimated based on preliminary designs provided by both Triplepoint and LEMNA. Daily blower run times were approximated based on minimum required power and the design blower motor. For example, the minimum required motor size for the treatment lagoons, according the Triplepoint calculations, is 252 HP. Triplepoints’ preliminary design suggests 3-100 HP blowers for a total blower power to the treatment ponds of 300 HP; the required HP is 84% of the design power. Therefore, it is estimated that the treatment lagoon blowers will run 20.16 hours/day (24 hr/day * 84%) at design conditions. This process was repeated for the nitrification reactor and storage lagoon blowers for both the LEMNA and Triplepoint systems. The resulting annual ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-20 B16-048 energy requirement for the blowers at design conditions is between 2,600,000 kW-hr and 3,300,000 kW-hr. This equates to an annual electricity cost at design conditions of $260,000 to $330,000. For comparison purposes, blower power consumption was also calculated for current conditions. It was assumed that blower run times are proportional to flow rate. The current average day flow of 716,737 gpd is 43% of the design average day flow. As such, blower run times would be decreased to about 8 hours/days (20.16 hr/day * 43%). Current annual energy costs were calculated for both LEMNA and Triplepoint’s preliminary designs. Assuming an electricity cost of $0.10 per kW-hour, roughly $136,000 to $163,000 would be required in annual energy costs to power the blowers for the treatment lagoons, storage lagoon and nitrification reactor under current conditions. For comparison, annual energy costs for the BWTP were calculated for 2013 to 2015, assuming $0.10 per kW-hr. The average annual cost for these three years is approximately $136,000. The increased energy costs associated with the new system are due to the additional bowers required to serve the nitrification reactor. The heat exchanger associated with Alternative T-4A(1) will only operate when water temperatures are below 42°F Calculations were performed assuming the heat exchanger will be utilized from November to February, or 120 days/year. To ensure a conservative estimate, annual costs were calculated based on electrical costs. Natural gas would result in a noticeable decrease in utility costs. An estimated $514,000 in annual electricity costs will be required for the optional heat exchanger. Should the City elect to forgo thermal regulation by heat exchanger, insulated covers over the treatment ponds will be required. For the preliminary annual O&M budget presented in Table 7-4, utility costs associated with the heat exchanger are not included. At full build out, the estimated annual energy cost, including energy required for the blowers and transfer pump is $344,000. For planning purposes, the average energy cost between today’s conditions and full-build out, $247,000, will be used to estimate the annual O&M budget. 7.1.5.6.4 General Maintenance and Repairs Alternative T-4 is not expected to drastically affect the annual cost for general maintenance and repairs. The City of Belgrade provide water and sewer financial records for fiscal years 2013 to 2014. These records indicated the City spent $199,000 and $209,000 on supplies and purchased services for the sewer system in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Although it is believed that a portion of those funds were allocated to the collection system, a conservative $200,000 is included in the Alternative T-4A’s annual O&M budget for general maintenance and repairs. Financial records are included in Appendix 7. 7.1.5.6.5 Cost Estimate Planning level capital cost are presented in Table 7-6. Capital costs estimates include all anticipated items required for the successful installation of the treatment plant upgrades defined in this section. Total estimated construction costs for Alternative T-4A include an elevated unit cost for the new building to ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-21 B16-048 account for required fire suppression systems, should the City elect to utilize methanol as the denitrification carbon source. Non-flammable carbon sources will decrease capital cost, but have a significant impact on the annual O&M budget, previously discussed. The line item for thermal regulation is based on pricing for an insulated cover over the treatment ponds. The City may choose to provide more precise temperature control of the impounded water. This is expected to increase capital costs as well as the annual utility costs. The estimated future costs for Alternative T-4A include 15% contingency, 25% for engineering, legal and administrative fees, and 10% for undeveloped design details. The estimated total construction cost for Alternative T-4A is $18,040,000. Table 7-6 Alternative T-4A – Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 7 % $755,305 Sludge Removal, Transport and Disposal 27,500 CY $25 $687,500 Demo Existing Air Header 1,500 LF $15 $22,500 Demo Existing Aerators 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 Spot Repair Liner 1 LS $23,000 $23,000 New Air Headers 1 LS $115,000 $115,000 New Advanced Aeration Equipment 1 LS $1,957,500 $1,957,500 Earthwork 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 Yard Pipe 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 Nitrification Equipment and Installation 1 EA $2,392,500 $2,392,500 Denitrification Equipment and Installation 1 LS $1,740,000 $1,740,000 Carbon Storage Tank and Feed Pump 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 New Building 1 LS $400,000 $400,000 New Transfer Pump 2 EA $25,000 $50,000 Modify Existing Control Structures 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Modify Level Transducer 1 EA $3,000 $3,000 New Influent Flow Meter 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 Automatic Water Sampler 2 EA $10,000 $20,000 Thermal Regulation 1 LS $435,000 $435,000 Headworks Facility 1 LS $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Electrical 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 Startup and Commissioning 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $211,570 Subtotal $11,545,375 Contingency 15% $1,731,806 Undeveloped Design Details 10% $1,154,537 Total Construction Estimate $14,431,719 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $3,607,930 Estimated Cost (rounded to the nearest thousand) $18,040,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-22 B16-048 7.1.5.7 Alternative T-4B: Sequencing Batch Reactors with Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoons Alternative T-4B evaluates a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) for secondary treatment and repurposes existing Lagoons #1 and #2 as biosolids storage basins. The storage basins would operate as facultative lagoons with an aerated water-cap for odor control. 7.1.5.7.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) SBRs are an operator-friendly alternative as the process is controlled by an automated controls system and have relatively few pieces of equipment that require routine maintenance. SBRs are capable of removing nearly all BOD and TSS, as well as some nitrogen and phosphorus. Many brands of SBR exist on the market and new technologies are being researched to improve the technology. Specific brands of SBR’s would be evaluated more closely in preliminary engineering. This alternative provides the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (EOPCC) and annual O&M costs. SBRs minimize the operational footprint of the secondary treatment process by completing all cycles of treatment in a single reactor. This eliminated the need for secondary clarifiers. SBR operations are controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC) housed in a control panel. The PLC includes some monitoring functionality and orchestrates the timed series of treatment cycles. The treatment cycles of an SBR vary by name and duration from one manufacturer to the next, but generally consist of fill (or fill/react), react, settle, and decant cycles, as shown in Figure 7-6. Fill/react and react cycles typically operate under aerobic conditions; however an anoxic time series may be programmed for denitrification. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-23 B16-048 Figure 7-6: Process Flow Diagram for Sequencing Batch Reactor w/ Facultative Lagoon All of the SBR cycles occur within the same basin, unlike conventional activated sludge processes that utilize individual basins or zones of basins to achieve similar treatment on a continuous waste stream. SBRs are traditionally a batch process that perform treatment on a finite quantity of water before the treated effluent is decanted to processes. However, because municipal wastewater influent flow is continuous, SBR plants often require three or more SBR basins. This allows influent flow to be continuously directed to a basin during its “fill” or “fill/react” mode. Some SBR manufacturers allow for continuous influent to the basins no matter the cycle time or sequence, eliminating the need for equalization and allowing as few as two basins. One such manufacturer is Xylem–Sanitaire, developers of the Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) process. Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) is a growing technology for use in SBRs. AGS enables improved nitrogen and phosphorus treatment and requires only minor modifications to SBR systems to encourage microorganisms to granulate. This creates a denser population of biomass, with anaerobes, nitrifiers, and denitrifiers populating various layers within the same sludge particle or granule. Aqua- Aerobics, one of the longest running SBR equipment manufacturers, has recently developed AGS for its systems, and is developing a process guarantee for pollutant concentrations for BOD, TSS, TN and TP less than or equal to 10 mg/l, 10 mg/l, 5 mg/l, and 1 mg/l, respectively. Chemical addition can achieve TP of less than 0.5 mg/L. This technology is not yet mature enough for purposes of ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-24 B16-048 this planning document; however, depending on the timing of the potential upgrade, AGS may be evaluated further. This technology would likely reduce the footprint size of the SBR Basins and reduce capital costs. Higher mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration in a smaller volume would be achieved by increasing density and improving settleability. Benefits cited for the use of SBR technology often include a smaller footprint size and ease of operability. It is expected that an SBR treatment system will perform reliably for the City of Belgrade, provided that the City’s discharge permit continues to resemble the theoretical discharge permit limits summarized below: Theoretical Discharge Permit Limits for SBR: • Total Nitrogen: 13.5 mg/L • Total Phosphorus: 3.0 mg/L • QEffluent: up to 1.93 MGD* o *Discharge capacity allotted before exceeding Nitrogen mass loading. 7.1.5.7.2 Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoon The biological mass of cells in the SBR system, like any biological population, proliferates, requiring the older microorganisms to be removed from the system to make room for the younger, more active organisms. The wasted biomass, commonly referred to as waste activated sludge (WAS), is usually stabilized further in large digesters, either aerobically or anaerobically. Given the high cost of digested sludge disposal in the Gallatin Valley and the City of Belgrade’s access to large existing lagoons for storage, Alternative T-4B repurposes Lagoons #1 & #2 as facultative storage lagoons. Figure 7-7 illustrates the proposed storage lagoon. Figure 7-7: Facultative Storage Lagoon (Biosolids Storage) Solids can be stored for up to 20-years in facultative lagoons where solids are naturally stabilized either aerobically or anaerobically and pathogens destruction is effective. Surface aerators will be operated to maintain an aerobic layer, ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-25 B16-048 referred to as a water-cap, near the top surface of the lagoon. The water-cap will help control any nuisance odors emanating from the ponds. Given the magnitude of surface area, storage volume available, and the anticipated WAS volume, the loading rate of these facultative lagoons is expected to be relatively low, approximately 6 lb volatile suspended solids (VSS)/103 ft2- day. This will also help minimize odors. As the solids settle to the bottom of the lagoon, the cleaner water can be decanted off the top through a decant structure and returned to the head of the plant for treatment and disposal. Table 7-7 summarizes the estimated solids production. Preliminary calculations of solids production and accumulations rates indicate the solids would have to be removed and disposed of in these facultative lagoons approximately every 7 to 8 years, possibly greater. Table 7-7 Estimated Solids Production WAS Produces (lb/day) 4,872 Volatile Suspended Solids Content (VSS): 75% Solids Destruction of VSS: 20% Settled Solids Concentration*: 6% Volume of WAS Production (gal/day): 8,275 Million-Gallons/Year 3.02 7.1.5.7.3 Basic Equipment List • Headworks Facility: o Mechanical Perforated Screens o Washer Compactor o Grit Removal Equipment o Influent Flow Sampler • Facultative Lagoons: o Surface Aerators • SBR Equipment o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Air Diffusion Equipment o Submersible Mixers o Decanters o WAS Pumps o Instrumentation & Controls. o Motor Control Center (MCC) 7.1.5.7.4 Map Figure 7-8 presents a site layout for Alternative T-4B. ---PAGE BREAK--- File: S:\TD&H Prime Contracts\Belgrade, City of\P13065-2016-000 - TD&H Belgrade W&WW Facility Plan\CAD Dwgs\01-Civil\CS-SP_AltT-4.dwg Last Saved: By: Twila Kemp Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:35:24 AM Plotted: By: Twila Kemp Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 Layout: Layout1 SHEET PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED / APPROVED DATE DRAWING TYPE PREPARED BY of DRAWING / Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. l 1288 N 14th Ave, Unit 103 Bozeman, MT 59715 l [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] l www.ae2s.com PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE BELGRADE, MT ALTERNATIVE T-4: SBR WITH STORAGE LAGOON SITE LAYOUT FIGURE XXX MARCH 2018 P13065-2016-000 # 7-8 H T R O N Scale in Feet 0 80 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-27 B16-048 7.1.5.7.5 Treatment During Construction Normal operations of the existing aerated lagoons can be maintained throughout construction until the influent pipe is directed to the new SBR basins upon start- up. Contractors will likely have additional time after start-up to convert Lagoons #1 and #2 to facultative biosolids storage lagoons as WAS is not expected to be wasted immediately. Improvements to Lagoons #1 and #2 would include the same liner spot repairs discussed in Alternative T-4A. Removal of the existing solids layer in Lagoons #1 and #2 is also recommended. 7.1.5.7.6 Operations & Maintenance Major O&M costs will result in the electricity costs necessary to operate the equipment. Major electrical equipment includes SBR blowers, submersible mixers (depending on exact process), fine screens in pretreatment building, transfer pumps, submersible WAS pumps, and surface aerators for facultative lagoons. Staffing expense requirements have been estimated based on a literature review of The Northeast Guide to Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately-Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants. This guide provides an objective source for estimating staffing costs. Results are often considered conservative estimates of the number of FTE required. Further discussion on staffing and labor expenses of provided after the evaluation of Alternative T-5 is presented. O&M costs were estimated using 4 FTE; however. Estimated annual O&M budgetary costs are presented in Table 7-8. Table 7-8 Alternative T-4B Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Staffing Expenses 4 FTE $60,000.00 $240,000 Equipment O&M 1 LS $212,755.68 $212,756 Utilities 2.02e10 kW-hr $0.11 $216,848 Total Annual O&M Budget $669,600 Real Interest Rate 0.20% Present Worth for 20 Years (rounded to the nearest thousand) $13,115,000.00 7.1.5.7.7 Energy Consumption & Utility Cost Validation Energy consumption was estimated at the average design conditions. Table 7-9 lists major electrical equipment along with horsepower and runtime to estimate total electrical loads. A price of $0.10/kW-hr was used to estimate total annual utility costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-28 B16-048 Table 7-9 Alternative T-4B Annual Electrical Utility Cost Equipment HP kW Runtime (hr/day) kW-hr/Year Screening 2.0 1.5 4 2,177 Grit Removal Grit Removal 2.4 1.8 4 2,628 Grit Pump 5.0 3.7 4 5,444 Effluent Pumping 25.0 18.6 24 163,308 SBR System Blowers 120 89.5 18 122,481 Mixers 20 14.9 1.6 8,710 WAS Pumps 2.5 1.9 1.0 680 Decanters 0.5 0.4 1.5 204 Facultative Lagoons Surface Aerators (x8) 30 (x8) 22.4 (x8) 18 (x8) 1,567,760 Lighting & Other Misc. Loads 45.0 12 197,100 Total Annual kW-hr 2,168,478 Cost [$/kW-hr] $0.10 Annual Electrical Utility Cost $216,847.76 7.1.5.7.7 Cost Estimate Planning level capital costs are presented in Table 7-10. Financial consideration should not only be given to the total estimated construction cost, but also the financial administrative costs, engineering fees, and legal costs of working with bond council. Estimated project costs total $17,096,000. Additionally, a new emergency may be required for the new facility. If a new electrical generator is required, capital costs would be expected to increase by $500,000 to $800,000. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-29 B16-048 Table 7-10 Alternative T-4B: SBR with Facultative Biosolids Storage Lagoon Construction Cost Estimate Construction Costs General Conditions Bonding / Insurance / Project Mgmt & Admin. / Mobilization $715,800 Site Work Site Management / $53,200 Solids Handling & Misc. Demo $740,500 Headworks $12,600 SBR $353,900 Site Improvements - (Grading & Site Piping) $164,925 SUBTOTAL: SITE WORK $1,325,100 Structural & Architectural Headworks $544,000 Control Building Upgrades $101,800 SBR $ 3,400,000 SUBTOTAL: STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL $4,045,800 Process Equipment & Piping Headworks $633,100 Control Building Upgrades $95,490 SBR $1,834,100 Installation & Start-Up $768,800 SUBTOTAL: EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $3,331,500 Mechanical Headworks $14,300 Control Building Upgrades $9,000 Installation & Start-Up $3,495 SUBTOTAL: MECHANICAL $26,800 Electrical Electrical / Instrumentation & Controls $1,496,400 SUBTOTAL $10,941,400 Undeveloped Design Details 10% $1,094,200 Construction Contingencies 15% $1,641,200 SUBTOTAL: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $13,676,800 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL: ADMINISTRATIVE / ENGINEERING / & LEGAL $3,420,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $17,096,800 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-30 B16-048 7.1.6 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Mechanical Treatment The City of Belgrade currently operates its lagoon treatment facility on the grounds of the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN). For comparison purposes, Alternative T-4 should be weighed against the cost and logistics of relocating the facility to a new, greenfield, location. The City of Belgrade would be required to purchase additional land to this alternative. This alternative has pros and cons for the City. Pros of Greenfield Treatment Facilities: • Not limited by requirements established by BZN. • Not investing in facility upgrades on property that is reliant upon a third-party agreement. • Relocate facility away from community development – relieving the City from nuisance odor complaints. Cons of Greenfield Treatment Facilities: • Greater expense for construction & overall project costs. • Greater investment in biosolids handling costs: o Capital costs increases due to mechanical digestion and biosolids facilities. o O&M & Disposal costs increase as on-going maintenance and labor costs. • May require transition to surface water discharge. o Increases Capital & O&M costs for disinfection purposes. Three secondary treatment processes were evaluated for a greenfield facility. Because a greenfield mechanical treatment facility may need to rely on surface water discharge for disposal (as opposed to the existing ground water disposal), more strict discharge permits were considered. The evaluation considers three separate discharge permits, each requiring a different quality of effluent substantiated by theoretical conditions upon which the final discharge permit may be based. Each alterative, T-5A; T-5B; and T-5C, is designed to meet a theoretical surface water discharge permit having TN and TP limits of progressive stringencies. Alternative T-5: Processes Considered & Respective Theoretical Discharge • Alternative T-5A: Sequencing Batch Reactor o Total Nitrogen: 13.5 mg/L o Total Phosphorus: 3.0 mg/L • Alternative T-5B: 5-Stage Bardenpho o Total Nitrogen: 8.0 mg/L o Total Phosphorus: 0.5 mg/L • Alternative T-5C: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) o Total Nitrogen: 6.0 mg/L o Total Phosphorus: 0.3 mg/L ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-31 B16-048 The results of this mechanical treatment evaluation will provide the City of Belgrade the following information: • A planning-level estimate of cost for upgrading its treatment process to a greenfield treatment facility if site relocation were to be considered. • Estimated O&M costs for treatment, operations, and biosolids management • Estimated quantities of biosolids production. • EOPCC for the following: o Overall Facility of Alternatives T-5A; T-5B; & T-5C o Individual Facilities as follows: ▪ Control Building ▪ Headworks Facilities ▪ Secondary Treatment ▪ Disinfection Facility ▪ Biosolids and Digestion Facility Alternative T-5 was evaluated with the same basic hydraulic and nutrient loading data provided in the previous treatment alternatives. 7.1.6.1 Alternative T-5A Sequencing Batch Reactor This alternative includes the same secondary process detailed in Alternative T-4B. Please refer to Alternative T-4B for discussion on the secondary treatment process involved in SBRs. 7.1.6.1.1 SBR The process flow diagram for Alternative T-5A is provided below in Figure 7-9. In contrast to Alternative T-4B, Alternative T-5A includes effluent disinfection by a UV process as well as mechanical digestion. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-32 B16-048 Figure 7-9: Alternative T-5A: Sequencing Batch Reactor with Mechanical Biosolids Digestion 7.1.6.1.2 UV Disinfection Disinfection would be required for surface water discharge to protect the public from biological contaminants such as E. coli. UV works by destroying the DNA of bacteria and thereby prevents them from further proliferation. UV is often preferred to chlorination/dichlorination as no chemicals are involved in the process and the concern over discharging chemicals to a receiving stream is removed. Chlorine residuals are regulated by DEQ to reduce toxicity to aquatic wildlife. Typically, surface water discharge permits allow for two seasons with separate E. coli discharge limits, winter and summer. Summer will have a much lower E. coli discharge limit as it is the time when the public is most likely to come in contact with streams carrying discharged effluent. E. coli limits are ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-33 B16-048 measured in Colony Forming Units / 100 mL [CFU/100 mL]. Testing for E. coli limits are typically completed in the facilities laboratory, but can also be completed by a third-party testing facility. 7.1.6.1.3 Digestion Biosolids consideration and processes are considered further in a future portion of this evaluation of Alternative T-5. 7.1.6.1.4 Basic Equipment List • Headworks Facility: o Mechanical Perforated Screens o Washer Compactor o Grit Removal Equipment o Influent Flow Sampler • SBR Equipment o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Air Diffusion Equipment o Submersible Mixers o Decanters o WAS Pumps o Instrumentation & Controls. o Motor Control Center (MCC) • UV Disinfection Facility: o UV Lamps and Banks o Effluent Flow Sampler • Digestion & Biosolids: o Mechanical Thickening Unit o Digester Feed Pumps o Polymer Feed Pumps o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Jet Aeration Headers o Aerobic Digester Mixing Pump o Digested Sludge Transfer Pumps o Sludge Dewatering Equipment (Screw Press) 7.1.6.1.5 Cost Estimate Table 7-11 provides a cost estimate for the proposed greenfield SBR facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-34 B16-048 Table 7-11 Alternative T-5A: Greenfield SBR Facility Construction Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION COSTS General Conditions Bonding / Insurance / Project Mgmt. & Admin. / Mobilization $1,748,600 Site Work Land Acquisition $500,000 Site Management / $62,600 Headworks $12,600 Control Building $0 SBR $353,900 UV Disinfection $11,000 Digestion & Biosolids $53,900 Site Improvements - (Grading & Site Piping) $194,130 SUBTOTAL: SITE WORK $1,188,100 Structural & Architectural Headworks $544,000 Control Building $1,334,000 SBR $3,400,000 UV Disinfection $274,000 Digestion & Biosolids $1,867,000 SUBTOTAL: STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL $7,419,000 Process Equipment & Piping Headworks $633,100 Control Building $1,023,900 SBR $1,723,700 UV Disinfection $314,819 Digestion & Biosolids $5,234,000 Installation & Start-Up $2,678,900 SUBTOTAL: EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $11,608,400 Mechanical Headworks $14,300 Control Building $9,000 SBR $0 UV Disinfection $9,500 Digestion & Biosolids $26,300 Installation & Start-Up $8,865 SUBTOTAL: MECHANICAL $68,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-35 B16-048 Table 7-11 (Cont) Alternative T-5A: Greenfield SBR Facility Construction Cost Estimate Electrical Electrical / Instrumentation & Controls $4,696,400 SUBTOTAL $26,728,500 Undeveloped Design Details 10% $2,672,900 Construction Contingencies 15% $4,009,300 SUBTOTAL: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $33,410,700 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL: ADMINISTRATIVE / ENGINEERING / & LEGAL $8,353,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $41,763,700 7.1.6.2 Alternative T-5B: 5-Stage Bardenpho w/ Chemical Phosphorus Removal Biological nutrient removal (BNR) refers to the process of reducing nitrogen and phosphorus using biological treatment processes. Nitrogen reduction requires cyclical anoxic and aerobic environments. Phosphorus reduction requires cyclical anaerobic and aerobic environments. Removal of both N and P using BNR alone can be challenging because the bacteria responsible for denitrification and phosphorus uptake both compete for the same food source, readily biodegradable compounds. Therefore, it is common to include chemical phosphorus removal, using coagulants and tertiary filtration for reduction of P at facilities where less than 0.5 mg/L TP are required. For the purposes of this evaluation, BNR with chemical phosphorus removal and tertiary filtration was deemed representative of a facility that would achieve limits of less than 10mg/l and 1 mg/L of TN and TP, respectively. The 5-Stage Bardenpho (Bardenpho) process is a potential mechanical treatment option to achieve BNR reliably. There are several other conventional activated sludge configurations capable of achieving BNR Oxidation Ditches, VIP, UCT processes), which could be evaluated for optimization if the City is faced with a 10 mg/l and 1 mg/l TN and TP limit at some point in the future, but the Bardenpho process was selected as a reasonable representation for this permitting scenario. The Bardenpho process is currently in use at the City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). 7.1.6.2.1 5-Stage Bardenpho Process Flow Please refer to Figure 7-10 for a PFD for Alternative T-5B: 5-Stage Bardenpho. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-36 B16-048 Figure 7-10: Alternative T-5B: 5-Stage Bardenpho Process with Chemical Phosphorus Removal The Bardenpho system includes five different zones, each with strategically selected environments: anaerobic, pre-anoxic, aerobic, post-anoxic and aerobic. As the waste stream progresses through the treatment trains, the different environmental conditions trigger metabolic reactions in the suspended growth biological treatment process for reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon. Mixed liquor from the first aerobic zone is recycled to the pre-anoxic zone to provide nitrate for denitrification. Mixed liquor from the aerobic zone is recycled to the anoxic zone to provide nitrate for denitrifying microorganisms. Return Activated Sludge (RAS) is recycled to the head of the anaerobic zone, in order to cultivate Phosphorus Accumulating Organisms (PAOs). Denitrification occurs in both the pre-anoxic and postanoxic zones. Low nitrate levels in the RAS recycle to the anaerobic zone enables PAOs to thrive and improve phosphorus ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-37 B16-048 removal. In the final aerobic zone, labeled in the diagram as Re-Aeration, the dissolved oxygen is increased to reduce phosphorus release during secondary clarification. Coagulation and tertiary filtration are provided of the secondary clarifiers, for improved solids and phosphorus removal. Cloth filtration was selected for conceptual design and costing purposes for Belgrade. Other filtration technologies exist but cloth media has a substantial market share in wastewater treatment, and is a relatively inexpensive approach. Cloth filtration is a representative technology for the basis of this evaluation. Reduction of total phosphorus to less than 1.0 mg/L with cloth filtration uses coagulation to capture soluble phosphorus in floc particles, which are too large to pass through the cloth media. Utilizing cloth filtration for P-removal, discharge limits of less than 1 mg/L TP and 5 mg/L TSS can be expected. It is worthy note the performance of all BNR systems can hinge on solids treatment processes. Anaerobic digestion results in phosphorus release from the PAOs, as well as high ammonia concentrations. These loads can reduce the performance of the BNR process if not treated separately, either chemically or biologically, prior to recycle to the activated sludge system. Aerobic digestion represents the basis of this evaluation. Aerobic digestion is more cost-effective than anaerobic digestion at this size (generally true for wastewater facilities smaller than approximately 5 MGD), but it is also more energy-intensive. The retainage of most of the phosphorus removed in the BNR process is an added benefit to aerobic digestion. 7.1.6.2.2 Basic Equipment List • Headworks Facility: o Mechanical Perforated Screens o Washer Compactor o Grit Removal Equipment o Influent Flow Sampler • 5-Stage Bardenpho (Alternative T-5B): o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Air Diffusers o Submersible Mixers o Internal Recycle Pumps o Instrumentation & Controls. o Chemical Feed o Clarifier Equipment • Tertiary Filtration o Cloth Filtration Equipment o Coagulant Feed Pumps • UV Disinfection Facility: o UV Lamps and Banks o Effluent Flow Sampler • Digestion & Biosolids: o Mechanical Thickening Unit o Digester Feed Pumps o Polymer Feed Pumps o Air Compressors (Blowers) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-38 B16-048 o Jet Aeration Headers o Aerobic Digester Mixing Pump o Digested Sludge Transfer Pumps o Sludge Dewatering Equipment (Screw Press) 7.1.6.2.2 Cost Estimate Table 7-12 summarizes estimated capital costs for Alternative T-5B. Table 7-12 Alternative T-5B: Greenfield 5-Stage Bardenpho Facility Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Construction Costs General Conditions Bonding / Insurance / Project Mgmt & Admin. / Mobilization $1,955,400 Site Work Land Acquisition $500,000 Site Management / $79,700 Headworks $12,600 Control Building $0 Bardenpho & Clarifiers $471,600 UV Disinfection $11,000 Digestion & Biosolids $53,900 Site Improvements - (Grading & Site Piping) $247,095 SUBTOTAL: SITE WORK $1,375,900 Structural & Architectural Headworks $544,000 Control Building $1,561,428 Bardenpho & Clarifiers $4,643,000 UV Disinfection $274,000 Digestion & Biosolids $1,867,000 SUBTOTAL: STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL $8,889,400 Process Equipment & Piping Headworks $712,238 Control Building $1,023,900 Bardenpho & Clarifiers $1,988,835 UV Disinfection $211,855 Digestion & Biosolids $5,234,000 Cloth Filtration (P-Removal) $643,000 Installation & Start-Up $2,944,100 SUBTOTAL: EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $12,757,900 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-39 B16-048 Table 7-12 (Cont) Alternative T-5B: Greenfield 5-Stage Bardenpho Facility Alternative T-5B: Greenfield 5-Stage Bardenpho Facility Mechanical Headworks $14,300 Control Building $10,530 Bardenpho & Clarifiers $0 UV Disinfection $9,500 Digestion & Biosolids $26,300 Installation & Start-Up $9,095 SUBTOTAL: MECHANICAL $69,700 Electrical Electrical / Instrumentation & Controls $4,841,000 SUBTOTAL $29,889,300 Undeveloped Design Details 10% $2,988,900 Construction Contingencies 15% $4,483,400 SUBTOTAL: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $37,361,600 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL: Administrative / Engineering / & Legal $9,341,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $46,702,600 7.1.6.3 Alternative T-5C: Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) The final categorization of mechanical treatment evaluated for a greenfield facility is similar to regular BNR, except, in this example, membranes separate solids from the waste effluent as opposed to relying upon settling equipment and clarifiers for natural or gravity separation of solids. Phosphorus removal is achieved by relying upon P-uptake from the PAOs. As long as the membranes remain submerged in an aerobic environment, the PAOs in the solids will retain the phosphorus within the mass of the microorganisms, preventing phosphorus from moving across the membrane with the effluent. WAS pumps waste PAO’s to the solids waste stream along with the phosphorus they contain. Once the solids waste stream become anaerobic the PAO’s release their phosphorus in favor of acetate due to the absence of oxygen required for the of orthophosphate. For the purposes of this evaluation, membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment is deemed representative of a facility that would achieve limits of 6.0 / 0.3 mg/L (TN/TP) reliably. MBRs use membranes for advanced wastewater treatment. The suspended growth activated sludge process is similar, as the waste stream goes through nitrification and denitrification for removal of ammonia-N and nitrate-N. However, the membranes preclude the need for tertiary treatment as they provide the means to separate the solids from the liquid waste streams. MBR plants often require a smaller footprint and produce effluents with lower nutrient concentrations. The operating cost and energy consumption ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-40 B16-048 is also typically much higher than other processes due to the aeration requirements and energy required to pump effluent through the membranes with high head losses. Figure 7-11 shows a typical process flow diagram for a standard MBR process. Figure 7-11: Alternative T-5C: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) 7.1.6.3.1 Basic Equipment List • Headworks Facility: o Mechanical Perforated Screens o Washer Compactor o Grit Removal Equipment o Influent Flow Sampler • MBR (Alternative T-5C): ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-41 B16-048 o Membrane Equipment o Permeate Pumping o Back pulse System o Membrane Air-Scour o RAS Pumps o Membrane Cleaning Equipment o Chemical Feed Skid o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Instrumentation & Controls o Bridge Crane • UV Disinfection Facility: o UV Lamps and Banks o Effluent Flow Sampler • Digestion & Biosolids: o Mechanical Thickening Unit o Digester Feed Pumps o Polymer Feed Pumps o Air Compressors (Blowers) o Jet Aeration Headers o Aerobic Digester Mixing Pump o Digested Sludge Transfer Pumps o Sludge Dewatering Equipment (Screw Press) 7.1.6.3.2 Cost Estimate Table 7-13 provides the estimated capital costs for Alternative T-5C. Table 7-13 Alternative T-5C: Greenfield MBR Facility Capital Costs CONSTRUCTION COSTS General Conditions Bonding / Insurance / Project Mgmt & Admin. / Mobilization $2,090,600 Site Work Land Acquisition $400,000 Site Management / $79,200 Headworks $12,600 Control Building $0 MBR $468,300 UV Disinfection $11,000 Digestion & Biosolids $53,900 Site Improvements - (Grading & Site Piping) $245,610 SUBTOTAL: SITE WORK $1,270,600 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-42 B16-048 Table 7-13 (Cont.) Alternative T-5C: Greenfield MBR Facility Capital Costs Structural & Architectural Headworks $544,000 Control Building $1,334,000 MBR $3,981,000 UV Disinfection $274,000 Digestion & Biosolids $1,867,000 SUBTOTAL: STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL $8,000,000 Process Equipment & Piping Headworks $712,238 Control Building $1,023,900 MBR $3,889,800 UV Disinfection $238,337 Digestion & Biosolids $5,234,000 Installation & Start-Up $3,329,500 SUBTOTAL: EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $14,427,800 Mechanical Headworks $14,300 Control Building $9,000 MBR $144,100 UV Disinfection $9,500 Digestion & Biosolids $26,300 Installation & Start-Up $30,480 SUBTOTAL: MECHANICAL $233,700 Electrical Electrical / Instrumentation & Controls $5,933,200 SUBTOTAL $31,955,900 Undeveloped Design Details 10% $3,195,600 Construction Contingencies 15% $4,793,400 SUBTOTAL: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $39,944,900 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL: ADMINISTRATIVE / ENGINEERING / & LEGAL $9,987,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $49,931,900 7.1.6.3.3 Maps Preliminary site layout plans are not included for Alternative T-5: Greenfield Facilities. If a greenfield facility was desired, further planning would be required to identify and procure the exact parcel of land to develop as a greenfield wastewater treatment facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-43 B16-048 7.1.6.3.4 Biosolids Considerations Mechanical water resource recovery facilities produce a solids waste stream that lagoon facilities typically do not require. If storage of biosolids onsite in a facultative lagoon is not possible, biosolids would require further mechanical stabilization (digestion) prior to disposal. Digestion if completed to reduce the bacteriological hazard otherwise imposed by the presence of pathogens. The Code of Federal Regulations regulates Biosolids management (40 CFR Part 503). Facilities treating domestic sewage must apply for and maintain a permit covering biosolids use or disposal. The two primary categories of biosolids digestion include aerobic and anaerobic digestion. 7.1.6.3.5 Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion does not require additional air compressor capacity but does require the digesters be heated to maintain operations. As a benefit, anaerobic digestion allows for the capture and beneficial reuse of volatile gasses that are released by the stabilization process. However, anaerobic digestion is typically not feasible for facilities running less than 5.0 MGD and extra precaution is required when working around the gasses that are produced in an anaerobic digester. 7.1.6.3.6 Aerobic Digestion Because the City of Belgrade’s waste facility is not expected to exceed 5.0 MGD, the recommended digestion process would be aerobic digestion. Aerobic digestion simply creates aerobic conditions to achieve the desired stabilization in the digester tanks through nitrification and denitrification. Air compressors and aeration diffusers assist in achieving the aerobic conditions in the digesters and supplementary heat is not typically required. Operational considerations for aerobic digestion include monitoring waste sludge characteristics, oxygen requirements, pH, temperature, mixing, and solids retention time (SRT). Figure 7- 12 shows the typical PFD for operating the aerobic digestion facility. Figure 7-12: Aerobic Digestion PFD ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-44 B16-048 The major components in the process generally include the follow: 1. WAS Storage: a. Typically, an aerated storage basin intended to serve as a reservoir for Waste Activated Sludge (WAS). b. WAS removed from the secondary treatment process is held in WAS storage. c. WAS storage is ideally sized adequately for 3 to 5 days of WAS storage capacity. 2. Thickening: a. Pre-digestion thickening removes water from the WAS and therefore, reduces the volume of tank capacity required for aerobic digestion. b. Polymer addition optimizes the thickening. c. Pre-Thickener: WAS Solids Content = 0.75 - 0.90 %-solids. d. Post-Thickener: WAS Solids Content = 3.0 – 3.5 %-solids. 3. Aerobic Digestion 4. Dewatering a. Post-digester solids dewatering reducing weight and volume to reduce disposal costs. b. Polymer addition optimizes the dewatering process. c. Pre-dewatering: Digested Sludge Solids Content = 3.0 – 3.5 %-solids d. Post-dewatering: Digested Sludge Solids Content = 16 – 25 %-solids. e. 16 %-solids is considered the lower limit if solids content for hauling. At these solids contents, sludge will pass the “paint-filter test” and does not drip water. 7.1.6.3.7 Sludge Volumes and Disposal Costs Volumes of sludge produced for the City of Belgrade were estimated based on flows and loads analysis and assumptions on calculable parameters typically seen in similar aerobic digestion facilities. The volume of solids produces is considerable and therefore disposal and handling fees are commonly associated. Table 7-14 summarizes assumed sludge production parameters; Table 7-15 reports estimated sludge production volumes for the three greenfield sub- alternatives. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-45 B16-048 Table 7-14 Assumed Parameters for Sludge Production Parameter Units Aerobic Digestion Alternatives Design Assumptions Waste Activated Sludge Sludge Yield [lb VSS / lb BOD] 0.90 Preliminary Treatment BOD Removal 0 Volatile Solids Fraction 0.67 Percent Solids 0.75 Thickening Discharge Percent Solids 3.50 Percent Capture 95 Aerobic Digestion Percent Solids 3.50 Volatile Solids Reduction 30 Dewatering Discharge Percent Solids 20 Percent Capture 95 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-46 B16-048 Table 7-15 Sludge Production Volumes for SBR, 5-Stage Bardenpho, and MBR, Respectively Parameter Units Alternative SBR 5-Stage Bardenpho MBR Population [PE] 19,360 19,360 19,360 Basis of Design Values Influent BOD Loading Average Annual [ppd] 5,678 5,678 5,678 Peak Month [ppd] 8,161 8,161 8,161 Sludge Production Average Annual [ppd] 5,110 5,110 5,110 [gpd] 81,698 73,823 68,082 Peak Month [ppd] 7,345 7,345 7,345 [gpd] 117,424 106,106 97,854 Thickening Discharge Average Annual [ppd] 4,855 4,855 4,855 [gpd] 16,631 16,631 16,631 Peak Month [ppd] 6,978 6,978 6,978 [gpd] 23,904 23,904 23,904 Aerobic Digestion Discharge Average Annual [ppd] 3,879 3,879 3,879 [gpd] 13,288 13,288 13,288 Peak Month [ppd] 5,575 5,575 5,575 [gpd] 19,100 19,100 19,100 Dewatering Discharge Average Annual [ppd] 3,703 3,703 3,703 [gpd] 2,220 2,220 2,220 Peak Month [ppd] 5,322 5,322 5,322 [gpd] 3,191 3,191 3,191 Volumetric Cake Discharge Average Annual [ft3/day] 292 292 292 [CY/day] 10.8 10.8 10.8 Peak Month [ft3/day] 420 420 420 [CY/day] 15.6 15.6 15.6 Common operations and disposal requirements include hauling biosolids to a facility for beneficial reuse. Landfills are one candidate of a facility with a beneficial reuse for biosolids: daily cover for the landfill operations. It is assumed that the City of Belgrade would haul biosolids to the Logan Landfill for disposal. Hauling and disposal costs for solids are assumed for. Quantities and costs were calculated for all three secondary treatment alternatives, but due to the equality in assumed solids content after the thickening equipment, differences in ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-47 B16-048 production quantities and subsequent hauling costs were not identified. The hauling costs assume a 42-mile round-trip to the Logan Landfill. Table 7-16 summarizes these biosolids hauling and disposal costs. Table 7-16 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Mechanical Treatment Annual Disposal Costs for Mechanical Solids Digestion Average Annual Cake Solids Cubic Yards: 3,942 Tons: 3,371 Hauling Costs: Hauling Distance (Roundtrip): 42 (Logan Landfill) Dump Truck Capacity (CY): 12 Dump Truck Capacity (tons): 10 Trips per Week: 7 Cost per Trip (No Labor; Truck O&M): $25 Hauling Cost per Year: $9,100 Disposal Costs: Landfill Tipping Fee $50 Landfill Tipping Cost per Year: $168,528.00 Total Annual Biosolids Disposal Cost per Year: $177,628.00 7.1.6.3.8 Treatment During Construction If the City were to proceed with construction of a mechanical water resource recovery facility, impacts to the existing lagoon process would be minimal. The City could continue operating and maintaining the lagoon system during construction of a mechanical treatment facility as long as the new facility is designed with a footprint small enough to fit on the existing site without impacts to existing lagoons or is located at an entirely new site. The planning team anticipates the following minimal level of coordination during and shortly after construction: • Utility Connections and Extensions o Collection system tie-in o Potable distribution extensions. • Supply of potable water upon initial start-up of equipment • Coordination to make final tie-in to the new mechanical treatment system upon substantial completion and full commissioning of the mechanical plant. • Pumping the liquid contents of the City’s lagoon system to the mechanical plant for blending with influent, and subsequent treatment and discharge. • Dewatering and drying biosolids left in the lagoons. • Infill and decommission of the existing lagoons if surface water discharge is desired. This all assumes that the existing lagoons would not be utilized for any equalization or biosolids treatment after a move to mechanical treatment. This ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-48 B16-048 should be reviewed with a more detailed Facility Plan if mechanical treatment becomes an imminent path forward for the City. 7.1.6.3.9 Operations and Maintenance Due to the complexity and significantly large investment in planning for a greenfield treatment facility, O&M costs are projected at a conceptual level. A more in-depth evaluation of a particular process’s actual O&M costs and electrical load requirements should be considered in finer detail. Table 7-17 summarizes those conceptual level costs. No further validation for exact electrical loadings is provided and chemical coagulant costs are also left as conceptual as validation would require pilot scale performance testing to identify polymer application rates specific to the Belgrade plant. Table 7-17 Alternative T-5: Greenfield Treatment Facilities Annual O&M Budget Projection Cost T-5A: SBR T-5B: Bardenpho T-5C: MBR Staffing & Labor $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 Equipment O&M $469,000 $525,560 $560,000 Utilities: $275,650 $317,000 $365,550 Chemical Coagulants: $0.00 $120,000 $0.00 Annual Total: $1,164,650 $1,342,560 $1,353,550 Real Interest Rate = 0.20% 20 Year NPV $22,811,000 $26,295,000 $26,510,000 7.1.6.3.10 Staffing Requirements A mechanical treatment facility requires maintenance by licensed operators. Currently there is a shortage of licensed operators experienced with mechanical treatment plant operation and nutrient removal, and competition for the labor force that does exist is significant. If the City moves to mechanical treatment, it should consider early training and development of the City’s current staff of operators to the extent feasible. A robust O&M is critical for successful performance of a mechanical plant. More attention must be given to operating parameters when nutrient removal is required. Prioritizing O&M of major equipment at a mechanical facility avoids critical failures and extends the useful life of the facility’s assets. Asset management approaches to O&M have become standard practice and include equipment cataloging, maintenance scheduling and tracking, and risk-based prioritization of long-term equipment rehabilitation and replacement. The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Public and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants (Guide) provides in depth considerations for facilities when considering staffing requirements. Generally, this guide outlines five basic categories of operational tasks for staffing needs: Basic and Advanced Operations and Processes; Maintenance; Laboratory Operations; Biosolids/Sludge Handling; and Yardwork / Grounds Maintenance. The Guide also recommends additional staffing considerations for managerial, human resources, and related administrative office tasks. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-49 B16-048 The Engineer referenced this guide when considering the operational requirements, the City of Belgrade would need with a mechanical treatment plant. Based on this review, and a comparison of similarly sized facilities, this evaluation document recommends planning around the FTE needs summarized in Table 7-18, below, for each secondary treatment process, respectively. Table 7-18 Summary of Operations and Maintenance Staffing Recommendations-Relative to Facility Treatment Operations and Maintenance Task Annual Hours SBR BARDENPHO MBR 1 - Basic Advanced Operations and Processes 3,712 4,032 3,552 2 - Maintenance 2,218 2,842 2,762 3 - Laboratory Operations 586 586 586 4 - Biosolids / Sludge Handling 1,600 1,600 1,600 5 - Yardwork 625 625 625 Estimated Operations & Maintenance Hours 8,741 9,685 9,125 Annual Hours / FTE 1,500 1,500 1,500 Estimated Operations & Maintenance Staff 5.90 6.50 6.10 Total FTE Recommendation 6.00 7.00 6.00 Notes on Staffing Recommendations: • Annual Hours / FTE assumes operators are 72% efficient – o 6.5 hours of productivity per day o Accounts for vacation time and Holiday leave. • No Additional staffing added for Managerial and Admin Requirements. o The requirements of this position are typically included in the job description of the lead operator or plant superintendent. o The City of Belgrade will presumably handle Human Resources tasks and other Administrative roles through existing departments. • Overlap (existing or potential) should be considered when evaluating staffing requirements. o Some operators may be cross-trained in both mechanical treatment and collection system maintenance. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-50 B16-048 7.2 Disposal Alternatives Alternatives involving upgrades and expansion to the City’s existing disposal methods are discussed in the sections to follow. 7.2.1 Available Storage The various treatment options discussed in Section 7.1 offer varying available storage volumes. In Alternatives T-4A(1) and T-4B, only Lagoon #3 is available for storage, Alternative T-4A(2) includes Lagoons #2 and #3 as storage lagoons and all three existing lagoons are available for storage in Alternative T-5. Lagoons #1 and #2 have an operating capacity of 16 MG; Lagoon #3 has an operating capacity of 81.5 MG. This information is summarized in Table 7-19. Table 7-19 Available Storage Alternative Total Available Storage (MG) T-4A(1) 81.5 T-4A(2) 97.5 T-4B 81.5 T-5 113.5 7.2.2 Alternative D-1: No Action This alternative involves allowing the City’s current disposal system to remain intact. As discussed in Chapter 5, the hydraulic capacity of each IP bed is roughly 1,500,000 gpd. With DEQ’s recommended wetting/drying ratio, the allowable average day discharge is 589,000 gpd per bed in the summer months and 362,000 gpd per bed in the winter months. These flow rates will maintain average TN loading below current permit limitations with the design TN effluent concentration of 13.5 mg/l. An evaluation of the existing plumbing indicates the existing pipes and pumps can deliver more treated wastewater to the IP beds then the beds themselves can discharge. As such, the hydraulic capacity of the beds was referenced for the existing allowable outflow. Design agronomic rates were calculated in Chapter 5, assuming 13.5 mg/l of TN in the effluent. Average day flow rates to the spray irrigation system from May to September were calculated based on design agronomic rates. Flow rates were then modified to maintain pump run times less than or equal to 12 hr/day, based on the nominal capacity of the existing irrigation pump. A month-by-month water balance was calculated to predict the available disposal capacity of the existing system. The estimated allowable flow to the IP beds and irrigation system were referenced along with lake evaporation data from the Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport’s weather station as outflows. Site specific precipitation data with estimated average day influent rates were referenced to determine total lagoon inflows. It was estimated that an average daily influent flow rate of 1.38 MGD would cause the accumulated storage to be 0.0 gallons at the end of the irrigation season. This would require a total available storage of at least 56.4 MG. The required storage volume is less than the storage provided by the existing system. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-51 B16-048 Based on flow projections previously discussed, the City’s average day wastewater flow rate will exceed 1.38 MGD in the year 2032. To provide a 10% safety factor, it is suggested that the City consider upgrading the disposal system in 2029. It should be noted that mechanical failure resulting in replacement of the existing pumps is possible prior to 2032. Detailed calculations and the month-by-month water balance are available in Appendix 7. 7.2.3 Alternative D-2: Disinfection and Surface Water Discharge This alternative involves discharging treated wastewater to nearby surface water. Should the City elect to pursue treatment Alternative T-5, surface water discharge would also be available as a final disposal alternative. However, replacing the current disposal method is not recommended considering groundwater disposal and spray irrigation infrastructure currently owned by the City operate well and are in good condition. Additionally, the City would have to obtain a surface water discharge permit from the DEQ’s Permitting and Compliance Division. Pollutant limitations would likely increase as a result of Alternative D-2. Without exhaustive analysis and negotiations with DEQ, these limits are difficult to predict; however, ammonia and total phosphorous limitations are common. Because of the added capital cost associated with required infrastructure and the anticipated obstacles associated with a new surface water discharge permit, Alternative D-2 is not considered a feasible disposal option and, as such, has been eliminated from further consideration. 7.2.4 Alternative D-3: Additional IP Bed 7.2.4.1 Description Alternative D-3 includes the construction of a fourth IP bed, identified as IP Bed D. This bed would be constructed in the same manner as the existing beds. IP Bed D would consist of 5 infiltration cells, linearly connected and running east to west. Each cell would be roughly 100 ft by 200 ft providing approximately 20,000 SF of infiltration area per cell, or 100,000 SF total. A 12-inch PVC pipe would be included as a header pipe with ten 8-inch laterals branching off into the infiltration cells. A schematic of the typical IP Bed configuration was provided earlier in Figure 4-6. This alternative also includes additional piping to transport the treated effluent to IP Bed D. The existing pump IP-2 transports treated wastewater to IP Bed C and it is recommended the pump be utilized convey treated effluent to the proposed IP Bed D. A 12-inch transmission main will be constructed. Finally, new monitoring wells will need to be drilled within the mixing zone to allow for groundwater testing. This alternative also includes automated controls within the IP bed system. As a result, treated effluent can be directed to the four IP Beds automatically. Manual controls would no longer be required, ultimately reducing O&M practices. The capacity of the forth IP bed will render the spray irrigation system unnecessary. However, non-discharging disposal methods including land application though spray irrigation, have a number of environmental benefits. As such, it is recommended the City of Belgrade maintain their existing irrigation system. This will provide flexibility within their disposal options and service the City well past the 20-year design life proposed by this Master Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-52 B16-048 7.2.4.2 Design Criteria Circular DEQ-2, Section 122 provides design standards for IP beds. All standards discussed within the Circular have been considered in the preliminary design of Alternative D-3. These standards include, but are not limited to: • IP bed must not be located within a 100-year flood plain • IP bed must be located at least 500 feet from any water supply wells • Soil in the area must have a permeability greater than or equal to 0.6 in/hr • Application rates are to be calculated based on 7 to 10% of the soils permeability and with wetting drying ratios specified in Table 122-2 of Circular 2. • Bed construction shall include side slopes no steeper than 3:1, overflow piping, uniform grading and fences to discourage unauthorized entry. Additionally, the new outfall will be considered a new or increased source of groundwater contamination by the DEQ and trigger the State’s non-degradation policy. All viable treatment alternatives discussed previously will produce a treatment system classification of Level 2 in ARM 17.30.702(11). This results in a 7.5 mg/l allowable groundwater nitrate concentration at the end of the mixing zone as specified in both 75- 5-301(5)(d)(iii), MCA and ARM 17.30.715(1)(d)(ii). A non-degradation analysis assuming similar mixing zone characteristics of the current IP Beds was performed and is available in Appendix 7. It was estimated that an average day discharge to IP Bed D of 316,664 gpd would result in a nitrate concentration of 6.75 mg/l at the end of the mixing zone and provide a 10% safety factor for groundwater nitrate concentrations. A month-by-month water balance was utilized to evaluate Alternative D-3. The Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport’s weather station data was referenced for precipitation and evaporation data. At the design average day flow rate of 1.67 MGD an average day discharge rate of 223,639 gpd to IP Bed D will result in a cumulative storage of 0.0 gallons in the storage lagoon at the end of September and a maximum cumulative storage of 68.1 MG in March. This is assuming maximum allowable discharge rates to Beds A, B and C, as calculated in Chapter 5. The average day discharge rate to IP Bed D is less than the estimated hydraulic capacity of the IP beds and the allowable discharge rate estimated by the State’s non-degradation analysis. The required storage is less than available storage for all viable treatment options. The water balance was calculated assuming no discharge to the irrigation system took place and all four IP Beds received treated effluent year-round. It is suggested to utilize the existing pump IP-2 to transport treated wastewater to IP Bed D. The nominal capacity of the existing pump is 1,400 gpm. To supply a discharge rate of 223,639 gpd to IP Bed D, the average day pump run time of pump IP-2 would increase by approximately 2.7 hr/day. 7.2.4.3 Map Two possible locations are proposed for IP Bed D. Location 1 is north west of the existing lagoons, adjacent to IP Bed B; location 2 is south east of the ponds, adjacent to IP Bed C. Both locations provide the possibility to tie into existing transmission mains. Four spray irrigation laterals must be removed to provide sufficient space at location 2. This will decrease the disposal capacity of the irrigation system, however as previously ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-53 B16-048 discussed, four IP beds will provide enough disposal capacity to sustain the City beyond the 20-year design life and the irrigation system will not be strictly necessary. Location 2 is also up gradient of the existing lagoons and IP Beds A and B. Issues associated with cumulative nitrogen groundwater concentrations may arise as a result. Both locations are owned by the Gallatin Airport Authority. The two disposal sites are illustrated in Figure 7-13. 7.2.4.4 Treatment During Construction Major disruptions to the City’s wastewater treatment system are not anticipated as a result of constructing Alternative D-3. The treatment system could operate as designed. Additionally, the efficiency of the existing disposal method would not be consequentially impacted during IP Bed D construction. 7.2.4.5 Operations and Maintenance No significant changes to the current O&M procedures are expected to result from Alternative D-3. The addition of automatic controls will decrease the labor required to direct treated effluent to IP Beds for disposal. No additional staffing will be required for this alternative. Increases in annual O&M cost are expected to result from the additional pumping required to dispose of the treated wastewater. The existing pumps IP-1 and IP- 2 each have nominal capacities of 1,400 gpm. Estimated run times for pump IP-1 are 14.0 hr/day in the summer months and 8.6 hr/day during winter months to provide average day flows or 589,129 gpd and 362,541 gpd to Beds A and B in the summer and winter, respectively. Pump IP-2 will transport effluent to IP Beds C and D for disposal. IP Bed C can dispose of approximately 589,129 gpd in the summer and 362,541 gpd in the winter. IP Bed D will be required to dispose of 223,639 gpd year-round. This equates to average pump run times for pump IP-2 of approximately 9.7 hr/day in the summer and 7.0 hr/day in the winter. Assuming an electricity cost of $0.10 per kW-hr and 40 HP motors on each pump, the annual utilities cost of the two IP pumps is estimated at $21,400. Energy consumption estimates are provided in Appendix 7. ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S . De partm e nt of Ag riculture Farm S e rv ice s Ag e ncy Ae rial Photog raphy Fie ld Office BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MT CJS FIGURE 7-13 POTENTIAL IP BED D LOCATIONS ALTERNATIVE D-3: ADDITIONAL IP BED J:\2016\B16-048 Be lg rade Maste r Plan\CADD\CIVIL\B16-048 Fig 7-X.m xd DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: DATE: JOB NO.: B16-048 Fig 7-X.MXD CADD NO.: B16-048 05/31/2017 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS , MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhe ng ine e ring .com ³ 0 750 1,500 375 Fe e t APPROXIMATE MIXING ZONE POTENTIAL IP BED LOCATIONS PROPERTY LINE EXIS TING IP BED B EXIS TING IP BED A EXIS TING BWTP EXIS TING IP BED C GALLATIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY, OWNER GALLATIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY, OWNER APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW = N 45° W TUBB RD PENWELL BRIDGE RD E BAS ELINE RD DRY CREEK RD LAGOON RD ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-55 B16-048 7.2.4.6 Cost Estimate Planning level capital costs for the construction of IP Bed D are presented in Table 7-20. The capital cost estimate includes activities anticipated for the successful installation of IP Bed D. New infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, new 12-inch transmission main, automatic controls and monitoring well installation. To ensure a conservative estimate, the total construction costs for Alternative D-3 also includes a 15% contingency, and 25% for engineering, legal and administrative fees. The estimated total construction cost for Alternative D-3 is $620,000 Table 7-20 Alternative D-3 Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $20,528 New 12-inch Transmission Main 1 EA $80,000 $80,000 New 8-inch Laterals 10 EA $4,000 $40,000 Excavation and Embankment 19,000 CY $6 $114,000 Automatic Controls 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 Overflow Piping 4 EA $1,500 $6,000 Monitoring Wells 3 EA $15,000 $45,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 10,000 Units $1 $10,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $8,050 Subtotal $431,078 Contingency 15% $64,662 Total Construction Estimate $495,739 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $123,935 Estimated Total Cost (rounded to the nearest thousand) $620,000 7.2.5 Alternative D-4: Spray Irrigation System Upgrades 7.2.5.1 Description Alternative D-4 involves upgrading the existing spray irrigation system. Upgrades to the system would include an upsized irrigation pump to supply the design agronomic rates discussed in Chapter 5, new sprinkler heads and expansion of the treatment plant’s existing storage. The existing irrigation system contains 52 sprinkler heads, each with a 200-foot application radius. The total application area is 117 acres. The size and general layout of the existing system will be maintained in this alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-56 B16-048 7.2.5.2 Design Criteria 7.2.5.2.1 State Regulations Circular DEQ-2 outlines criteria for land application through spray irrigation. Table 7-21 summarizes the criteria for irrigation pond sizing and location. Table 7-21 Wastewater Treatment Standards for Irrigation Circular DEQ-2 Criteria Parameter Emergency or Winter Storage 60-120 days Minimum Buffer Zone for Irrigation (No Disinfection) 200 feet Minimum Buffer Zone for Irrigation (Disinfection) 50 feet Minimum Setback from Buffer Zone to Well 50 feet Emergency or winter storage volume is generally governed by the month-by- month water balance regardless or primary/secondary treatment. 7.2.5.2.2 Disposal Rates A month-by-month water balance at design conditions was prepared for preliminary analysis of Alternative D-4. This water balance assumes the design average day flow rate of 1.67 MGD along with site specific precipitation data as lagoon inflow. Lake evaporation data collected from the airport was referenced with flow rates to existing IP Beds and design agronomic rates as effluent flows. It is estimated that applying 100% of the allowable flow rate to the IP Beds, will require the irrigation system to operate at 73% capacity for the accumulated storage to equal 0.0 gallons at the end of the irrigation season. The detailed water balance is available in Appendix 7. 7.2.5.2.3 Required Seasonal Storage The month-by-month water balance was also used to evaluate seasonal storage needs. It was found that the maximum storage volume required is approximately 108.9 MG. This equates to 65.2 days of detention time at design average day flow rates. Additional storage will be required with Alternative T-4. Alternative T- 5 has an estimated available storage of 113.5 MG, and would therefore not require additional storage. Option T-4A(1) and T-4B provide the least storage volume at 81.5 MG; Alternative T-4A(2) offers 97.5 MG of storage. An additional 27.4 MG of storage will be required with Alternative T-4A(1) and T-4B, and 11.4 MG of storage will be required for Alternative T-4A(2). Lagoon #3 is the only available basin for seasonal storage associated with treatment options T-4A(1) and T-4B. In order to expand Lagoon #3 by 27.4 MG, major modifications would be required. The bottom of the basin would be lowered, causing major damage to the existing liner. As a result, a complete liner replacement of 15.8 acres would be necessary. Additionally, the maximum water surface elevation and surrounding embankment would have to increase ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-57 B16-048 substantially. Significant alterations to the berms and interpond piping would be necessary to provide sufficient space for the required air header piping and maintain access to all areas of the treatment plant. Considering the significant cost necessary to increase storage by 27.4 MG in Lagoon it is not recommended to combine disposal Alternative D-4 with treatment Alternatives T- 4A(1) and T-4B. In order to incorporate disposal Alternative D-4 with treatment Alternative T- 4A(2), an additional 11.4 MG of storage is required. Lagoons #2 and #3 are available for storage in T-4B. To prevent the need for complete liner replacement, neither basin bottom will not be lowered. Rather, it is recommended to raise the maximum water surface elevation of Lagoon #2 by 4.35 feet; from an elevation of 4410.9 feet to 4415.25 feet. Additionally, the sludge accumulation allowance at the bottom of Lagoons #2 and #3 will be eliminated. A vast majority of sludge is expected to be removed in the treatment lagoon and nitrification and denitrification reactors. This results in an operating capacity in Lagoon #2 of 27.9 MG and the total storage capacity to be 109.4 MG. Alternative T-4A(2) already requires impounded wastewater to be pumped from the denitrification reactors to Lagoon As such, the increased water surface elevation will not require additional piping or pumps. This alternative will also result in the maximum water surface elevations in Lagoon #2 and #3 to balance. This will allow for gravity flow between the two ponds at all times. The elevation of the existing berms is currently 4418.25. By allowing the maximum water surface elevation in both Lagoons #2 and #3 to be 4415.25, 3 feet of freeboard will be provided. As such, no modifications to the existing berms will be required. The liner within Lagoon #2 will have to be extended up the berm to prevent seepage. This alternative will increase the water surface area Lagoon #2 from 7.0 acres to 7.19 acres. Seasonal storage volume calculations are provided in Appendix 7. 7.2.5.2.4 Irrigation System Hydraulics Design agronomic rates discussed in Chapter 5 were referenced in conjunction with the City’s existing 117 acres of available irrigation land to determine average allowable discharge rates during the irrigation season. These flow rates are presented in Table 7-22. In order to feed the irrigation system at these rates and maintain average pump run times around 18 hr/day throughout the summer, the existing irrigation pump must be upsized to provide 1,800 gpm. It is also proposed to include automatic controls to operate the irrigation pump. This will eliminate the need for treated wastewater to be manually directed to the irrigation system, ultimately decreasing required O&M procedures. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-58 B16-048 Table 7-22 Design Irrigation Flow Rates Month Agronomic Rate Irrigation Volume Flow Rate Estimated Average Pump Run Times (inches) (gallons) (gpd) (hr/day) May 6.73 21,382,930 1,425,529 13.2 June 13.73 43,623,718 1,454,124 13.5 July 19.11 60,717,353 1,958,624 18.1 August 17.76 56,428,058 1,820,260 16.9 September 9.15 29,071,888 1,938,126 17.9 The existing irrigation system includes 52 sprinkler heads, each with a 200-foot radius. To maintain the current configuration, it is suggested to run 6 sprinkler heads simultaneously. This equates to 300 gpm at each sprinkler head. Product literature pertaining to Nelson Irrigation’s Big Gun sprinklers suggests approximately 300 gpm can provide an application radius of roughly 200 feet at pressures around 90 psi at the nozzle. Product literature is provided in Appendix 7. Should this alternative be selected, detailed hydraulic analysis during final design will be required to accurately select pump and spray nozzle sizing. 7.2.5.3 Map This alternative requires no additional land acquisition or modification to the existing irrigation systems layout or existing lagoon footprint. As previously discussed, this alternative is not recommended in conjunction with treatment Alternatives T-4A(1) and T- 4B. Should treatment Alternative T-5 be selected, no modification to the existing lagoons will be necessary. Alternative T-4A(2) will require some modifications to the existing lagoons. Liner will be extended up the dike of Lagoon #2 to allow the maximum water surface elevation to be increase from 4410.9 ft to 4415.35 ft. Additionally, Lagoon #2’s overflow pipe will be raised from an invert elevation of 4414.00 ft to 4415.40 ft. The new hydraulic profile are illustrated in Figure 7-14. 7.2.5.4 Treatment During Construction It is recommended that construction of Alternative D-4 occurs concurrently with treatment system upgrades. Careful planning and scheduling will be required to allow for at least one treatment lagoon to remain online at all times. Existing interpond piping will allow for each lagoon to be bypassed during construction. All construction activities within the lagoons should occur during the summer months when the ambient air temperature is elevated and biological treatment occurs most efficiently. 7.2.5.5 Operations and Maintenance Few changes to the City’s current O&M procedures are expected to result from Alternative D-4. The addition of an automatic controller on the irrigation pump will eliminate the need to manually direct effluent to the irrigation system. The additional pump capacity and elevated pump run times result in an increase in utilities cost for the irrigation system. It estimated that from May to September, the energy cost for the irrigation pump will be approximately $6,000. The electricity required for the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-59 B16-048 automatic controls is expected to be negligible. Utility cost calculations are provided in Appendix 7. 7.2.5.6 Cost Estimate As previously discussed, improvements associated with this alternative are dependent on the selected treatment system upgrades. This disposal alternative is not considered compatible with Alternatives T-4A(1) and T-4B due to the significant costs required to expand the storage volume in Lagoon #3 by 27.4 MG. If combined with Alternative T-4A(2), the estimated capital cost for Alternative D-4 is $123,000. With Alternative T-5, the estimated capital cost is $108,000. The primary cost difference is a result of the additional liner required with Alternative T-4A(2). Both estimates include budget to upsize the irrigation pump and install new nozzles on the existing sprinkler heads. The construction cost estimates to Alternative D-4 with Alternative T-4A(2) and T-5 are provided in Tables 7-23 and 1-24. Table 7-23 Alternative D-4 With Treatment Alternative T-4A(2) Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $4,075 Liner Extension 9,000 SF $1.10 $9,900 New Irrigation Pump 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 New Sprinkler Head Orifices 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 10,000 Units $1 $10,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $1,598 Subtotal $85,573 Contingency 15% $12,836 Total Construction Estimate $98,409 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $24,602 Estimated Total Cost (rounded to the nearest thousand) $123,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 7-11 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA ALTERNATIVE D-4: SPRAY IRRIGATION UPGRADES WITH TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE T-4A(2) B16-048 2017-05-31 .DWG 7-14 CJS CEVJ/DDN Engineering tdhengineering.com HYDRAULIC PROFILE OPTION T-4A(2) LAYOUT OPTION T-4A(2) LAYOUT LEGEND J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 7-11.dwg, 3/27/2018 4:25:01 PM, nmr ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-61 B16-048 Table 7-24 Alternative D-4 With Treatment Alternative T-5 Construction Cost Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $3,570 New Irrigation Pump 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 New Sprinkler Head Orifices 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 10,000 Units $1 $10,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $1,400 Subtotal $74,970 Contingency 15% $11,246 Total Construction Estimate $86,216 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $21,554 Estimated Total Cost (rounded to the nearest thousand) $108,000 7.2.6 Alternative D-5: Additional Irrigation Area 7.2.6.1 Description As discussed in Section 7.2.5, the existing 117 acres of irrigation area is adequate to serve the City of Belgrade beyond the design life proposed in this Master Plan with upgrades to the available storage and irrigation pump. However, conversations with the City personnel indicate additional irrigation land is desired to add flexibility to the system. This alternative entails constructing new irrigation laterals. This alternative may only be selected in conjunction with Alternative D-4 as additional storage and a larger capacity pump are required. 7.2.6.2 Design Criteria 7.2.6.2.1 State Regulations The Circular DEQ-2 criteria identified in Alternative D-4 are applicable to Alternative D-5. Additionally, Chapter 120 of Circular DEQ-2 requires several criteria be addressed prior to approval of a new spray irrigation system and associated site. Essential documentation, reporting and analysis include the following: • DNRC approved change to appropriation of water rights or written statement that no authorization is necessary • Approved Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) to prevent over-application of nutrients at the approved irrigation sites • Approved O&M procedures including startup and shutdown protocol • Monitoring program during startup and periods of use included wastewater effluent total nitrogen analysis, at a minimum • Groundwater monitoring wells along with associated monitoring and testing for compliance, as required by DEQ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-62 B16-048 • Irrigation flow monitoring • Final design report addressing serval site conditions including: o Wastewater effluent trace element and chemical loading testing, as required by DEQ o Groundwater, soil and agronomic data o Phosphorous breakthrough analysis (>50 years to nearest surface water) • Record keeping data sheet 7.2.6.2.2 Required Storage Although the total irrigation area will increase with this alternative, the irrigation flow rates will not increase. The purpose of the additional irrigation area is to provide disposal flexibility rather than additional disposal capacity. As such, the required storage discussed with Alternative D-4 is applicable to Alternative D-5. 7.2.6.2.3 System Hydraulics. The additional irrigation area will not alter the system hydraulics from the requirements of Alternative D-4. As previously mentioned, the additional area will provide disposal flexibility. Under this scenario, the City can stagger the application area throughout the irrigation system in turn providing opportunities for equipment repair or drying periods. 7.2.6.3 Map Two potential locations for additional irrigation land have been identified. Option 1 is located northwest of the existing treatment lagoons. A segment of this property is owned by the State of Montana; the remainder is owned by the Gallatin Airport Authority. Option 2 is located southeast of the existing lagoons, parallel to the current irrigation system. The land is currently owned by the Gallatin Airport Authority. Both locations include an additional 46 acres of irrigation land with 16 sprinkler heads, each with a 200 foot application radius. A map of the two irrigation sites is provided in Figure 7-15. 7.2.6.4 Treatment During Construction Construction of Alternative D-5 is not expected to impact the City’s treatment system. Construction may occur at any time. 7.2.6.5 Operations and Maintenance A minimal increase to O&M procedures is expected to maintain the addition irrigation area. Utility cost discussed in Alternative D-4 would be required for Alternative D-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- REVISION FIGURE DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: FIG 7-12 REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA ALTERNATIVE D-5: ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION AREA B16-048 2017-05-31 .DWG 7-15 CJS CEVJ/DDN Engineering tdhengineering.com J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\CADD\CIVIL\FIG 7-12.dwg, 3/27/2018 1:24:01 PM, nmr ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan-Final Treatment and Disposal Alternative Evaluation April 2018 Page 7-64 B16-048 7.2.6.6 Cost Estimate Capital cost estimates for Alternative D-5 are provided in Table 7-25. With this alternative, the City may choose Option No. 1, Option No. 2 or both. The required transmission main length is higher for Option 2, resulting in a higher estimated capital cost. Total construction cost estimates for Options 1 and 2 are $585,000 and $684,000, respectively. Should the City choose to construct additional irrigation in both locations, the total cost is estimated at $1,269,000. Table 7-25 Alternative D-5 – Construction Cost Estimate Option No. 1 (Northwest of Lagoons) Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $19,380 New Irrigation Laterals 8 EA $12,000 $96,000 Sprinkler Heads 16 EA $1,250 $20,000 Transmission Main 2,900 LF $60 $174,000 New Valvess and System Controls 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 10,000 Units $1 $10,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $7,600 Subtotal $406,980 Contingency 15% $61,047 Total Construction Estimate $468,027 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $117,007 Estimated Total Cost (rounded to the nearest thousand) $585,00 Option No. 2 (South East of Lagoons) Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization 5 % $22,644 New Irrigation Laterals 8 EA $12,000 $96,000 Sprinkler Heads 16 EA $1,250 $20,000 Transmission Main 3,800 LF $60 $228,000 New Valves and System Controls 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Layout and Construction Staking 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Miscellaneous Fieldwork or Materials 20,000 Units $1 $20,000 Construction Materials Testing 2 % $8,880 Subtotal $475,524 Contingency 15% $71,329 Total Construction Estimate $546,853 Administrative, Engineering and Legal 25% $136,713 Estimated Total Cost (round to the nearest thousand) $684,000 Combined Estimated Costs for Options No. 1 and No. 2 $1,269,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-1 B16-048 8.0 FINAL PROJECT SELECTION The following Chapter provides detailed comparisons of the collection, treatment and disposal alternative discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. 8.1 Recommended Collection System Improvements The collection system improvements presented in Chapter 6 include solutions to accommodate future development in the City’s planning boundary and improvements to existing infrastructure. The recommendations were prepared in June 2017 and may not reflect recent construction or development in the planning regions. 8.1.1 Future Development The proposed improvements are based on conservative estimates of the peak hour flow and the anticipated impacts to existing infrastructure. It is recommended that the regional improvements be considered as new subdivisions, annexations, or other development are proposed outside City limits. It is not recommended to include the recommendations in the City’s capital improvements plan as the timing of future development cannot be predicted. It is expected the northwest planning region will develop soon based on preliminary discussions between the City and several developers. Table 8-1 presents a summary of the proposed improvements in each planning region and the impacts to existing infrastructure. The extents of each planning region and the proposed improvements are provided in Figures 6-1 through 6-6 in Chapter 6. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-2 B16-048 Table 8-1 Capital Improvements to Accommodate Future Growth Planning Region Proposed Facilities Connection Point Infrastructure Affected by Development(1) Northwest Gravity mains, Northwest Regional Lift Station, modifications to Cruiser Lift Station Force Main in Cruiser Lane/Dry Creek Road Force main in Cruiser Lane/Dry Creek Road and outfall sewer Northeast Gravity mains Ryen Glenn Lift Station Ryen Glenn Lift Station and force main East Gravity mains Meadowlark Ranch subdivision Meadowlark Ranch gravity mains, Meadowlark Lift Station and force main, and Ryen Glenn Lift Station and force main Southeast Gravity mains and new Interstate 90 crossing Gravity main in Idaho Street Idaho Street gravity main, Yellowstone Avenue gravity main, east sewer interceptor, and outfall sewer South Gravity mains SID #78 east of Jackrabbit Lane Existing Interstate 90 crossing, east sewer interceptor, and outfall sewer Southwest Gravity mains, Southwest Regional Lift Station SID #78 Lift Station SID #78 Lift Station, existing Interstate 90 crossing, east sewer interceptor, and outfall sewer West Gravity mains Gravity main north OR south of West Madison Avenue Existing Frontage Road crossing and Jackrabbit Lift Station (1)Not including the wastewater treatment plant. 8.1.2 Existing Infrastructure Several improvements are recommended within the existing collection system; the majority are located at lift stations. As indicated in Chapter 6, most of the proposed projects consist of repairs or maintenance. The largest efforts include significant repairs to Cruiser and Farmers Lift Stations and replacing clay tile pipe gravity mains. Table 8-2 identifies the recommended improvements. Several alternatives for the Cruiser Lift Station were presented in Chapter 6. The cost provided in Table 8-2 is for Alternative LS2-1 which would repair the lift station deficiencies independent of any development in the Northwest Regional Lift Station. It is recommended that any work at the Cruiser Lift Station be coordinated with development in the northwest planning region to minimize costs and to avoid redundant technical efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-3 B16-048 Table 8-2 Existing Collection System Capital Improvements Project 2018 Budgetary Cost Comments Rehabilitate RV Dump Stations N/A City to consider options presented in Chapter 3. Replace Clay Tile Pipe N/A Identify locations where clay tile is still in place. Disconnect Storm Drain Inlet N/A Identify storm drain inlet location. Jackrabbit Lift Station Improvements $65,000 N/A Cruiser Lift Station Improvements, Alternative LS2-1 $640,000 Coordinate improvements with Northwest Regional Lift Station Farmers Lift Station Improvements $510,000 Investigate the dye which has been observed in the wet well and valve vault. SID #78 Lift Station Improvements $65,000 Clean existing depth probe and re-evaluate pumping capacity. Meadowlark Lift Station Improvements $50,000 N/A Ryen Glenn Lift Station Improvements $65,000 N/A 8.2 Recommended Treatment System Improvements Two alternatives discussed in Section 7.1 remain under consideration for proposed upgrades to the BWTP; Alternative T-4: Existing Lagoon Upgrades and Alternative T-5: Greenfield Mechanical Treatment. The remaining alternatives are both considered technically and logistically feasible and will provide sufficient treatment to maintain the City’s compliance with the current discharge permit limitations for the 20-year design life defined in this Master Plan. The feasible treatment alternatives are evaluated below based on an organized and systematic approach. The methodology has been applied to ensure a consistent and unbiased means of selecting the most beneficial alternative for the City of Belgrade. Each alternative was evaluated applying consistent criteria. These criteria include treatment during construction, available storage, operations and maintenance, and estimated capital costs. Each option will be scored within each criterion; lower scores indicate more beneficial options. Scores and ranking are summarized within the decision matrix provided in Section 8.2.5. Regardless of final treatment system upgrades, it is recommended that the City install a headworks facility at the treatment plan’s influent. This will provide mechanical pretreatment for TSS removal prior to primary wastewater treatment. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-4 B16-048 8.2.1 Treatment During Construction The two remaining treatment alternatives have significantly different anticipated obstacles during construction. Alternative T-4 involves upgrading the existing lagoons. As a result, careful planning and scheduling during construction will be required. Construction within the two existing treatment basins may not occur simultaneously as one basin must remain active at all times. Additionally, construction should occur during warmer months, as the biological treatment processes occurs more efficiently at elevated temperatures. Alternative T-5 involves constructing a mechanical treatment plant completely independent of the existing treatment system. As such, treatment could continue with no interruptions as the new plant is constructed. For these reasons, Alternative T-5 receives a score of 1 and Alternative T-4 is scored as a 2 for the treatment during construction criteria. 8.2.2 Available Storage As discussed in Chapter 7, each proposed alternative offers varying available storage volume. The sub-alternatives included in Alternative T-4 include either Lagoon #3 or both Lagoons #2 and #3 as storage basins, depending on final design layout. This results in 81.5 to 97.5 MG of available storage. Alternative T-5 includes all three-existing lagoon, or 113.5 MG of treated water storage. Because of the seasonal irrigation, higher volumes of available storage are advantageous. For this criterion, Alternative D-5 is scored as a 1; Alternative D-4 is scored as a 2. 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Operational complexity varies significantly between the two remaining treatment alternatives. Each includes sensors and automatic controls. However, Alternative T-5 incorporates several additional mechanical components, associated monitoring, and control devices when compared to Alternative T-4. This will inherently increase the complexity of the required operational tasks. Staffing requirements also influence final recommendations. Alternative T-4 proposes 2 to 3 FTE’s. Initial training will be required to familiarize the operators with the new systems. It is estimated that Alternative T-5 will require between 6 to 7 FTE’s. The complexity of a new mechanical treatment system will also require significantly greater initial and continued training to ensure the system is operated as designed while optimizing power use and treatment efficiency. Operator process and equipment knowledge will be crucial to provide reliable wastewater treatment. To provide a quantitative comparison of the required O&M for each alternative, the present worth values calculated in Chapter 7 have been compared in Table 8-3. Annual O&M cost estimates account for primary expenses inclusive of estimated utility charges, chemical additives, general repairs and maintenance and staffing requirements. A real interest rate of 0.20% was applied over the 20-year design to project a present worth value. The estimated present worth value for Alternative T-4 ranges from approximately $13.1 million to $14.7 million; present worth approximations for Alternative T-5 range from $20.8 million to $26.5 million. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-5 B16-048 Table 8-3 Treatment Alternatives Operations and Maintenance Present Worth Comparison Alternative Cost Estimate T-4: Advanced Aeration with Tertiary Nutrient Removal $13,115,000 to $14,719,000 T-5: Mechanical Treatment Plant $20,811,000 to $26,510,000 Due to the elevated operational complexity, staffing requirement and estimated O&M present worth values, Alternative T-5 has been scored a 2 for Operations and Maintenance; Alternative T-4 has been given a score of 1. 8.2.4 Estimated Capital Costs Capital cost estimates were originally presented and detailed in Chapter 7. The estimated costs for Alternative T-5 ranged from approximately $41.8 million to $49.9 million. The estimated construction costs for Alternative T-4 are roughly $17 to $18 million. Project cost information is summarized in Table 8-4. All capital cost estimates include budgets for construction contingency, engineering fees and legal/administrative costs. Table 8-4 Treatment Alternatives Capital Cost Estimate Alternative Cost Estimate T-4: Advanced Aeration with Tertiary Nutrient Removal $17,000,000 to $18,000,000 T-5: Mechanical Treatment Plant $41,800,000 to $49,900,000 The estimated capital costs result in Alternative T-4 and T-5 being scored as 1 and 2, respectively. 8.2.5 Alternative Ranking Matrix The alternative comparisons discussed throughout this section are summarized in Table 8-5. The two remaining alternatives were scored as either 1 or 2 for each criterion, with 1 indicating the most beneficial option. Conversations with the City have indicated the most important factor in choosing system improvements is capital costs. As such, the capital cost scoring has been multiplied by a factor of 2. The individual scores were then summed for each alternative. The lowest overall score suggests the most desirable alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-6 B16-048 Table 8-5 Treatment Alternatives Decision Matrix Criteria T-4: Existing Lagoon Upgrades T-5: Mechanical Treatment Plant Treatment During Construction 2 1 Available Storage 2 1 Operations and Maintenance 1 2 Estimated Capital Costs (x2) 2 4 Overall Score 7 8 8.2.6 Recommended Treatment Alternative Based on the above discussion, it is recommended for the City to continue with Alternative T-4: Existing Lagoon Upgrades for final design. As detailed in Chapter 7, two sub-alternatives were considered with Alternative T-4. A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is recommended to provide the City with a more comprehensive understanding of the available options. Additionally, the PER may be referenced to apply for grant and low-interest loans. 8.3 Recommended Disposal System Improvements It was estimated in Section 7.2 that the existing disposal systems can serve the City of Belgrade until the year 2032. However, it is recommended the City initiate planning and design of additional storage by 2029. Three disposal alternatives were found to be feasible in Chapter 7: Alternative D-3: Additional IP Bed, Alternative D-4: Spray Irrigation System Upgrades, and Alternative D-5: Additional Irrigation Area. Alternative D-5 must be implemented in conjunction with Alternative D-4 as the upsized pump and storage requirements are necessary for both alternatives. The sections to follow compare the three remaining disposal alternatives. Four factors have been selected as the basis for this evaluation. The categories include disposal flexibility, permitting requirements, operations and maintenance, and estimated capital costs. As with the treatment alternatives, each disposal alternative has received a value with the lowest score representing the most beneficial option. Scores are tallied in the alternative ranking matrix, presented in section 8.3.5. 8.3.1 Disposal Flexibility Conversations with City personnel indicate flexibility within the available disposal system is desired. By constructing a fourth IP Bed, Alternative D-3 would result in the irrigation system becoming unnecessary. However, it is suggested that the City maintain the existing land application system to allow staggered irrigation, in turn providing opportunities for equipment repair and drying periods. Additionally, the spray irrigation system would allow the City to decrease the discharge volumes to the IP beds, decreasing the likelihood of future permit violations. Alternative D-4 would upgrade the existing irrigation system with additional storage and new pumps. It is estimated that to dispose of the design average day flow rate, the irrigation system ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-7 B16-048 must operate at 73% capacity. This is assuming the three existing IP beds are operating at 100% capacity. If operated in conjunction with Alternative D-5, the flexibility of the City’s disposal systems would increase further. Two potential locations for added irrigation land were presented in Chapter 7, each providing 46 acres of additional irrigation area. The inclusion of one of the irrigation locations would allow the irrigation system to operate at approximately 52% capacity. If additional irrigation is constructed at both suggested locations, the available irrigation area would increase to 209 acres and allow the system to operate at 41% capacity. Because Alternative D-3 will allow the irrigation system to become unnecessary and strictly provide disposal flexibility, it has been given a score of 1. Alternative D-5 will require the irrigation system to operate between 41% and 53% capacity and Alternative D-4 requires the land application system to operate at 73% capacity. As such, Alterative D-5 and D-4 have received scores of 2 and 3 respectively for disposal flexibility. 8.3.2 Permitting Requirements The three disposal options result in varying permitting requirements. Alternatives D-4 and D-5 include upgrades to the City’s irrigation system. The irrigation systems are considered non- discharging systems by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Provided the City’s application rates do not exceed approved agronomic rates, a discharge permit would not be required for Alternatives D-4 and D-5. The fourth IP bed suggested in Alternative D-3 would be considered a new or increased source of groundwater contamination by the DEQ. Modifications to the City’s current permit would have to be renegotiated inclusive of a comprehensive non- degradation analysis. Although this process would not be extremely complicated, it is more complex than the permitting requirements for Alternatives D-4 and D-5. For this reason, Alternatives D-4 and D-5 receive equal scores of 1 and Alternative D-3 receives a score of 2 for permitting requirements. 8.3.3 Operations and Maintenance The three remaining disposal alternatives are not expected to significantly increase overall O&M procedures for the City of Belgrade. Automatic controls are included in each to lessen labor requirements. Utility cost are expected to increase with each disposal alternative as higher volumes of wastewater will be pumped to the disposal sites. For Alternative D-3, the fourth IP bed will eliminate the need for an irrigation system. A minor increases in the City’s annual O&M budget is expected as a result of the additional pumping. As discussed in Chapter 7, the estimated annual utilities cost for Alternative D-3 is $21,400. Alternative D-4 will require final disposal through the three existing IP beds as well as the upgraded irrigation system. The estimated energy cost of the irrigation system from May to September at design conditions is approximately $6,000; the estimated IP pumps’ energy requirements result in an annual energy cost of approximately $15,000. This equates to a total annual energy cost of approximately $21,000. As previously discussed, disposal Alternative D-5 requires improvements associated with Alternative D-4 as well. Alternative D-5 includes additional irrigation land to provide the City increased disposal flexibility. Required pump run times and anticipated energy requirements are equivalent to Alternative D-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-8 B16-048 There is not a significant difference in anticipated annual utility costs or O&M procedures between the three disposal alternatives. As such, each alternative has been given an equal score of 2 for Operations and Maintenance. 8.3.4 Estimated Capital Costs Estimated capital cost for the three feasible disposal options are summarized in Table 8-6. Each estimate includes all items anticipated for the successful completion of required work as well as a 15% construction contingency, 25% for administrative, and legal and engineering fees. The estimated costs for an additional IP bed is $620,000. Upgrades to the existing irrigation system are estimated to cost between $108,000 and $123,000, depending on selected treatment system improvements, and the estimated capital cost for additional irrigation area is between $585,000 and $684,000, depending on irrigation system location (or $1,269,000 should the City elect to construct additional irrigation on both sites). Table 8-6 Disposal Alternatives Capital Cost Estimate Alternative Cost Estimate D-3: Additional IP Bed $620,000 D-4: Spray Irrigation System Upgrades $108,000 to $123,000 D-5: Additional Irrigation Area $585,000 to $684,000 Based on these capital cost estimates, Alternative D-4 is assigned a score of 1. Alternative D-3 and D-5 are approximately equivalent in estimated capital costs and therefore have been given a score of 2. 8.3.5 Alternative Ranking Matrix Individual scoring of the three remaining disposal alternatives is summarized below in Table 8-7. As with the treatment alternatives, the individual scores were combined into an overall score. The lowest overall score indicates the most beneficial alternative. Table 8-7 Disposal Alternative Decision Matrix Criteria D-3: Additional IP Bed D-4: Spray Irrigation System Upgrades D-5: Additional Irrigation Area Disposal Flexibility 1 3 2 Permitting Requirements 2 1 1 Operations and Maintenance 2 2 2 Estimated Capital Costs 2 1 2 Overall Score 7 7 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Final Project Selection April 2018 Page 8-9 B16-048 8.3.6 Recommended Disposal Alternative Based on population projections, the City will not be required to update the existing disposal system until the year 2032. As such, it is recommended the City prioritize other system improvements. Currently, all feasible disposal alternatives are considered equally beneficial. However, it is difficult to accurately predict capital costs and the City’s needs a decade in advance. Therefore, disposal alternatives should be re-evaluated at the beginning of the design process. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Summary and Conclusions April 2018 Page 9-1 B16-048 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1 SUMMARY The following sections summarize the recommended improvements to the City of Belgrade’s wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems. 9.1.1 Collection System In general, the collection system is in good condition with isolated issues including older, clay tile sewer mains around West Main Street and issues at the Cruiser and Gallatin Farmers Lift Stations. Engineer’s estimates of probable cost were prepared for improvements at each lift station: $640,000 for the Cruiser Lift Station and $510,000 at the Gallatin Farmers Lift Station. Smaller repairs are recommended at other lift stations to address sensor and SCADA issues and provide bypass pumping connections recommended by DEQ. Seven future planning regions were delineated and referenced to develop collection system improvements including design flow rates, gravity trunk main sizing, lift station location, and force main diameter. The areas of future growth between the City limits and planning boundary were identified and delineated through discussions with City personnel and by reviewing property ownership and aerial imagery. The design peak hour flow for each future development region was estimated by applying the City’s design standards and the mapped zoning. Future gravity mains, lift stations, and force mains were sized to accommodate planning region peak hour flows. Improvements include a Northwest Regional Lift Station to serve areas north of Cruiser Lane, a Southwest Regional Lift Station to serve future development west of Special Improvement District #78, upsizing critical sewer crossings and interceptors, and upsizing existing lift stations. Cost estimates were not prepared for planning region improvements since, in most cases, it is difficult to predict when the development will occur and how costs may be distributed between the City and the developer. 9.1.2 Treatment System As a whole, the City of Belgrade has a well maintained, properly functioning wastewater treatment system. However, the Belgrade area is expected to maintain its elevated population growth rate. As such, upgrades to the BWTP are necessary to provide reliable wastewater treatment as the City’s raw wastewater flows increase. A number of potential solutions were preliminarily considered; two were believed to be technically and logistically feasible. These alternatives include upgrades to the existing system and a new greenfield mechanical system. Upgrades to the existing system may include a new advanced aeration system with tertiary nutrient removal or a new SBR with biosolids storage within the existing lagoons. Possible greenfield mechanical systems include a fully mechanical SBR with solids digestion, 5-Stage Bardenpho, or MBR. Conversations with City personnel have indicated the most desirable option will result in a reliable, easily maintained system at a low capital cost. Due to the high construction cost and O&M complexity of the greenfield mechanical systems, it is recommended that City proceed with upgrades to the existing system. Preliminary capital cost estimates suggest upgrades to the system will range from $17 million to $18 million. As previously stated, upgrades to the system may include a new SBR with solids handling in the existing lagoons or advanced aeration in the existing lagoons with additional treatment for TN removal. It is suggested the City complete a PER in the year 2020 to apply for financial assistance for the proposed upgrades. During preparation of the PER, a more detailed ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Summary and Conclusions April 2018 Page 9-2 B16-048 analysis of optional upgrades and conversations with City staff regarding specific needs and desires can be completed; at which time treatment system recommendations will be finalized. Due to inflation and the preliminary nature of the current cost estimate, the City of Belgrade should budget for $20 million in capital costs for the upgrades. This value will provide a sufficiently conservative financial plan. 9.1.3 Disposal System Three feasible disposal alternatives were detailed within the Master Plan: installation of a fourth IP bed, upgrades to the existing irrigation system and construction of additional irrigation area. However, based on previously discussed population projections and assuming upgrades to the treatment system for increased TN removal, the City is not expected to need additional disposal infrastructure until the year 2032. Evaluation of each alternative all three are considered equally beneficial. Estimated capital costs ranged from approximately $100,000 for upgrades to the existing irrigation system to $650,000 for a fourth IP bed. It is recommended that the City prioritize more pressing system upgrades at this time. Improvements to the disposal system should be considered by 2029, to ensure a completed system by 2032. Capital cost and needs of the City should be re-evaluated at that time. 9.2 CONCLUSIONS This Master Plan provides the City with recommended improvements to its wastewater system and a general timeline for implementing the treatment and disposal system improvements. As documented elsewhere in this report, the City’s wastewater treatment system will reach capacity around the year 2022. It is recommended that the City’s primary wastewater system planning prioritize recommended treatment alternatives necessary to ensure operations in 2023. An independent Rate Study is currently considering infrastructure improvements in order to budget for projects recommended in the Master Plan. It is expected that conventional grant and loan funding options will be considered in the Rate Study and pursued in the next funding cycle. A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is required to submit for construction funding from the following programs: Montana Department of Commerce’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP), the Montana DEQ’s Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (WPC SRF) Loan Program, the USDA’s Rural Development (RD) program, or the Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation’s (DNRC) Renewable Resource Grant and Loan (RRGL) Program. Planning grants, to defray the costs of a PER, are also available from many of the agencies. The following sections provide a general discussion of the grant and loan funds available as well as a proposed funding strategy. 1. Montana Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (RRGL)-Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) The Montana legislature established the RRGL Program to conserve, develop, manage and protect Montana’s renewable resources. The program is administered by the Resource Development Bureau of the Department of Natural Resource and Conservation (DNRC). Funds are appropriated directly through the legislature the following year based on recommendations from DNRC. The legislature must approve the funding for the grant prior to start of the project. The ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Summary and Conclusions April 2018 Page 9-3 B16-048 grant funding limits are $125,000. The loan amount limit is the maximum amount that can be borrowed by the local government and repaid by issuing bonds. Applicants are notified of their ranking by the fall of the year the application was submitted. 2. Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) This State-funded program is administered by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC). The funding is derived from a portion of the Coal Tax Trust Fund interest. The TSEP program provides matching grants for qualifying projects up to $750,000. In order to qualify for the maximum grant of $750,000, the applicant’s user rates must be 150% of the communities target rate upon completion of proposed project. If user rates are projected to be between 125% and 150% of the target rate the applicant may apply for a maximum grant of $625,000. Applicants with user rates under 125% of the target rate can apply for a maximum of $500,000. In addition, the grant must not exceed $20,000 per benefited household and be no greater than 50% of the eligible project expenses. A local match of 50% is required by TSEP and can consist of cash, other grants, or loans. Applicants for the TSEP program are accepted every other year by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC) and submitted to the legislature for review and approval for funding. The applications are accepted in May of the year prior to the next legislative session (even numbered years) and approved the following year. The applications are generally notified of rank in fall of the year the application was submitted. 3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Montana’s CDBG program is a federally funded competitive grant program intended to assist communities of less than 50,000 people with primary benefits to low and moderate income (LMI) persons. In order to be eligible, a community must have at least 51% of the population considered LMI. The funds are frequently pooled with other federal, state or local resources to improve infrastructure including water and wastewater facilities. The maximum grant awarded for a public facility project is $450,000 or $20,000 per LMI household to be benefitted by the project, whichever is lower. It is required that 25% of the grant funds are matched. Applications must be submitted along with the Uniform Application by early April each year. The chosen applicants receive award letters by early fall of the year of application. 4. State Revolving Fund Loan (SRF) The SRF program was initiated by the Montana legislature for water and wastewater projects using federal seed money. This program provides at or below market interest rates to qualifying entities. The loans are funded using capitalization grants from EPA and are matched with state issued general obligation bonds. Water Pollution Control (WPC) SRF loans are specifically intended for water pollution control projects related to wastewater treatment systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Summary and Conclusions April 2018 Page 9-4 B16-048 In order to be eligible for this type of funding, the project must be added to the SRF Project Priority List and Intended Use Plan. The annual process to identify projects eligible for SRF funds begins in July and applications must be submitted with the Uniform Application. Early notification by the applicant is important to be included on the priority list. A project remains on the list until it has been completed, regardless of funding sources used to finance the project. SRF loan terms are currently 2.5% for up to twenty years. A revenue bond requires debt service and coverage of 110% for existing districts or towns. Loan amounts are limited to the borrower’s ability to pay and the amount of SRF funds available. Loans must be secured by a bond or note. If the sewer rate is higher than the TSEP target rates, the community is eligible for loan forgiveness. Loan forgiveness is only available for up to 50% the loan. 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) program provides grants and loans to rural communities of less than 10,000 people; therefore, Belgrade is not eligible for RD funding. While programs such as SRF and CDBG have open or annual application cycles, the remaining grant programs are awarded biannually. Applications are accepted during even years in the spring. Completing a PER and grant applications for the 2018 application deadlines is not feasible considering the limited time available, however it is recommended that the City submit in 2020. If the City is also considering grant funding for a water improvements project, it is recommended that only one project be submitted during a given grant cycle. Grant funding is extremely competitive and subject to legislative approval and federal funding allocations. Grant applications submitted in 2020 would be subject to approval during the 2021 Legislative session (2023 Biennium). If the project ranks well and funding is approved, design could begin in the summer of 2021 to and bid documents ready in early 2022. Bidding should occur soon after to allow for delivery of long-lead equipment ahead of the 2022 construction season. Recent discussions with the DNRC indicates planning grants will be available in the Fall of 2018. It is recommended the City contact DNRC and other perspective planning grant programs early to confirm funding availability and anticipated grant allowances. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Abbreviations April 2018 Page 10-1 B16-048 10.0 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are referenced throughout the Master Plan: ADF Average day flow AE2S Advanced Engineering and Environmental Solution, Inc AGS Aerobic Granular Sludge ARM Administrative Rules of Montana BNR Biological Nutrient Removal BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BWTP Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant BZN Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport CDBG Community Development Block Grant cfm cubic feet per minute CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFU Colony Forming Unit CS1 Control Structure 1 CS2 Control Structure 2 CS3 Control Structure 3 CS4 Control Structure 4 CS5 Control Structure 5 CS6 Control Structure 6 CS7 Control Structure 7 DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DI Ductile Iron DMR Discharge Monitoring Reports DNRC Department of Natural Resource and Conservation DO Dissolved Oxygen EPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency EPOCC Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FTE Full Time Employee GAA Gallatin Airport Authority GIS Geographic information system gpcd Gallons per capita day gpd Gallons per day gpm Gallons per minute GWIC Ground Water Information Center HDPE High Density Polyethylene HMI Human Machine Interface HP Horsepower ICEAS Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System I/I Inflow and infiltration IP Infiltration/Percolation kW Kilowatts kWh Kilowatt-hours LF Linear feet MBMG Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MBR Membrane Bioreactor ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final Abbreviations April 2018 Page 10-2 B16-048 MCA Montana Code Annotated MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality MG Million gallons MGD Million gallons per day Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Montana Public Works Standard Specifications MWQA Montana Water Quality Act N2 Diatomic Nitrogen NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NMP Nutrient Management Plan NRCS Natural Resources and Conservation Service NED National Elevation Dataset O&M Operation and maintenance PAO Phosphorous Accumulation Organism PER Preliminary Engineering Report PFD Process Flow Diagram psi Pounds per square inch PLC programmable Logic Controller ppd pounds per day PVC Polyvinyl chloride RAS Return Activated Sludge RPM Revolutions per minute RRGL Renewable Resource Grant and Loan RTU Remote telemetry unit SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition scfm Standard cubic feet per minute SF Square feet SID Special Improvement District SRF State Revolving Fund SRT Solids Retention Time TDH Total dynamic head TD&H Thomas, Dean and Hoskins TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TN Total Nitrogen TOC Top of Casing TP Total Phosphorous TSS Total Suspended Solids TSEP Treasure State Endowment Program VFD Variable Frequency Drive VSS Volatile Suspended Solids WAS Waste Activated Sludge Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund WRCC Western Regional Climate Center WRF Water Reclamation Facility USDA United States Department of Agriculture ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final References April 2018 Page 11-1 B16-048 11.0 REFERENCES The following references were utilized in the preparation of the Master Plan: 1. Abu-Orf, Bowden, & Pfrang, W. (2014). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery (5th ed.) Tchobanoglous, H. D. Stensel, R. Tsuchihashi, & F. Burton, Eds.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education. 2. Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.30: Water Quality 3. Appendices for Effluent Spray Irrigation System Gallatin Field Airport, Morrison Maierle, Inc. February 2002. 4. Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual. TD&H Engineering. 2004 5. Belgrade Whalen Tire Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements As-Constructed Drawings. Gaston Engineering & Surveying. 1999 6. City of Belgrade Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) Data 7. City of Belgrade Design Standards and Specifications. 2004 8. City of Belgrade Design Standards and Specifications. 2017 9. City of Belgrade Operators’ Lift Station Logs 10. City of Belgrade SCADA Data 11. Construction Drawings for Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant. TD&H Engineering. 2004. 12. Crisafulli, Sludge Removal Systems, Rental Rates, January 1, 2017 13. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular 2, Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems, 2016 14. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular 7, Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards, May 2017 15. Department of Environmental Quality Circular DEQ-12A: Montana Numeric Nutrient Standards. July 2014 16. Department of Environmental Quality, City of Belgrade Violation Letter, February 3, 2017. 17. Design Report for City of Belgrade SID 78 Water & Sewer Improvements. TD&H Engineering. 2006. 18. East Belgrade Interchange – North Bid Documents. Montana Department of Transportation. UPN 5897001. 19. US Environmental Protection Agency, Process Design Manual, Land Application of Municipal Wastewater, October 1981. 20. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Gallatin County, Montana and Incorporated Areas, Panel 0588D September 2, 2011 21. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Gallatin County, Montana and Incorporated Areas, Panel 0595D September 2, 2011 22. H&S Environmental, LLC. Performance Evaluation of Belgrade, Montana STP. September 11, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final References April 2018 Page 11-2 B16-048 23. Hammer, M. & Hammer, M. Jr. (2012). Water and Wastewater Technology (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Education. 24. Henson Subdivision No. 3, Phase I Water & Sewer Analysis. Gaston Engineering and Surveying, PC. 2016. 25. Influent/Effluent Flow Verification. M.E.T. Automation & Controls. 2017 26. Las Campanas Sub. – Belgrade Sewer Outfall Direction of Flow Map. Allied Engineering Services, Inc. 2004 27. LEMNA Environmental Solutions. Proposal Number 1550, January 25, 2017 28. Lift Station #2 Force Main Improvements. Morrison Maierle, Inc. 2013 29. Meadowlark Ranch Subdivision, Phase I Construction Drawings. Engineering, Inc. 2006 30. Meadowlark Subdivision Lift Station Engineering Report. Engineering, Inc. 2006 31. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Ground Water Information Center 32. The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately-Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants(Publication). (2008). Lowell, MA: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. 33. Off Site Waterline, Sewer Lift Station and Force Main Improvements for the Ryen Glenn Estates Subdivision. HKM Engineering. 2006 34. Prescott Property – Estimated Water and Sewer Demand Memo. Allied Engineering Services, Inc. 2016 35. Permit Fact Sheet, Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System, City of Belgrade, MTX000116, 2009 36. Ryen Glenn Wastewater Services Design Report. HKM Engineering 37. Statement of Basis, Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System, City of Belgrade, MTX000116, 2009 38. Triplepoint Environmental, Basis of Design, Belgrade, MT. Project Number 2672, March 14, 2017 39. US Census Bureau 2010 Census Designated Places, Census & Economic Information Center 40. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Web Soil Survey, 2017 41. USGS Topographic Maps 42. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse (3rd Edition). Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. 43. Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities. Thomas, Dean and Hoskins, Inc. 1998 44. Wastewater Treatment Plant Emergency Construction Improvements Engineering Design Report. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc. 2000 45. Water Research Foundation, L. Electric Power Research Institute, S. Electric Power Research Institute, A. & Electric Power Research Institute, R. G. (2013). Electricity Use and Management in the Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Industries(Publication). Palo Alot, CA: Electric Power Research Institute 46. Western Regional Climate Center, Bozeman-Yellowstone International Airport ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan - Final References April 2018 Page 11-3 B16-048 47. Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Bid Proposal for SBR for Livingston WRF Upgrades Project, Brown Deer, WI: Sanitaire Project No. 23625-12 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- WEB SOIL SURVEY ---PAGE BREAK--- United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service April 18, 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Contents 2 How Soil Surveys Are Soil 8 Soil Map Unit 11 Map Unit 12 Gallatin County Area, 33B—Attewan clay loam, 0 to 4 percent 41A—Beaverell loam, 0 to 2 percent 15 43A—Beavwan loam, 0 to 2 percent 16 241A—Beaverell cobbly loam, 0 to 2 percent 307A—Sudworth silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent 19 341A—Beaverell-Beavwan loams, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent 364B—Straw silty clay loam, 0 to 4 percent 22 443A—Beavwan loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent 25 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent 511A—Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent 29 514A—Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent 30 517A—Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, 522A—Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent 33 538A—Tetonview silt loam, 0 to 2 percent 540A—Tetonview-Newtman complex, 0 to 2 percent 36 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent 741A—Beaverell-Beavwan complex, 0 to 2 percent Soil Information for All Soil Properties and 43 Soil Physical 43 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Soil Soil Physical 48 Engineering 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 5065000 5066000 5067000 5068000 5069000 5070000 5071000 5072000 5073000 5065000 5066000 5067000 5068000 5069000 5070000 5071000 5072000 5073000 484000 485000 486000 487000 488000 489000 490000 484000 485000 486000 487000 488000 489000 490000 45° 48' 49'' N 111° 12' 49'' W 45° 48' 49'' N 111° 7' 33'' W 45° 43' 56'' N 111° 12' 49'' W 45° 43' 56'' N 111° 7' 33'' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 2000 4000 8000 12000 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Meters Map Scale: 1:43,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 19, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 10, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Map Unit Legend Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 33B Attewan clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 462.6 5.8% 41A Beaverell loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1,154.8 14.4% 43A Beavwan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 815.1 10.2% 241A Beaverell cobbly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2,490.5 31.1% 307A Sudworth silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 6.1 0.1% 341A Beaverell-Beavwan loams, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 200.9 2.5% 364B Straw silty clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 0.1 0.0% 443A Beavwan loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 78.4 1.0% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.4 0.0% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 40.6 0.5% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 6.2 0.1% 511A Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 35.7 0.4% 514A Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 7.8 0.1% 517A Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, drained 6.8 0.1% 522A Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 28.0 0.4% 538A Tetonview silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.3 0.0% 540A Tetonview-Newtman complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 23.9 0.3% 556A Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 35.0 0.4% 741A Beaverell-Beavwan complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2,576.8 32.2% W Water 29.3 0.4% Totals for Area of Interest 8,001.3 100.0% Custom Soil Resource Report 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas Custom Soil Resource Report 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Gallatin County Area, Montana 33B—Attewan clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56q2 Elevation: 4,150 to 4,650 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Attewan and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Attewan Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: gravelly loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS330MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beavwan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No 41A—Beaverell loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56s2 Elevation: 4,200 to 4,650 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Beaverell and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beaverell Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: loam B - 7 to 20 inches: very cobbly clay loam 2Bk1 - 20 to 24 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk2 - 24 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Custom Soil Resource Report 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Attewan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No 43A—Beavwan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sh Elevation: 4,350 to 4,650 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Beavwan and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beavwan Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 15 inches: clay loam 2Bt2 - 15 to 22 inches: extremely cobbly sandy clay loam 2Bk1 - 22 to 28 inches: extremely cobbly sandy loam 2Bk2 - 28 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Attewan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No 241A—Beaverell cobbly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56mx Custom Soil Resource Report 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Elevation: 4,250 to 4,650 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Beaverell and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beaverell Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: cobbly loam B - 7 to 20 inches: very cobbly clay loam 2Bk1 - 20 to 24 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk2 - 24 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: Unranked Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) RRU 46-C 10-14" p.z. (R046XC491MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attewan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Scravo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty-Droughty-Steep 9-14" p.z. (R044XS340MT) Hydric soil rating: No 307A—Sudworth silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56pj Elevation: 4,400 to 4,650 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sudworth and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sudworth Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A1 - 0 to 7 inches: silty clay loam A2 - 7 to 24 inches: loam Bk - 24 to 29 inches: loam 2C - 29 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Custom Soil Resource Report 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS350MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Enbar Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Nesda Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No 341A—Beaverell-Beavwan loams, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56q3 Elevation: 4,100 to 4,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Custom Soil Resource Report 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Beaverell and similar soils: 60 percent Beavwan and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beaverell Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: loam B - 7 to 20 inches: very cobbly clay loam 2Bk1 - 20 to 24 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk2 - 24 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: Unranked Description of Beavwan Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 15 inches: clay loam 2Bt2 - 15 to 23 inches: extremely cobbly sandy clay loam 2Bk - 23 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy sand Custom Soil Resource Report 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Attewan Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beavwan, channeled Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No 364B—Straw silty clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56qv Custom Soil Resource Report 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Elevation: 4,400 to 5,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Straw and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Straw Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 18 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 18 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS350MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Enbar Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Sudworth Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS350MT) Hydric soil rating: No 443A—Beavwan loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56sn Elevation: 4,450 to 4,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Beavwan and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beavwan Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 15 inches: clay loam 2Bt2 - 15 to 23 inches: extremely cobbly sandy clay loam 2Bk - 23 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Custom Soil Resource Report 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverell Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Attewan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS330MT) Hydric soil rating: No 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vp Elevation: 4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 22 inches: loam Cg - 22 to 49 inches: sandy loam 2C - 49 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nythar Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Straw Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS354MT) Hydric soil rating: No 511A—Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vv Elevation: 4,100 to 4,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Fairway and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fairway Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 15 inches: silt loam Cg - 15 to 46 inches: silt loam 2Cg - 46 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Custom Soil Resource Report 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS343MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No 514A—Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vz Elevation: 4,200 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Soapcreek and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Description of Soapcreek Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Clayey alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 15 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 15 to 46 inches: silty clay loam Bg - 46 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS343MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No Blossberg Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- 517A—Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, drained Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56w2 Elevation: 4,200 to 4,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Saypo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Saypo Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bk - 10 to 21 inches: silt loam Bkg - 21 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 40 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Very saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- Minor Components Saypo Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No Binna Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No 522A—Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56w9 Elevation: 4,300 to 5,850 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Enbar and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Enbar Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 16 inches: clay loam Cg - 16 to 53 inches: clay loam 2C - 53 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Custom Soil Resource Report 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS359MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sudworth Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS350MT) Hydric soil rating: No Straw Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Hydric soil rating: No Nythar Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes 538A—Tetonview silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wq Elevation: 4,150 to 4,450 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Custom Soil Resource Report 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Tetonview and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Tetonview Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile Oi - 0 to 2 inches: decomposed plant material A - 2 to 10 inches: silt loam Bkg - 10 to 36 inches: silt loam Cg - 36 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Lamoose Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT) Hydric soil rating: No Newtman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT) Custom Soil Resource Report 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Hydric soil rating: Yes Saypo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No 540A—Tetonview-Newtman complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56wv Elevation: 4,100 to 5,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Tetonview and similar soils: 50 percent Newtman and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Tetonview Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile Oi - 0 to 2 inches: decomposed plant material A - 2 to 10 inches: silt loam Bkg - 10 to 36 inches: silt loam Cg - 36 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Newtman Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile Oe - 0 to 9 inches: mucky peat A - 9 to 15 inches: silty clay loam Cg - 15 to 24 inches: silty clay loam 2Cg - 24 to 60 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 3.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS349MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Water Percent of map unit: 4 percent Saypo Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Saline Subirrigated (SSb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS333MT) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Threeriv Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes 556A—Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56x4 Elevation: 4,000 to 6,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Threeriv and similar soils: 45 percent Bonebasin and similar soils: 45 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Threeriv Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile Oe - 0 to 4 inches: moderately decomposed plant material Ag - 4 to 9 inches: loam Cg - 9 to 29 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2Cg - 29 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Bonebasin Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile Oa - 0 to 4 inches: muck A - 4 to 15 inches: loam Cg - 15 to 25 inches: stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Threeriv Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: No Blossberg Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS365MT) Hydric soil rating: Yes 741A—Beaverell-Beavwan complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 570q Elevation: 4,100 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 95 to 115 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Beaverell and similar soils: 55 percent Beavwan and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beaverell Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: cobbly loam B - 7 to 20 inches: very cobbly clay loam 2Bk1 - 20 to 24 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam 2Bk2 - 24 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Custom Soil Resource Report 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Beavwan Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: loam Bt1 - 5 to 15 inches: clay loam 2Bt2 - 15 to 22 inches: extremely cobbly sandy clay loam 2Bk1 - 22 to 28 inches: extremely cobbly sandy loam 2Bk2 - 28 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Attewan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey (Cy) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS330MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beaverell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) RRU 46-C 10-14" p.z. (R046XC491MT) Hydric soil rating: No Beaverell, channeled Percent of map unit: 5 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- Landform: Stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS338MT) Hydric soil rating: No W—Water Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Physical Properties Soil Physical Properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. The numeric Ksat values have been grouped according to standard Ksat class limits. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) 5065000 5066000 5067000 5068000 5069000 5070000 5071000 5072000 5073000 5065000 5066000 5067000 5068000 5069000 5070000 5071000 5072000 5073000 484000 485000 486000 487000 488000 489000 490000 484000 485000 486000 487000 488000 489000 490000 45° 48' 49'' N 111° 12' 49'' W 45° 48' 49'' N 111° 7' 33'' W 45° 43' 56'' N 111° 12' 49'' W 45° 43' 56'' N 111° 7' 33'' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 2000 4000 8000 12000 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Meters Map Scale: 1:43,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons 12.5000 > 12.5000 and 28.1118 > 28.1118 and 58.8487 > 58.8487 and 64.1513 > 64.1513 and 85.4210 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines 12.5000 > 12.5000 and 28.1118 > 28.1118 and 58.8487 > 58.8487 and 64.1513 > 64.1513 and 85.4210 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 12.5000 > 12.5000 and 28.1118 > 28.1118 and 58.8487 > 58.8487 and 64.1513 > 64.1513 and 85.4210 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 19, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 10, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table—Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (micrometers per second) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 33B Attewan clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 53.2250 462.6 5.8% 41A Beaverell loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 64.1513 1,154.8 14.4% 43A Beavwan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 53.3230 815.1 10.2% 241A Beaverell cobbly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 64.1513 2,490.5 31.1% 307A Sudworth silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 50.8461 6.1 0.1% 341A Beaverell-Beavwan loams, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 64.1513 200.9 2.5% 364B Straw silty clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 9.0000 0.1 0.0% 443A Beavwan loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 58.4638 78.4 1.0% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 55.9605 2.4 0.0% 509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 12.5000 40.6 0.5% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 85.4210 6.2 0.1% 511A Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 28.1118 35.7 0.4% 514A Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.9100 7.8 0.1% 517A Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, drained 4.8967 6.8 0.1% 522A Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 9.4257 28.0 0.4% 538A Tetonview silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.3612 0.3 0.0% 540A Tetonview-Newtman complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.3612 23.9 0.3% 556A Threeriv-Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes 58.8487 35.0 0.4% 741A Beaverell-Beavwan complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 64.1513 2,576.8 32.2% Custom Soil Resource Report 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (micrometers per second) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI W Water 29.3 0.4% Totals for Area of Interest 8,001.3 100.0% Rating Options—Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Units of Measure: micrometers per second Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Fastest Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): All Layers (Weighted Average) Custom Soil Resource Report 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Soil Physical Properties This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil physical properties. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil physical properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density. Engineering Properties This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Hydrologic soil group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. The criteria for determining Hydrologic soil group is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http:// directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba). Listing HSGs by soil map unit component and not by soil series is a new concept for the engineers. Past engineering references contained lists of HSGs by soil series. Soil series are continually being defined and redefined, and the list of soil series names changes so frequently as to make the task of maintaining a single national list virtually impossible. Therefore, the criteria is now used to calculate the HSG using the component soil properties and no such national series lists will be maintained. All such references are obsolete and their use should be discontinued. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonal high water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity after prolonged wetting, and depth to a layer with a very slow water transmission rate. Changes in soil properties caused by land management or climate changes also cause the hydrologic soil group to change. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. There are four hydrologic soil groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the dual groups, the first letter is for drained areas and the second letter is for undrained areas. The four hydrologic soil groups are described in the following paragraphs: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Custom Soil Resource Report 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. "Loam," for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, "gravelly." Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005) and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL-ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system, the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter is classified in one of seven groups from A-1 through A-7 on the basis of particle-size distribution, liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-1 are coarse grained and low in content of fines (silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection. If laboratory data are available, the A-1, A-2, and A-7 groups are further classified as A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-7-5, or A-7-6. As an additional refinement, the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number. Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest. Percentage of rock fragments larger than 10 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry-weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low Representative Value and High Percentage (of soil particles) passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight. The sieves, Custom Soil Resource Report 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- numbers 4, 10, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively. Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low Representative Value and High Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low Representative Value and High References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Custom Soil Resource Report 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk denotes the representative texture; other possible textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba). Three values are provided to identify the expected Low Representative Value and High Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 33B—Attewan clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Attewan 90 C 0-6 Clay loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 75-88-1 00 60-70- 80 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 6-12 Gravelly sandy clay loam, clay loam CL, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 70-85-1 00 65-83-1 00 60-78- 95 35-58- 80 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 12-26 Gravelly loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam CL-ML, SC-SM A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 65-83-1 00 60-80-1 00 50-73- 95 35-53- 70 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 26-60 Very cobbly sand, very gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly loamy sand GM, GP- GM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-30- 35 30-45- 60 20-38- 55 15-25- 35 5-10- 15 — NP Custom Soil Resource Report 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 41A—Beaverell loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beaverell 90 B 0-7 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 80-85- 90 60-65- 70 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 7-20 Very cobbly clay loam, very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly loam GC, GC- GM A-2, A-4 0- 0- 0 15-33- 50 40-53- 65 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 10-25- 40 25-33 -40 5-10-15 20-24 Extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 0-7 -14 NP 24-60 Very cobbly loamy coarse sand, extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 0-7 -14 NP Custom Soil Resource Report 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 43A—Beavwan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beavwan 85 C 0-5 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 75-83- 90 55-60- 65 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 5-15 Clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam CL, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 80-90-1 00 70-85-1 00 55-73- 90 35-50- 65 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 15-22 Extremely cobbly sandy clay loam, extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GC-GM, SC-SM A-2 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 20-33- 45 10-18- 25 20-23 -25 5-8 -10 22-28 Extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 10-23- 35 5-13- 20 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 28-60 Extremely cobbly loamy sand, extremely cobbly sand, very gravelly coarse sand GP, GP- GM, SP, SP-SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 10-20- 30 0- 5- 10 — NP Custom Soil Resource Report 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 241A—Beaverell cobbly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beaverell 85 B 0-7 Cobbly loam CL-ML, SC-SM A-4 0- 0- 0 15-23- 30 80-90-1 00 70-80- 90 55-68- 80 45-58- 70 20-25 -30 NP-5 -10 7-20 Very cobbly clay loam, very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly loam GC, GC- GM A-2, A-4 0- 0- 0 15-33- 50 40-53- 65 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 10-25- 40 25-33 -40 5-10-15 20-24 Extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam GP-GM, SM, SP- SM, GM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 24-60 Extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 307A—Sudworth silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Sudworth 85 C 0-7 Silty clay loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 80-88- 95 75-83- 90 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 7-24 Loam, silt loam, clay loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1 00 90-95-1 00 65-80- 95 60-73- 85 25-30 -35 5-8 -10 24-29 Loam, silt loam, clay loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1 00 90-95-1 00 65-80- 95 60-73- 85 25-30 -35 5-8 -10 29-60 Very gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sand, extremely cobbly loamy sand GP-GM, SP-SM A-1 0- 0- 0 5-20- 35 30-45- 60 30-40- 50 15-25- 35 5- 8- 10 — NP Custom Soil Resource Report 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 341A—Beaverell- Beavwan loams, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beaverell 60 B 0-7 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 80-85- 90 60-65- 70 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 7-20 Very cobbly clay loam, very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly loam GC, GC- GM A-2, A-4 0- 0- 0 15-33- 50 40-53- 65 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 10-25- 40 25-33 -40 5-10-15 20-24 Extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 0-7 -14 NP Custom Soil Resource Report 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 24-60 Very cobbly loamy coarse sand, extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 0-7 -14 NP Beavwan 30 C 0-5 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 70-80- 90 50-58- 65 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 5-15 Clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam CL, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 80-90-1 00 70-85-1 00 55-70- 85 40-53- 65 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 15-23 Extremely cobbly sandy clay loam, extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GC-GM, GM, SC-SM, SM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 15-30- 45 10-18- 25 20-25 -30 NP-5 -10 23-60 Extremely cobbly loamy sand, extremely cobbly sand, very gravelly coarse sand GP, GP- GM, SP, SP-SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 15-28- 40 0- 5- 10 — NP 364B—Straw silty clay loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Straw 85 B 0-18 Silty clay loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 90-95-1 00 70-78- 85 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 18-60 Loam, silt loam, clay loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 80-90-1 00 60-73- 85 25-30 -35 5-10-15 Custom Soil Resource Report 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 443A—Beavwan loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beavwan 85 C 0-5 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 70-80- 90 50-58- 65 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 5-15 Clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam CL, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 80-90-1 00 70-85-1 00 55-70- 85 40-53- 65 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 15-23 Extremely cobbly sandy clay loam, extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GC-GM, GM, SC-SM, SM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 15-30- 45 10-18- 25 20-25 -30 NP-5 -10 23-60 Extremely cobbly loamy sand, extremely cobbly sand, very gravelly coarse sand GP, GP- GM, SP, SP-SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 15-28- 40 0- 5- 10 — NP 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Turner 85 B 0-6 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 80-90-1 00 75-88-1 00 65-80- 95 50-63- 75 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 6-12 Clay loam, silty clay loam, gravelly loam CL, GC, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 65-83-1 00 60-80-1 00 55-73- 90 35-53- 70 30-35 -40 10-15-2 0 12-26 Loam, clay loam, gravelly loam CL, GC, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 65-83-1 00 60-80-1 00 55-75- 95 40-58- 75 30-35 -40 10-13-1 5 26-60 Extremely gravelly sand, very gravelly loamy sand, very gravelly sand GM, GP, GP-GM A-1 0- 0- 0 10-20- 30 25-43- 60 15-33- 50 10-23- 35 0- 8- 15 0-7 -14 NP Custom Soil Resource Report 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 509B—Enbar loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Enbar 85 C 0-22 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 80-90-1 00 75-88-1 00 60-73- 85 50-63- 75 20-25 -30 5-8 -10 22-49 Loam, sandy loam CL-ML, ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 80-90-1 00 75-88-1 00 60-73- 85 50-63- 75 20-25 -30 NP-5 -10 49-60 Very gravelly sandy loam, very gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sandy loam GM, GP- GM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 25-43- 60 15-33- 50 10-25- 40 5-18- 30 15-20 -25 NP-3 -5 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Meadowcreek 85 C 0-11 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 70-83- 95 50-63- 75 20-25 -30 5-8 -10 11-25 Loam, sandy loam, silt loam CL-ML, SC-SM A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 70-80- 90 40-58- 75 20-25 -30 5-8 -10 25-60 Very gravelly sand, extremely gravelly sand, very gravelly loamy sand GP, GP- GM A-1 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 25-35- 45 15-25- 35 10-18- 25 0- 5- 10 0-0 -19 NP 511A—Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Fairway 85 C 0-15 Silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 90-95-1 00 70-80- 90 20-25 -30 5-8 -10 15-46 Silt loam, loam, silty clay loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 85-93-1 00 60-75- 90 25-33 -40 5-10-15 46-60 Sand, gravelly loamy sand, very gravelly sand GP-GM, SM, SP, SP-SM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 40-70-1 00 30-65-1 00 20-40- 60 0- 8- 15 — NP Custom Soil Resource Report 58 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 514A—Soapcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Soapcreek 85 D 0-15 Silty clay loam CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 80-85- 90 30-38 -45 10-15-2 0 15-46 Silty clay, silty clay loam CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 85-90- 95 35-43 -50 15-20-2 5 46-60 Stratified fine sandy loam to silty clay CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 90-95-1 00 80-88- 95 55-70- 85 30-38 -45 10-15-2 0 517A—Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, drained Saypo 85 C 0-10 Silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 70-80- 90 20-23 -25 5-8 -10 10-21 Silty clay loam, silt loam, clay loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 75-83- 90 65-73- 80 25-30 -35 5-10-15 21-60 Silt loam, silty clay loam, gravelly clay loam CL, CL- ML, GC, GC-GM A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 65-80- 95 60-78- 95 55-73- 90 45-63- 80 25-30 -35 5-10-15 522A—Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Enbar 85 C 0-16 Clay loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 85-90- 95 70-78- 85 30-35 -40 10-13-1 5 16-53 Loam, clay loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 80-90-1 00 75-88-1 00 65-78- 90 55-68- 80 20-25 -30 5-8 -10 53-60 Very gravelly sandy loam, very gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sandy loam GM, GP- GM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 25-43- 60 15-33- 50 10-25- 40 5-18- 30 15-20 -25 NP-3 -5 Custom Soil Resource Report 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 538A—Tetonview silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Tetonview 85 C/D 0-2 decomposed plant material PT A-8 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 85-90- 95 70-80- 90 — — 2-10 Silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 85-90- 95 70-80- 90 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 10-36 Loam, clay loam, silt loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 75-85- 95 55-70- 85 25-30 -35 5-10-15 36-60 Gravelly loam, clay loam, silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 75-88-1 00 70-85-1 00 65-80- 95 50-63- 75 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 Custom Soil Resource Report 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 540A—Tetonview- Newtman complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Tetonview 50 C/D 0-2 decomposed plant material PT A-8 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 85-90- 95 70-80- 90 — — 2-10 Silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 85-90- 95 70-80- 90 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 10-36 Loam, clay loam, silt loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 75-85- 95 55-70- 85 25-30 -35 5-10-15 36-60 Gravelly loam, clay loam, silt loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 75-88-1 00 70-85-1 00 65-80- 95 50-63- 75 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 Newtman 40 C/D 0-9 Mucky peat PT A-8 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 85-93-1 00 65-78- 90 — — 9-15 Silty clay loam, silt loam CL, CL- ML A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 85-93-1 00 65-78- 90 25-30 -35 5-10-15 15-24 Silty clay loam, clay loam, loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 3- 5 95-98-1 00 95-98-1 00 85-93-1 00 65-80- 95 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 24-60 Very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly sandy loam, cobbly loam GC-GM, SC-SM A-2-4 0- 0- 0 20-23- 25 45-58- 70 35-50- 65 25-40- 55 10-23- 35 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 Custom Soil Resource Report 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 556A—Threeriv- Bonebasin loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes Bonebasin 45 B/D 0-4 Muck PT A-8 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 75-85- 95 55-65- 75 — — 4-15 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 75-85- 95 55-65- 75 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 15-25 Stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam CL, CL- ML, SC, SC-SM A-2, A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 60-75- 90 30-50- 70 25-30 -35 5-10-15 25-60 Very cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly coarse sand, extremely cobbly loamy sand GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 10-28- 45 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 Threeriv 45 C/D 0-4 Moderately decomposed plant material PT A-8 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100 100-100 -100 75-85- 95 55-65- 75 — — 4-9 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1 00 90-95-1 00 75-85- 95 55-65- 75 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 9-29 Stratified sandy loam to silty clay loam CL, CL- ML, SC, SC-SM A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 60-78- 95 35-53- 70 25-30 -35 5-10-15 29-60 Extremely gravelly loamy sand, very cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly sand GM, GP- GM A-1 0- 0- 0 15-25- 35 35-48- 60 25-40- 55 20-30- 40 5-10- 15 15-18 -20 NP-3 -5 Custom Soil Resource Report 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 741A—Beaverell- Beavwan complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Beaverell 55 B 0-7 Cobbly loam CL-ML, SC-SM A-4 0- 0- 0 15-23- 30 80-90-1 00 70-80- 90 55-68- 80 45-58- 70 20-25 -30 NP-5 -10 7-20 Very cobbly clay loam, very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly loam GC, GC- GM A-2, A-4 0- 0- 0 15-33- 50 40-53- 65 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 10-25- 40 25-33 -40 5-10-15 20-24 Extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 Custom Soil Resource Report 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map unit symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Hydrolo gic group Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit Plasticit y index Unified AASHTO >10 inches 3-10 inches 4 10 40 200 In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 24-60 Extremely cobbly loamy coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 25-45- 65 30-45- 60 25-40- 55 10-25- 40 5-10- 15 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 Beavwan 30 C 0-5 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 5- 10 90-95-1 00 85-93-1 00 75-83- 90 55-60- 65 25-28 -30 5-8 -10 5-15 Clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam CL, SC A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 80-90-1 00 70-85-1 00 55-73- 90 35-50- 65 30-33 -35 10-13-1 5 15-22 Extremely cobbly sandy clay loam, extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GC-GM, SC-SM A-2 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 35-48- 60 30-43- 55 20-33- 45 10-18- 25 20-23 -25 5-8 -10 22-28 Extremely cobbly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam GM, GP- GM, SM, SP- SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 10-23- 35 5-13- 20 20-23 -25 NP-3 -5 28-60 Extremely cobbly loamy sand, extremely cobbly sand, very gravelly coarse sand GP, GP- GM, SP, SP-SM A-1 0- 0- 0 20-38- 55 25-43- 60 20-38- 55 10-20- 30 0- 5- 10 — NP Custom Soil Resource Report 64 ---PAGE BREAK--- References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 66 ---PAGE BREAK--- GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAPS ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 06.12.03 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 06-12-03 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 06.12.03.dwg, 1/17/2011 9:00:35 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.02.03 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-02-03 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.02.03.dwg, 1/17/2011 9:01:47 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 06.16.04 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 06-16-04 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 06.16.04.dwg, 1/18/2011 11:11:42 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.09.04 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-09-04 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.09.04.dwg, 1/18/2011 11:21:32 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 06.15.05 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 06-15-05 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 06.15.05.dwg, 1/14/2011 4:30:15 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.01.05 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-01-05 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.01.05.dwg, 1/14/2011 4:41:25 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND EXISTING DESCRIPTION STORAGE CELL 3 CELL 1 CELL 2 GROUP A I/P BEDS GROUP B I/P BEDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT LAGOON IRRIGATION PUMP IN LOWER LEVEL 12"Ø HEADER 10"Ø HEADER LATERAL, TYP 1 OF 26 EFFLUENT SPRAY IRRIGATION PATTERN, TYP. 1 OF 52 GROUP C I/P BEDS INFLUENT WEIR BOX/INFLOW METER LAGOON DISCHARGE POINT CONTROL BUILDING -FLOW METER INSIDE -EFFLUENT SAMPLES INSIDE FLOW FLOW SHEET OF CAD NO. DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR .DWG SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 6-12-06 WELLS2ALL 09-057 4/09 TWC WJD J:\2009\09-057 Belgrade Permit Assistance\landdev\G057\dwg\wells2ALL.dwg, 1/17/2011 11:20:08 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND EXISTING DESCRIPTION STORAGE CELL 3 CELL 1 CELL 2 GROUP A I/P BEDS GROUP B I/P BEDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT LAGOON IRRIGATION PUMP IN LOWER LEVEL 12"Ø HEADER 10"Ø HEADER LATERAL, TYP 1 OF 26 EFFLUENT SPRAY IRRIGATION PATTERN, TYP. 1 OF 52 GROUP C I/P BEDS INFLUENT WEIR BOX/INFLOW METER LAGOON DISCHARGE POINT CONTROL BUILDING -FLOW METER INSIDE -EFFLUENT SAMPLES INSIDE FLOW FLOW SHEET OF CAD NO. DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR .DWG SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-19-06 WELLS2ALL 09-057 4/09 TWC WJD J:\2009\09-057 Belgrade Permit Assistance\landdev\G057\dwg\wells2ALL.dwg, 1/17/2011 11:51:44 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND EXISTING DESCRIPTION STORAGE CELL 3 CELL 1 CELL 2 GROUP A I/P BEDS GROUP B I/P BEDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT LAGOON IRRIGATION PUMP IN LOWER LEVEL 12"Ø HEADER 10"Ø HEADER LATERAL, TYP 1 OF 26 EFFLUENT SPRAY IRRIGATION PATTERN, TYP. 1 OF 52 GROUP C I/P BEDS INFLUENT WEIR BOX/INFLOW METER LAGOON DISCHARGE POINT CONTROL BUILDING -FLOW METER INSIDE -EFFLUENT SAMPLES INSIDE FLOW FLOW SHEET OF CAD NO. DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR .DWG SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 6-12-07 WELLS2ALL 09-057 4/09 TWC WJD J:\2009\09-057 Belgrade Permit Assistance\landdev\G057\dwg\wells2ALL.dwg, 1/17/2011 1:12:43 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.11.07 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-11-07 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.11.07.dwg, 1/17/2011 3:56:34 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 06.17.08 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 06-17-08 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 06.17.08.dwg, 1/20/2011 9:20:43 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.10.08 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-10-08 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.10.08.dwg, 1/14/2011 4:24:33 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 06.09.09 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 06-09-09 B10-093 01-14-11 MWC DAP J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 06.09.09.dwg, 1/20/2011 9:23:41 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.15.09 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-15-09 B10-093 12-15-10 MM DJC J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.15.09.dwg, 1/17/2011 9:44:17 AM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 6.8.10 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 6-8-10 B10-093 12-15-10 MM DJC J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 6.8.10.dwg, 1/17/2011 2:11:19 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISIONS BY BY BY DATE DATE DATE DESCR DESCR DESCR WELLS 12.2.10 SEWER LAGOONS BELGRADE, MONTANA WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 12-2-10 B10-093 12-15-10 MM DJC J:\2010\B10-093 Belgrade Discharge Permit\Drawings\wells 12.2.10.dwg, 1/17/2011 2:44:11 PM, MWC ---PAGE BREAK--- FEMA MAPS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- POPULATION PROJECT CONFIRMATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - Fwd: RE: Belgrade planning documents From: Matt McGee To: Dustin Nett; Nicole Rediske Date: 10/24/2016 8:53 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Belgrade planning documents Cc: Heather Calkins; Jen Blood; Keith Waring Good morning, See messages below from City planner. Steve Klotz is out of the office this week but I am planning to get with him when he returns to gather information for lift stations and hopefully parks data will be available then too. I will schedule a call after that. Thanks, Matt McGee, P.E. l Civil Engineer TD&H Engineering 234 E. Babcock Street, Suite 3 l Bozeman, MT 59715 p: [PHONE REDACTED] l c: [PHONE REDACTED] l d: [PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Jason Karp <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 10/24/2016 8:44 AM In general I would agree with the findings. So it goes in Belgradeboom, bust, and repeat. jk From: Matt McGee [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:49 AM To: Jason Karp Cc: Keith Waring Subject: RE: Belgrade planning documents Jason, Yes, the 8,479 was a typo on page three. Thanks for catching that. Do you agree with the trends in the study? Are we able to use this moving forward with our master planning reports? Matt McGee, P.E. l Civil Engineer TD&H Engineering 234 E. Babcock Street, Suite 3 l Bozeman, MT 59715 p: [PHONE REDACTED] l c: [PHONE REDACTED] l d: [PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 1 of 2 5/21/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jason Karp <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 10/21/2016 2:23 PM A question on Keith’s population letter: On page three in the last paragraph it states that the predicted population for 2038 is 8,479. On page four the table shown predicts a population of 19,360 in 2038. Is there a typo on page three? Population growth was slower from 2010 to 2014, but with Meadowlark Ranch and Ryen Glenn Subdivisions cranking out houses the growth rate should picking up quite a bit. jk From: Matt McGee [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:02 AM To: Jason Karp Cc: Keith Waring Subject: Belgrade planning documents Good morning Jason, Can you please review the attached documents for inclusion in the Master Plan reports? Thanks for your time, Matt McGee, P.E. l Civil Engineer TD&H Engineering 234 E. Babcock Street, Suite 3 l Bozeman, MT 59715 p: [PHONE REDACTED] l c: [PHONE REDACTED] l d: [PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 2 of 2 5/21/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- FLOW MEASURMENT VALIDATION ---PAGE BREAK--- 4167 MARLIN COURT EAST HELENA, MT 59635 PHONE [PHONE REDACTED] E-MAIL: [EMAIL REDACTED] WEBSITE: www.metcontrols.com To: City Of Belgrade WWTP From: Dennis Burgard Date: 27 March 2017 Ref: Influent / Effluent Flow Verification M.E.T. performed a flow verification at the Belgrade Waste Water Treatment Plant on 03/27/17. We first clamped a Flexim Ultrasonic Clamp-On flowmeter onto the effluent pipes and verified the MAG meters. All three MAG meters read within 5% of the clamp-on, and all parameters are entered correctly. IP1 Flowmeter: Model: Danfoss MAGFLO Verified MAG parameters Comparison between Flexim and Danfoss within 5% Verified local display was within 1% of MAG local display IP2 Flowmeter: Model: Danfoss MAGFLO Verified MAG parameters Comparison between Flexim and Danfoss within 5% Verified local display was within 1% of MAG local display Recycle Flowmeter: Model: Danfoss MAGFLO Verified MAG parameters Comparison between Flexim and Danfoss within 5% Verified local display was within 1% of MAG local display Next we performed an inspection of the influent open channel flowmeter. The influent open channel flowmeter does not have a primary device in the flow. The flow channel is simply a 21” pipe with the top cut out and a level monitor above the flow. Velocity is calculated based on pipe parameters, and pipe slope. The level is then used to calculate flow volume. We determined two parameters were off. The pipe ID was entered as 20.5”, however our records showed the actual ID was 20.78”, making this change made no noticeable flow change. However we also determined the slope to be 0.001, and a value of 0.002 was entered. When changing this value, the flowrate dropped from 721 gpm to 516 gpm It is not ideal to have an open channel flow application without a primary device affecting the flow profile, or without a velocity sensor. However, we are confident the application is working as accurately as possible, providing the data we determined and were provided is correct. ---PAGE BREAK--- PEAKING FACTORS ---PAGE BREAK--- BOZEMAN, GREAT FALLS, KALISPELL & SHELBY, MT I SPOKANE, WA I LEWISTON, ID I WATFORD CITY, ND I MEDIA, PA 406. 761. 3010 t dhengineering. c om 1800 Ri ver Drive Nort h Great Fal ls , MT 59401 MEMORANDUM Date: 05-21-2017 TDH Job No.: B16-048 To: FILE From: NMR Subject: Belgrade Peaking Factors The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a detailed account of wastewater peaking factors for the City of Belgrade’s Wastewater Master Plan calculations. Five flow types were defined in the Master Plan, including: Average Day Flow Maximum Month Flow Maximum Day Flow Peak Hour Flow Peak Instantaneous Flow Raw flow data for the treatment plant’s influent was downloaded from the City’s SCADA system. Average day flows (ADF) were calculated by taking the yearly average of these flow rates. The average ADF was calculated for the past three years (2014 to 2016) and defined as the City’s existing ADF. Projected ADF was estimated using a wastewater production rate of 86 gpcd and population projections. Available SCADA data was also used to determine peaking factors. ADF for 2010 to 2016 were calculated along with maximum month, maximum day, peak hour and peak instantaneous flows. Next, the yearly maximum value was found. The maximum value was divided by the corresponding yearly ADF to estimate the peaking factor for that specific year. Finally, the yearly peaking factors from 2010 to 2016 were compared and the highest yearly peaking factor was used to define the system’s overall peaking factor. This was done for each flow type separately. J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\HYDRAULICS\Lagoon Flows\2017.05.10 Influent Flows.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- OUTFALL SEWER CAPACITY ---PAGE BREAK--- By: CEVJ Blue = User Inputs Ckd: Red = Results Date: 3/1/2018 Estimate the capacity of the existing outfall sewer which conveys flows to the WWTP. Utilize Manning's equation. Inputs: Pipe: 21" SDR 35 PVC Inside Diameter = 21.00 in (1.75 ft) (use nominal diameter in calculations) Number of Barrels = 1 Manning's n = 0.013 (per City of Belgrade Design Standards) Slope, S = 0.10% (0.00100 ft/ft) (minimum as-constructed slope) Single Barrel Calculations: Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Manning's Capacity (cfs) Manning's Capacity (gpm) Manning's Capacity (MGD) Velocity (ft/sec) y θ A P T R V 30% Full 0.53 2.32 0.61 2.03 1.60 0.30 0.98 440 0.63 1.62 75% Full 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.57 2,051 2.95 2.36 93.8% Full* 1.64 5.28 2.34 4.62 0.84 0.51 5.39 2,419 3.48 2.30 Full 1.75 6.28 2.41 5.50 0.00 0.44 5.01 2,249 3.24 2.08 *Depth at which maximum flow occurs in a circular section. Condition BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN City of Belgrade TD&H Job No. B16-048 Outfall Sewer Capacity Q ---PAGE BREAK--- EAST INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY ---PAGE BREAK--- By: CEVJ Blue = User Inputs Ckd: Red = Results Date: 2018.03.01 Estimate the capacity of the existing 21 inch East Interceptor sewer. Utilize Manning's equation. Inputs: Pipe: 21" PVC Inside Diameter = 21.00 in (1.75 ft) Number of Barrels = 1 Manning's n = 0.013 (per City of Belgrade Design Standards) Slope, S = 0.10% (0.00100 ft/ft) (assume DEQ minimum) Single Barrel Calculations: Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Manning's Capacity (cfs) Manning's Capacity (gpm) Velocity (ft/sec) y θ A P T R V 30% Full 0.53 2.32 0.61 2.03 1.60 0.30 0.98 440 1.62 75% Full 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.57 2,051 2.36 93.8% Full* 1.64 5.28 2.34 4.62 0.84 0.51 5.39 2,419 2.30 Full 1.75 6.28 2.41 5.50 0.00 0.44 5.01 2,249 2.08 *Depth at which maximum flow occurs in a circular section. Q Condition BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN City of Belgrade TD&H Job No. B16-048 East Interceptor Sewer Capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- INTERSTATE 90 CROSSING ---PAGE BREAK--- By: CEVJ Blue = User Inputs Ckd: Red = Results Date: 5/3/2017 Estimate the capacity of the existing parallel sanitary sewer crossing under I-90. Utilize Manning's equation. Inputs: Pipe: 12" SDR 35 PVC Inside Diameter = 11.78 in (0.98 ft) Number of Barrels = 2 Manning's n = 0.013 (per City of Belgrade Design Standards) Slope, S = 0.444% (0.00444 ft/ft) Single Barrel Calculations: Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Manning's Capacity (cfs) Manning's Capacity (gpm) Velocity (ft/sec) y θ A P T R V 30% Full 0.29 2.32 0.19 1.14 0.90 0.17 0.44 199 2.32 75% Full 0.74 4.19 0.61 2.06 0.85 0.30 2.06 925 3.38 93.8% Full* 0.92 5.28 0.74 2.59 0.47 0.28 2.43 1,091 3.30 Full 0.98 6.28 0.76 3.08 0.00 0.25 2.26 1,014 2.99 *Depth at which maximum flow occurs in a circular section. Crossing Capacity: Condition 30% Full 75% Full 93.8% Full Full Q Condition BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN City of Belgrade TD&H Job No. B16-048 Interstate 90 Sewer Crossing Capacity Crossing Capacity (gpm) 397 1,850 2,182 2,028 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- RV DUMP STATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Rocky Mtn Supply1.JPG Rocky Mtn Supply2.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan RV Dump Stations ---PAGE BREAK--- Town Pump1.JPG Town Pump2.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan RV Dump Stations ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LIFT STATION INSPECTIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- BOZEMAN, GREAT FALLS, KALISPELL & SHELBY, MT I SPOKANE, WA I LEWISTON, ID I WATFORD CITY, ND I MEDIA, PA I LEHI, UT 406. 586. 0277 t dhengineering. c om 234 E ast B abc ock S t reet S uit e 3 B ozem an, MT 59715 MEETING NOTES Date: 10/20/16 Time: A.M. Present: Dustin Nett, Wade DeBoo, Matt McGee, Dustin - City of Belgrade Subject: Lift station inspections TDH Job No.: B16-048-021 Truck stop – SID #78 Lift Station Grease accumulation from adjacent restaurant False reading on probe Something trips one of the pumps off regularly City replaced pump on generator recently City regularly pulls pumps at all lift stations to clean and check gaskets Farmers - #3 Lift Station Oil & dye regularly in wet well – may be causing issue with station Station only serves Gallatin Farmers Street Swing check valves with problems – get full of rubber bands and City has to clean out. Could be old valves, may need to adjust tension in valves, pipe may be clogged from dye. One of the valves is leaking as well. The station can’t draw down when businesses are operating No backup power Jackrabbit - #1 Lift Station Both pumps new in 2012 Installed bypass in 2012 Has one trash rack, not used though Problems with probe – material gets on it and it breaks due to placement in turbulence Generator from Saddle Peak Elementary runs this station ---PAGE BREAK--- OCTOBER 20, 2016 PAGE NO. 2 t d h e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m Cruiser - #2 Lift Station I-beams are warped This station is on floats East pump doesn’t seat properly and runs much more often than other pump Measure down on influent pipe is 14’ 5.25” to top of pipe (12” pipe?) Square wet well Has bypass No generator backup Ryen Glen Lift Station New lift station, did not have flows for a while and still not full flows yet Square wet well Meadowlark Lift Station Issues with probe Issues with electrical occasionally but fine after reset MM to get: - Lift station drawings - Pretreatment ordinance - Pump rates for each station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_105944062_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_105956468_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110000202_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110011037_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110016630_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110022032_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110027034_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110033282_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110038444_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110045112_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110100343_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110107449_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110111127_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110121057_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110131172_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110138879_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110141601_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110152738_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110217411_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110220981_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110243093_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110248029_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110251938_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110257419_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110304843_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110316788_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110322401_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110333740_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110343265_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110520765_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110600551_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110649074_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110655937_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110700632_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_110703958_JACKRABBIT.jpg IMG_20161020_110918828_HDR_JACKRABBIT.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Jackrabbit Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111627275_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111638727_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111704583_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111738311_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111754943_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111759957_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111811376_HDR_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111815765_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111818848_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111822405_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111829344_HDR_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111838172_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111845153_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111850462_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111900866_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111910952_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111915561_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111923353_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111933365_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_111935851_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_111952266_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_112005763_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_112020639_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_112023456_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_112029559_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_112103432_HDR_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_112116405_CRUISER.jpg IMG_20161020_112133625_CRUISER.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_112224339_CRUISER.jpg IMG_7063.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_7064.JPG IMG_7065.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Cruiser Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103639415_HDR_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103648381_HDR_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103705849_HDR_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103716417_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103726611_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103730736_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103750136_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103820677_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103915851_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103929254_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103939880_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_103951527_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_103956809_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104002269_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104013498_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104022277_HDR_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104033755_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104041420_HDR_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104046600_HDR_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104057267_HDR_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104112724_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104123631_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104134167_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104319390_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104456715_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104524226_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104535921_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104630551_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_104633477_FARMERS.jpg IMG_20161020_104648144_FARMERS.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Gallatin Farmers Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4212_SID78.JPG IMG_4213_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4214_SID78.JPG IMG_4215_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4216_SID78.JPG IMG_4217_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102418506_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102423416_HDR_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102428055_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102434892_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102442046_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102448575_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102452970_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102504592_HDR_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102514167_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102520314_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102528298_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102535752_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102549005_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102554519_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102601506_HDR_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102616074_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102625356_HDR_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102643748_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102700128_SID78.jpg IMG_20161020_102714255_SID78.jpg B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_20161020_102723290_SID78.jpg PHOT0001_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0002_SID78.JPG PHOT0003_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0004_SID78.JPG PHOT0005_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0006_SID78.JPG PHOT0007_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0008_SID78.JPG PHOT0009_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0010_SID78.JPG PHOT0011_SID78.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan SID #78 Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0068_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0069_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0070_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0071_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0072_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0073_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0074_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0075_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0076_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0077_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0078_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0079_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0080_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0081_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0082_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0083_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0084_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0085_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0086_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0087_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0088_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0089_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0090_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0091_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0092_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0093_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0094_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0095_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0096_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0097_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0098_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0099_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0100_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0101_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0102_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0103_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0104_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0105_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0106_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0107_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0108_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0109_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0110_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0111_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0112_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0113_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0114_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0115_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0116_MEADOWLARK.JPG PHOT0117_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0118_MEADOWLARK.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Meadowlark Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0012_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0013_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0014_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0015_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0016_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0017_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0018_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0019_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0020_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0021_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0022_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0023_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0024_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0025_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0026_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0027_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0028_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0029_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0030_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0031_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0032_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0033_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0034_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0035_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0036_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0037_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0038_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0039_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0040_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0041_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0042_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0043_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0044_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0045_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0046_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0047_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0048_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0049_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0050_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0051_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0052_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0053_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0054_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0055_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0056_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0057_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0058_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0059_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0060_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0061_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0062_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0063_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0064_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0065_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0066_RYENGLENN.JPG PHOT0067_RYENGLENN.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Lift Station ---PAGE BREAK--- Diversion Box.JPG Force Main MH.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Force Main ---PAGE BREAK--- Inaide Trunk Main MH-2.JPG Inside Diversion Box.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Force Main ---PAGE BREAK--- Inside Force Main MH.JPG Inside Trunk Main MH-1.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Force Main ---PAGE BREAK--- Inside Wier Box MH.JPG Trunk Main MH.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Force Main ---PAGE BREAK--- Wier Box MH .JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan Ryen Glenn Force Main ---PAGE BREAK--- LIFT STATION DRAW DOWN TESTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Test by: Matt McGee, 2017-04-13, 9:30 AM BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-04-17 Wet Well Measurements Round concrete wet well, 6 ft diameter Area = 28.3 SF Depth to Fill Stop/Lead Pump Start = 20.30 ft Depth to Fill Start/Lead Pump Stop = 24.30 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Depth = 4.00 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Volume = 113.1 CF (846.0 gallons) Draw Down Test Times Duration (min:sec) Duration (min) 2:05 2.08 6:11 6.18 2:10 2.17 6:10 6.17 Analysis and Results Average Wet Well Fill Duration = 6.2 min Average Wet Well Inflow = 137.0 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 406.1 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 390.5 gpm Calculate the length of one pump cycle for each pump and the frequency of motor starts. Pump #1 Cycle Duration = 8.3 min Pump #1 Run Cycle Frequency = Pump #2 Cycle Duration = 8.3 min Pump #2 Run Cycle Frequency = Determine the pumping rate using the average inflow and the net flow rate. Pump #1 Flow Rate = 543.1 gpm (1.21 cfs) Pump #2 Flow Rate = 527.5 gpm (1.18 cfs) Fill Stop and Pump #1 Run BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Jackrabbit Lift Station Draw Down Test Event (Duration = 2.17 min) 7.3 pump starts per hour 7.2 pump starts per hour Pump #1 Stop and Wet Well Fill Fill Stop and Pump #2 Run Pump #2 Stop and Wet Well Fill Two wet well fill cycles were observed during the draw down test. Use the average duration to calculate the average inflow to the wet well. Use the lead pump wet well volume to calculate the net wet well flow rate for each pump. The net flow rate is equal to the wet well outflow minus the inflow. (Duration = 2.08 min) ---PAGE BREAK--- Test by: Matt McGee, 2016-11-16, 10 AM to 11 AM BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2016-12-09 Wet Well Measurements Square concrete wet well, 7.5 ft by 7.5 ft inside dimensions Area = 56.3 SF Depth to Fill Stop/Lead Pump Start = 19.13 ft Depth to Fill Start/Lead Pump Stop = 21.49 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Depth = 2.36 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Volume = 132.8 CF (993.0 gal) Draw Down Test Times Duration (min:sec) Duration (min) 3:29 3.48 11:25 11.42 4:33 4.55 16:12 16.20 Analysis and Results Average Wet Well Fill Duration = 13.8 min Average Wet Well Inflow = 71.9 gpm Wet Well Net Flow West Pump) = 285.1 gpm Wet Well Net Flow East Pump) = 218.3 gpm Calculate the length of one pump cycle for each pump and the frequency of motor starts. West Pump Cycle Duration = 17.3 min West Pump Run Cycle Frequency = East Pump Cycle Duration = 18.4 min East Pump Run Cycle Frequency = Determine the pumping rate using the average inflow and the net flow rate. West Pump Flow Rate = 357.0 gpm (0.80 cfs) East Pump Flow Rate = 290.2 gpm (0.65 cfs) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Fill Stop and West Pump Run West Pump Stop and Wet Well Fill Event 3.5 pump starts per hour 3.3 pump starts per hour (Duration = 3.48 min) (Duration = 4.55 min) Cruiser Lift Station Draw Down Test Fill Stop and East Pump Run East Pump Stop and Wet Well Fill Use the lead pump wet well volume to calculate the net wet well flow rate for each pump. The net flow rate is equal to the wet well outflow minus the inflow. Two wet well fill cycles were observed during the draw down test. Use the average duration to calculate the average inflow to the wet well. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Test by: Matt McGee, 2017-04-13 BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-04-17 Wet Well Measurements Round concrete wet well, 6 ft diameter (per as-builts) Area = 28.3 SF Depth to Fill Stop/Lead Pump Start = 14.20 ft Depth to Fill Start/Lead Pump Stop = 15.30 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Depth = 1.10 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Volume = 31.1 CF (232.7 gallons) Draw Down Test Times Duration (min:sec) Duration (min) 5:50 5.83 2:15 2.25 6:30 6.50 1:20 1.33 Analysis and Results Average Wet Well Fill Duration = 6.2 min Average Wet Well Inflow = 37.7 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 103.4 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 174.5 gpm Calculate the length of one pump cycle for each pump and the frequency of motor starts. Pump #1 Cycle Duration = 8.4 min Pump #1 Run Cycle Frequency = Pump #2 Cycle Duration = 7.5 min Pump #2 Run Cycle Frequency = Determine the pumping rate using the average inflow and the net flow rate. Pump #1 Flow Rate = 141.1 gpm (0.31 cfs) Pump #2 Flow Rate = 212.2 gpm (0.47 cfs) Fill Stop and Pump #1 Run Pump #2 Stop and Wet Well Fill BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Gallatin Farmers Avenue/W Northern Pacific Ave Lift Station Draw Down Test Event (Duration = 1.33 min) 7.1 pump starts per hour 8.0 pump starts per hour Pump #1 Stop and Wet Well Fill Fill Stop and Pump #2 Run Two wet well fill cycles were observed during the draw down test. Use the average duration to calculate the average inflow to the wet well. Use the lead pump wet well volume to calculate the net wet well flow rate for each pump. The net flow rate is equal to the wet well outflow minus the inflow. (Duration = 2.25 min) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Test by: Ryan Dake, 2017-03-15 and Matt McGee, 2017-04-13 BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-04-17 Wet Well Measurements Round concrete wet well, 8 ft diameter Area = 50.3 SF Depth to Fill Stop/Lead Pump Start = 15.45 ft Depth to Fill Start/Lead Pump Stop = 18.60 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Depth = 3.15 ft Lead Pump Wet Well Volume = 158.3 CF (1184.4 gallons) Draw Down Test Times Duration (min:sec) Duration (min) 2:07 2.12 90:00 90.00 (Assumed) 0:30 0.50 120:00 120.00 (Assumed) Analysis and Results Average Wet Well Fill Duration = 105.0 min Average Wet Well Inflow = 11.3 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 559.6 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 2368.9 gpm Calculate the length of one pump cycle for each pump and the frequency of motor starts. Pump #1 Cycle Duration = 107.1 min Pump #1 Run Cycle Frequency = Pump #2 Cycle Duration = 105.5 min Pump #2 Run Cycle Frequency = Determine the pumping rate using the average inflow and the net flow rate. Pump #1 Flow Rate = 570.9 gpm (1.27 cfs) Pump #2 Flow Rate = 2380.2 gpm (5.30 cfs) Fill Stop and West Pump Run BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Draw Down Test Event (Duration = 0.50 min) 0.6 pump starts per hour 0.6 pump starts per hour West Pump Stop and Wet Well Fill Fill Stop and East Pump Run East Pump Stop and Wet Well Fill Two wet well fill cycles were observed during the draw down test. Use the average duration to calculate the average inflow to the wet well. Use the lead pump wet well volume to calculate the net wet well flow rate for each pump. The net flow rate is equal to the wet well outflow minus the inflow. (Duration = 2.12 min) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Test by: City of Belgrade December 2017 BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2018-03-09 Wet Well Measurements Round concrete wet well, 8 ft diameter Area = 50.3 SF 4464.98 ft (from as-builts) 4459.98 ft (from as-builts) 251.33 CF 75.4 CF (564.0 gallons) Draw Down Test Times Duration (min:sec) Duration (min) 1:58 1.97 2:02 2.03 Analysis and Results Average Wet Well Inflow = 14.0 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 286.8 gpm Wet Well Net Flow Pump = 277.4 gpm Pump cycle length the frequency of motor starts cannot be calculated without wet well fill times. Determine the pumping rate using the average inflow and the net flow rate. Pump #1 Flow Rate = 300.8 gpm (0.67 cfs) Pump #2 Flow Rate = 291.4 gpm (0.65 cfs) Wet well fill times were not provided by the City from the December 2017 test. The average wet well inflow to be used to estimate the pumping capacity will be the average inflow calculated during the event log analysis. Use the lead pump wet well volume to calculate the net wet well flow rate for each pump. The net flow rate is equal to the wet well outflow minus the inflow. (Duration = 1.97 min) (Duration = 2.03 min) Pumps Off Elevation = Total Wet Well Volume = 30% Wet Well Volume = Event Fill Stop and West Pump Run Fill Stop and East Pump Run BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Draw Down Retest City operators did not provide a depth measurement for this draw down test. They indicated how full the wet well generally was when each pump started and stopped and report that volume in percent. The percent full likely originates from the SCADA panel in the generator building which reports wet well depth as a percent. It is likely that this percentage refers to the depth between two set points in the control panel: high water alarm depth and pumps off depth. Calculate the active volume as 30% of the volume between these set points. The notes from the test are attached. High Water Alarm Elevation = ---PAGE BREAK--- Explanation of Test from TD&H: City performed test LS fills pretty slowly (more than 1 hr fill time) % refer to how full the wet well was - related to % of depth between pumps off and high water alarm Matt wasn't sure why the 2nd pump started pumping at a higher level than the 1st 1st pump - ran for 1 min 58 sec for 30% of total wet well volume 2nd pump - similar but different time to calculate volume - look @ plans and find total wet well depth and diameter, then take 30% of the total volume SID #78 Wet Well As-Builts: 8' Diameter Top of wet well = 4477.60' Bottom of wet well = 4456.98' Lead pump on = 4462.98' Lag pump on = 4463.98' Pumps off = 4459.98' ---PAGE BREAK--- LIFT STATION EVENT LOG ANALYSIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 6/19/2017 Hourly Average Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Peak Instantaneous Flow (gpm) Average Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Minimum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Maximum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Instances of Fill Times Greater than 30 Minutes Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour January 214 500 564 7.3 1.5 105.0 157 3.5 3.4 9 9 February 216 494 529 7.1 1.6 115.8 122 3.6 3.5 9 9 March 199 476 508 7.6 1.7 122.8 153 3.4 3.4 8 9 April 202 503 508 7.8 1.7 126.5 174 3.4 3.3 10 8 May 197 470 523 7.6 1.6 104.8 149 3.3 3.4 9 8 June 220 488 513 7.2 1.6 99.1 130 3.9 3.5 13 9 July 212 461 558 7.0 1.5 148.1 114 3.8 3.6 14 8 August 213 474 546 6.9 1.5 95.5 111 3.5 3.7 8 8 September 218 498 508 7.0 1.7 110.0 139 3.5 3.6 9 9 October 206 469 508 7.1 1.7 128.2 120 3.5 3.6 9 9 November 209 482 518 6.8 1.6 137.0 125 3.5 3.8 9 9 December 188 476 513 7.4 1.6 122.8 139 3.4 3.5 9 9 January 200 477 513 7.0 1.6 97.5 134 3.5 3.7 8 9 February 206 489 513 7.0 1.6 117.8 140 3.5 3.7 8 9 March 162 349 503 9.4 1.7 140.0 208 2.7 2.9 8 8 April 161 350 360 9.3 2.3 189.4 203 2.8 3.0 9 8 May 177 347 368 8.6 2.3 194.2 184 2.8 3.3 8 8 June 189 350 498 7.8 1.7 202.6 146 2.8 3.6 7 7 July 167 345 371 8.1 2.3 110.7 139 2.9 3.3 8 9 August 178 353 382 8.2 2.2 140.1 165 2.9 3.2 8 9 September 170 353 382 8.4 2.2 157.4 166 2.9 3.3 8 8 October 180 346 373 8.0 2.3 110.7 173 2.7 3.6 8 8 November 137 353 376 8.6 2.3 110.7 128 2.7 3.1 6 8 December 108 279 355 9.5 2.4 110.5 110 2.4 2.8 5 5 Average hourly inflow = 189 gpm Peak Hour Flow = 503 gpm Peak Instantaneous Flow = 564 gpm Jackrabbit Lift Station Event Log Analysis Results BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 2015 2016 Inflow Fill Time Pump Starts per Hour Month Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 6/19/2017 Hourly Average Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Peak Instantaneou s Flow (gpm) Average Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Minimum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Maximu m Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Instances of Fill Times Greater than 30 Minutes Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour January 87 220 562 12.3 1.8 57.8 22 1.9 1.4 6 4 February 88 323 584 12.2 1.7 52.3 40 1.1 1.4 2 3 March 87 334 590 12.2 1.7 87.1 41 1.1 1.3 3 4 April 88 262 590 12.0 1.7 59.5 36 1.3 1.4 3 4 May 100 383 596 11.3 1.7 81.1 34 1.4 1.5 6 5 June 111 499 596 10.8 1.7 50.7 35 1.5 1.6 6 8 July 178 539 596 7.9 1.7 61.3 12 1.6 1.7 7 9 August 157 584 621 9.0 1.6 47.0 21 1.4 1.9 6 7 September 95 573 596 13.4 1.7 77.7 129 1.4 1.6 5 7 October 116 482 596 10.7 1.7 48.7 19 1.3 1.4 7 7 November 85 465 596 13.2 1.7 66.7 85 1.5 1.8 6 7 December 74 214 590 14.1 1.7 65.0 41 1.4 2.0 3 5 January 53 276 590 20.1 1.7 70.3 227 1.9 1.4 6 4 February 46 119 275 23.0 3.6 83.8 252 1.1 1.4 2 3 March 47 192 414 23.2 2.4 94.6 245 1.1 1.3 3 4 April 54 231 414 19.8 2.4 98.4 189 1.3 1.4 3 4 May 60 269 417 18.4 2.4 71.4 171 1.4 1.5 6 5 June 69 303 432 17.3 2.3 214.7 151 1.5 1.6 6 8 July 78 325 420 15.6 2.4 63.9 120 1.6 1.7 7 9 August 92 370 445 14.0 2.2 66.4 113 1.4 1.9 6 7 September 82 407 423 15.0 2.4 69.0 79 1.4 1.6 5 7 October 73 411 420 15.8 2.4 49.3 100 1.3 1.4 7 7 November 80 308 417 14.0 2.4 59.0 34 1.5 1.8 6 7 December 77 324 417 14.0 2.4 54.0 46 1.4 2.0 3 5 Average hourly inflow = 87 gpm Peak Hour Flow = 584 gpm Peak Instantaneous Flow = 621 gpm BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Cruiser Lift Station Event Log Analysis Results Fill Time Pump Starts per Hour 2015 2016 Year Month Inflow to Station ---PAGE BREAK--- 6/19/2017 Hourly Average Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Peak Instantaneous Flow (gpm) Average Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Minimum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Maximum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Instances of Fill Times Greater than 30 Minutes Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour January 17 68 129 64.7 1.8 1760.6 193 2.5 2.9 4 6 February 18 65 65 63.8 3.6 1083.8 124 1.2 1.4 2 3 March 19 76 138 68.9 1.7 1323.5 114 1.1 1.3 2 3 April 17 65 65 78.8 3.6 1554.4 110 1.1 1.3 2 3 May 23 122 122 63.9 1.9 1677.9 69 1.1 1.3 2 3 June 20 121 122 74.4 1.9 1477.3 101 1.1 1.1 3 3 July 21 66 66 89.6 3.5 1999.3 77 1.1 1.1 2 2 August 19 66 133 78.5 1.8 1247.3 95 1.1 1.1 3 2 September 15 44 65 75.1 3.6 1230.6 89 1.1 1.1 2 2 October 12 44 44 126.2 5.3 1668.4 114 1.0 1.2 2 3 November 15 122 122 110.0 1.9 1954.2 80 1.1 1.2 2 2 December 12 44 64 132.9 3.6 1498.6 95 1.0 1.1 2 2 January 14 122 122 109.9 1.9 1444.0 87 1.0 1.1 2 3 February 23 138 138 62.8 1.7 893.4 40 1.1 1.5 5 6 March 17 96 97 80.3 2.4 1529.0 81 1.0 1.4 3 4 April 20 97 97 130.9 2.4 1924.1 69 1.1 1.1 2 2 May 17 97 97 104.4 2.4 1349.9 80 1.0 1.1 2 2 June 20 96 96 54.7 2.4 1169.0 45 1.0 1.4 2 3 July 17 96 96 90.3 2.4 1205.6 65 1.0 1.3 2 3 August 19 97 97 76.7 2.4 1310.2 68 1.1 1.5 2 3 September 14 96 96 70.5 2.4 893.4 86 1.1 1.4 2 3 October 13 48 49 122.4 4.8 1267.5 69 1.1 1.4 2 3 November 17 98 98 88.2 2.4 881.3 68 1.1 1.6 2 4 December 16 97 97 104.3 2.4 986.8 69 1.1 1.6 3 4 Average hourly inflow = 17 gpm Peak Hour Flow = 138 gpm Peak Instantaneous Flow = 138 gpm BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Event Log Analysis Results Pump Starts per Hour 2015 2016 Year Month Inflow Fill Time ---PAGE BREAK--- 6/19/2017 Hourly Average Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Peak Instantaneous Flow (gpm) Average Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Minimum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Maximum Wet Well Fill Time (minutes) Instances of Fill Times Greater than 30 Minutes Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Average Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour Pump Maximum Number of Pump Starts per Hour January 10 47 54 163.6 21.8 774.8 258 1.0 1.0 1 2 February 13 355 703 144.1 1.7 489.2 257 1.0 1.0 1 2 March 15 361 703 135.4 1.7 456.9 300 1.0 1.0 3 3 April 15 618 618 131.1 1.9 470.1 301 1.0 1.0 2 2 May 14 316 618 117.5 1.9 407.8 357 1.0 1.0 2 2 June 18 365 697 94.2 1.7 353.8 413 1.0 1.0 2 2 July 18 296 677 97.8 1.8 588.5 381 1.0 1.0 2 1 August 20 664 697 96.1 1.7 438.8 412 1.0 1.0 2 2 September 17 355 703 102.5 1.7 744.3 389 1.0 1.0 2 2 October 19 358 703 105.7 1.7 334.2 370 1.0 1.0 2 2 November 12 90 165 139.2 7.2 439.0 292 1.0 1.0 1 1 December 17 313 618 115.1 1.9 635.3 334 1.0 1.0 2 2 January 13 73 130 122.9 9.1 590.8 336 1.0 1.0 1 1 February 16 171 332 110.2 3.6 506.9 349 1.0 1.0 2 2 March 13 249 493 149.5 2.4 724.6 272 1.0 1.0 2 2 April 11 256 493 172.5 2.4 869.2 240 1.0 1.0 2 1 May 13 249 490 128.1 2.4 511.7 329 1.0 1.0 1 2 June 14 248 493 130.3 2.4 655.9 315 1.0 1.0 2 1 July 14 487 493 148.7 2.4 695.7 273 1.0 1.0 2 1 August 13 328 497 145.8 2.4 748.0 285 1.0 1.0 2 2 September 12 261 508 168.1 2.3 603.1 245 1.0 1.0 1 2 October 11 124 245 182.2 4.8 939.9 233 1.0 1.0 2 2 November 8 87 123 231.5 9.7 964.6 166 1.0 1.0 2 2 December 10 249 493 192.7 2.4 782.9 211 1.0 1.0 1 1 Average hourly inflow = 14 gpm Peak Hour Flow = 664 gpm Peak Instantaneous Flow = 703 gpm BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 Lift Station Event Log Analysis Results Pump Starts per Hour 2015 2016 Year Month Inflow Fill Time ---PAGE BREAK--- LIFT STATION ENERGY USAGE ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Jan-13 Jan-13 Feb-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 Apr-13 May-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand Lagoon Road 0900875-6 237 129440 192 104560 192 115680 172 96880 234 110720 253 140640 220 96160 232 115840 231.2 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 75 132 143 162 228 236 249 230 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 9 3357 10 3024 10 2847 10 2897 10 2812 12 3282 74 13 5766 8.18 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 12 1535 10 1385 12 1408 8 1277 12 1036 8 1234 8 1067 17 1383 8.45 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 7 1396 6 980 9 944 6 846 5 762 4 1091 3 568 3 810 4.62 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 3 997 3 842 3 880 3 669 4 575 4 437 4 180 2 160 4.22 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 12 726 8 634 6 752 6 630 7 565 4 363 6 349 5 312 5.73 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 64 19093 64 16759 49 0 7 230 63 22114 62 38477 63 43140 64 43071 62.61 Well-#4 0185526-1 8 4640 86 6480 86 16480 86 17760 81 3440 81 1520 85 16560 82 48720 82.4 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 13 40 20 2240 12 4400 12 3280 60 4120 61 2880 60 6800 61 6200 60.4 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 10 2080 11 1760 10 1680 33 1280 33 2200 33 2200 33 8000 34 3440 33.6 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 6 3040 38 8640 39 27400 38 24240 38 10840 58 18280 59 30400 59 37440 58 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 48 35553 45 20296 46 1604 47 5877 49 29280 42 31657 42 28446 44 29388 42.5 429 201972 493 167732 474 174218 428 156028 596 188692 622 242297 657 231919 616 292760 601.91 Page 1 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 Sep-13 Oct-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Dec-13 Yr-2013 Yr-2013 Jan-14 Jan-14 Feb-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Apr-14 kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh 128720 233.6 127200 186.4 110640 200 [PHONE REDACTED].2 1378160 196.8 120400 211.2 97760 199.2 107680 232.8 94240 221 263 185 184 0 2308 113 191 [PHONE REDACTED] 8.18 2609 6.8 2099 6.26 2133 177.42 33435 6.71 2575 6.56 2106 12.57 2126 6.77 2343 989 8.45 1240 8.45 1046 18.79 1082 131.14 14682 18.79 1204 5.06 1015 9.98 1267 6.22 1417 976 3.63 837 6.16 771 6.07 1216 63.48 11197 5.7 1285 8.42 1306 7.72 1108 5.57 857 201 2.58 473 2.83 844 3.47 997 39.1 7255 3.15 1150 3.3 996 3.08 948 3.23 643 445 6.19 612 6.38 759 6.53 724 78.83 6871 5.83 744 6.34 780 5.94 741 7.02 673 50410 63.27 39838 64 16657 63.65 7319 689.53 297108 63.39 43240 63.44 15144 62.76 30012 63 7064 39120 84.8 5680 86.4 18640 86.4 12640 935 191680 86.4 5280 84.8 6400 85.6 16160 86.4 2480 11720 61.6 2000 62 2920 13.2 5480 496.2 52080 63.2 5240 20 3720 12 4040 64.8 8200 10040 33.6 1000 34.8 1240 10.4 1960 309.4 36880 32.8 2120 41.2 16200 10 1680 41.2 19840 32840 38 13480 38.4 23560 5.2 1840 474.6 232000 40.4 21840 41.2 11080 39.2 26040 39.6 4000 46.4 15714 46.1 3849 48.9 17890 546.9 219554 47.2 14119 50.8 8217 46.7 2729 46.9 8984 278291 590.3 210946 548.72 183210 468.87 [PHONE REDACTED].8 2483210 570.37 219310 542.32 164915 494.75 194766 603.51 151040 Page 2 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 May-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Dec-14 Yr-2014 Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand 234.4 119680 288 129840 249.6 112480 249.6 121600 224.8 137120 239.2 116400 222.4 114480 200 99920 2748 358 321 312 241 33 258 182 170 0 6.6 2147 12 2740 20.46 1778 10.04 2203 18.09 2287 7.14 2326 6.15 2145 7.59 2127 120.68 8.56 1479 8 1030 10.69 2252 8.47 1578 10.34 1553 6.81 1372 10.05 1887 9.06 1867 112.03 5.6 854 2.58 781 2.33 788 2.54 784 4.62 815 4.44 734 6.51 1092 9.9 1345 65.93 4 622 2.56 241 2.56 200 2.56 216 2.56 230 2.8 650 5.19 1383 3.27 1102 38.26 7 611 5.66 507 6.07 388 6.07 419 6.35 688 6.08 810 6.5 919 6.25 801 75.11 62.88 36572 62.86 39250 63.08 47586 63.08 41097 61.42 42958 59.7 42633 59.79 44260 62.09 38861 747.49 85.6 6080 81.6 3440 81.6 22400 82.4 43440 82.4 18640 84.8 5200 85.6 1280 86.4 12400 1013.6 12.4 2760 61.2 9480 59.6 10040 59.6 9880 62 16640 62 5920 63.6 3800 65.6 6640 606 32.8 2360 0 0 33.2 10120 33.2 10560 38 6960 39.6 3280 37.2 2040 36.4 2480 375.6 54.4 10440 58.8 16800 59.2 27360 59.2 32320 58.8 31680 38 21160 42 19560 42 20560 572.8 51.9 18201 52.7 27060 43.7 27605 43.7 23842 43.8 4434 4.3 294 46.1 4334 48.9 16997 526.7 566.14 202164 635.96 231490 632.09 263309 620.46 288180 613.18 264038 554.87 201037 591.09 197362 577.46 [PHONE REDACTED].2 Page 3 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 Yr-2014 Jan-15 Jan-15 Feb-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 Apr-15 May-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Aug-15 kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh 1371600 208 136640 191.2 99680 192 107280 172 78720 233.6 100320 219.2 105760 225.6 117920 224.8 [PHONE REDACTED] 198 248 274 331 342 386 357 387 26903 6.55 2374 7.97 2361 6.37 1733 6.99 2195 6.31 2101 10.8 2185 5.97 2139 7.19 2083 17921 10.75 2084 8.88 1939 9.87 1373 7.02 1306 6.97 1318 6.66 1378 7.97 2100 12.46 2450 11749 9.7 1909 5.82 1135 11.31 1424 11.04 1110 7.69 951 2.58 717 7.94 880 2.6 807 8381 3.62 1393 2.53 849 2.55 881 2.64 772 2.64 740 2.1 293 2.57 211 2.57 195 8081 7.03 943 6.87 735 6.3 781 6.75 734 4.55 680 5.68 422 5.56 521 4.48 474 428677 62.17 35154 62.11 20978 61.36 42199 60.97 45489 58.35 41416 57.98 40331 59.59 44211 57.81 41360 143200 85.6 4240 82.4 2480 86.4 2880 81.6 2560 83.2 3280 85.6 20400 81.6 46400 81.6 40160 86360 63.2 4960 68.4 7720 62.8 4320 61.6 3360 61.6 3600 61.2 6320 42.8 20360 64.4 18920 77640 36.4 2520 41.6 9840 33.2 1640 32.8 1200 33.2 1400 33.2 3200 33.6 14000 33.2 9840 242840 42 9760 41.6 10920 42 24200 42 17120 39.2 23840 58 33720 57.6 32360 56.8 32360 156816 49.2 26713 46.3 16098 9.5 1468 6.3 1067 4.6 826 3.9 189 44.5 7495 47.4 2774 2582881 584.22 228888 565.68 174983 523.66 190453 491.71 155964 541.91 180814 546.9 215301 575.3 288954 595.31 280850 Page 4 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 Sep-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Yr-2015 Yr-2015 Jan-16 Jan-16 Feb-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand 207.2 96160 247.2 131600 214.4 96560 254.4 [PHONE REDACTED].6 1317840 208 129840 188.8 92880 192.8 96000 236 256 260 270 231 0 3540 220 466 444 7.74 2358 6.28 2101 6.37 1966 6.09 2147 84.63 25743 6.36 2304 8.03 2253 8.64 2331 6.65 12.54 2772 8.9 1696 11.88 1843 11.75 1794 115.65 22053 6.71 1432 6.37 1422 9.34 1615 10.92 5.5 989 9.43 927 11.81 1253 12.18 2022 97.6 14124 11.58 2558 11.85 1772 11.83 1457 11.62 1.72 210 1.94 273 2.31 453 3.02 874 30.21 7144 3.53 1184 3.86 882 2.88 808 3.71 5.2 484 5.58 686 5.72 792 6.3 846 70.02 8098 4.68 1017 8.07 853 4.87 813 5.6 57.7 41067 57.39 18696 37.11 149 63.13 9939 695.67 380989 63.26 9324 62.76 12697 62.38 33503 60.19 82.4 17680 84.8 42320 84.8 22800 84.8 14800 1004.8 220000 84.8 12400 84.8 6320 80 2480 6.4 64.4 14200 60 4040 61.2 2360 62.4 4320 734 94480 66 6880 65.6 8360 64 4400 11.2 33.2 7720 33.2 2000 23.2 1160 32.8 1920 399.6 56440 36.4 2400 41.6 9680 35.2 26480 11.2 58.8 30080 56.8 25000 38.8 24800 40 14720 573.6 278880 40.8 8560 41.6 6600 41.6 15160 41.2 45.5 640 45.5 461 19.8 1528 50.9 14284 373.4 73543 51.2 8747 50.9 12000 48.2 8442 43.6 581.9 214616 617.02 230060 517.4 155934 627.77 [PHONE REDACTED].78 2502874 583.32 186866 574.24 156185 561.74 193933 448.29 Page 5 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 Apr-16 May-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh Demand kwh 114000 238.4 100480 246.4 110720 225.6 108640 224.8 122560 236 176720 482 563 530 530 [PHONE REDACTED] 6.31 1996 7.59 2908 5.97 2032 19.2 3181 8.48 2244 1461 6.97 1252 8.49 1641 7.97 1995 11.97 1898 12.07 2638 1519 7.69 874 9.74 1233 7.94 784 2.49 1046 6.07 863 933 2.62 460 2.27 344 2.57 194 2.57 185 2.58 317 1003 6.08 893 5.98 760 5.56 480 4.48 450 6.81 1243 47109 59.87 41752 59.14 40100 59.59 43313 57.81 39292 57.31 46517 720 81.6 800 82.4 18720 82.4 36960 83.2 49520 82.4 18240 2880 60 2680 61.2 6000 42.8 19360 63.6 8360 62 13040 1880 10 920 32.4 760 33.6 12880 33.2 9360 36 5040 17480 52.8 23680 57.6 28680 57.2 31840 56.8 35920 56.4 26840 1906 46.9 11423 48.1 21748 44.5 7343 47.4 2635 45.49 649 193557 579.24 187773 621.31 234144 575.7 266351 607.52 274933 611.61 294743 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 6 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Belgrade NW Energy Records Service Address Account Lagoon Road 0900875-6 Lift Stn-408 Gallatin Farmer Rd 0796860-5 Lift Stn-500 Jackrabbit 0209930-7 Lift Stn-Cruiser/Jackrabbit 0695569-4 Lift Stn-6503 Jackrabbit 1736400-1 Lift Stn-1113 Powers (Meadowlark) 1795496-7 Lift Stn-1950 Penwell Bridge (Ryen Glenn) 1937143-4 Well-S Broadway 0184179-0 Well-#4 0185526-1 Wells-Yukon Lane 1216063-6 Well-Aviation Lane 1214371-5 Lewis & Clark Pumphouse 0211009-6 308 Styles #3 0598596-5 Yr-2016 Yr-2016 Demand kwh 1996.8 1051840 0 4153 77.23 21433 80.81 15354 80.81 12106 26.59 5307 52.13 7512 542.31 313607 668 146160 496.4 71960 269.6 69400 446 194760 426.29 74893 5162.97 1988485 Page 7 of 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- LIFT STATION OPERATOR LOGS ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 12/9/2016 Probe error, cleaned probe 11/22/2016 Vac-con cleaning 11/19/2016 East pump running more 11/3/2016 Probe cleaning (dirty) 10/11/2016 High wet well, probe error 10/11/2016 Probe error 7/13/2016 West pump ran 15.8 hours, running stuck on, cleaned probe 6/9/2016 Probe error 5/28/2016 Probe error 5/6/2016 Probe error 4/10/2016 Probe error 3/6/2016 Probe error 1/23/2016 Prope error, cleaned 1/22/2016 Probe error, cleaned 1/21/2016 Probe error 1/20/2016 Cleaned probe 8:30pm 12/17/2015 Probe error 12/11/2015 Probe error, probe cleaned 11/21/2015 Probe error, cleaned 11/1/2015 Probe error 9/9/2015 Probe error, probe cleaned 8/16/2015 Probe error 4/6/2014 Probe error 4/1/2014 Cleaned probe error 8/6/2013 Vac clean wet well 7/31/2013 Pump defect, reset 7/19/2013 Reset Fault 5/4/2013 Probe fault, probe cleaned 3/10/2013 Changed time on panel 2/3/2013 Had to climb fence, lock not daisy chained BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Jackrabbit Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 12/7/2016 Cleaned probe; east pump stuck on 11/22/2016 Replaced gasket (west pump); vac-con cleaning 11/3/2016 East pump drawing badly 10/18/2016 Runtime, 15 hours, need to replace gasket 10/17/2016 East pump running more 10/16/2016 East pump running more 10/15/2016 East pump running more 10/14/2016 East pump running more 10/13/2016 East pump running more 10/4/2016 Ran 17 hours, cleaned float, dirty 10/1/2016 Pump 2 was off 9/6/2016 East pump stuck on 8/11/2016 East pump running, runtime more 8/10/2016 East pump running quite a bit more 1/19/2016 Pump, still lead pump, switched to ACT 12/23/2015 East pump still getting repair 12/3/2015 East pump off repairing 11/28/2015 Pump 1 switched to lead pump 11/5/2015 Pump 1 pulled 10/6/2015 Seal failure 10/5/2015 Seal failure 10/4/2015 Seal failure 10/3/2015 Seal failure 10/2/2015 Seal failure 10/1/2015 Seal failure 9/30/2015 Seal failure 9/29/2015 Seal failure 9/28/2015 Seal failure 9/27/2015 Seal failure 9/26/2015 Seal failure 9/25/2015 Seal failure 9/24/2015 Seal failure 9/23/2015 Seal failure 9/22/2015 Seal failure 9/21/2015 Seal failure 9/19/2015 Seal failure 9/18/2015 Seal failure 9/15/2015 Seal failure 9/11/2015 Back on ACT BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Cruiser Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment Cruiser Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 9/8/2015 Switch is on pump 2 9/4/2015 Pump 1 gasket is torn 8/15/2013 Temp changed off/on switch, pump 8/6/2013 VAC & JCT rodded lift ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 12/22/2016 Draw down not possible 12/3/2016 Pump running 11/22/2016 Vac-con cleaning 10/23/2016 East pump still running 9/24/2016 Pump 1 running 9/11/2016 Pump 1 is off 9/10/2016 Pump 1 still running 8/7/2016 East pump ran 19 hours 7/25/2016 Helped run time 7/24/2016 Ran excessive 7/16/2016 14 hours, pump 1 East running 7/13/2016 East pump ran 17.8 hours, off when I arrived 6/13/2016 Pumps ran overtime, were off and set to auto 6/12/2016 East pump ran more than normal, water smells oily/looks oily 5/9/2016 Halfway up inflow pipe 5/8/2016 Water is just below inflow pipe, been that way all day 5/6/2016 Checking flow from Tshirt Factory 4/27/2016 Pulled pmps for inspection 4/18/2016 High wet well alarm pump broken was tripped off 2/10/2016 Lift cleaned, 3 inch of dye and a big rock 2/5/2016 East pump is running more 2/4/2016 Cleaned check valve 2 1/14/2016 Ran 8 hours, Pump 1 10/12/2015 Pump 2 reset 3/13/2015 Cleaned at Pump 1 check 8/24/2014 Lift vent broken BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Gallatin Farmers Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 12/27/2016 Probe error 12/26/2016 Probe error 12/24/2016 Probe error 12/23/2016 Probe error 12/22/2016 Probe error 12/21/2016 Probe error 12/20/2016 Probe error 12/19/2016 Error, max run time 12/15/2016 Probe error 12/14/2016 Probe error 12/13/2016 Probe error 12/12/2016 Probe error 12/9/2016 Probe error 12/8/2016 Probe error 12/7/2016 Probe error 12/6/2016 Probe error 12/5/2016 Probe error 12/4/2016 Probe error 12/3/2016 Probe error 12/1/2016 Probe error 11/30/2016 Probe error 11/29/2016 Probe error 11/28/2016 Probe error 11/27/2016 Probe error 11/26/2016 Probe error 11/23/2016 Probe error 11/22/2016 Probe error, Vac-con lift cleaning 11/21/2016 Probe error 11/20/2016 Probe error 11/19/2016 Probe error 11/18/2016 Probe error 11/17/2016 Probe error 11/16/2016 Probe error 11/15/2016 Probe error 11/12/2016 Probe error 11/10/2016 Probe error 11/9/2016 Probe error 11/7/2016 Probe error 11/5/2016 Probe error BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 11/4/2016 Probe error, max run time 11/3/2016 Probe error 11/2/2016 Probe error 10/27/2016 Probe error 10/26/2016 Probe error 10/25/2016 Probe error 10/24/2016 Probe error 10/23/2016 Probe error 10/22/2016 Probe error 10/21/2016 Probe error 10/20/2016 Probe error 10/19/2016 Probe error 10/18/2016 Probe error 10/17/2016 Probe error 10/16/2016 Probe error 10/15/2016 Probe error 10/14/2016 Probe error, max run time 10/13/2016 Probe error 10/12/2016 Probe error 10/11/2016 Probe error 10/10/2016 Probe error 10/9/2016 Probe error 10/8/2016 Probe error 10/7/2016 Probe error 10/6/2016 Probe error 10/5/2016 Probe error 10/1/2016 Probe error 9/30/2016 Probe error 9/29/2016 Probe error 9/28/2016 Probe error 9/27/2016 Probe error 9/26/2016 Probe error 9/25/2016 Probe error 9/24/2016 Probe error 9/23/2016 Probe error 9/22/2016 Probe error 9/21/2016 Probe error, Pump 2 reset, max run time 9/20/2016 Probe error 9/19/2016 Probe error 9/18/2016 Probe error 9/17/2016 Probe error 9/16/2016 Probe error 9/15/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 9/14/2016 Probe error 9/13/2016 Probe error 9/12/2016 Probe error 9/11/2016 Probe error 9/10/2016 No faults 9/8/2016 Probe error 9/7/2016 Probe error 9/6/2016 Probe error, max run time, rest 9/4/2016 Probe error 9/3/2016 Probe error 9/2/2016 Probe error 9/1/2016 Probe error 8/31/2016 Probe error 8/30/2016 Probe error 8/29/2016 Probe error 8/28/2016 Probe error 8/27/2016 Probe error, max run time, rose pump 2 8/25/2016 Probe error 8/24/2016 Probe error 8/23/2016 Probe error 8/22/2016 Probe error 8/21/2016 Probe error 8/20/2016 Probe error 8/19/2016 Probe error 8/18/2016 Probe error 8/17/2016 Probe error 8/16/2016 Probe error 8/15/2016 Probe error 8/14/2016 Probe error 8/12/2016 No faults 8/11/2016 Probe error 8/10/2016 Probe error 8/9/2016 Probe error 8/8/2016 Probe error 8/7/2016 No faults 8/6/2016 No faults 8/5/2016 Max run time 8/4/2016 Probe error, Gen. running 8/4/2016 Probe error 8/3/2016 Probe error 8/3/2016 Probe error 8/2/2016 Probe error 8/1/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 7/30/2016 Probe error 7/29/2016 Probe error 7/28/2016 Probe error 7/27/2016 Probe error 7/26/2016 Max run time, probe error 7/25/2016 Probe error 7/24/2016 Probe error 7/23/2016 Probe error 7/22/2016 Probe error 7/21/2016 Probe error 7/20/2016 Probe error 7/19/2016 Probe error 7/18/2016 Probe error 7/17/2016 Probe error 7/16/2016 No faults 7/15/2016 No faults 7/14/2016 Probe error 7/13/2016 Max run time, probe error 7/12/2016 Probe error 7/11/2016 Probe error 7/10/2016 Probe error 7/9/2016 Probe error 7/8/2016 Probe error 7/7/2016 Probe error 7/6/2016 Probe error 7/5/2016 Probe error 7/3/2016 Probe error, max run reset 7/1/2016 Probe error 6/30/2016 Probe error 6/29/2016 Probe error 6/28/2016 Probe error 6/27/2016 Probe error 6/26/2016 Probe error 6/23/2016 Probe error 6/22/2016 Probe error 6/21/2016 No faults 6/20/2016 Probe error 6/19/2016 Probe error 6/18/2016 Probe error 6/17/2016 Probe error, max run time 6/16/2016 Probe error 6/15/2016 Probe error 6/14/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 6/13/2016 Probe error 6/12/2016 Probe error 6/11/2016 Probe error 6/10/2016 Probe error 6/9/2016 Probe error 6/8/2016 Probe error 6/7/2016 Probe error 6/6/2016 Probe error 6/5/2016 Probe error 6/4/2016 Probe error 6/3/2016 Probe error 6/2/2016 Probe error 6/1/2016 Probe error, max run time 5/31/2016 Probe error 5/29/2016 Probe error 5/28/2016 Probe error 5/27/2016 Probe error 5/26/2016 Probe error 5/25/2016 Probe error 5/24/2016 Probe error 5/23/2016 Probe error 5/22/2016 Probe error 5/21/2016 Probe error 5/20/2016 Probe error 5/19/2016 Probe error 5/18/2016 Probe error, reset breaker, max run time 5/17/2016 Probe error 5/16/2016 Probe error 5/15/2016 Probe error 5/14/2016 Probe error 5/13/2016 Probe error 5/12/2016 Probe error 5/11/2016 Probe error 5/10/2016 Probe error 5/9/2016 Probe error 5/8/2016 Probe error 5/7/2016 Probe error 5/6/2016 Probe error 5/5/2016 Probe error 5/4/2016 Probe error 5/3/2016 Probe error 5/2/2016 Probe error 5/1/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 4/30/2016 Probe error 4/29/2016 Probe error 4/28/2016 Probe error 4/27/2016 Probe error 4/26/2016 Probe error, reset breaker for Pump 2 4/25/2016 Probe error, max run time 4/24/2016 Probe error, max run time 4/22/2016 Probe error, building smells bad 4/21/2016 Probe error 4/20/2016 Probe error 4/19/2016 Probe error 4/18/2016 Probe error 4/17/2016 Probe error 4/15/2016 Probe error 4/14/2016 Probe error 4/13/2016 Probe error 4/12/2016 Probe error 4/11/2016 Probe error, cleaned lift 4/10/2016 Probe error 4/9/2016 Probe error 4/8/2016 Probe error 4/7/2016 Probe error 4/6/2016 Probe error when Pump 1 kicked on 4/5/2016 Probe error 4/4/2016 Probe error 4/3/2016 Probe error 4/2/2016 Probe error 4/1/2016 Probe error 3/31/2016 Pump 2 breaker was off 3/30/2016 Probe error 3/29/2016 Probe error 3/26/2016 Probe error 3/25/2016 Probe error 3/24/2016 Probe error 3/23/2016 Probe error 3/22/2016 Probe error 3/21/2016 Probe error 3/20/2016 Probe error 3/19/2016 Probe error 3/17/2016 Probe error 3/16/2016 Probe error 3/15/2016 Probe error 3/14/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 3/13/2016 Probe error 3/12/2016 Probe error 3/11/2016 Probe error 3/10/2016 Probe error 3/9/2016 Probe error, reset Pump 2 3/8/2016 Probe error, max run time 3/7/2016 Probe error 3/6/2016 Probe error 3/5/2016 Probe error 3/4/2016 Probe error 3/3/2016 Probe error 3/2/2016 Probe error 3/1/2016 Probe error 2/29/2016 Probe error 2/28/2016 Probe error, max run time 2/27/2016 Probe error 2/26/2016 Probe error 2/25/2016 Probe error 2/24/2016 Probe error 2/23/2016 Probe error 2/22/2016 Probe error 2/21/2016 Probe error 2/20/2016 Probe error 2/19/2016 Probe error 2/18/2016 Probe error 2/17/2016 Probe error 2/16/2016 Probe error 2/14/2016 Probe error 2/13/2016 Probe error 2/12/2016 Probe error 2/11/2016 Probe error 2/10/2016 Probe error 2/9/2016 Probe error 2/8/2016 Probe error 2/7/2016 Probe error 2/6/2016 Probe error, max run time, Pump 2 had to be reset 2/5/2016 Probe error 2/4/2016 Probe error 2/3/2016 Probe error 2/2/2016 Probe error 2/1/2016 Probe error 1/31/2016 Probe error 1/30/2016 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 1/29/2016 Probe error 1/28/2016 Probe error 1/27/2016 Probe error 1/26/2016 Probe error 1/25/2016 Probe error 1/24/2016 Probe error 1/23/2016 Probe error 1/22/2016 Probe error 1/21/2016 Probe error 1/20/2016 Probe error 1/19/2016 Probe error, Gen on, Ran 1/16/2016 Probe error 1/15/2016 Probe error 1/14/2016 Probe error 1/13/2016 Probe error 1/12/2016 Probe error, Filter loose, Gen fuel leak while running 1/11/2016 Probe error 1/10/2016 Probe error 1/9/2016 Probe error 1/8/2016 Probe error 1/7/2016 Probe error 1/6/2016 Probe error 1/5/2016 Probe error 1/4/2016 Probe error 1/3/2016 Probe error 1/2/2016 Probe error 12/31/2015 Probe error 12/30/2015 Probe error 12/29/2015 Probe error 12/28/2015 Probe error 12/24/2015 Probe error 12/23/2015 Probe error 12/22/2015 Probe error 12/21/2015 Probe error 12/18/2015 Probe error 12/17/2015 Probe error 12/16/2015 Probe error 12/15/2015 Probe error 12/13/2015 Probe error 12/11/2015 Probe error, max run time, Pump 2 reset 12/10/2015 Probe error 12/9/2015 Probe error 12/8/2015 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 12/7/2015 Probe error 12/6/2015 Probe error 12/5/2015 Probe error 12/4/2015 Probe error, max run time, Pump 2 reset 12/3/2015 Probe error 12/2/2015 10 unit probe error 12/1/2015 Probe error 11/30/2015 Probe error 11/29/2015 Probe error 11/28/2015 Probe error 11/24/2015 Probe error, Gen on 11/23/2015 Probe error 11/22/2015 Probe error 11/21/2015 Probe error 11/20/2015 Probe error 11/19/2015 Probe error 11/18/2015 Probe error 11/17/2015 Probe error 11/16/2015 Probe error 11/15/2015 Probe error 11/14/2015 Probe error 11/13/2015 Probe error 11/12/2015 Probe error, cleaned lift 11/10/2015 Probe error 11/9/2015 Probe error 11/8/2015 Probe error 11/7/2015 Probe error 11/6/2015 Probe error, power fault 11/5/2015 Probe error 11/4/2015 Probe error 11/3/2015 Probe error 11/2/2015 Probe error 11/1/2015 Probe error 10/31/2015 Probe error 10/30/2015 Probe error 10/29/2015 Probe error 10/28/2015 Probe error 10/27/2015 Probe error 10/26/2015 Probe error 10/25/2015 Probe error 10/23/2015 Probe error 10/22/2015 Probe error 10/21/2015 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 10/20/2015 Probe error 10/19/2015 Probe error 10/18/2015 Probe error 10/17/2015 Probe error 10/16/2015 Probe error 10/15/2015 Probe error 10/14/2015 Probe error 10/13/2015 Probe error 10/12/2015 Probe error, max run time 10/10/2015 Probe error 10/9/2015 Probe error, cleaned probe 10/8/2015 Probe error 10/7/2015 Probe error 10/6/2015 Probe error 10/5/2015 Probe error 10/4/2015 Probe error 10/3/2015 Probe error, cleaned probe 10/2/2015 Probe error 10/1/2015 Probe error 9/30/2015 Probe error 9/29/2015 Probe error, max run time 9/28/2015 Probe error 9/27/2015 Probe error 9/26/2015 Probe error 9/25/2015 Probe error 9/24/2015 Probe error, max run time 9/23/2015 Probe error 9/22/2015 Probe error 9/19/2015 Probe error, cleaned, lots of grease 9/18/2015 Probe error 9/17/2015 Probe error, cleaned 9/15/2015 Max run time 9/14/2015 Max run time 9/13/2015 Power fault 9/3/2015 Pump 2 tripped 8/19/2015 Max run time, cleaned probe 8/11/2015 Power failure 7/22/2015 Max run time, reset Pump 2 7/21/2015 Max run time, cleaned probe 7/7/2015 8:40am: 80% 7/6/2015 8:15am: Lift station still being run manual 7/6/2015 2:00am: 80% 7/5/2015 Well 1 high level/power failure ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 7/4/2015 Over temp 1 & 2, power failure, probe error 7/3/2015 Power failure, probe error 7/2/2015 Probe error 7/1/2015 Probe error 6/30/2015 Probe error 6/29/2015 Probe error 6/28/2015 Probe error 6/27/2015 Probe error 6/26/2015 Probe error 6/25/2015 Probe error 6/24/2015 Probe error 6/23/2015 Probe error, power fault 6/22/2015 Probe error 6/21/2015 Probe error 6/20/2015 Probe error 6/19/2015 Probe error 6/18/2015 10 unit probe error 6/17/2015 Probe error 6/16/2015 Probe error 6/15/2015 Probe error 6/14/2015 Probe error 6/13/2015 Probe error, cleaned 6/12/2015 Probe error, cleaned 6/11/2015 Probe error, cleaned 6/10/2015 Probe error, cleaned 6/9/2015 Probe error, cleaned greassy 6/8/2015 Probe error, probe was clean when removed 6/7/2015 Probe error, probe was clean when removed 6/6/2015 Max run time, probe error 6/4/2015 Max run time, probe error 6/3/2015 Probe error, max run time error 6/2/2015 Probe error 6/1/2015 Probe error 5/31/2015 5/30/2015 Power failure, probe error 5/29/2015 Probe error 5/28/2015 Probe error 5/27/2015 Probe error 5/26/2015 Probe error 5/23/2015 Probe error 5/22/2015 Probe error 5/21/2015 Probe error 5/20/2015 Probe error ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 5/19/2015 Probe error 5/18/2015 Probe error 5/17/2015 Probe error 5/15/2015 Probe error 5/14/2015 Probe error 5/13/2015 Probe error 5/12/2015 Probe error 5/11/2015 Probe error, power fault 5/10/2015 Probe error, lots of grease 5/9/2015 Power failure, probe error 5/8/2015 Probe error, cleaned probe 5/7/2015 Probe error, cleaned probe 5/6/2015 Probe error 5/5/2015 Probe error 5/4/2015 Probe error 5/3/2015 Probe error 5/2/2015 Probe error 5/1/2015 Probe error 4/30/2015 Probe error 4/29/2015 Probe error 4/28/2015 Probe error 4/27/2015 Probe error 4/26/2015 Probe error 4/25/2015 Probe error, power failure 4/24/2015 Probe error, reset, probe cleaned 4/23/2015 Probe error, reset 4/22/2015 Probe error, reset 4/21/2015 Probe error, reset 4/18/2015 10 unit probe error 4/17/2015 Power failure/ 10 unit probe error 4/12/2015 Power failure 4/7/2015 Power fault 4/3/2015 Power fault 4/1/2015 Power fault 3/29/2015 5:04pm : Pump 2 over temp, Power failure Pump 1 over temp 3/28/2015 Max run time, 10 unit, probe error 3/26/2015 Power fault 3/22/2015 Probe error 3/14/2015 Probe error 2/21/2015 Probe error 2/17/2015 Probe error 2/15/2015 Power fault 2/10/2015 Switch reset on Pump 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment SID #78 (Truck Stop) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 1/18/2015 Power fault 1/17/2015 10 unit probe error 1/12/2015 Probe fault 1/10/2015 Power failure 1/8/2015 Power fault 12/26/2014 Power failure 6/30/2014 Max run time, high temp 6/28/2014 Max run time 6/27/2014 Max run time 6/13/2014 Power fault, Pump 2 over temp 5/3/2014 Max run time 4/18/2014 Power fault 12/14/2013 Power failure 8/24/2013 Cleaned probes, #2 was only running 3/10/2013 Changed time on panel 2/19/2013 Reset, max run time fault 2/16/2013 Max run time fault 1/6/2013 Reset power failure fault ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 11/17/2016 Clean probe 11/2/2016 Pump 2 working again 11/1/2016 Pump 2 still off 10/31/2016 Pump 2 still not pumping, max run time 10/30/2016 Drained and lifted pump, still not working, pump is spinning, Pump #2 off until fixed 10/28/2016 Max run time on P2 10/27/2016 Max run time on P2 10/25/2016 Max run time 8/6/2016 Pump 1 & over temp, high level 5/11/2016 Power outage, max run time, high wet well 4/25/2016 No faults showing 4/24/2016 Loss of communication 4/22/2016 Max run time, power fault 11/12/2014 Reset power fault 11/10/2014 Reset power fault 11/6/2014 Reset power fault 11/5/2014 Reset power fault 11/3/2014 Reset power fault 10/28/2014 Reset power fault 10/17/2014 Reset power fault 10/14/2014 Cleaned power fault 10/2/2014 Power fault 9/24/2014 Reset power fault 9/17/2014 Power fault 3/22/2014 Power failure 3/3/2014 Reset power fault 2/27/2014 Reset power fault 2/26/2014 Reset power fault 2/24/2014 Reset power fault 2/23/2014 Reset power fault 2/22/2014 Reset power fault 2/21/2014 Reset power fault 2/19/2014 Reset power fault 2/18/2014 Reset power fault 2/16/2014 Reset power fault 2/13/2014 Reset power fault 2/12/2014 Reset power fault 2/11/2014 Reset power fault BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Meadowlark (Powers) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment Meadowlark (Powers) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 2/7/2014 Reset power fault 2/6/2014 Reset power fault 2/5/2014 Reset power fault 2/4/2014 Reset power fault 2/3/2014 Reset power fault 2/2/2014 Power fault 2/1/2014 Reset power fault 1/31/2014 Reset power fault 1/30/2014 Reset power fault 1/29/2014 Reset power fault 1/28/2014 Reset power fault 1/27/2014 Reset power fault 1/26/2014 Reset power fault 1/24/2014 Reset power fault 1/22/2014 Reset power fault 1/21/2014 Reset power fault 1/19/2014 Reset power fault 1/14/2014 Reset power fault 1/13/2014 Reset power fault 1/12/2014 Reset power fault 1/11/2014 Reset power fault 1/10/2014 Reset power fault 1/9/2014 Power fault 1/8/2014 Power fault 1/7/2014 Power fault 1/6/2014 Power fault 1/5/2014 Power fault 1/4/2014 Power fault 1/3/2014 Power fault 1/2/2014 Power fault 12/29/2013 Power fault 12/26/2013 Power fault 12/24/2013 Power fault 12/23/2013 Power fault 12/22/2013 Power fault 12/21/2013 Power fault 12/20/2013 Power fault 12/18/2013 Power fault 12/17/2013 Power fault 12/16/2013 Power fault 12/14/2013 Power fault 12/12/2013 Power fault 12/11/2013 Power fault ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment Meadowlark (Powers) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 12/10/2013 Power fault 12/5/2013 Power fault 6/23/2013 No power fault 6/22/2013 Power fault 4/18/2013 Reset power, failure fault 4/11/2013 Reset power, failure fault 4/9/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/26/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/24/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/23/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/22/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/21/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/16/2013 No faults 3/14/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/12/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/10/2013 Changed time on panel 3/9/2013 No faults 3/8/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/7/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/6/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/5/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/4/2013 Reset power, failure fault 3/3/2013 No faults 2/28/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/27/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/26/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/25/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/24/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/23/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/22/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/21/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/20/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/19/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/16/2013 No power fault 2/15/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/14/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/13/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/12/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/11/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/10/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/9/2013 No power fault 2/8/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/7/2013 Reset power, failure fault ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment Meadowlark (Powers) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 2/6/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/5/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/4/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/3/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/2/2013 Reset power, failure fault 2/1/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/31/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/30/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/29/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/28/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/26/2013 Reset power fault 1/25/2013 No power fault 1/24/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/23/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/22/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/20/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/19/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/18/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/17/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/16/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/15/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/14/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/13/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/10/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/9/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/8/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/7/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/6/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/5/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/4/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/3/2013 Reset power, failure fault 1/2/2013 Reset power, failure fault 12/31/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/29/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/28/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/27/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/26/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/24/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/23/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/22/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/21/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/20/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/19/2012 Reset power, failure fault ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment Meadowlark (Powers) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary 12/18/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/17/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/16/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/15/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/14/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/13/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/12/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/11/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/10/2012 Reset power, failure fault 12/9/2012 Reset power, failure fault ---PAGE BREAK--- Information taken from lift station operator logs. Date Comment 11/17/2016 Clean probe 10/7/2016 Gen running 6/13/2016 Reset volt phase rotation error 6/8/2016 Probe error, gen ran 5/9/2016 Vent pipe on gen leaking from roof 8/15/2015 No water in building 4/19/2014 Volts phasr imbalance under voltage 1/12/2014 Voltage fault 11/18/2013 Could not get multismart to start up 8/16/2013 Gen running 7/13/2013 Under voltage fault 3/10/2013 Changed time on panel 1/24/2013 Panel is working again 1/20/2013 Wet well was 2.5 ft higher than inflow pipe, manually pumped wet well down 1/19/2013 Power supply is dead 1/17/2013 Multismart panel has no power 1/16/2013 Multismart panel not working, opened panel box, operated by hand jiggled 1/6/2013 Control panel not latched closed, T-handle behind panel main circuit +purple+2 circuit not on switches BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Ryen Glenn (Penwell) Lift Station Maintenance and Error Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- FORCE MAIN CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-04-26 Force Main Dimensions Material: Unknown Inside Diameter = 6.00 in (0.500 ft) Inside Area = 0.196 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates Pump #1 = 543 gpm (1.21 cfs) Pump #2 = 527 gpm (1.17 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 6.2 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 0.39 cfs (176 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Jackrabbit Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-01-18 Force Main Dimensions Material: 10-inch DR18 C900 PVC Inside Diameter = 9.79 in (0.816 ft) Inside Area = 0.523 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates East Pump = 290 gpm (0.65 cfs) West Pump = 357 gpm (0.80 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 1.2 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 1.5 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 1.05 cfs (469 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Cruiser Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-05-11 Force Main Dimensions Material: PVC Inside Diameter = 4.00 in (0.333 ft) Inside Area = 0.087 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates Pump #1 = 141 gpm (0.31 cfs) Pump #2 = 212 gpm (0.47 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 3.6 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 5.4 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 0.17 cfs (78 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Farmers Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-05-18 Force Main Dimensions Material: PVC Inside Diameter = 6.00 in (0.500 ft) Inside Area = 0.196 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates Pump #1 = 300 gpm (0.67 cfs) Pump #2 = 300 gpm (0.67 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 3.4 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 3.4 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 0.39 cfs (176 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-05-18 Force Main Dimensions Material: PVC Inside Diameter = 4.00 in (0.333 ft) Inside Area = 0.087 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates Pump #1 = 283 gpm (0.63 cfs) Pump #2 = 283 gpm (0.63 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 7.2 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 7.2 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 0.17 cfs (78 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Farmers Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-05-18 Force Main Dimensions Material: PVC Inside Diameter = 8.00 in (0.667 ft) Inside Area = 0.349 SF Lift Station Pumping Rates Pump #1 = 520 gpm (1.16 cfs) Pump #2 = 520 gpm (1.16 cfs) Analysis and Results Calculate the force main velocity for each pumping rate: East Pump Velocity = 3.3 ft/sec West Pump Velocity = 3.3 ft/sec Find the minimum flow rate needed to achieve 2 ft/sec (DEQ's minimum): Minimum Velocity = 2.0 ft/sec Flow Rate Required = 0.70 cfs (313 gpm) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-048 Ryen Glenn Lift Station Force Main Velocity ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PIPE SIZE (IN) AVERAGE O.D. (IN) NOM. I.D. (IN) MIN. T. (IN) MIN. E (IN) APPROX. D9 (IN) APPROX. WEIGHT (LBS/FT) PRESSURE CLASS 165 psi (DR 25) 4 4.80 4.39 0.192 5.25 5.57 1.9 6 6.90 6.31 0.276 6.40 8.00 3.9 8 9.05 8.28 0.362 7.05 10.50 6.7 10 11.10 10.16 0.444 8.20 12.88 10.1 1 12 2 13.20 12.08 0.528 8.80 15.31 14.4 PRESSURE CLASS 235 psi (DR 18)* 4 4.80 4.23 0.267 5.25 5.87 2.6 6 6.90 6.09 0.383 6.40 8.43 5.3 8 9.05 7.98 0.503 7.05 11.06 9.2 10 11.10 9.79 0.617 8.20 13.57 13.9 12 13.20 11.65 0.733 8.80 16.13 19.7 PRESSURE CLASS 305 psi (DR 14)* 4 4.80 4.07 0.343 5.25 6.17 3.2 6 6.90 5.86 0.493 6.40 8.87 6.7 8 9.05 7.68 0.646 7.05 11.63 11.6 10 11.10 9.42 0.793 8.20 14.27 17.6 12 13.20 11.20 0.943 8.80 16.97 25.1 SUBMITTAL AND DATA SHEET BLUE BRUTE ™ Consult JM Eagle™ for CSA and other listing availability prior to shipment. Note: *FM Approvals Pressure Class 150 psi for DR 18 and 200 psi for DR 14. I.D. : Inside Dameter O.D. : Outside Diameter T. : Wall Thickness D 9 : Bell Outside Diameter E : Distance between Assembly Mark to the end of spigot. Product Standard: Pipe Compound: Gasket: Integral Bell Joint: Certifications: Installation: ANSI/AWWA C900 ASTM D1784 Cells Class 12454 ASTM F477 ASTM D3139 ANSI/NSF Standard 61 UL Standard 1285 Pipe Length: 20 feet laying length AWWA C605 JM Eagle™ Installation Guide ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- OCTOBER 2016 SITE VISIT ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0119_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0120_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0121_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0122_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0123_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0124_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0125_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0126_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0127_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0128_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0129_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0130_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0131_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0132_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0133_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0134_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0135_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0136_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0137_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0138_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0139_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0140_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0141_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0142_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0143_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0144_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0145_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0146_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0147_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0148_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0149_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0150_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0151_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0152_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0153_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0154_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0155_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0156_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0157_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0158_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0159_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0160_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- PHOT0161_LAGOONS.JPG PHOT0162_LAGOONS.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4218_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4219_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4221_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4223_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4224_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4225_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4226_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4227_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4228_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4239_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4240_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4241_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- IMG_4242_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG IMG_4243_PUMP-BUILDING.JPG B16-048 Belgrade Sewer Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TREATMENT PLANT DATA AND FIGURES ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Inflow Ammonia Total Inorganic Nitrogen Total Nitrogen BOD TSS Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous Ammonia Total Inorganic Nitrogen(1) Total Nitrogen(1) BOD TSS BOD Removal TSS Removal Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous gpd mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l % % mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l Dec-03 270 262 28.30 21 17 92% 94% Jan-04 410 248 30.90 30 19 93% 92% Feb-04 380 266 32.48 22 42 94% 84% Mar-04 460 412 34.06 18 15 96% 96% Apr-04 270 236 32.70 18 31 93% 87% May-04 290 260 86 42 70% 84% Jun-04 260 276 46 49 82% 82% Jul-04 240 216 25 28 90% 87% Aug-04 260 256 9 35 97% 86% Sep-04 260 236 16 18 94% 92% Oct-04 270 207 0.0 10.20 16.00 6 0 98% 100% Nov-04 290 2540 2.4 11.93 15.30 6 0 98% 100% Dec-04 330 256 1.9 12.70 17.70 16 66 95% 74% Jan-05 490 260 10.1 16.92 23.60 43 32 91% 88% Feb-05 280 292 16.2 19.38 27.90 14 15 95% 95% Mar-05 290 248 17.6 20.00 26.60 12 13 96% 95% Apr-05 250 220 16.3 48.51 27.10 29 34 88% 85% May-05 568,982 260 238 15.5 18.50 26.30 88 0 66% 100% Jun-05 577,377 240 229 12.9 18.50 27.10 43 12 82% 95% Jul-05 487,691 260 231 0.0 16.80 21.80 19 33 93% 86% Aug-05 No Reading 290 220 3.6 11.00 15.10 6 0 98% 100% Sep-05 No Reading 260 135 1.5 6.40 11.20 5 19 98% 86% Oct-05 No Reading 290 236 9.4 10.50 17.00 7 14 98% 94% Nov-05 No Reading 210 212 2.1 12.90 23.80 59 43 72% 80% Dec-05 No Reading 320 199 1.0 12.60 23.70 59 52 82% 74% Jan-06 No Reading 330 270 6.0 15.52 23.70 12 34 96% 87% Feb-06 No Reading 260 308 10.4 16.33 25.00 12 34 95% 89% Mar-06 No Reading 250 220 16.3 18.51 27.00 29 34 88% 85% Apr-06 No Reading 350 66 16.2 18.86 27.00 14 24 96% 64% 2.66 24.3 113 May-06omputer Down 210 208 16.5 18.28 27.30 29 20 86% 90% 1.78 25.5 120 Jun-06 401,462 620 360 15.4 18.48 25.80 91 15 85% 96% 3.08 Jul-06 392,049 300 228 0.0 15.80 20.50 21 0 93% 100% 15.80 Aug-06 397,156 400 235 1.1 14.80 21.50 13 14 97% 94% 13.70 Sep-06 466,362 270 208 0.6 10.60 16.30 15 22 94% 89% 10.00 6.3 Oct-06 423,358 220 226 0.4 12.80 18.50 6 11 97% 95% 21.40 Nov-06 463,608 260 295 0.8 10.30 16.80 4 0 98% 100% 10.30 Dec-06 441,231 230 336 4.1 14.20 19.60 12 0 95% 100% 10.10 Jan-07omputer Down 270 78 8.5 17.40 17.40 8 0 97% 100% 8.91 Feb-07 484,921 320 268 14.8 21.66 21.66 10 0 97% 100% 6.86 Mar-07 463,552 280 294 20.1 24.47 24.47 9 0 97% 100% 4.19 Apr-07 463,652 260 280 21.8 25.72 25.72 13 0 95% 100% 3.92 May-07 416,246 250 264 23.8 19.12 29.12 98 12 61% 95% 5.32 Jun-07 No Reading 320 226 0.0 22.60 22.60 19 27 94% 88% Jul-07 No Reading 320 226 0.0 22.20 22.20 11 27 97% 88% 22.20 4.1 116 Aug-07 366,667 240 235 1.3 16.10 16.10 4 12 98% 95% 14.80 Sep-07 590,096 260 247 0.3 11.70 11.70 5 0 98% 100% 11.40 Oct-07 569,881 250 264 0.0 4.70 4.70 <4 10 96% 4.70 4.9 140 Nov-07 579,261 250 257 0.9 1.50 4.51 5 13 98% 95% 3.61 Dec-07 605,973 320 300 1.3 23.30 23.30 6 0 98% 100% 22.00 3.0 49 Jan-08 618,617 290 229 9.4 11.95 11.95 10 0 97% 100% 2.55 17.1 414 Feb-08 631,878 200 261 19.1 22.06 22.06 11 10 95% 96% 2.96 25.7 126 Mar-08 609,505 260 291 23.5 24.52 24.52 13 0 95% 100% 1.02 Apr-08 578,787 270 285 24.0 24.73 24.73 14 0 95% 100% 0.73 26.6 125 May-08 545,232 240 258 26.8 27.53 28.53 25 18 90% 93% 0.73 114 Jun-08 585,673 1800 1490 4.3 19.70 19.70 48 33 97% 98% 15.40 Jul-08 535,158 220 262 3.6 19.00 19.00 37 12 83% 95% 15.40 Aug-08 520,056 300 284 1.6 12.80 12.80 6 12 98% 96% 11.20 4.6 126 Belgrade WWTP Data Effluent Data Influent Data- Weir Box ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Inflow Ammonia Total Inorganic Nitrogen Total Nitrogen BOD TSS Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous Ammonia(1) Total Inorganic Nitrogen(1) Total Nitrogen(1) BOD TSS BOD Removal TSS Removal Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous gpd mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l % % mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l Sep-08 613,446 200 216 0.7 9.15 9.15 7 0 97% 100% 8.45 3.6 130 Oct-08 584,158 290 154 0.3 5.39 5.39 4 0 99% 100% 4.96 Nov-08 545,629 260 300 1.7 6.66 6.66 5 13 98% 96% 4.96 Dec-08 567,548 230 230 6.7 10.14 10.14 17 0 93% 100% 3.44 Jan-09 561,566 360 260 19.8 21.04 21.04 18 15 95% 94% 12.40 136 Feb-09 570,784 280 314 29.0 29.60 29.60 21 20 93% 94% 0.60 34.0 141 Mar-09 575,639 350 502 32.0 32.36 32.36 18 22 95% 96% 0.36 44.0 146 Apr-09 553,374 270 316 32.5 32.87 32.87 15 29 94% 91% 0.37 34.0 109 May-09 494,113 310 266 20.8 27.36 27.36 20 64 94% 76% 6.56 23.0 123 Jun-09 543,133 240 228 1.3 21.40 21.40 28 27 88% 88% 20.10 Jul-09 No Reading 260 264 0.3 16.10 16.10 20 17 92% 94% 15.80 1.8 130 Aug-09 No Reading 280 282 2.0 12.78 12.78 37 13 87% 95% 10.80 3.8 136 Sep-09 No Reading 170 222 2.5 7.13 7.13 14 11 92% 95% 4.63 5.7 142 Oct-09 No Reading 300 213 0.4 1.23 1.23 6 11 98% 95% 0.80 Nov-09 No Reading 220 268 1.9 3.82 3.82 <6 0 100% 1.95 4.1 147 Dec-09 No Reading 260 182 4.3 7.02 7.02 10 0 96% 100% 2.72 8.4 147 Jan-10 No Reading 250 257 8.4 11.08 11.08 6 0 98% 100% Feb-10 No Reading 350 276 23.2 24.60 24.60 17 31 95% 89% 1.04 32.1 152 Mar-10 418,870 360 126 34.7 25.23 35.23 17 27 95% 79% 0.53 37.0 146 Apr-10 413,833 220 224 28.1 28.52 28.52 18 21 92% 91% 0.42 28.0 123 May-10 465,161 240 185 29.4 31.95 31.95 >95 31 83% 2.55 27.0 121 Jun-10 452,333 170 218 19.3 29.50 29.50 61 10 64% 95% 10.20 17.0 Jul-10 488,419 93 100 0.8 23.02 23.02 21 11 77% 89% 22.20 4.2 128 Aug-10 444,677 290 302 2.1 17.10 17.10 13 0 96% 100% 15.00 0.8 135 Sep-10 537,000 280 228 1.7 11.18 11.18 6 16 98% 93% 9.47 6.5 137 Oct-10 436,612 330 237 3.0 5.71 5.71 <6 11 95% 2.71 5.9 142 Nov-10 500,166 250 228 3.8 6.11 6.11 23 13 91% 94% 2.31 7.1 139 Dec-10 250 257 8.4 11.08 11.08 6 0 98% 100% 2.68 12.1 126 Jan-11 250 237 17.3 19.50 19.50 12 0 95% 100% 2.78 19.0 143 Feb-11 190 229 25.4 26.70 26.70 13 16 93% 93% 1.30 26.0 139 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Influent Data- Weir Box Effluent Data ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Inflow Ammonia Total Inorganic Nitrogen Total Nitrogen BOD TSS Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous Ammonia(1) Total Inorganic Nitrogen(1) Total Nitrogen(1) BOD TSS BOD Removal TSS Removal Nitrate + Nitrite Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Chloride Conductivity Phosphorous gpd mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l % % mg/l mg/l mg/l umhos/cm mg/l Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 41.0 60.4 270 260 0.26 60.1 50 992 7.22 2.5 8.60 7 11 97% 96% 1.99 6.6 145 1060 5.63 Dec-13 24.0 77.2 212 0.22 77.0 38 1010 9.50 7.7 17.10 37 83% 2.62 14.5 146 1140 6.33 Jan-14 29.0 113.0 490 0.72 112.0 154 1280 17.80 21.5 31.60 34 93% 1.34 30.3 149 1250 6.62 Feb-14 31.8 67.0 637 327 0.26 67.0 65 1010 9.60 28.5 38.00 15 34 98% 90% 0.65 37.3 142 1280 6.48 Mar-14 33.0 77.0 530 327 0.42 77.0 160 1380 11.20 34.0 39.00 17 20 97% 94% 0.33 39.0 138 1250 6.42 Apr-14 38.0 83.0 230 258 0.45 83.0 579 2680 7.90 31.0 34.00 19 22 92% 91% 0.25 34.0 114 1030 5.15 May-14 35.0 73.0 280 336 0.53 72.0 65 1120 9.70 24.0 30.00 45 61 84% 82% 1.53 28.0 116 1030 6.09 Jun-14 38.0 71.0 224 0.27 71.0 55 992 7.80 13.0 32.30 23 90% 10.20 22.1 134 1060 7.20 Jul-14 36.0 62.0 310 257 0.22 62.0 66 1080 8.40 0.4 25.90 18 70 94% 73% 15.50 10.4 142 1040 7.90 Aug-14 45.1 63.7 220 232 0.16 63.5 151 1390 8.17 1.8 13.70 13 41 94% 82% 6.13 7.6 154 1100 7.57 Sep-14 39.4 68.0 350 310 0.12 68.0 62 1120 6.1 8.60 10 0 97% 100% ND 8.6 148 1160 Oct-14 Nov-14 42.0 75.2 372 0.21 75.0 54 1070 8.55 18.2 23.50 13 97% 0.60 22.9 149 1220 6.33 Dec-14 39.0 51.6 880 410 0.14 51.5 90 1120 6.83 23.3 30.40 43 38 95% 91% 2.43 28.0 151 1200 5.88 Jan-15 Feb-15 30.2 48.1 272 0.30 47.8 6.20 32.5 39.40 52 81% 0.80 38.6 141 5.96 Mar-15 32.7 62.0 299 0.49 61.5 6.65 34.0 38.50 33 89% 0.68 37.8 117 5.40 Apr-15 27.7 62.1 282 0.58 61.5 7.55 30.5 39.60 55 80% 0.77 38.8 129 6.05 May-15 28.9 67.0 211 0.20 66.8 9.20 26.5 36.30 22 90% 3.12 33.2 6.50 Jun-15 30.2 50.5 160 0.14 50.4 5.69 20.8 32.60 31 81% 4.23 28.4 136 Jul-15 42.6 59.3 204 0.11 59.2 7.01 1.3 14.70 22 89% 8.48 6.2 144 7.28 Aug-15 32.6 54.5 370 169 0.12 54.4 201 1500 6.75 2.1 8.10 <6 0 100% 100% 2.52 5.6 154 1140 6.60 Sep-15 40.5 59.5 218 0.06 59.4 6.96 7.5 12.00 17 92% 0.53 11.5 159 8.30 Oct-15 Nov-15 32.0 90.4 535 0.45 90.0 13.10 8.3 13.00 0 100% 0.86 12.1 158 6.32 Dec-15 44.4 205 0.37 44.0 5.21 14.90 13 94% 2.44 12.5 171 6.04 Jan-16 31.0 61.2 258 0.35 60.8 8.16 14.0 22.80 29 89% 1.99 20.8 163 5.84 Feb-16 25.5 50.6 170 0.41 50.2 5.81 19.4 25.40 29 83% 1.18 24.2 158 8.95 Mar-16 25.1 51.3 222 4.13 47.2 11.20 22.0 29.40 29 87% 0.80 28.6 152 5.60 Apr-16 26.1 52.9 220 0.49 52.4 6.30 24.0 32.00 29 87% 0.44 31.6 146 5.39 May-16 36.6 69.0 196 3.37 65.6 12.80 29.0 36.60 0 100% 0.20 36.6 148 6.22 Jun-16 29.1 65.7 347 0.08 65.6 7.70 29.8 38.70 0 100% 0.78 37.9 150 6.38 Jul-16 38 66.5 200 0.1 66.4 6.10 9.6 29.7 27 87% 11.6 18.1 160 6.8 Aug-16 39 59.6 300 0.02 59.6 7.69 2.2 15.2 17 94% 9.2 6 159 7.09 Sep-16 29.9 47 349 0.07 46.0 6.32 4.0 14.7 24 93% 5.33 9.4 180 6.01 Oct-16 39 50.9 240 0.8 50.8 6.29 6.5 16 11 95% 3.75 12.3 168 6.83 Nov-16 39.8 50.1 186 0.08 50.0 6.59 12.2 18.5 0 100% 2.24 16.3 158 6.49 Dec-16 37.1 56.7 236 0.09 56.6 7.39 12.1 19.9 10 96% 3.15 16.7 155 6.42 Jan-17 30.3 56.2 104 0.95 55.2 8.13 17.4 25.8 18 83% 2.55 23.2 165 6.47 Feb-17 30 51.3 125 0.47 50.85 7.16 24.3 28.7 18 86% 1.67 27 163 6.22 Mar-17 35.6 55.7 150 0.47 55.2 6.83 29.1 31.8 18 88% 1.08 30.8 167 6.19 Apr-17 40.1 61.8 172 0.21 61.6 7.58 29.8 32.9 27 84% 0.72 32.2 150 5.9 May-17 34 60.1 248 0.12 60 7.55 22 33 32 87% 5.82 27.2 149 5.9 Influent Data- Weir Box Effluent Data ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BWTP Contaminant Influent and Effluent Concentrations BWTP Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Influent and Effluent Concentrations BWTP TKN Influent and Effluent Concentrations ---PAGE BREAK--- BWTP Ammonia Influent and Effluent Concentrations BWTP Chloride Influent and Effluent Concentrations ---PAGE BREAK--- BWTP Total Phosphorus Influent and Effluent Concentrations BWTP Nitrate +Nitrites (as N) Influent and Effluent Concentrations ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BWTP Influent Loading . BWTP BOD Loading BWTP TSS Loading ---PAGE BREAK--- BWTP Total Nitrogen Loading BWTP Total Phosphorus Loading ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Year 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 6B 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 Monitoring Wells Summary Conductivity (umhos.cm) 2002 to 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2009 600.0 411.0 October 2009 573.0 November 2009 540.0 December 2009 510.0 442.0 January 2010 503.0 February 2010 484.0 March 2010 480.0 409.0 April 2010 483.0 May 2010 493.0 June 2010 474.0 361.0 July 2010 480.0 August 2010 538.0 September 2010 566.0 384.0 October 2010 555.0 November 2010 544.0 December 2010 548.0 428.0 January 2011 493.0 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 650 553 446 November 2013 December 2013 500.0 691.0 686.0 706 619 648 575 404.0 503.0 484.0 485 January 2014 709 581 459 February 2014 746 570 485 March 2014 445.0 707.0 709.0 712 628 625 575 384.0 620.0 332.0 350 April 2014 695 552 439 May 2014 631 532 379 June 2014 283.0 576.0 617.0 620 570 573 550 396.0 418.0 404.0 403 July 2014 594 551 406 August 2014 582 563 406 September 2014 488.0 435.0 496.0 555 579 623 578 410.0 416.0 411.0 407 October 2014 608 582 415 November 2014 699 604 524 December 2014 525.0 657.0 652.0 711 652 640 587 437.0 520.0 534.0 535 January 2015 716 587 508 February 2015 711 572 469 March 2015 605 559 468 April 2015 649 555 470 May 2015 629 553 362 June 2015 394.0 552.0 613.0 625 568 593 550 380.0 423.0 419.0 418 July 2015 623 566 407 August 2015 680 599 409 September 2015 October 2015 679 599 107 November 2015 726 594 497 December 2015 January 2016 774 607 479 February 2016 754 603 507 March 2016 771 581 484 April 2016 772 570 503 May 2016 753 566 483 June 2016 740 548 391 July 2016 700 541 375 August 2016 702 556 381 September 2016 669 573 383 October 2016 664 557 374 November 2016 679 565 491 December 2016 688 564 466 January 2017 686 564 432 February 2017 680 564 433 March 2017 657 561 492 April 2017 658 563 480 May 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Year 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 6B 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C January 2002 7 21 11 38 21 February 2002 March 2002 7 31 9 41 37 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 6 35 11 47 34 July 2002 August 2002 11 13 8 29 26 September 2002 10 17 7 19 29 October 2002 9 13 6 16 33 November 2002 8 38 6 24 22 December 2002 8 10 8 32 18 January 2003 61 42 13 48 7 32 6 20 11 2 49 9 6 11 February 2003 7 19 9 30 23 March 2003 7 30 11 38 25 4 36 11 9 12 April 2003 20 10 44 33 May 2003 10 8 33 22 June 2003 8 66 26 10 42 11 8 28 14 3 8 6 7 7 July 2003 16 8 25 15 August 2003 18 8 25 15 September 2003 9 48 21 9 39 16 10 25 14 3 5 3 5 6 October 2003 14 8 24 12 November 2003 86 10 67 32 December 2003 6 128 28 8 46 40 10 50 47 3 4 3 4 4 January 2004 8 7 19 12 February 2004 18 6 25 24 March 2004 5 83 47 8 54 9 6 24 30 April 2004 11 19 6 21 May 2004 9 6 19 17 June 2004 33 26 22 25 25 8 6 13 12 July 2004 13 5 12 11 August 2004 14 5 12 12 September 2004 9 14 11 7 19 15 6 14 13 October 2004 14 7 18 13 November 2004 26 9 56 14 December 2004 10 111 33 8 37 23 8 28 17 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 5 12 12 7 26 9 6 13 11 3 5 5 4 4 April 2005 6 11 9 7 17 7 6 11 9 May 2005 7 19 14 6 14 7 6 10 7 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 2002 to 2016 Chloride Concentration (mg/L) Monitoring Wells Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 5 36 29 9 32 8 8 23 14 May 2006 5 24 18 8 31 9 7 18 10 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 7 15 12 6 26 30 6 13 26 September 2006 9 12 10 6 20 5 5 5 4 5 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 8 119 25 10 23 8 7 14 9 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 12 45 20 7 28 18 5 10 8 4 12 10 5 10 July 2007 August 2007 30 12 11 7 16 28 6 15 56 September 2007 October 2007 27 18 16 10 14 30 10 27 36 November 2007 ND ND ND ND December 2007 19 28 21 14 19 15 13 34 16 5 6 5 5 6 January 2008 11 132 29 16 23 11 13 34 11 February 2008 10 129 47 16 27 10 12 32 10 March 2008 11 81 53 17 42 9 11 29 10 4 55 18 8 17 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 22 28 21 11 39 22 8 17 14 5 10 9 6 8 July 2008 32 21 14 10 27 31 7 13 22 August 2008 25 18 14 11 21 28 7 14 27 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 13 37 26 21 29 53 19 62 32 February 2009 12 37 22 21 30 46 21 74 38 March 2009 13 28 17 18 27 28 17 59 33 4 11 27 8 13 April 2009 14 29 13 15 23 45 14 51 33 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 23 17 11 11 15 20 9 16 16 August 2009 25 18 11 12 15 24 10 16 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2009 33 19 14 13 16 38 10 16 26 4 10 4 8 10 October 2009 26 22 18 16 18 40 11 20 36 November 2009 22 25 21 17 20 35 13 25 35 December 2009 16 165 46 20 31 44 17 53 39 4 50 32 11 28 January 2010 12 36 37 20 42 21 17 39 24 February 2010 12 33 31 19 39 22 16 36 22 March 2010 11 49 20 15 28 17 15 27 15 4 24 21 11 18 April 2010 10 37 28 14 27 14 14 26 15 May 2010 10 64 17 11 20 13 13 21 14 June 2010 10 29 19 10 28 21 13 20 14 3 8 11 5 9 July 2010 18 24 12 10 26 32 13 20 23 August 2010 22 16 9 10 17 43 12 18 32 September 2010 25 124 25 12 16 51 14 22 41 5 9 5 6 8 October 2010 20 36 31 12 25 49 13 25 45 November 2010 21 46 23 14 33 47 15 32 44 December 2010 15 130 28 16 32 41 16 36 43 5 53 27 10 27 January 2011 10 131 30 16 42 27 17 40 32 February 2011 9 142 36 15 45 20 17 37 22 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 46 14 15 November 2013 December 2013 16 61 58 56 35 36 20 5 25 24 24 January 2014 61 22 20 February 2014 70 19 23 March 2014 6 54 57 61 34 27 15 3 40 14 14 April 2014 53 13 13 May 2014 38 11 6 June 2014 2 25 32 32 20 16 11 4 6 7 7 July 2014 27 13 7 August 2014 23 14 6 September 2014 21 7 11 18 17 25 17 4 4 6 6 October 2014 31 22 8 November 2014 34 15 13 December 2014 17 50 45 55 37 31 21 5 17 26 5 January 2015 55 21 20 February 2015 46 15 13 March 2015 9 29 40 29 30 19 13 4 13 14 14 April 2015 35 12 14 May 2015 32 11 7 June 2015 16 24 31 33 19 22 15 3 6 10 10 July 2015 34 19 9 August 2015 43 22 8 September 2015 21 19 32 47 31 35 24 4 5 10 10 October 2015 49 27 10 November 2015 64 26 25 December 2015 26 50 60 56 49 4 20 21 January 2016 76 28 22 February 2016 66 23 26 March 2016 10 53 65 70 45 28 19 3 24 19 19 April 2016 71 17 23 May 2016 64 16 18 June 2016 4 36 51 62 30 22 15 3 10 7 7 July 2016 54 14 5 August 2016 49 15 5 September 2016 37 34 49 45 24 31 18 3 4 5 5 October 2016 48 19 5 November 2016 51 19 25 December 2016 20 52 58 53 37 33 18 4 18 20 20 January 2017 56 19 14 February 2017 52 18 14 March 2017 7 57 54 45 41 26 16 4 21 22 22 April 2017 45 15 19 May 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Year 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 6B 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C January 2002 1.06 1.75 1.11 1.79 1.9 February 2002 . March 2002 1.11 2.7 1.02 1.47 2.16 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 1.1 9.04 0.93 1.88 8.47 July 2002 August 2002 1.14 1.5 0.98 1.66 2.82 September 2002 1.19 1.61 1 1.73 2.38 October 2002 1.18 1.51 1.01 1.77 2.14 November 2002 1.14 10.6 1.23 6.32 4.15 December 2002 1.22 2.24 1.69 6.84 4.22 January 2003 1.3 3.86 1.01 2.09 2.4 0.85 1.10 0.92 0.90 1.03 February 2003 1.31 2.58 0.96 2.67 3.55 March 2003 1.09 1.80 1.20 0.48 1.33 4.5 0.95 2.65 3.51 0.75 0.95 0.87 0.91 1.11 April 2003 3.4 1.03 3.28 5.1 May 2003 1.85 0.94 1.93 4.91 June 2003 1.70 3.20 2.09 1.24 0.64 1.66 0.99 1.24 2.42 0.81 1.14 0.82 0.89 0.87 July 2003 1.76 0.99 1.61 1.81 August 2003 1.77 1.08 2.9 1.57 September 2003 1.34 1.67 1.36 1.29 0.63 1.7 1.1 2.25 1.43 0.80 0.94 0.82 0.79 0.91 October 2003 1.49 1.05 2.42 1.29 November 2003 5.56 1.61 6.14 4.31 December 2003 1.24 2.73 1.63 1.30 1.32 3.34 1.75 5.5 4.8 0.83 0.96 0.79 0.77 0.88 January 2004 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.63 February 2004 2.55 0.98 3.95 3.64 March 2004 1.40 0.80 3.40 1.30 1.16 1.8 1 2.7 3.11 April 2004 6 1 2.7 3.79 May 2004 2.98 1.18 5.7 8.1 June 2004 1.30 17.60 3.70 1.40 1.58 2.1 1.1 2.9 3.86 July 2004 2.63 0.93 3.42 2.64 August 2004 2.29 1.15 3.79 2.17 September 2004 1.38 3.06 9.51 1.44 3.71 2.14 1.18 3.04 1.9 October 2004 2.01 1.21 2.9 1.83 November 2004 4.77 1.41 8.68 2.27 December 2004 1.40 17.60 11.20 1.56 13.20 4.5 1.28 4.51 3.29 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 1.35 2.62 2.43 1.33 2.61 1.61 1.08 1.51 1.78 0.80 1.25 1.17 0.76 0.92 April 2005 1.39 4.34 2.65 1.34 1.38 1.36 1.08 1.32 1.54 May 2005 1.41 7.06 4.96 1.34 2.28 1.68 1.07 1.18 1.42 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 Monitoring Wells Summary Nitrate+Nitite Concentration (mg/L) 2002 to 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 3.30 4.30 February 2006 2.70 3.10 March 2006 4.00 1.80 April 2006 1.32 8.06 4.83 1.49 3.40 2.48 1.3 3.07 4.06 May 2006 1.30 9.54 4.29 1.47 3.47 2.4 1.18 2.77 2.96 June 2006 1.32 16.80 3.85 1.41 3.33 2.55 1.13 2.85 5.45 July 2006 1.20 7.78 2.81 1.30 5.53 3.11 1.11 3.4 2.59 August 2006 1.18 3.99 4.27 1.32 6.83 3.19 1.24 4.17 2.8 September 2006 1.14 2.32 3.26 1.24 5.65 2.54 1.24 3.9 2.44 0.91 0.93 1.00 0.70 0.80 October 2006 2.37 2.04 2.76 1.31 3.71 2.44 1.3 3.77 2.33 November 2006 1.48 10.40 3.74 1.15 2.26 0.6 1.25 4.98 1.84 December 2006 1.16 2.93 4.30 1.23 5.05 1.47 1.2 2.47 1.52 1.03 2.03 2.06 1.07 1.75 January 2007 1.09 11.40 3.59 1.28 3.65 1.2 1.05 1.95 1.33 February 2007 1.17 7.13 4.93 1.38 3.01 1.31 1.09 1.73 1.34 March 2007 1.27 5.35 4.33 1.39 2.92 1.29 1.08 1.5 1.35 1.01 2.65 2.11 1.11 2.10 April 2007 1.34 3.98 4.25 1.30 3.36 1.23 1.13 1.51 1.36 May 2007 1.41 7.77 6.14 1.34 3.38 1.2 1.17 1.43 1.31 June 2007 1.43 21.30 5.20 1.31 3.76 4.796 1.09 1.57 1.86 1.01 3.15 2.40 0.98 2.66 July 2007 1.36 5.07 4.64 1.18 5.54 8.36 1.34 4.97 5.72 August 2007 2.43 2.77 4.18 1.34 5.15 7.08 1.65 5.92 6.47 September 2007 3.19 1.98 3.67 1.44 4.14 5.16 1.78 6.01 5.48 1.12 1.51 1.23 1.02 1.29 October 2007 2.46 2.07 3.15 1.46 2.93 3.65 1.97 6.05 3.95 November 2007 6.56 3.49 1.54 2.68 2.86 2.1 6.11 3.01 December 2007 1.81 1.23 4.08 1.76 2.61 2.41 2.23 5.74 2.52 1.18 1.38 1.22 1.06 1.34 January 2008 1.55 6.56 4.55 1.88 2.04 1.88 1.77 3.91 1.9 February 2008 1.63 10.70 5.24 1.89 2.62 1.87 1.7 3.49 1.92 March 2008 1.66 10.50 5.09 1.82 3.51 1.72 1.54 2.67 1.81 1.04 8.12 2.21 1.34 2.57 April 2008 1.82 22.40 5.95 2.07 4.82 1.78 1.58 2.49 1.9 May 2008 1.75 20.20 9.97 1.76 6.85 2.08 1.45 3.28 3.48 June 2008 1.80 15.90 5.95 1.60 6.85 3.29 1.19 2.17 2.32 0.78 1.91 1.87 0.93 1.42 July 2008 2.06 16.40 5.80 1.58 5.99 5.8 1.33 4.9 4.27 August 2008 1.96 13.50 6.05 1.73 6.05 5.37 1.64 7.84 5.7 September 2008 3.00 11.60 5.91 1.75 5.45 5.42 1.79 9.04 5.48 1.16 1.47 1.24 1.17 1.54 October 2008 3.03 6.39 5.89 1.89 4.69 4.69 1.84 6.92 5.12 November 2008 2.34 5.77 7.23 2.25 5.03 4.81 2.11 6.98 4.95 December 2008 1.71 1.46 5.54 2.32 4.90 4.66 5.81 3.79 1.47 4.53 2.55 1.34 2.40 January 2009 1.61 0.87 4.13 2.20 3.43 3.2 1.96 4.94 3.32 February 2009 1.69 2.84 3.13 2.09 2.26 2.19 1.79 3.45 2.63 March 2009 1.72 4.89 2.60 1.83 1.68 3.35 1.5 3.1 2.73 1.17 1.71 1.73 1.20 1.57 April 2009 1.86 11.90 2.62 1.83 1.57 3.75 1.49 3.05 3.06 May 2009 1.93 12.20 2.55 1.76 1.80 1.99 1.39 2.05 2.3 June 2009 2.80 2.10 July 2009 2.04 7.57 3.28 1.78 2.68 3.53 1.46 3.29 3.17 August 2009 2.13 5.85 2.55 1.72 2.71 3.52 1.47 3.64 2.89 September 2009 2.97 4.05 3.40 1.79 2.89 4.11 1.62 4.24 3.63 1.03 1.57 1.28 1.13 1.39 October 2009 2.46 2.68 3.61 1.87 2.66 3.87 1.68 4.51 3.67 ---PAGE BREAK--- November 2009 2.13 1.92 3.85 1.88 2.52 3.35 1.7 4.22 3.37 December 2009 2.03 10.10 5.25 2.06 3.43 8.79 2.59 15.2 10.5 1.13 4.70 0.06 1.29 2.57 January 2010 1.96 2.04 3.62 2.15 3.38 2.86 1.85 4.71 3.77 February 2010 1.96 2.20 3.59 2.08 3.07 3.04 1.75 3.51 3.28 March 2010 1.95 8.61 2.74 2.00 2.18 2.78 1.68 2.39 2.52 0.87 4.09 2.39 1.44 2.34 April 2010 1.90 4.46 3.12 1.94 2.21 2.41 1.59 2.59 2.73 May 2010 1.80 13.10 3.85 1.80 2.33 1.87 1.62 2.23 2.28 June 2010 1.74 13.40 5.86 1.93 4.32 3.91 1.79 2.32 2.57 0.79 2.01 3.17 0.95 1.72 July 2010 2.31 21.10 4.48 2.04 4.58 5.22 1.87 3.12 4.19 August 2010 1.88 9.20 4.15 1.88 4.47 5.51 1.79 5.69 4.53 September 2010 2.10 15.60 6.10 1.94 4.61 5.7 2.12 7.05 5.67 0.81 1.23 1.01 0.81 1.16 October 2010 1.94 21.40 6.90 2.06 7.03 5.16 2.36 7.92 5.39 November 2010 1.71 8.55 6.59 2.12 7.28 4.22 2.26 7.07 4.38 December 2010 1.58 7.37 5.56 2.22 6.63 3.61 2.11 5.44 3.7 1.22 4.27 2.85 1.13 2.30 January 2011 1.62 9.82 4.85 2.17 5.27 3.08 2.02 4.07 3.24 February 2011 1.78 8.70 3.94 1.91 4.09 2.71 1.9 2.88 2.81 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 2.92 3.85 3.05 November 2013 December 2013 1.51 3.93 3.58 3.67 2.92 3.08 3.06 1.07 2.84 2.61 2.54 January 2014 3.79 2.80 2.02 February 2014 3.57 2.74 2.46 March 2014 1.41 3.30 3.59 3.72 2.55 2.48 2.9 0.75 3.66 1.22 1.17 April 2014 3.6 2.98 1.43 May 2014 2.7 2.58 1.05 June 2014 0.37 4.90 5.03 2.65 2.29 2.49 2.95 0.89 1.12 1.22 1.23 July 2014 2.69 3.08 1.16 August 2014 2.63 2.71 1.12 September 2014 1.04 2.38 3.02 2.15 3.54 2.96 2.73 0.93 1.08 1.21 1.22 October 2014 3.62 2.83 1.34 November 2014 5.22 2.76 5.57 December 2014 1.30 4.94 6.33 4.63 3.38 2.34 2.35 1.11 4.92 4.50 4.77 January 2015 4.44 2.42 3.91 February 2015 4.61 2.6 2.72 March 2015 1.60 3.60 5.35 2.78 2.11 2.16 2.53 0.85 2.76 2.80 2.82 April 2015 3.03 2.42 2.74 May 2015 2.71 2.56 0.99 June 2015 0.81 4.48 7.27 3.61 1.72 2.1 2.24 0.57 1.40 1.47 1.46 July 2015 3.42 2.8 1.31 August 2015 3.26 3.11 1.07 September 2015 1.53 2.07 4.39 2.62 2.63 3.25 3.05 0.92 1.10 1.45 1.46 October 2015 2.59 3.23 1.38 November 2015 3.13 3.36 3.29 December 2015 1.82 3.67 4.60 3.56 3.45 0.97 3.10 2.90 January 2016 3.49 3.13 2.37 February 2016 3.22 3.01 2.02 March 2016 1.76 3.58 3.32 3.04 2.79 2.83 3.45 0.66 2.55 2.36 2.33 April 2016 2.84 3.44 3.64 May 2016 3.31 3.45 3.22 June 2016 0.66 4.99 6.40 4.03 2.52 2.8 3.45 0.74 2.05 1.04 1.03 July 2016 3.66 3.52 0.77 August 2016 3.65 3.6 0.81 September 2016 1.65 3.00 5.80 2.94 2.57 3.38 3.46 0.83 0.90 0.76 0.79 October 2016 2.81 3.55 0.91 November 2016 2.37 3.61 3.22 December 2016 1.39 4.51 4.62 2.42 3.2 3.46 3.25 0.99 2.97 2.63 2.65 January 2017 2.76 3.13 1.96 February 2017 2.89 3 1.97 March 2017 1.39 3.21 3.86 2.73 2.57 2.7 2.9 0.84 2.61 2.64 2.6 April 2017 2.45 2.85 3.25 May 2017 June 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Year 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 6B 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 Monitoring Wells Summary Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L) 2002 to 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 ND May 2006 ND June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 ND September 2006 ND ND October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 ND February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 ND ND July 2007 August 2007 ND September 2007 October 2007 ND November 2007 December 2007 ND ND January 2008 0.6 February 2008 ND March 2008 ND ND April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 ND ND July 2008 ND August 2008 ND September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 ND February 2009 ND March 2009 ND ND April 2009 ND May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 ND August 2009 ND September 2009 ND ND October 2009 ND ---PAGE BREAK--- November 2009 ND December 2009 ND ND January 2010 ND February 2010 ND March 2010 ND ND April 2010 ND May 2010 ND June 2010 ND ND July 2010 ND August 2010 ND September 2010 ND ND October 2010 ND November 2010 ND December 2010 ND ND January 2011 ND February 2011 ND March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 ND ND ND November 2013 December 2013 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND January 2014 ND ND ND February 2014 ND ND ND March 2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND April 2014 ND ND ND May 2014 ND ND ND June 2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND July 2014 ND ND ND August 2014 ND ND ND September 2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND October 2014 ND ND ND November 2014 ND ND ND December 2014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND January 2015 ND ND ND February 2015 ND ND ND March 2015 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND April 2015 ND ND ND May 2015 ND ND ND June 2015 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND July 2015 ND ND ND August 2015 ND ND ND September 2015 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND October 2015 ND ND ND November 2015 ND ND ND December 2015 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND January 2016 ND ND ND February 2016 ND ND ND March 2016 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND April 2016 ND ND ND May 2016 ND ND ND June 2016 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND July 2016 ND ND ND August 2016 ND ND ND September 2016 0.5 ND ND ND 0.5 0.6 24.1 0.5 ND ND ND October 2016 ND ND ND November 2016 ND ND ND December 2016 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND January 2017 ND ND ND February 2017 ND ND ND March 2017 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND April 2017 ND ND ND May 2017 June 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Year 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 6B 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C January 2002 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.8 1.9 February 2002 . March 2002 1.1 2.7 1.0 1.5 2.2 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 1.1 9.0 0.9 1.9 8.5 July 2002 August 2002 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.7 2.8 September 2002 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.7 2.4 October 2002 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.8 2.1 November 2002 1.1 10.6 1.2 6.3 4.2 December 2002 1.2 2.2 1.7 6.8 4.2 January 2003 1.3 3.9 1.0 2.1 2.4 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 February 2003 1.3 2.6 1.0 2.7 3.6 March 2003 1.2 1.8 1.2 0.5 1.3 4.5 1.0 2.7 3.5 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 April 2003 3.4 1.0 3.3 5.1 May 2003 1.9 0.9 1.9 4.9 June 2003 1.7 3.4 2.1 1.2 0.6 1.7 1.0 1.2 2.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 July 2003 1.8 1.0 1.6 1.8 August 2003 1.8 1.1 2.9 1.6 September 2003 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.3 0.6 1.7 1.1 2.3 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 October 2003 1.5 1.1 2.4 1.3 November 2003 5.6 1.6 6.1 4.3 December 2003 1.2 4.5 1.6 1.3 1.3 3.3 1.8 5.5 4.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 January 2004 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.6 February 2004 2.6 1.0 4.0 3.6 March 2004 1.4 1.1 3.4 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.0 2.7 3.1 April 2004 6.0 1.0 2.7 3.8 May 2004 3.0 1.2 5.7 8.1 June 2004 1.3 17.8 3.7 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.1 2.9 3.9 July 2004 2.6 0.9 3.4 2.6 August 2004 2.3 1.2 3.8 2.2 September 2004 1.4 4.1 9.5 1.4 3.7 2.1 1.2 3.0 1.9 October 2004 2.0 1.2 2.9 1.8 November 2004 4.8 1.4 8.7 2.3 December 2004 1.4 20.0 11.2 1.6 13.2 4.5 1.3 4.5 3.3 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 1.4 3.2 2.4 1.3 2.6 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 April 2005 1.4 4.3 2.7 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 May 2005 1.4 7.1 5.0 1.3 2.3 1.7 1.1 1.2 1.4 June 2005 July 2005 Monitoring Wells Summary Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L) 2002 to 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 3.3 4.3 February 2006 2.7 3.1 March 2006 4.0 1.8 April 2006 1.3 8.1 4.8 1.5 3.4 2.5 1.3 3.1 4.1 May 2006 1.3 9.5 4.3 1.5 3.5 2.4 1.2 2.8 3.0 June 2006 1.3 17.0 3.9 1.4 3.3 2.6 1.1 2.9 5.5 July 2006 1.2 8.1 2.8 1.3 5.5 3.1 1.1 3.4 2.6 August 2006 1.2 4.6 4.3 1.3 6.8 3.2 1.2 4.2 2.8 September 2006 1.1 3.2 3.3 1.2 5.7 2.5 1.2 3.9 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 October 2006 2.4 3.3 2.8 1.3 3.7 2.4 1.3 3.8 2.3 November 2006 1.5 10.9 3.7 1.2 2.3 0.6 1.3 5.0 1.8 December 2006 1.2 3.4 4.3 1.2 5.1 1.5 1.2 2.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.1 1.1 1.8 January 2007 1.1 11.9 3.6 1.3 3.7 1.2 1.1 2.0 1.3 February 2007 1.2 7.3 4.9 1.4 3.0 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.3 March 2007 1.3 5.4 4.3 1.4 2.9 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.0 2.7 2.1 1.1 2.1 April 2007 1.3 4.0 4.3 1.3 3.4 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 May 2007 1.4 7.8 6.1 1.3 3.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 June 2007 1.4 21.3 5.2 1.3 3.8 4.8 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.0 3.2 2.4 1.0 2.7 July 2007 1.4 5.6 4.6 1.2 5.5 8.4 1.3 5.0 5.7 August 2007 2.4 3.6 4.2 1.3 5.2 7.1 1.7 5.9 6.5 September 2007 3.2 3.1 3.7 1.4 4.1 5.2 1.8 6.0 5.5 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.3 October 2007 2.5 3.6 3.2 1.5 2.9 3.7 2.0 6.1 4.0 November 2007 8.3 3.5 1.5 2.7 2.9 2.1 6.1 3.0 December 2007 1.8 2.9 4.1 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 5.7 2.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 January 2008 1.6 6.8 4.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.9 February 2008 1.6 10.7 5.2 1.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 3.5 1.9 March 2008 1.7 10.5 5.1 1.8 3.5 1.7 1.5 2.7 1.8 1.0 8.1 2.2 1.3 2.6 April 2008 1.8 22.9 6.0 2.1 4.8 1.8 1.6 2.5 1.9 May 2008 1.8 20.4 10.0 1.8 6.9 2.1 1.5 3.3 3.5 June 2008 1.8 16.3 6.0 1.6 6.9 3.3 1.2 2.2 2.3 0.8 1.9 1.9 0.9 1.4 July 2008 2.1 17.1 5.8 1.6 6.0 5.8 1.3 4.9 4.3 August 2008 2.0 14.3 6.1 1.7 6.1 5.4 1.6 7.8 5.7 September 2008 3.0 12.4 5.9 1.8 5.5 5.4 1.8 9.0 5.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.5 October 2008 3.0 7.4 5.9 1.9 4.7 4.7 1.8 6.9 5.1 November 2008 2.3 7.0 7.2 2.3 5.0 4.8 2.1 7.0 5.0 December 2008 1.7 3.0 5.5 2.3 4.9 4.7 5.8 3.8 1.5 4.5 2.6 1.3 2.4 January 2009 1.6 2.6 4.1 2.2 3.4 3.2 2.0 4.9 3.3 February 2009 1.7 4.7 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.8 3.5 2.6 March 2009 1.7 6.6 2.6 1.8 1.7 3.4 1.5 3.1 2.7 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.6 April 2009 1.9 13.7 2.6 1.8 1.6 3.8 1.5 3.1 3.1 May 2009 1.9 13.6 2.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.1 2.3 June 2009 2.8 2.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- July 2009 2.0 9.0 3.3 1.8 2.7 3.5 1.5 3.3 3.2 August 2009 2.1 7.3 2.6 1.7 2.7 3.5 1.5 3.6 2.9 September 2009 3.0 5.5 3.4 1.8 2.9 4.1 1.6 4.2 3.6 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.4 October 2009 2.5 4.4 3.6 1.9 2.7 3.9 1.7 4.5 3.7 November 2009 2.1 3.6 3.9 1.9 2.5 3.4 1.7 4.2 3.4 December 2009 2.0 10.5 5.3 2.1 3.4 8.8 2.6 15.2 10.5 1.1 4.7 0.1 1.3 2.6 January 2010 2.0 3.0 3.6 2.2 3.4 2.9 1.9 4.7 3.8 February 2010 2.0 3.3 3.6 2.1 3.1 3.0 1.8 3.5 3.3 March 2010 2.0 8.8 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.8 1.7 2.4 2.5 0.9 4.1 2.4 1.4 2.3 April 2010 1.9 4.6 3.1 1.9 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.6 2.7 May 2010 1.8 13.2 3.9 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.6 2.2 2.3 June 2010 1.7 13.5 5.9 1.9 4.3 3.9 1.8 2.3 2.6 0.8 2.0 3.2 1.0 1.7 July 2010 2.3 21.4 4.5 2.0 4.6 5.2 1.9 3.1 4.2 August 2010 1.9 9.6 4.2 1.9 4.5 5.5 1.8 5.7 4.5 September 2010 2.1 15.7 6.1 1.9 4.6 5.7 2.1 7.1 5.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 October 2010 1.9 21.7 6.9 2.1 7.0 5.2 2.4 7.9 5.4 November 2010 1.7 9.2 6.6 2.1 7.3 4.2 2.3 7.1 4.4 December 2010 1.6 7.6 5.7 2.2 6.6 3.6 2.1 5.4 3.7 1.2 4.3 2.9 1.1 2.3 January 2011 1.6 9.9 4.9 2.2 5.3 3.1 2.0 4.1 3.2 February 2011 1.8 9.5 3.9 1.9 4.1 2.7 1.9 2.9 2.8 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 1.5 3.9 3.6 3.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 1.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 January 2014 3.8 2.8 2 February 2014 3.6 2.7 2.5 March 2014 1.4 3.0 3.6 3.7 2.6 2.5 2.9 0.8 3.7 1.2 1.2 April 2014 3.6 3 1.4 May 2014 2.7 2.6 1 June 2014 ND 4.9 5.0 2.6 2.3 2.5 3 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 July 2014 2.7 3.1 1.2 August 2014 2.6 2.7 1.1 September 2014 1.0 2.4 3.0 2.2 3.5 3 2.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 October 2014 3.6 2.8 1.3 November 2014 5.2 2.8 5.6 December 2014 1.3 4.9 6.3 4.6 3.4 2.3 2.4 1.1 4.9 4.5 4.8 January 2015 4.4 2.4 3.9 February 2015 4.6 2.6 2.7 March 2015 April 2015 3 2.4 2.7 May 2015 2.7 2.6 1 June 2015 0.8 4.5 7.3 3.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 July 2015 3.4 2.8 1.3 August 2015 3.3 3.1 1.1 September 2015 October 2015 2.6 3.2 1.4 November 2015 3.1 3.4 3.3 December 2015 1.8 3.7 4.6 3.6 3.4 1.0 3.1 2.9 January 2016 3.5 3.1 2.4 February 2016 3.2 3 2 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 3.7 3.5 0.8 August 2016 3.6 3.6 0.8 September 2016 2.2 3.0 5.8 2.9 3.1 4 27.6 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 October 2016 2.8 3.6 0.9 November 2016 2.4 3.6 3.2 December 2016 1.4 4.5 4.6 2.4 3.2 3.5 3.2 1.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 January 2017 2.8 3.1 2 February 2017 2.9 3 2 March 2017 1.4 3.2 3.9 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 0.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 April 2017 2.6 2.8 3.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING PIPELINE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: BWTP Piping Designer: Project Date: Thursday, April 20, 2017 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Notes: Channel Analysis: Distribution 21-inch Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter: 1.7500 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0010 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0110 Depth: 1.4875 ft Result Parameters Flow: 6.1019 cfs Area of Flow: 2.1790 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter: 4.1058 ft Hydraulic Radius: 0.5307 ft Average Velocity: 2.8003 ft/s Top Width: 1.2497 ft Froude Number: 0.3737 Critical Depth: 0.9100 ft Critical Velocity: 4.8277 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0037 ft/ft Critical Top Width: 1.75 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.0928 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.0331 lb/ft^2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Channel Analysis: Distribution 18-inch Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter: 1.5000 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0020 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0110 Depth: 1.2750 ft Result Parameters Flow: 5.7208 cfs Area of Flow: 1.6009 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter: 3.5193 ft Hydraulic Radius: 0.4549 ft Average Velocity: 3.5734 ft/s Top Width: 1.0712 ft Froude Number: 0.5151 Critical Depth: 0.9229 ft Critical Velocity: 5.0159 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0044 ft/ft Critical Top Width: 1.46 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.1591 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.0568 lb/ft^2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Channel Analysis: Distribution 15-inch Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter: 1.2500 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0020 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0110 Depth: 1.0625 ft Result Parameters Flow: 3.5181 cfs Area of Flow: 1.1118 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter: 2.9327 ft Hydraulic Radius: 0.3791 ft Average Velocity: 3.1644 ft/s Top Width: 0.8927 ft Froude Number: 0.4997 Critical Depth: 0.7568 ft Critical Velocity: 4.5269 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0046 ft/ft Critical Top Width: 1.22 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.1326 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.0473 lb/ft^2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Channel Analysis: Bypass 21-inch Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter: 1.7500 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0010 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0110 Depth: 1.4875 ft Result Parameters Flow: 6.1019 cfs Area of Flow: 2.1790 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter: 4.1058 ft Hydraulic Radius: 0.5307 ft Average Velocity: 2.8003 ft/s Top Width: 1.2497 ft Froude Number: 0.3737 Critical Depth: 0.9100 ft Critical Velocity: 4.8277 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0037 ft/ft Critical Top Width: 1.75 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.0928 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.0331 lb/ft^2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Channel Analysis: Transfer Line C Notes: Input Parameters Channel Type: Circular Pipe Diameter: 1.3333 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0097 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0110 Depth: 1.1333 ft Result Parameters Flow: 9.2026 cfs Area of Flow: 1.2649 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter: 3.1282 ft Hydraulic Radius: 0.4044 ft Average Velocity: 7.2754 ft/s Top Width: 0.9522 ft Froude Number: 1.1124 Critical Depth: 1.1803 ft Critical Velocity: 7.0390 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0092 ft/ft Critical Top Width: 0.85 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.6860 lb/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.2447 lb/ft^2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR Checked by: CEVJ Date: 4/12/2017 BLUE TEXT = USER INPUTS RED TEXT = CALCULATION RESULTS GREEN TEXT = ENERGY EQUATION TERM Project Specific Design Criteria: Q = 1330 gpm (Original pump design capacity) Q = 2.9632 cfs (1 gal = 0.13368 CF) ν = 0.0000121 ft2/sec (assume water 60°F) Assumptions: Darcy-Weisbach friction losses Equations: Energy: Reynold's Number: Minor Head Loss: Darcy Weisbach Friction Head Loss: Swamee-Jain Friction Factor: Hazen-Williams Friction Head Loss: System Properties: Lagoon #2 Lagoon #3 16" PVC 12" SDR18 C900 PVC 10" SDR18 C900 PVC ε = 0.0000625 ft ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.0001 ft 4410.9 ID = 16 in ID = 12 in ID = 9.79 in 4415.25 D = 1.333 ft D = 1.000 ft D = 0.816 ft A = 1.396 ft2 A = 0.785 ft2 A = 0.523 ft2 vp = 2.122 ft/sec vp = 3.773 ft/sec vp = 5.669 ft/sec Re = 233,858 Re = 311,811 Re = 382,200 ε/D = 0.00005 ε/D = 0.00042 ε/D = 0.000123 L = 1,273 ft L = 1,256 ft L = - ft f = 0.01553 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01778 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01518 (S-J eqn) Ch = 150 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 140 (Hazen- Williams) Σk = 20.000 (fittings) Σk = 20.000 (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) open to atmosphere open to atmosphere BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plant Existing System Transfer Pump Equation Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Appropriate if: 10^-6 < ε/D < 10^-2 5000 < Re < 10^8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Equation: Each term is calculated separately and then used to find the pump head. Velocity Head 1 Velocity Head 2 v1 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) v2 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) 0 ft 0 ft Elevation Head 1 Elevation Head 2 z1 = 4410.9 ft z2 = 4415.25 ft Pressure Head 1 Pressure Head 2 P1 = 0 LB/ft2 (atmosphere) P2 = 0 (atmosphere) γ = 62.4 LB/ft3 γ = 62.4 LB/ft2 0 ft 0 ft Pump Head Turbine Head hp = 16.14 ft RESULT hT = 0 ft (N/A) Friction Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A Pipe A hf = 1.04 ft hf = 1.042 ft Pipe B Pipe B hf = 4.94 ft hf = 5.067 ft Pipe C Pipe C hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Minor Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A hm = 1.40 ft Pipe B hm = 4.42 ft Pipe C hm = 0.00 ft Darcy-Weisbach (Used in Energy Equation): Hazen-Williams (Check only): ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR Checked by: CEVJ Date: 4/12/2017 BLUE TEXT = USER INPUTS RED TEXT = CALCULATION RESULTS GREEN TEXT = ENERGY EQUATION TERM Project Specific Design Criteria: Q = 1090.3 gpm (Original pump design capacity) 1,570,000 gpd Q = 2.4291 cfs (1 gal = 0.13368 CF) ν = 0.0000121 ft2/sec (assume water 60°F) Assumptions: Darcy-Weisbach friction losses Equations: Energy: Reynold's Number: Minor Head Loss: Darcy Weisbach Friction Head Loss: Swamee-Jain Friction Factor: Hazen-Williams Friction Head Loss: System Properties: Lagoon #2 Lagoon #3 16" PVC 12" SDR18 C900 PVC 10" SDR18 C900 PVC ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.0001 ft 4410.9 ID = 16 in ID = 11.65 in ID = 9.79 in 4410.35745 D = 1.333 ft D = 0.971 ft D = 0.816 ft A = 1.396 ft2 A = 0.740 ft2 A = 0.523 ft2 vp = 1.740 ft/sec vp = 3.282 ft/sec vp = 4.647 ft/sec Re = 191,707 Re = 263,289 Re = 313,311 ε/D = 0.00031 ε/D = 0.00043 ε/D = 0.000123 L = 486 ft L = - ft L = - ft f = 0.01795 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01810 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01556 (S-J eqn) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 140 (Hazen- Williams) Σk = 5.000 (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) open to atmosphere open to atmosphere BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plant Existing System Transfer Line B Sizing Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Appropriate if: 10^-6 < ε/D < 10^-2 5000 < Re < 10^8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Energy Equation: Each term is calculated separately and then used to find the pump head. Velocity Head 1 Velocity Head 2 v1 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) v2 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) 0 ft 0 ft Elevation Head 1 Elevation Head 2 z1 = 4410.9 ft z2 = 4410.357 ft Pressure Head 1 Pressure Head 2 P1 = 0 LB/ft2 (atmosphere) P2 = 0 (atmosphere) γ = 62.4 LB/ft3 γ = 62.4 LB/ft2 0 ft 0 ft Pump Head Turbine Head hp = - ft RESULT hT = 0 ft (N/A) Friction Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A Pipe A hf = 0.31 ft hf = 0.335 ft Pipe B Pipe B hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Pipe C Pipe C hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Minor Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A hm = 0.23 ft Pipe B hm = 0.00 ft Pipe C hm = 0.00 ft Darcy-Weisbach (Used in Energy Equation): Hazen-Williams (Check only): ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING PUMP RUN TIME ANALYSIS ---PAGE BREAK--- Date Min Average Max Date Min Average Max Jan-10 0 0 0 Jun-13 0 0 0 Feb-10 0 0 0 Jul-13 0 0 0 Mar-10 0 0 0 Aug-13 0 0 0 Apr-10 0 0 0 Sep-13 0 0 0 May-10 0 0 0 Oct-13 0 0 0 Jun-10 0 0 0 Nov-13 0 0 0 Jul-10 0 3.219355 24 Dec-13 0 0 0 Aug-10 0 0 0 Jan-14 0 0 0 Sep-10 0 0 0 Feb-14 0 0 0 Oct-10 0 0 0 Mar-14 0 0 0 Nov-10 0 0 0 Apr-14 0 0 0 Dec-10 0 0 0 May-14 0 0.002258 0.07 Jan-11 0 0 0 Jun-14 0 0 0 Feb-11 0 0 0 Jul-14 0 0 0 Mar-11 0 0 0 Aug-14 0 0 0 Apr-11 0 0 0 Sep-14 0 0 0 May-11 0 0 0 Oct-14 0 0 0 Jun-11 0 0 0 Nov-14 0 0 0 Jul-11 0 0 0 Dec-14 0 0 0 Aug-11 0 0.302903 2.22 Jan-15 0 0 0 Sep-11 0 0 0 Feb-15 0 0 0 Oct-11 0 0 0 Mar-15 0 0 0 Nov-11 0 0 0 Apr-15 0 0 0 Dec-11 0 0 0 May-15 0 0 0 Jan-12 0 0 0 Jun-15 0 0 0 Feb-12 0 0 0 Jul-15 0 0 0 Mar-12 0 0 0 Aug-15 0 0 0 Transfer Pump Run Times ---PAGE BREAK--- Apr-12 0 0 0 Sep-15 0 0 0 May-12 0 0 0 Oct-15 0 0 0 Jun-12 0 0 0 Nov-15 0 0 0 Jul-12 0 0 0 Dec-15 0 0 0 Aug-12 0 0 0 Jan-16 0 0 0 Sep-12 0 0 0 Feb-16 0 0 0 Oct-12 0 0 0 Mar-16 0 0 0 Nov-12 0 0 0 Apr-16 0 0 0 Dec-12 0 0 0 May-16 0 0 0 Jan-13 0 0 0 Jun-16 0 0 0 Feb-13 0 0 0 Jul-16 0 0 0 Mar-13 0 0 0 Aug-16 0 0 0 Apr-13 0 0 0 Sep-16 0 0 0 May-13 0 0 0 Oct-16 0 0 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1,330 gpm Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) Jan-10 0 0 0 0 Jun-13 0 0 0 0 Feb-10 0 0 0 0 Jul-13 0 0 0 0 Mar-10 0 0 0 0 Aug-13 0 0 0 0 Apr-10 0 0 0 0 Sep-13 0 0 0 0 May-10 0 0.905806 14.58 72283.35484 Oct-13 0 0 0 0 Jun-10 0 15.864 24 1265947.2 Nov-13 0 0 0 0 Jul-10 0 0 0 0 Dec-13 0 0 0 0 Aug-10 0 0 0 0 Jan-14 0 0 0 0 Sep-10 0 0 0 0 Feb-14 0 0 0 0 Oct-10 0 0 0 0 Mar-14 0 0 0 0 Nov-10 0 0 0 0 Apr-14 0 0 0 0 Dec-10 0 0 0 0 May-14 0 2.2112903 24 0 Nominal Pump Capacity= Recycle Pump Run Times ---PAGE BREAK--- Jan-11 0 0 0 0 Jun-14 0 6.6576667 24 0 Feb-11 0 0 0 0 Jul-14 0 0 0 0 Mar-11 0 0 0 0 Aug-14 0 0 0 0 Apr-11 0 0 0 0 Sep-14 0 0 0 0 May-11 0 0 0 0 Oct-14 0 0 0 0 Jun-11 0 0 0 0 Nov-14 0 0 0 0 Jul-11 0 0 0 0 Dec-14 0 0 0 0 Aug-11 0 0.005806 0.18 [PHONE REDACTED] Jan-15 0 0 0 0 Sep-11 0 0.425 4.15 33915 Feb-15 0 0 0 0 Oct-11 0 1.134516 2.77 90534.3871 Mar-15 0 0 0 0 Nov-11 0 0.807 2.35 64398.6 Apr-15 0 6.6843333 24 0 Dec-11 0 0.132581 0.98 10579.93548 May-15 0 13.834839 24 0 Jan-12 0 0 0 0 Jun-15 0 0 0 0 Feb-12 0 0 0 0 Jul-15 0 0 0 0 Mar-12 0 0 0 0 Aug-15 0 0 0 0 Apr-12 0 0 0 0 Sep-15 0 0 0 0 May-12 0 0 0 0 Oct-15 0 0 0 0 Jun-12 0 0 0 0 Nov-15 0 0 0 0 Jul-12 0 0 0 0 Dec-15 0 0 0 0 Aug-12 0 0 0 0 Jan-16 0 0 0 0 Sep-12 0 0 0 0 Feb-16 0 0 0 0 Oct-12 0 0 0 0 Mar-16 0 0 0 0 Nov-12 0 0 0 0 Apr-16 0 0 0 0 Dec-12 0 0 0 0 May-16 0 0 0 0 Jan-13 0 0 0 0 Jun-16 0 0 0 0 Feb-13 0 0 0 0 Jul-16 0 0 0 0 Mar-13 0 0 0 0 Aug-16 0 0 0 0 Apr-13 0 0 0 0 Sep-16 0 0 0 0 May-13 0 0 0 0 Oct-16 0 0 0 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1,400 gpm Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) Jan-10 0 0 0 Jun-13 0 0 0 Feb-10 0 0.206786 1.12 Jul-13 0 0.380968 1.72 32,001 Mar-10 0 0.942903 3.72 Aug-13 0 1.205484 3.65 101,261 Apr-10 0 0 0 Sep-13 0 3.360667 5.47 282,296 May-10 0 0 0 Oct-13 0 2.580968 5.67 216,801 Jun-10 0 0 0 Nov-13 0 2.850667 5.52 239,456 Jul-10 0 0 0 Dec-13 0 2.971935 4.68 249,643 Aug-10 0 0 0 Jan-14 0 2.945484 4.58 247,421 Sep-10 0 2.467667 5.38 Feb-14 0 2.326429 4.35 195,420 Oct-10 0 0.400323 1.15 Mar-14 0 1.008065 1.55 84,677 Nov-10 0 1.331667 2.88 Apr-14 0 1.001 1.5 84,084 Dec-10 0 1.262581 2.83 May-14 0 0.865806 1.45 72,728 Jan-11 0 1.687097 3.3 Jun-14 0 0 0 Feb-11 0 1.365714 2.23 Jul-14 0 0 0 Mar-11 0 0.253226 1.58 Aug-14 0 0 0 Pump IP-1 Run Times Nominal Pump Capacity= ---PAGE BREAK--- Apr-11 0 0 0 Sep-14 0 2.739667 7.7 230,132 May-11 0 0 0 Oct-14 0 2.121613 7.98 178,215 Jun-11 0 0 0 Nov-14 0 2.568 5.78 215,712 Jul-11 0 0 0 Dec-14 0 2.795161 4.03 234,794 Aug-11 0 0 0 Jan-15 0 1.061613 3.88 89,175 Sep-11 0 0 0 Feb-15 0 0.483214 2.47 40,590 Oct-11 0 0 0 Mar-15 0 0 0 Nov-11 0 0 0 Apr-15 0 0 0 Dec-11 0 0.437419 3.2 May-15 0 0 0 Jan-12 0 0 0 Jun-15 0 0 0 Feb-12 0 0 0 Jul-15 0 0.522581 2.98 43,897 Mar-12 0 0 0 Aug-15 0 0.204839 1.57 17,206 Apr-12 0 0 0 Sep-15 0 2.116667 4.9 177,800 May-12 0 0.004333 0.13 Oct-15 0 1.759677 4.98 147,813 Jun-12 0 0 0 Nov-15 0 2.057333 5 172,816 Jul-12 0 0.881935 2.57 Dec-15 0 2.637097 4.88 221,516 Aug-12 0 0.851613 2.65 Jan-16 0 2.860968 5.2 240,321 Sep-12 0 0 0 Feb-16 0 2.41069 14 202,498 Oct-12 0 2.180323 4.85 Mar-16 0 0.005484 0.17 461 Nov-12 0 2.719 5.03 Apr-16 0 0 0 Dec-12 0 2.776774 4.75 [PHONE REDACTED] May-16 0 0 0 Jan-13 0 1.552258 4.25 [PHONE REDACTED] Jun-16 0 0.002667 0.08 224 Feb-13 0 1.276429 2.28 107220 Jul-16 0 1.059032 7.27 88,959 Mar-13 0 0.409032 1.82 34358.70968 Aug-16 0 3.37 7.8 283,080 Apr-13 0 0 0 Sep-16 0 2.872333 4.83 241,276 May-13 0 0 0 Oct-16 0 3.844839 8.55 322,966 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1,400 gpm Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) Jan-10 0 1.576774 2.92 Jun-13 0 0 0 Feb-10 0 1.5475 2.32 Jul-13 0 0 0 Mar-10 0 1.013226 5.97 Aug-13 0 0 0 Apr-10 0 1.371333 2.27 Sep-13 0 0 0 May-10 0 0.491935 2.2 Oct-13 0 2.388065 8.65 200,597 Jun-10 0 0 0 Nov-13 0 3.444667 6.35 289,352 Jul-10 0 0 0 Dec-13 0 3.139032 16.13 263,679 Aug-10 0 0 0 Jan-14 0 3.330968 5.18 279,801 Sep-10 0 0 0 Feb-14 0 3.979643 24 334,290 Oct-10 0 2.854194 8.48 Mar-14 0 1.888065 24 158,597 Nov-10 0 3.61 7.45 Apr-14 0 0.055 1.65 4,620 Dec-10 0 3.359355 16.17 May-14 0 0 0 Jan-11 0 1.880645 3.9 Jun-14 0 0 0 Feb-11 0 1.544286 7.25 Jul-14 0 0 0 Mar-11 0 1.302581 1.83 Aug-14 0 0 0 Pump IP-2 Run Times Nominal Pump Capacity= ---PAGE BREAK--- Apr-11 0 1.079667 1.73 Sep-14 0 0 0 May-11 0 0 0 Oct-14 0 1.022581 9.22 85,897 Jun-11 0 0 0 Nov-14 0 2.861667 6.65 240,380 Jul-11 0 0 0 Dec-14 0 3.18 4.52 267,120 Aug-11 0 0.032581 0.68 Jan-15 0 1.21 4.48 101,640 Sep-11 0 0 0 Feb-15 0 0.720357 2.67 60,510 Oct-11 0 0 0 Mar-15 0 1.18129 3.32 99,228 Nov-11 0 0 0 Apr-15 0 0 0 Dec-11 0 1.613226 13.85 May-15 0 0 0 Jan-12 0 1.859355 6.55 Jun-15 0 0 0 Feb-12 0 1.476552 16.28 Jul-15 0 0 0 Mar-12 0 1.212581 3.38 Aug-15 0 0 0 Apr-12 0 0.704667 3.35 Sep-15 0 0 0 May-12 0 0 0 Oct-15 0 0.503226 5.25 42,271 Jun-12 0 0 0 Nov-15 0 2.542 16.28 213,528 Jul-12 0 0 0 Dec-15 0 2.773871 11.93 233,005 Aug-12 0 0 0 Jan-16 0 2.922581 5.32 245,497 Sep-12 0 0 0 Feb-16 0 2.15069 4.83 180,658 Oct-12 0 2.416452 6.57 Mar-16 0 1.678065 3.12 140,957 Nov-12 0 2.95 5.3 Apr-16 0 1.815667 16 152,516 Dec-12 0 2.930645 5.17 [PHONE REDACTED] May-16 0 0 0 Jan-13 0 1.688065 4.55 [PHONE REDACTED] Jun-16 0 0 0 Feb-13 0 1.404286 2.5 117960 Jul-16 0 0 0 Mar-13 0 1.33 2.03 111720 Aug-16 0 0 0 Apr-13 0 0.840667 1.93 70616 Sep-16 0 0 0 May-13 0 0 0 Oct-16 0 1.232258 4.68 103,510 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1,200 gpm Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow Date Min Average Max Calculate Average Flow (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) (hr/day) (hr/day) (hr/day) (gpd) Jan-10 0 0 0 Jun-13 0 9.764 16.1 703,008 Feb-10 0 0 0 Jul-13 1.88 12.83742 19.03 924,294 Mar-10 0 0 0 Aug-13 0 8.712258 24 627,283 Apr-10 0 0 0 Sep-13 3.2 12.64867 21.3 910,704 May-10 0 5.130645 12.17 [PHONE REDACTED] Oct-13 0 5.855484 18.42 421,595 Jun-10 0 7.048333 12.15 507480 Nov-13 0 0 0 0 Jul-10 0.95 17.57839 23.57 1265643.871 Dec-13 0 0 0 0 Aug-10 12.77 20.99903 23.03 1511930.323 Jan-14 0 0 0 0 Sep-10 0 7.299333 18.07 525552 Feb-14 0 0 0 0 Oct-10 0 7.123871 18.08 [PHONE REDACTED] Mar-14 0 0 0 0 Nov-10 0 0 0 0 Apr-14 0 2.815 6.87 202,680 Dec-10 0 0 0 0 May-14 0 10.34806 12.47 745,061 Jan-11 0 0 0 0 Jun-14 0.03 5.26 12.43 378,720 Feb-11 0 0 0 0 Jul-14 1.48 16.96903 23.08 1,221,770 Mar-11 0 0 0 0 Aug-14 0 19.88677 23.12 1,431,848 Irrigation Pump Run Times Nominal Pump Capacity= ---PAGE BREAK--- Apr-11 0 0.175667 5.27 12648 Sep-14 0 3.700667 16.67 266,448 May-11 0 11.94258 17.5 [PHONE REDACTED] Oct-14 0 9.529677 16.7 686,137 Jun-11 0 5.263 14.87 378936 Nov-14 0 0 0 0 Jul-11 0 16.96645 24 1221584.516 Dec-14 0 0 0 0 Aug-11 0 17.55 24 1263600 Jan-15 0 0 0 0 Sep-11 0 14.237 24 1025064 Feb-15 0 0 0 0 Oct-11 0 7.295161 20.12 [PHONE REDACTED] Mar-15 0 0.084839 2.63 6,108 Nov-11 0 0 0 0 Apr-15 6.7 11.118 18.98 800,496 Dec-11 0 0 0 0 May-15 0 11.41774 15.43 822,077 Jan-12 0 0 0 0 Jun-15 0.48 7.930667 17.92 571,008 Feb-12 0 0 0 0 Jul-15 5.02 17.22677 18.6 1,240,328 Mar-12 0 0.007419 0.23 [PHONE REDACTED] Aug-15 1.5 12.99613 17.62 935,721 Apr-12 0 4.362333 11.53 314088 Sep-15 1.47 7.926333 24 570,696 May-12 9.6 17.21333 21.18 1239360 Oct-15 0 12.07484 16.78 869,388 Jun-12 1 9.826667 19.02 707520 Nov-15 0 0 0 0 Jul-12 4.5 18.63935 21.6 1342033.548 Dec-15 0 0 0 0 Aug-12 0 14.13774 21.62 1017917.419 Jan-16 0 0 0 0 Sep-12 2 9.716333 12.1 699576 Feb-16 0 0 0 0 Oct-12 0 1.493871 12.1 [PHONE REDACTED] Mar-16 0 0 0 0 Nov-12 0 0 0 0 Apr-16 0 0.449 8.72 32,328 Dec-12 0 0 0 0 May-16 0 7.607742 10.03 547,757 Jan-13 0 0 0 0 Jun-16 0 7.189333 22.2 517,632 Feb-13 0 0 0 0 Jul-16 18.63 21.45806 23.02 1,544,981 Mar-13 0 0 0 0 Aug-16 4.48 15.48935 21.75 1,115,234 Apr-13 0 3.175333 9.58 228624 Sep-16 1.18 9.501 13.8 684,072 May-13 0.75 13.26129 16.13 [PHONE REDACTED] Oct-16 0 6.165806 14.28 443,938 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING LAGOON CONDITION EVALUATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Treat Lagoons Overall Area= 29.8 acres 1,298,088 SF Date In-Out Total Total (gal) (CF) (IN) (CF) (CF) (gal) (CF) (gal) (CF) (CF) (CF) November-16 22,936,037 3,066,315 0.22 23,798 3,090,113 2,887,469 386,025 3,902,808 521,766 907,791 2,182,322 December-16 22,984,056 3,072,735 0.69 74,640 3,147,375 3,077,069 411,373 4,790,078 640,385 1,051,758 2,095,617 January-17 11,036,339 1,475,446 0.09 9,736 1,485,182 1,702,093 227,553 1,516,014 202,676 430,228 1,054,954 Evaporation assumed to be zero in the winter months Precipitation Data from the Galatian Field Airport WRCC Data SCADA IP data is the flow to IP beds and SCADA Irrigation data is the flow to IP bed and the Irrigation system Date Change in Depth Depth Water Surface Area Depth Water Surface Area Average End Area Method Conic Approximate Method (ft) (SF) (ft) (SF) (CF) (CF) November-16 3.57 488,104.68 5.03 501,547.77 1.46 722,446.29 722,424.07 December-16 5.25 503,586.75 6.87 518,708.35 1.62 828,059.03 828,028.83 January-17 6.87 518,708.35 7.8 527,474.64 0.93 486,475.09 486,469.40 Meters appeared to have malfunctioned between 1:18 PM on Nov 29 to 9:24 AM on December 2. Treatment pond depth stayed constant at 2.19 ft. Recorded depths represent storage pond depths. January values from January 1, 2017 to January 13, 2017 455880 SF Length= 1048 FT Width= 435 FT Side Slope 3 Horizontal 1 Vertical Date Inflow Adjusted Inflow Outflow Change in Pond Volume Unaccounted for Water % Unaccounted for (CF) (CF) (CF) (CF) (CF) (inches/day) (inches/year) November-16 3,090,113 2,218,268 907,791 722,446 588,031 26.5% 0.181 66.1 December-16 3,147,375 2,273,704 1,051,758 828,059 393,887 17.3% 0.121 44.3 January-17 1,485,182 1,065,668 430,228 486,475 148,965 14.0% 0.046 16.8 Uses overall water surface area Used Average End Area Method for Change in Volume TD&H Job No. B16-048 Existing Treatment Lagoon Water Balance (Nov 2015 to Jan 2016) Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Irrigation SCADA Precipitation Influent Inflow IP SCADA Outflow Overall Seepage Initial Depth Final Depth (ft) Bottom of pond Area= Change in Water Volume ---PAGE BREAK--- • Performance Evaluations • Troubleshooting & Optimization • Hydraulics Optimization • Training 2122 East Leland Circle Mesa, AZ 85213 1 (480) 274-8410 Date: September 11, 2015 Paul Lavigne Section Supervisor TFAB-Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund 1520 East Sixth Ave P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 1 (406) 444-5337 Re: Performance Evaluation of the Belgrade, Montana STP Paul, Enclosed is the September 11, 2015 report for H&S Environmental’s (H&S) performance evaluation of the of the Belgrade STP The purpose of this report is to identify operational conditions and practices that should prevail to keep the Belgrade pond system in long term sustained Total Nitrogen (TN) compliance. All facility data, sludge depth data, and other field data used in this report were compiled by Montana DEQ, H&S Environmental, LLC, and Belgrade City personnel. The conclusions reached in this performance evaluation are based on photos, field notes, observations, testing, and then interviews with City personnel and the DEQ. Discussions about site visits by DEQ with H&S Environmental, LLC (H&S) also played an important part of this evaluation. The compliance history and statistical analysis for the Belgrade STP were based on compliance data for the past thirteen (13) years and one month from May 31, 2002 through June 30, 2015, (13.01 years). The site visit of July 20, 2015 showed the approaching need for sludge removal from treatment Cell # 1 as sludge occupies about eighteen (18) percent of this cells treatment capacity with an average sludge blanket thickness of 1.55 feet. Since April, 2012 the Belgrade STP has had excessively high BODs…a possible indication of nitrification in the BOD bottle meaning too much ammonia is leaving the system pushing the effluent Total Nitrogen discharge numbers up. Outlined in this report are a number of recommendations that address opportunities to optimize the performance of the Belgrade wastewater stabilization pond system for long term sustained compliance. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Harris President H&S Environmental, LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- Report Prepared By: Steve Harris, President, H&S Environmental, LLC September 11, 2015 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT Facility Name: Belgrade Sewer Treatment Plant (STP) Client: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 1520 East Sixth Ave Helena, Montana 59620 Date of Field Inspection: July 20, 2015 Data Review: Compliance Sample Data from ICIS EPA May, 2002 to June, 2015 USEPA ECHO data from December, 2012 to June, 2015 Data from Field Grab Samples by H&S Environmental & MTDEQ on July 20, 2015 Dissolved Oxygen & pH sampling by H&S and Belgrade City Personnel Lab Analysis by: The State of Montana DHHS Inspection Participants: Montana DEQ: Bill Bahr & Dave Frickey City of Belgrade: Steven Klotz H&S Environmental, LLC: Steve Harris ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 1 Belgrade STP – Performance Evaluation Page 3 of 20 Introduction and Background 1.0 Scope and Purpose In January of 2014 H&S Environmental, LLC began discussions with MDEQ and about methods that could be used to optimize Montana wastewater stabilization pond systems to meet long term sustained compliance. After several discussions a review of the data, and a field visit Steve Harris of H&S Environmental, LLC prepared a performance review of the Belgrade STP. The information used in this performance and optimization evaluation for sustained long term compliance includes the following: • Interviews with MDEQ & on the general condition of the lagoon system • Reviews of grab sample results by the State of Montana DHHS Environmental Laboratory • A review of 2002 through 2015 effluent sampling results recorded in USEPA’s ICIS database and USEPA ECHO database information from December, 2012 to June, 2015 • Review of on-site inspection and testing of the Belgrade pond system on July 20, 2015 • Reviews of operations and sampling protocols, and MDEQ’s own test results • A review of the Town of Belgrade’s own information The purpose of this evaluation is to identify ways to improve the treatment process to continue to meet Total Nitrogen (TN) permit requirements in a long term sustained manner. The focus of this report then is to offer solutions to keep TN under permit limitations by optimizing in-pond nitrogen removal. To determine if in-pond optimization is possible H&S Environmental will analyze and evaluate lagoon system performance with respect to historical data reviewed, (ii) additional data gathered from special testing, (iii) samples gathered from the on-site visit by MDEQ & H&S and (iv) a review of sampling and testing protocols practiced by Belgrade personnel. This report covers the performance of the Belgrade STP system as it existed up to June 30, 2015. Throughout this report it is important to remember that Total Nitrogen (TN) is composed of Ammonia, Organic Nitrogen, Nitrate and Nitrite. Lowering any one of the constituent parts of TN will result in the lowering of TN concentrations as a whole. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 4 of 20 Section 2 – Findings 2.0 Findings Based on the results of thirteen (13) years and one month (13.08 years) of wastewater data analyzed from May 31, 2002 to June 30, 2015 and specialized on-site testing, the following conclusions can be made about the Belgrade STP wastewater lagoon system: 1. In terms of permit compliance the Belgrade system is fully compliant in terms of lbs. /day of Total Nitrogen (TN) discharged. TN is the City of Belgrade’s only permit limitation. All other water quality indicators recorded are merely tested and recorded for monitoring purposes only and can be used for process control to keep TN within limits. Average effluent BOD for the past two and a half (2 ½) years as recorded in ECHO is 22.89 mg/l. BOD reduction to 22.89 mg/l equates to an overall BOD5 removal efficiency of 93.8% based on a two and a half (2 ½) year average influent BOD of 374 mg/l. There is an increasing trend in effluent BOD. This could mean that increasing levels of organic nitrogen or ammonia are leaving the plant to raise the effluent TN levels. The average 2 ½ year effluent TSS results are 28.54 mg/l with an increasing yearly trend. The trend in effluent TSS is on the rise. This could lead to increased TN through increased organic nitrogen concentrations. A water quality spot check was made on July 20, 2015 and yielded an effluent COD of 84.2 and a filtered COD of 64.4 indicating algae on this day may be contributing about 26.4 mg/l to the effluent BOD results. COD is typically 1.99 times the effluent BOD for municipal systems. 2. Based on the average ECHO compliance data flow-rate of .568 MGD, an average actual (measured) water depth of 8.85 feet, and a 3:1 slope, the average total theoretical detention time of this system is 170 days. With sludge accumulation this total theoretical retention time is brought down by 18% to 25% , to an actual retention time of 127.5 days. At 374 mg/l influent BOD5 (USEPA ECHO average) and a flow of .568 MGD, loading to this system is 1,772 lbs. / BOD /day. Sized at 12.80 acres the loading to the primary treatment cell is 138.4 lbs./ac/day. This is probably right where loading to an aerated lagoon under Belgrade’s weather conditions should be. 3. During a field sampling visit on the morning of July 20, 2015 at 9:00 AM dissolved oxygen concentrations in the primary treatment cell ranged from .01 to .40 mg/l. This suggests that the system runs anoxic during most of the evening and early morning hours in the primary treatment cell. In the afternoon DO concentrations lifted to a little over 1 mg/l. Loading to this cell may be too high to sustain constant aerobic conditions. Average dissolved oxygen concentrations to an aerobic cell should be above two mg/l at all times to maintain aerobic conditions. DO concentrations recovered nicely to levels over 12 mg/l in Cell # 3 during the afternoon. This suggests the possibility of recirculating highly oxygenated water from the final treatment cell back to the primary cell during certain times of the year and certain times during the day. 4. From April 2012 to June, 2015 the trend in the effluent BOD5 is up. The last recorded effluent BOD for Belgrade was 165 mg/l and before that 85 mg/l. This may be an indication of too much ammonia leaving the system. Regular CBOD and filtered BOD (SBOD) should be run with the routine BOD samples to determine the source of the BOD for potential TN reduction. Please see Diagnostic BODs in the material attached to this report for more explanation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 5 of 20 Section 2 – Findings - Continued 6. From 2012 to 2015 effluent TSS concentrations are up with an average 2 ½ year effluent TSS concentration of 28.55 mg/l. 7. Sludge has accumulated 1.55 feet in the primary treatment cell. An accumulation of 1.55 feet of sludge represents a treatment capacity loss of about eighteen (18) percent depending upon where “normal” operating depths are. Retention time is being lost because of sludge accumulation. Typically sludge is removed in a system when it has reached eighteen (18) inches or more. Removal at this level is to prevent nutrient feedback that causes excessive algae bloom, high TSS, and nitrogen permit limit failures. There is a total of 5,583,929 gallons of sludge in Cell # 1. The City of Belgrade should consider removing sludge in this system as a way to reduce effluent TN discharges. 8. Using regression analysis to predict TSS shows the following: • BOD eff has no statistically significant effect on TSS effluent • Flow has no statistically significant effect on TSS effluent • TSS eff tends to be larger for larger Total Nitrogen • TSS eff tends to be larger for smaller Nitrogen, ammonia total [as N] • TKN has no statistically significant effect on TSS eff • Phosphorus, total [as P] has no statistically significant effect on TSS Statistical analysis of the two and a half years of the Belgrade ECHO data set shows BOD and TSS are not positively correlated (t test) as is typical in most systems. Over the last three months nitrification in the BOD test bottle could have destroyed this correlation. When TSS and BOD are correlated anything that can be done to reduce or remove TSS will also reduce BOD. Diagnostic BODs, especially a CBOD in this case, and a microscopic examination of the effluent would be helpful to understand fully the source of the TSS and cause of the excessively high effluent BOD in this system to keep TN numbers low and compliant over the long term. Section 3 – Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of 13 years of effluent data analyzed, site visits, specialized intra-pond BOD5 testing, and sludge profiles, below are recommendations for improved stabilization pond performance for long term sustained compliance using the existing wastewater pond system. Secondary treatment standards are consistently being met with respect to lbs/day of discharged Total Nitrogen (TN). Based on the results of grab samples and an upward trend in BOD and TSS there is a strong possibility that too much ammonia is leaving the system for the potential to violate TN permit limits over the long term. Semi-annual or quarterly intra-pond BOD5, CBOD5, Filtered BOD5, Dissolved Oxygen, Microscans and ammonia testing should be conducted to identify the exact source of the BOD and TSS leaving the pond system for continued TN control. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 6 of 20 Section 3 – Recommendations - Continued Four recommendations for continued lagoon system TN compliance are: 1. Remove sludge from Cell # 1 for load reduction, nutrient suppresion and enhanced (restored) treatment capacity 2. Increase aeration during the evening hours 3. Add a recirculation system 4. Consider adding an effluent multiple level drawoff structure to pull water from deeper in the water column to lower algae concentrations in the effluent because algae add to the TN results. 1) Sludge removal. In the Belgrade system sludge has accumulated to the point where removal should be considered. Not only does sludge replace valuable treatment capacity (18% in Belgrade’s case) but it also stores and releases nutrients (TN) back into the water column. At about 18 inches of accumulated sludge some states require sludge removal because the stored nutrients in the sludge release CO2, ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, and organic acids back to the water column to feed algae cells and cause recurring algae bloom resulting in raising BOD and TSS for potential TN violations. With accumulated sludge at the 1.55 foot level (18.6 inches), the sludge in the Belgrade system may be effecting treatment performance by oozing nutrients back into the water column. Engineers with the states of Vermont and New Hampshire have done research on nutrient release from sludge in pond systems and have proven that sludge blankets over 18 inches cause benthal feedback problems resulting in persistent TSS violations because the sludge feeds new algae growth. Sludge accumulation is not appreciably affecting treatment capacity in Cell # 1 where a 7.3 foot water cap remains to settle solids and treat for nutrient removal. 2) Adding More Air During the Evening Hours Cell # 1 should be removing eighty (80) percent of the influent BOD. If it can do this then subsequent cells can use their treatment capacity to remove nutrients, settle solids, and kill pathogens. Adding more air may help remove more ammonia which may be causing the excessively high BOD measured and recorded over the last three months. Under anoxic conditions nitrifying bacteria cannot thrive to remove ammonia. As ammonia and nitrifying bacteria get into the BOD test bottle for five days under ideal conditions, they can wreak havoc with the effluent BOD results. Measure Cell # 1 effluent to determine if it is reducing plant BOD load by 80%. At the same time measure Cell # 1’s effluent ammonia. The Belgrade system does in fact nitrify as evidenced by the ammonia reduction and then nitrate production through the treatment system. Consistently aerobic conditions are necessary to allow the system to completely nitrify. Cycles of air / no air make it difficult to establish an efficient population of nitrogen removing microorganisms. These types of microbes require consistent conditions to establish themselves as part of a working food web capable of removing pollutants. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 7 of 20 Section 3 – Recommendations - Continued 3) Add Recirculation as a Source of Oxygen and a way to Reduce Nitrates Nitrate is composed of nitrogen and oxygen. The oxygen part of the NO3 molecule is, and can be, an oxygen source for hungry microbes. Recirculation is a way to bring oxygen in the form of nitrate back to the Primary Cell where oxygen is needed the most. From the 2011 EPA Manual on Lagoons we read: “Pond recirculation involves inter- and intra-pond recirculation as opposed to mechanical mixing in the pond cell. The effluents from pond cells are mixed with the influent to the cells. In intra-pond recirculation, effluent from a single cell is returned to the influent to that cell.” Recirculation is accomplished using high-volume, low-head propeller pumps keeping recirculation an inexpensive option to nitrogen reduction. Newly constructed lagoon systems are built with recirculation systems designed into them because over the years they have proven to be very effective at oxygenating overloaded systems. Recirculation is a cost effective way to add oxygen to a lagoon as algae are much more efficient at generating the dissolved oxygen necessary for aerobic oxidation than are mechanical aerators. Recirculation also returns nitrates (NO3) as an oxygen source and as a way to reduce this particular pollutant for TN reduction. The Belgrade system when field tested had effluent nitrates in the 12 mg/l range. Typically recirculation is run during the daylight to early evening hours and never during the winter. A dissolved oxygen meter or Nitrate test strip dictates when the recirculation system is turned on and off. About 1/10th of the daily flow is recirculated on any given day. 4) Adding a Multiple Level Draw-off Structure to Lower Effluent TSS Algae will typically grow in the upper two to three feet of the water column of a lagoon system. This zone of course is typically where the TSS will be the highest. Algae concentrations are the highest here because that is where light penetrates to feed algae cells. Below this level water tends to become less turbid because there are fewer algae cells. Nitrogenous compounds are tied up in algae cells so discharging as few cells as possible is a way to reduce the organic nitrogen fraction of the TN. To perform the TN test, an effluent sample is digested in an alkaline persulfate digestion process to oxidize all nitrogenous compounds into nitrate. Fewer algae cells…less TN. A multiple level draw-off structure is a discharge structure that allows operators to select the level where water is the clearest. An operator lowers a clear plastic tube down into the water column, raises it and then determines where the water is the clearest. Valves are set to this level. At the same time he also lowers a dissolved oxygen and pH probe down to confirm the water quality and then fine tunes the valving on the multiple level draw-off structure to pull water from the “sweet spot” in the water column. 5) Sand Filtration for Organic Nitrogen Control Cheaper than an activated sludge system and easier to run are sand filters for algae removal. It is widely accepted that algae concentrations of greater than 3-5 x 105/ml generally causes an effluent BOD5 concentration of greater than 30 mg/L. For future compliance a sand filter may be required to meet permit limits. To confirm this fact, a simple filtered or soluble carbonaceous (SCBOD) test should be performed. This is a testing procedure where the effluent BOD5 sample is run and the sample split, so the other half of the BOD sample can be passed through a TSS filter first before running the second BOD test. Comparing the BOD to the Filtered BOD (SBOD) will indicate algae’s influence on the TN test results and prove the need or ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 8 of 20 Section 3 – Recommendations - Continued not to separate algae as part of some tertiary treatment strategy. Please see paper on Sand Filters and Multiple Level Draw Off that is accompanies this report. 6) Adding Aeration During the process of oxidizing the waste that enters the pond system, carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated. CO2 is a major source of nutrition for algae cells and feeds algae blooms when CO2 is present. If shaken, the CO2 in a bottle of soda leaves and the soda goes flat. Just like a bottle of soda if a pond is shaken with aeration or mixing the CO2 that has been produced by the system will be driven out of the water column because CO2 has a low solubility in water. Continuing to aerate Cells 1, 2, & 3 can strip CO2 from the system to discourage algae growth for TN reduction. There is some indication that in the past the Belgrade STP nitrifies during certain times of the year. Because of this it is wise to also run CBOD along with the BOD tests currently run if dissolved oxygen profiles are showing numbers less than 1 mg/l. NBOD (the difference between BOD and CBOD) is an indicator that more air is needed up stream of the effluent to oxidize ammonia to nitrate. There is no permit limit for BOD5. Excessively high BODs when used as an indicator are typically caused by four things: 1. Nitrification in the BOD test bottle 2. Algae respiring (consuming oxygen under dark conditions in the BOD5 bottle over 5 days) 3. SCBOD…Dead decaying algae on the surface or in the chlorine contact chamber or sludge, releasing organic matter from the sludge blanket into the BOD test bottle 4. Gross short circuiting causing the influent to pass to the effluent in a short amount of time. Total Nitrogen (TN) is the sum of nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), organic nitrogen (algae and bacteria cells) and ammonia (all expressed as Note that for laboratory analysis purposes, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a test performed that is made up of both organic nitrogen and ammonia. BOD and TSS can be used as an indicator to understand biochemically what is happening in a pond system. To this end it is advisable to run diagnostic BODs to determine the nature of the effluent TSS and BOD. For one month during the winter of 2015 or the summer of 2016 run weekly BOD, CBOD, Filtered BOD, Filtered CBODs and ammonia from the effluent of the system. These four BOD tests run on effluent samples will tell Belgrade operations personnel exactly the cause and source of the TSS. These tests are powerful in that they will tell operations WHERE and WHY problems are occurring. These tests are powerful preventative measures to staying in compliance. Please see Diagnostic BODs in the attachments section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP-Performance Evaluation Page 9 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Data Analysis Sludge Accumulation Aside from occupying valuable capacity and lowering a treatment cell’s retention time, sludge releases nutrients and soluble BOD back into the water column to feed algae. Once it reaches about eighteen (18) inches in thickness it is time to consider removal to maintain compliance. Seen below is a sludge blanket profile of Belgrade’s Cell # 1 compiled from field data collected on July 20, 2015. Figure 1. Cell # 1 Sludge Blanket Profile Eighteen (18) percent of the capacity of this treatment cell has been displaced by sludge. Because of this and the low dissolved oxygen levels, sludge removal should be considered. Over time sludge will slough off and enter the effluent to cause elevated TSS. More detrimental however are the nutrients that are released from the sludge that cause TN violations and recurring algae blooms for ever- worsening TSS problems. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 10 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- A sludge blanket can actually create an oxygen demand. Dr. Lynville Rich (Rich, 1999) has developed a formula to calculate oxygen demand based on sludge volume. 5,583.929 gallons of sludge is reducing capacity and effecting performance in the Belgrade STP system. According to Dr. G. Rich (Rich, 1999) the formula for determining a lagoon’s sludge oxygen demand is: Ro2 in Kg O2/hr = 4.16 x 10-5 ABo2 where: • Ro2 = benthal oxygen demand rate in Kg O2/hr • A = Area of sludge water interface in m2 • Bo2 = Unit rate of benthal oxygen demand in g O2/m2/d Assuming the following: • an average BOD5 of 374 mg/l, • an average daily flow of .568 MGD • a sludge water interface of 8,400 m2 • a benthal oxygen demand of 80 g/m2/d • Lagoon # 1 dimensions: (1071.2’ x 456.2’) = 488,681 ft2 or 45,314 m2) • Benthal oxygen demand: 80 g/m2/d. Dr. Rich suggests using this value when determining aeration requirements. (Rich, 1999) The sludge oxygen demand for Cell # 1: 331 lbs. O2/day calculated as follows: Ro2 = 4.16 x 10-5 x (45,314 m2) x (80 g/m2/d) x 2.20 lbs. /Kg = 331 lbs. O2 /day Other researchers put the sludge oxygen demand (SOD) at 3 g/m2 which gives an SOD or 300 lbs. /day Based on oxygen demand to satisfy influent BOD5 at 374 mg/l and ammonia oxygen demand at 20 mg/l influent NH4+, the total oxygen requirement for just the influent load alone is 4000 lbs. /day. Algae also contribute to the oxygen supply through From the numbers above the sludge oxygen demand can be significant. This may be one of the reasons the Belgrade system runs anoxic through most of the evening and early morning hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 11 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Past satellite photos show good wind activity over the surface of the pond system. On July 20, 2015 the Belgrade system had low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the morning hours with DO fully recovered in the final cell in the late morning. Figure 3. Belgrade’s Morning Time Cell # 1 Dissolved Oxygen Profile. Figure 2 Dissolved Oxygen Levels Up During the Late Morning ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 12 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Aeration & Dissolved Oxygen Under normal loading conditions a pond system will typically have much greater dissolved oxygen concentrations than are present in the Belgrade system. One would expect concentrations at least above 1 mg/l during the early morning hours. Air is useful for many things other than providing oxygen in a lagoon system. Aeration can strip CO2 from the system to help control algae, aeration can help control odors. Aeration can aid in mixing and stopping short circuiting. Aeration can help strip out ammonia if the pH is high enough, and reduce ammonia if nitrifying bacteria are present. Aeration of course is also useful in removing BOD. Turbulence, or water column agitation using aeration, is a solution for: 1) Reducing filamentous algae 2) Stifling duckweed growth 3) Lowering TSS by stripping off CO2 for algae control 4) Raising pH by stripping off CO2 Statistics run on the Belgrade 2012 to 2015 data set show no correlation between TSS and BOD5. This is important because algae typically affect BOD permit limit test results. This lack of correlation in the Belgrade pond system is probably due to nitrification in the BOD5 test bottle. In a study of twenty-four (24) Colorado pond systems, it was discovered that sixty-seven percent (67%) of the BOD violations in this study were from algae overgrowth. (Richard & Bowman (1991)) Dead and decaying algae get into the BOD5 test bottle and directly add to the BOD load but also the surviving algae consume oxygen under dark conditions in the BOD5 test bottle and darkened BOD5 incubator. This oxygen consuming metabolic process is known as respiration and happens at night in ponds and in incubators used in the BOD5 test. The idea here is to have the pond’s effluent free of algae to lower TN, BOD, and of course TSS. A TSS: BOD ratio over 2 indicates algae overgrowth or particulate matter causing high TSS. Less than 1.5 indicates nitrification and or short-circuiting. 0 50 100 67 10 6 3.5 13.5 Percent of BOD5 Violations in a Study of 24 Colorado Lagoon Systems Percent of Violations Figure 4. Colorado Research Showing Algae to be the Primary Cause of BOD Violations ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 13 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Figure 5. Belgrade TSS:BOD Ratio Showing the Probable Causes of its Effluent Results High algae growth typically leads to elevated BOD5 and Organic–N. It is widely accepted that an algae concentration of greater than 3.5 x 105/ml generally causes an effluent BOD5 concentration of greater than 30 mg/L because of algae. Keep in mind that at night algae are consuming oxygen not producing it. This adds to oxygen demand taking it from the nutrient removal (TN reduction) pathways. To confirm this fact, a filtered or soluble carbonaceous (SCBOD) test should be performed. This is a testing procedure where the effluent BOD5 sample is run and the sample split, so the other half of the BOD sample can be passed through a TSS filter first before running the second BOD test. Comparing the BOD to the Filtered BOD (SBOD) will indicate algae’s influence on the BOD test results and prove the need or not to separate algae as part of some tertiary treatment strategy. 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.3 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TSS:BOD Ratio for the Belgrade STP Using USEPA ECHO Data TSS:BOD Ratio <1 TSS:BOD: Soluble BOD in the effluent Poor wastewater treatment Nitrification in the BOD test bottle TSS:BOD Ratio > 1.5 typical of algae growth TSS:BOD Ratio : > 1 < 1.5 Typical of untreated wastewater ---PAGE BREAK--- NH4, 3/31/2010, 34.7 Nitrate and Nitrite, 3/31/2010, 0.53 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 5/1/2002 9/1/2002 1/1/2003 5/1/2003 9/1/2003 1/1/2004 5/1/2004 9/1/2004 1/1/2005 5/1/2005 9/1/2005 1/1/2006 5/1/2006 9/1/2006 1/1/2007 5/1/2007 9/1/2007 1/1/2008 5/1/2008 9/1/2008 1/1/2009 5/1/2009 9/1/2009 1/1/2010 5/1/2010 9/1/2010 1/1/2011 5/1/2011 9/1/2011 1/1/2012 5/1/2012 9/1/2012 1/1/2013 5/1/2013 9/1/2013 1/1/2014 5/1/2014 9/1/2014 1/1/2015 5/1/2015 Effluent Ammonia and Nitrate Concentrations over a Thirteen Year Period for the Belgrade STP NH4 Nitrate and Nitrite Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 14 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Figure 6. Effluent BOD and TSS on Same Scale Showing Possible Signs of Nitrification There are signs that the system nitrifys. Effluent BOD greater than effluent TSS in a pond system is an indication of nitrification which can only occure in the presence of oxygen. The chart to the left shows that when ammonia concentrations are up, nitrate concentrations are down and visa versa. The pond system manufactures its own nitrate…a valuable oxygen resource if recirculated. The Belgrade STP is capable of generating large amounts of nitrate, a component of TN. If recirculated this highly consumable nutrient can be removed in the primary treatment cell for TN reduction. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 12/1/2012 1/1/2013 2/1/2013 3/1/2013 4/1/2013 5/1/2013 6/1/2013 7/1/2013 8/1/2013 9/1/2013 10/1/2013 11/1/2013 12/1/2013 1/1/2014 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 6/1/2014 7/1/2014 8/1/2014 9/1/2014 10/1/2014 11/1/2014 12/1/2014 1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/1/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 Effluent BOD and TSS Laid Out on the Same Scale for the Belgrade STP BOD eff TSS eff Linear (BOD eff) Linear (TSS eff) Figure 7 Nitrate vs Ammonia Concentrations at Belgrade ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 15 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Figure 8 Effluent Total Nitrogen for the Belgrade Wastewater Pond System 44.7 40.7 30.6 42 34.3 30.95 22.59 21.7 11.58 13.55 6 17.55 36.9 Nitrogen, total (lbs/day), 1/31/2014, 68 Nitrogen, total (lbs/day), 2/28/2014, 65 31 28 21 18 16 43.77 Nitrogen, total (lbs/day), 12/31/2014, 63 36.4 27 26 33.8 23.96 39.9 8.3 Nitrogen, total (lbs/day), 8/31/2015, 1.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Nitrogen, total (lbs/day) from USEPA ECHO Database Belgrade, MT WWTF Nitrogen, total (lbs/day) Linear (Nitrogen, total (lbs/day)) ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 16 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Figure 9. Belgrade Effluent TSS over 2 ½ years Increasing TSS could be a sign of nutrient feedback from the sludge blanket feeding algae in Belgrade’s water column. Also consider how the Belgrade effluent structure pulls water from the water column. Too close to the surface and the effluent will be filled with algae cells for TN problems. Too close to the bottom and it will pull up sludge and dead algae cells filled with nutrients. Effluent structures should be out one foot past the toe of the dike and pull water from at least two to three feet down below the photic zone where algae thrive. 17 27 19 17 16 0 60 60 36 30 0 11 37 34 34 20 22 61 0 12 13 38 42 52 33 55 22 31 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 12/1/2012 1/1/2013 2/1/2013 3/1/2013 4/1/2013 5/1/2013 6/1/2013 7/1/2013 8/1/2013 9/1/2013 10/1/2013 11/1/2013 12/1/2013 1/1/2014 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 6/1/2014 7/1/2014 8/1/2014 9/1/2014 10/1/2014 11/1/2014 12/1/2014 1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/1/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 Effluent TSS for the Belgrade STP TSS eff ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 17 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis Cont- Figure 10. Nitrification is Evident by the Reduction of Ammonia and the Production of Nitrate through the System Figure 11 Effluent Ammonia Concentrations and their Timing are Fairly Predictable for the Belgrade System NH4, 3/31/2003, 27.1 NH4, 3/31/2004, 34.0 NH4, 10/31/2004, 0.0 NH4, 12/31/2005, 1.0 NH4, 11/30/2006, 0.8 NH4, 3/31/2009, 32.0 NH4, 3/31/2010, 34.7 NH4, 9/30/2010, 1.7 NH4, 3/31/2013, 35.0 NH4, 10/31/2013, 0.4 NH4, 3/31/2014, 34.0 NH4, 9/30/2014, 6.1 NH4, 3/31/2015, 34.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 5/1/2002 10/1/20… 3/1/2003 8/1/2003 1/1/2004 6/1/2004 11/1/20… 4/1/2005 9/1/2005 2/1/2006 7/1/2006 12/1/20… 5/1/2007 10/1/20… 3/1/2008 8/1/2008 1/1/2009 6/1/2009 11/1/20… 4/1/2010 9/1/2010 2/1/2011 7/1/2011 12/1/20… 5/1/2012 10/1/20… 3/1/2013 8/1/2013 1/1/2014 6/1/2014 11/1/20… 4/1/2015 Effluent Ammonia for the Belgrade STP over the Past Thirteen Years ---PAGE BREAK--- 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Effluent BOD Effluent BOD Linear (Effluent BOD) Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 18 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis – Cont - There are no permit limits for effluent BOD5. For the Belgrade system, BOD5 can be used as a water quality indicator. Causes for high effluent BOD could include excessive loading, algae getting into the BOD5 bottle, excessive sludge creating an O2 demand or nitrification in the BOD5 test bottle Figure 12. Effluent BOD for the Belgrade STP When looked at over a shorter term the trend in effluent BOD is on the rise as can be seen in the chart below. Figure 13 Effluent BOD Over the Last 2 1/2 years 27.6 41 41 14 11 0 15 4 21 25 18 17 22 16 17 17 6 4 4 7 43 30 26.5 21.5 19 45 0 0 0 10 9 25 38 32 30 24 59 85 165 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 BOD, 5-day, 20 deg. C from 2 1/2 Years of USEPA ECHO Data on the Belgrade STP BOD, 5-day, 20 deg. C Linear (BOD, 5-day, 20 deg. C) ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 19 of 20 Section 4 – Data Analysis – Cont. - Section 5 – Summary In Summary, the Belgrade wastewater stabilization pond system is currently in compliance for effluent lbs. / day TN. Desludging the primary treatment cell is important for keeping this plant in long term sustained TN compliance. Aeration should be increased to compensate for the anoxic conditions that prevail throughout the evening and early morning hours. Increased aeration could be accomplished through recirculation and should be considered for the Belgrade system. A multiple level draw off structure can help the operator “select” the water quality he is to discharge and should also be considered for an upgrade to continue to keep this plant in compliance. Diagnostic BODs and a Figure 14 An Influent Headworks Structure with Screening Could lower the Influent BOD by 40% and Lower the Sludge Accumulation Rate and Cut Odors ---PAGE BREAK--- Belgrade STP Performance Evaluation Page 20 of 20 Section 5 – Summary – Cont. - A microscan can help tremendously at the Belgrade STP to pinpoint an exact cause and then a specific solution to potential TN problems. Section 6 – Items for Immediate Action • Maintain at least 2 mg/l of DO in Cell # 1 at all times. Belgrade operations personnel may elect to devote Cell # 2 to on/off air cycling leaving Cell # 1 to fully remove influent BOD load. A BOD below 20 mg/l will allow Cell # 2 to nitrify. More air to Cell # 1 would solve any potential odor problems in Cell # 1. • Begin planning for Cell # 1 Sludge Removal Section 6 – Conclusions CONCLUSIONS Because in all likelihood it is nitrification in the BOD5 test bottle that is causing the large spikes in effluent BOD results, adding more air during the evening hours to Cell # 1 is one way to help get the ammonia down for TN reduction. For ammonia reduction through nitrification control, a minimum of two mg/l is required. A combination of capital improvements like recirculation, adding or increasing aeration with desludging will probably keep the Belgrade STP system in long term sustained compliance for years to come. If these improvements fail to get keep the pounds of Total Nitrogen down, relatively inexpensive tertiary treatment strategies for ammonia, nitrate, and Organic-N removal are available. Desludging and adding more air are probably the most important factors for continued long term Total Nitrogen compliance. There is a where, a when, and a why to lagoon problem solving and optimization. Determining where treatment is or is not occurring is critically important to optimizing the Belgrade STP and keeping this system in compliance. Please see Diagnostic BODs in the Appendix and make a commitment to routinely performing these kinds of process control tests. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the good people of Belgrade Montana. Steve Harris President H&S Environmental, LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Sludge and Treatment Cell Volume Data City of Belgrade, Montana Volume and retention Time calculator Using Trapezoidal Prism Calculations and a 3:1 slope Item Units Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Total Bottom Length feet 1061.9 486.9 486.9 Bottom Width feet 446.9 486.9 486.9 Side Slopes 1 to 3 3 3 Average Sludge Depth feet 1.55 0.11 0 As-Built Bottom Elevation feet 100.00 100.00 100.00 As-Built Top-of-Bank Elevation feet 150.85 140.00 140.00 Bottom Area sq ft 474,563 237,072 237,072 Top of Sludge Length feet 1071.2 487.56 486.9 Top of Sludge Width feet 456.2 487.56 486.9 Top of Sludge Area sq ft 488,681 237,715 237,072 Sludge Volume cu ft 746,515 26,113 - Sludge Volume gallons 5,583,929 195,327 - 5,779,256 Sludge Mass dry tons Embankment Height feet 50.85 50.00 50.00 Freeboard Required feet 2 2 2 Useable Lagoon Depth feet 7.30 11.00 11.00 Top of Water Max Length feet 1105.7 552.9 552.9 Top of Water Max Width feet 490.7 552.9 552.9 Top of Water Max Area sq ft 542,567 305,698 305,698 Lagoon Volume cu ft 3,712,525 2,985,235 2,985,235 Usable Remaining Lagoon Volume after Sludge Volume of 1.55 ft gallons 27,769,686 22,329,559 22,329,559 72,428,803 Current Retention Time at .568 MGD with sludge depth of 1.55 feet and Remaining Water Cap of 7.3 feet and average water depth at 8.85 feet in Primary Cell days 48.9 days 39 days 39 days 127.5 days These are rough estimates as water levels vary and flow to each cell varies with evaporation ---PAGE BREAK--- References Gomez, Paing, Casellas, Picot, B. (2000) Characterization of phosphorous in sediments from waste stabilization ponds. Wat. Sci. Technol. Vol 42 Nos 10-11 pp. 257-264 Gronszy, M.C., Bian, Konichi, Jogan, and Engle, R. (1971) Oxidation reduction potential for nitrogen and phosphorous removal in a fed batch reactor. Paper presented at the 65th WEFTEC conference As quoted form December 1997 Operations Forum, Water Environment Federation 149 Middlebrooks J.E. et al (1999) Nitrogen removal in Wastewater Stabilization Lagoons Presented at the 6th National Drinking water and Wastewater Treatment Technology Transfer Workshop, Kansan City, Missouri August 2-4, 1999 Middlebrooks, E.J. and Pano, A. (1983) Nitrogen Removal in Aerated Lagoons. Water Research, 17,10, 1369-1378 Rich, L.G. (1999) High Performance Aerated Lagoon Systems. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, Maryland. ISBN 1-883767-27-X Richard, M.G. and Bowman, R. (1991) Troubleshooting the Aerated and Facultative, Waste Treatment Lagoon, Presented at the U.S. EPA’s Natural/Constructed Wetlands Treatment Systems Workshop, Denver, CO. Scott, P.H., Gross, P.M., Baskavan, K. and Connor, M.A. (1994) Experimental Studies for Improved Nitrification in Shallow Lagoon Systems Wat.Sci.Technol. Vol. 29 No. 4 pp. 325-338 Upper Mississippi River Board (GLUMRB), 1990 Edition, “Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities” URS (2010) “Comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation – Belgrade STP”; Prepared for Total Environmental Solutions, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana U.S. EPA (1975) Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control EPA 625/77/007 Washington D.C. U.S. EPA (1993) Nitrogen Control Manual EPA 625/R-93/010 US EPAS, Cincinnati, Ohio Ferrara, R.A. and Avci C.B. (1982) Nitrogen dynamics in waste stabilization ponds. J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed. 54(4) 361-369 ---PAGE BREAK--- Lagoon #1 depth= 1.55 ft bottom length 474 ft bottom width 470 ft bottom area 222780 sf side slope horizontal 4 :1 top length 486.4 ft top width 482.4 ft top area 234639.36 sf volume 354500.004 cf 2,652,014.53 gals Lagoon #1 and #2 Combined (conservatively assuming sludge volume in Lagoon #1 equals sludge volume in Lagoon Total Volume= 5,304,029.06 gallons Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Sludge Volume Verification TD&H Job No. B16-048 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING AGRONOMIC RATE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Month TN Effluent Concentraion Month TN Effluent Concentraion (mg/l) (mg/l) Jan-14 31.6 Oct-15 Feb-14 38 Nov-15 13 Mar-14 39 Dec-15 14.9 Apr-14 34 Jan-16 22.8 May-14 30 Feb-16 25.4 Jun-14 32.3 Mar-16 29.4 Jul-14 25.9 Apr-16 32 Aug-14 13.7 May-16 36.6 Sep-14 8.6 Jun-16 38.7 Oct-14 Jul-16 29.7 Nov-14 23.5 Aug-16 15.2 Dec-14 30.4 Sep-16 14.7 Jan-15 Oct-16 16 Feb-15 39.4 Nov-16 18.5 Mar-15 38.5 Dec-16 19.9 Apr-15 39.6 Jan-17 25.8 May-15 36.3 Feb-17 28.7 Jun-15 32.6 Mar-17 31.8 Jul-15 14.7 Apr-17 32.9 Aug-15 8.1 May-17 33 Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Effluent Total Nitrogen Concetrations 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Concentration (mg/l) Date Total Nitrogen Effluent ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR 04.21.2017 DENOTES USER INPUT See attached references for data, tables, charts, etc. Project Specific Design Criteria: 408 mg/l 33 mg/l DEQ-2 Design Criteria: Circular DEQ-2, Table 93-1 Disposal Method = Controlled Discharge Primary Cells Detention Time = 20 days Overall System Detention Time = 110 days (Minimum) Precipitation and Evaporation Data: Western Regional Climate Center Lake Evaporation estimated at 70% of pan evaporation. Month Precipitation Month Pan Evap. Lake Evap. Factor Lake Evap. Inches Inches Inches January 0.07 January 0.00 0.7 0.00 February 0.27 February 0.00 0.7 0.00 March 0.71 March 0.00 0.7 0.00 April 1.60 April 3.34 0.7 2.34 May 1.73 May 5.58 0.7 3.91 June 2.99 June 6.03 0.7 4.22 July 2.41 July 8.34 0.7 5.84 August 1.01 August 7.17 0.7 5.02 September 3.17 September 4.57 0.7 3.20 October 1.57 October 2.62 0.7 1.83 November 1.64 November 0.00 0.7 0.00 December 1.10 December 0.00 0.7 0.00 ANNUAL 18.27 inches/year ANNUAL 26.355 inches/year PEAK YEAR (1969) 20.04 inches 10-YR FACTOR = 1.0969 Assumptions: The irrigation season includes half of May And September (16 days each) and all of June, July and August. Annual Hydraulic Loading Rate: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.1 Soil Permeability Calculations: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.11 Lp = inches (hydraulic loading rate) ETc = inches (crop evapotranspiration) P = inches (precipitation) Pw = inches (percolation rate) SE = fraction (distribution system efficiency, 0.70 to 0.85 for sprinklers) Irrigation System Design Calculations Belgrade Wastewater Treatment Wettest-Year-in-10 Precipitation The design maximum irrigation application rates, LH, must be calculated for each month using hydraulic loading rates based on soil permeability and nitrogen loading. The limiting factor, permeability or nutrient uptake, will be used for design. Lake Evaporation BOD5 Influent Concentration = BOD5 Effluent Concentration = Treatment and Disposal Agronmic Rates TD&H Job No. B16-048 Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 1 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Percolation Rate: EPA Process Design Manual - Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (EPA 625/1-81-013) Web Soil Survey - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) DEQ-4 Table 2.1-1 Percolation Rates Method 1: Soil Type = Attewan Clay Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beavwan Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Cobbly Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell-Beavwan Complex (Web Soil Survey) Percolation Rate = 28.5 min/inch (DEQ-4 T. 2.1-1, average for percolation rates for loamy sand) Percolation Rate = 0.035087719 inches/min Percolation Rate = 2.105263158 inches/hr Design Percolation Rate = 0.084210526 inches/hr of Percolation Rate) Method 2: Soil Type = Attewan Clay Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beavwan Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Cobbly Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell-Beavwan Complex (Web Soil Survey) Ksat = 64.1513 sec (Beaverell loam, Beaverell Cobbly Loam, Beaverell-Beavwan Complex, 91.5% of irrigation area.) Design Percolation Rate = 9.09 inches/hr Choose the most conservative Design Percolation Rate: Pw = 0.084210526 inches/hr (Design Percolation Rate) Initial Percolation: Use 3:1 drying: wetting ratio for each irrigated month. The irrigation time is equal to 1/4 of the irrigated days per month. The Design Percolation Rate is applied to the irrigation time per month. Month Irrigated Days Initial Irrigation Time Pw Hours Inches May 15 90 7.58 June 30 180 15.16 July 31 186 15.66 August 31 186 15.66 September 15 90 7.58 October 0 0 0.00 Crop Evapotranspiration Rate: Figure 4.1 Irrigation Climatic Areas of Montana, August 1986 Climatic Area = 4 Moderately Low Consumptive Use Crop = Alfalfa Estimated Irrigation Requirements Based on Belgrade's 2004 Design Report Month May June July August September October Permeability Water Balance: Precipitation ETc P Pw SE Lp Inches Inches Inches Inches @ SE=0.7 May 2.50 1.73 7.58 0.85 9.82 11.93 June 5.10 2.99 15.16 0.85 20.32 24.67 July 7.10 2.41 15.66 0.85 23.94 29.08 August 6.60 1.01 15.66 0.85 25.00 30.36 September 3.40 3.17 7.58 0.85 9.19 11.16 October 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.85 0.00 0 Annual 24.70 12.88 61.64 88.27 107.19 2.50 The design percolation rate is 4 to 10 percent of the limiting permeability or hydraulic conductivity for the most restrictive soil layer. Total Consumptive Use (ETc) Month 6.60 Inches 3.40 0.00 5.10 7.10 Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 2 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Nitrogen Calculations: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.12 LN = inches (Hydraulic Loading) U = LB/acre-month (crop uptake as a function of yield) C = 4.41 (conversion constant) CN = mg/L (applied total nitrogen concentration) f = Nitrogen Loss factor Crop Nutrient Uptake: Ranges from 225 to 540 kg/ha-yr U avg = 382.5 kg/ha-yr U avg = 342.1 LB/acre-yr (2.21 LB/kg and 0.4047 ha/acre) Based on NRCS extension service research, assume: U avg = 183.2 LB/acre-yr (assume occurs during the irrigated days) (Based on MM 2004 design) Nitrogen Loss Factor: per DEQ-2 Section 112.113.12: Shall not exceed 0.2 for secondary treatment effluent. Shall not exceed 0.1 for effluent from facilities utilizing nutrient removal methods. f = 0.2 Total Nitrogen Concentration: Measured Total Nitrogen Concentrations Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nitrogen Water Balance: Annual Etc= 24.70 inches Month U LN LB/acre Inches Apr-13 0.00 0.00 May-13 18.54 2.48 Jun-13 37.83 7.72 Jul-13 52.66 13.38 Aug-13 48.95 20.44 Sep-13 25.22 25.79 Oct-13 0.00 0.00 Apr-14 0.00 0.00 May-14 18.54 3.41 Jun-14 37.83 6.46 Jul-14 52.66 11.21 Aug-14 48.95 19.70 Sep-14 25.22 16.16 Oct-14 0.00 0.00 Mar-15 0.00 0.00 Apr-15 0.00 0.00 May-15 18.54 2.82 Jun-15 37.83 6.40 Jul-15 52.66 19.75 Aug-15 48.95 33.31 Sep-15 25.22 11.58 Oct-15 0.00 0.00 May-16 18.54 2.79 Jun-16 37.83 5.39 Jul-16 52.66 9.77 Aug-16 48.95 17.75 Sep-16 25.22 9.46 Oct-16 0.00 0.00 2.50 5.10 7.10 6.60 3.40 2.50 5.10 7.10 0.00 0.00 2.50 6.60 3.40 0.00 5.10 7.10 6.60 3.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 Month 3.40 6.60 0.00 2.50 5.10 7.10 0.00 Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) Inches Total Consumptive Use (ETc) Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 3 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Limiting Annual Hydraulic Loading Rate: The smallest Hydraulic Loading Rate per month controls. Lp LN LH Inches Inches Inches Apr-13 0.00 0.00 0.00 May-13 9.82 2.48 2.48 Jun-13 20.32 7.72 7.72 Jul-13 23.94 13.38 13.38 Aug-13 25.00 20.44 20.44 Sep-13 9.19 25.79 9.19 Oct-13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apr-14 0.00 0.00 0.00 May-14 9.82 3.41 3.41 Jun-14 20.32 6.46 6.46 Jul-14 23.94 11.21 11.21 Aug-14 25.00 19.70 19.70 Sep-14 9.19 16.16 9.19 Oct-14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mar-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apr-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 May-15 9.82 2.82 2.82 Jun-15 20.32 6.40 6.40 Jul-15 23.94 19.75 19.75 Aug-15 25.00 33.31 25.00 Sep-15 9.19 11.58 9.19 Oct-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 May-16 9.82 2.79 2.79 Jun-16 20.32 5.39 5.39 Jul-16 23.94 9.77 9.77 Aug-16 25.00 17.75 17.75 Sep-16 9.19 9.46 9.19 Oct-16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Existing versus Agronmic Loading 117 acers 5,096,520 SF Argonomic Flow Rate Existing Irrigation Flow Rate (gpd) (gpd) Jan-13 0 0 Feb-13 0 0 Mar-13 0 0 Apr-13 0 0 May-13 15 525,000 Jun-13 30 817,927 Jul-13 31 1,371,091 Aug-13 31 2,095,258 Sep-13 15 1,945,962 Oct-13 0 0 Nov-13 0 0 Dec-13 0 0 Jan-14 0 0 Feb-14 0 0 Mar-14 0 0 Apr-14 0 0 May-14 15 721,700 Jun-14 30 683,716 Jul-14 31 1,148,752 Aug-14 31 2,018,789 Sep-14 15 1,945,962 Oct-14 0 0 Nov-14 0 0 Dec-14 0 0 Jan-15 0 0 Feb-15 0 0 Mar-15 0 0 Apr-15 0 0 May-15 15 596,446 Jun-15 30 677,424 Jul-15 31 2,023,991 Aug-15 31 2,562,684 Sep-15 15 1,945,962 Oct-15 0 0 Nov-15 0 0 Dec-15 0 0 Jan-16 0 0 Feb-16 0 0 Mar-16 0 0 Apr-16 0 0 May-16 15 591,557 Jun-16 30 570,647 Jul-16 31 1,001,773 Aug-16 31 1,819,566 Sep-16 15 1,945,962 Oct-16 0 0 Nov-16 0 0 0 Dec-16 0 0 0 2.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 Month Irrigation Days 0.00 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.19 17.75 9.77 5.39 Nitrogen Application Area= Agronimic Application Rate Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Permeability Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Permeability Permeability Nitrogen Permeability Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Permeability Nitrogen Nitrogen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.19 20.44 13.38 7.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 (inches) 6.46 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.19 19.70 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.19 25.00 19.75 Limiting Process Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen 6.40 2.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nitrogen 0.00 Month Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 4 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- WATER USAGE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Estimated Population= 7693 persons Month Water Usage (gal) Average Daily Usage (gpd) Average Per Capita Usage (gpcd) January 21,844,000 704,645 91.60 February 15,717,000 561,321 72.97 March 16,525,000 533,065 69.29 April 16,432,000 547,733 71.20 May 36,797,000 1,187,000 154.30 June 35,883,000 1,196,100 155.48 July 73,123,000 2,358,806 306.62 August 88,624,000 2,858,839 371.62 September 47,596,000 1,586,533 206.23 October 19,959,000 643,839 83.69 November 15,568,000 518,933 67.46 December 17,951,000 579,065 75.27 Estimated Population= 7798 persons Month Water Usage (gal) Average Daily Usage (gpd) Average Per Capita Usage (gpcd) January 18,212,000 587,484 75.34 February 16,493,000 589,036 75.54 March 15,571,000 502,290 64.41 April 19,679,000 655,967 84.12 May 23,720,000 765,161 98.12 June 44,459,000 1,481,967 190.04 July 70,037,000 2,259,258 289.72 August 63,868,000 2,060,258 264.20 September 34,135,000 1,137,833 145.91 October 22,164,000 714,968 91.69 November 15,854,000 528,467 67.77 December 20,068,000 647,355 83.02 Estimated Population= 8071 persons Month Water Usage (gal) Average Daily Usage (gpd) Average Per Capita Usage (gpcd) January 16,287,000 525,387 65.10 February 16,678,000 595,643 73.80 March 17,022,000 549,097 68.03 April 20,457,000 681,900 84.49 May 21,312,000 687,484 85.18 June 47,305,000 1,576,833 195.37 July 77,172,000 2,489,419 308.44 August 60,525,000 1,952,419 241.91 September 49,512,000 1,650,400 204.49 October 26,623,000 858,806 106.41 November 16,491,000 549,700 68.11 December 21,450,000 691,935 85.73 2013 Per Capita Water Usage 2014 Per Capita Water Usage 2015 Per Capita Water Usage 2013 Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Average Water Usage Calculations 2014 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- DEQ MEETING NOTES ---PAGE BREAK--- BOZEMAN, GREAT FALLS, KALISPELL & SHELBY, MT I SPOKANE, WA I LEWISTON, ID I WATFORD CITY, ND I MEDIA, PA 406. 761. 3010 t dhengineering. c om 1800 Ri ver Drive Nort h Great Fal ls , MT 59401 MEETING NOTES Date: 02.08.2017 Time: 10:00-11:30am Present: Wade Deboo, TD&H Nicole Rediske, TD&H Chris Boe, DEQ Steve Klotz, City of Belgrade Paul LaVigne, DEQ 2 others from DEQ Subject: Groundwater Discharge Permit TDH Job No.: B16-084 DEQ Contact Person: Chris Boe: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Received from DEQ: Water Quality Permit Application, Nondegredation Authorization, and Annual Permit Fees Summary Domestic Wastewater- Permit Application Compliance Evaluation Inspection violation letter, dated Feb 3, 2017 General Information, Form 1 Current Belgrade Permit Fact Sheet All received items were scanned in and saved, J:\2016\B16-048 Belgrade Master Plan\DOCUMENTS\MEETINGS\2017.02.08 DEQ Meeting Permit Renewal Timeline/Process: Current permit expires November 30, 2017 Submit letter to DEQ six months prior to permit expiration (end of April) stating we are working on the permit renewal DEQ has a lot of new permit applications, may take time to review Belgrade’s application Complete permit application to DEQ by Fall 2017 o Once the permit application has been received, the current permit expiration date will likely be extended until the new permit is finalized. o DEQ seemed flexible and willing to work with us on timing o Application fees: $2,500 per outfall ($7,500 total) Will be more if nondegredation is required Monitoring Wells: DEQ likes monitoring well network, would like to retain All samples have been below 10 mg/l (human health standard) DEQ would like figure showing groundwater contours and measured concentration profiles in Fact Sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- FEBRUARY 8, 2007 PAGE NO. 2 t d h e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m o Expected to be helpful during public comment period o West Yellowstone is a good example DEQ requested all inactive monitoring wells be checked on to ensure they are still viable o Static water level in each well Update fact sheet with spatial information about well locations (lat/longs) Effluent Limits Likely to retain current effluent limits o Total Nitrogen loading on the three beds o Able to request change if wanted IP Beds DEQ has expected the effluent to be evenly distributed among the three outfalls. Irrigation System DEQ would like to retain, even expand irrigation system if possible Double check agronomic rates The City indicated the airport has used extra fertilizer around the irrigation system o DEQ suggested contacting airport about the amount of fertilizer used. Surface Water May need to look at projected impacts to surface water o Internal DEQ discussion as to whether or not this is required Likely to get some public comment Focus on nitrate, don’t worry so much about phosphorous Permit Renewal Focus on current system, don’t take into account any expected modifications May require new SOPs Current mixing zone are applicable to new permit The current system is considered an “existing source” o Uses human health standards rather than nondegradation. That is not expected to change (10 mg/l at the end of mixing zone) City express desire to change the current permit as little as possible. Future Modifications If TN load increases, permit standards will likely move from human health standard to nondegradtaion standard o Would decrease acceptable TN concentrations at the end of mixing zone When design flow increases, enhance treatment to decrease TN concentration to keep from moving to nondegredation standard No other new parameters were suggested for monitoring in the next permit cycle AFTER DEQ MEETING, WE SAT DOWN WITH STEVE KLOTZ Steve will be in town for Rural Water if we have any questions or would like to sit down with him E-mail Steve a list of anything else we have questions on or need ---PAGE BREAK--- FEBRUARY 8, 2007 PAGE NO. 3 t d h e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m The City does not need to be directly involved in discussions with FAA or airport. Would like to simply be kept informed of any outcomes. Steve confirmed they do not have any maintenance TV inspections of the collection system. DMR data does not come directly from the SCADA system. They use the flow reading from the manual valves of the mag meters for DMR data. The City is mapping the collection system with GIS. Currently ongoing. Likely to be complete soon Has run time records for the small blower. Can e-mail and ask him to send them over. Wade mentioned lagoon flow discrepancies. Steve is willing to have the mag meters checked. We are to follow up and organize. ---PAGE BREAK--- DEQ CORRESPONDENCE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: Belgrade Groundwater Discharge Permit Renewal Application From: "Boe, Chris" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 4/11/2017 8:20 AM Subject: RE: Belgrade Groundwater Discharge Permit Renewal Application Cc: "[EMAIL REDACTED]" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Attachments: 2016__MTX000116_1year_reminder.docx Hi Nicole Thank you for your letter. I believe our earlier meeting was very beneficial. Please note that the permit expires on November 30, 2017. The application needs to be received before this date in order to provide DEQ time to review. Application fees are due on June 3, 2017. This is also the date in which an application is due, however we can work with you on the application due date if flexibility is needed. In your letter you discussed loading “limits” in determining new/increase sources. I think we are on the same page, but just in case, please note that Belgrade’s current Nondegradation determination is based on their currently approved wastewater design load (treatment and flow capacities). Currently there are no official limits in the permit to maintain this, rather if and when Belgrade decides to modify their system, DEQ will undergo another Nondegradation determination to confirm if the TN loading design rates are (or are not) increasing. The water quality based effluent limits of Table 1 in the permit may increase or decrease depending on ambient nitrates of the aquifer. I anticipate that current or future violations of these numeric effluent limits will not have an impact on future Nondegradation determinations. As discussed in our meeting, a look at cumulative effects and reasonable potential impacts on downgradient ground water and surface water quality could very much be needed. These are normally completed in use of conservative projections. I would however highly recommend taking advantage of the existing monitoring well network and ground water quality data to determine the sitespecific fate and transport of the nutrients being discharged from this project. We can discuss this more in detail over the phone if you wish. We look forward to working with you on Belgrade’s master plan and the upcoming permit application. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to set up another meeting. Thanks once again for your preapplication efforts. Regards Chris Boe Environmental Science Specialist Lead Worker Ground Water Discharge Permitting Program Page 1 of 2 6/8/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Protection Bureau Phone: 4064446752 Fax: 4064441374 [EMAIL REDACTED] 1520 E. 6th Avenue PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 596200901 program and permit info: application forms and fee info: http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WPB/wpbforms From: Nicole Rediske [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:28 PM To: Boe, Chris Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Belgrade Groundwater Discharge Permit Renewal Application Good Afternoon Chis, Please find the attached letter regarding the City of Belgrade's discharge permit renewal application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you, Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 2 of 2 6/8/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- (gpd) (gal) (gal) (gpd) (gal) (gpd) (gal) (gpd) (in) (gal) (gal) (gal) January 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 3,272,428 11,419,713 February 28 1,670,000 46,760,000 16,165,857 577,352 16,165,857 577,352 16,165,857 577,352 -1,737,572 9,682,142 March 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 3,272,428 12,954,570 April 30 1,670,000 50,100,000 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 1,602,428 14,556,999 May 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 8,343,668 521,479 3.5 11,119,681 -25,063 14,531,935 June 30 1,670,000 50,100,000 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 0 0 7.0 22,239,362 -4,471,076 10,060,859 July 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 0 0 7.3 23,192,477 -3,754,191 6,306,668 August 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 0 0 7.3 23,192,477 -3,754,191 2,552,476 September 30 1,670,000 50,100,000 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 5,388,619 538,862 4.7 14,932,143 -2,552,476 - October 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 3,272,428 3,272,428 November 30 1,670,000 50,100,000 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 16,165,857 538,862 1,602,428 4,874,857 December 31 1,670,000 51,770,000 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 16,165,857 521,479 3,272,428 8,147,285 117 acres 5,096,520 sf Cumulative Storage is the amount of water in the lagoons at the end of the month The system does not discharge to IP bed C and the irrigation system simultaneously Discharge to the three IP beds is assumed to be equal Discharge to IP Bed C was calculated proportionally to the amount of time discharge would occur to Bed C during that month IP Bed Loading Limit A 72 B 72 C 74 Flow (gpd) Allowable TN Concentration (mg/l) Flow (gpd) Allowable TN Concentration (mg/l) Flow (gpd) Allowable TN Concentrati on (mg/l) January 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 521,479 17.0 February 577,352 14.94 577,352 14.94 577,352 15.4 March 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 521,479 17.0 April 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.5 May 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 521,479 17.0 14.94 <-Minimum allowable concentration calculated June 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.01 0 July 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 0 August 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 0 September 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.5 October 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 521,479 17.0 November 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.01 538,862 16.5 December 521,479 16.54 521,479 16.54 521,479 17.0 Month Month-By-Month Water Balance Design Effluent TN Concentrations Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan IN OUT C set B Set A set Land Application Land Application area= Design Flow IP Bed A IP Bed B IP Bed C Month Days Cumulative Storage ∆ Storage ---PAGE BREAK--- IP BED HYDRAULIC LOADING ---PAGE BREAK--- Design By: NMR DENOTES USER INPUT Infiltration Rate (from infiltrometer tests performed for 2004 Design Report) 0.25 inches/min DEQ-2 recommends using 7 to 10% of measured infiltration rate for Basin Flooding Test Adjusted Infiltration Rate= 0.0175 inches/min 2.1 feet per day IP Bed Construction 3 Cell Width= 100 feet 5 Cell Length= 200 feet Cell Area= 20,000 SF Allowable Hydraulic Loading 314,202 gpd per cell 1,571,010 gpd per IP Bed Permit Hydraulic Limits 13.5 mg/l IP Beds Permit Limit (ppd) Bed A 72 Bed B 72 Bed C 74 IP Loading Cycle DEQ-2 Recommended Cycles Application Period Summer 1-3 days Winter 1-3 days Blegrade Wastewater Master Plan Treatment and Disposal IP Bed Design Flows TD&H Job No. B16-048 Drying Period IP Bed Design Calculations Infiltration Rate= Number of IP Beds= Number of Cells per IP Bed= Flow Rate= Effluent TN Concentraion= Allowable Flow Rate (gpd) 638,300 638,300 656,031 4-5 days 5-10 days ---PAGE BREAK--- Month Season (gpd) (ppd) (gpd) (ppd) (gpd) (ppd) January Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 February Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 March Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 April Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 May Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 June Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 July Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 August Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 September Summer 589,129 66.5 589,129 66.45 589,129 66.5 October Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 November Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 December Winter 362,541 40.9 362,541 40.89 362,541 40.9 475,835 53.7 475,835 53.7 475,835 53.7 Check OK OK OK IP Bed C Annual IP Bed A IP Bed B ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN AGRONOMIC RATES ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR DENOTES USER INPUT See attached references for data, tables, charts, etc. Project Specific Design Criteria: 408 mg/l (Based on historic water quality analytical results) 61.2 mg/l (assuming 85% BOD removal) DEQ-2 Design Criteria: Circular DEQ-2, Table 93-1 Disposal Method = Controlled Discharge Primary Cells Detention Time = 20 days Overall System Detention Time = 110 days (Minimum) Precipitation and Evaporation Data: Western Regional Climate Center Lake Evaporation estimated at 70% of pan evaporation. Month Precipitation Month Pan Evap. Lake Evap. Factor Lake Evap. Inches Inches Inches January 0.07 January 0.00 0.7 0.00 February 0.27 February 0.00 0.7 0.00 March 0.71 March 0.00 0.7 0.00 April 1.60 April 3.34 0.7 2.34 May 1.73 May 5.58 0.7 3.91 June 2.99 June 6.03 0.7 4.22 July 2.41 July 8.34 0.7 5.84 August 1.01 August 7.17 0.7 5.02 September 3.17 September 4.57 0.7 3.20 October 1.57 October 2.62 0.7 1.83 November 1.64 November 0.00 0.7 0.00 December 1.10 December 0.00 0.7 0.00 ANNUAL 18.27 inches/year ANNUAL 26.355 inches/year PEAK YEAR (1969) 20.04 inches 10-YR FACTOR = 1.0969 Assumptions: The irrigation season includes half of May And September (16 days each) and all of June, July and August. Annual Hydraulic Loading Rate: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.1 Soil Permeability Calculations: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.11 Lp = inches (hydraulic loading rate) ETc = inches (crop evapotranspiration) P = inches (precipitation) Pw = inches (percolation rate) SE = fraction (distribution system efficiency, 0.70 to 0.85 for sprinklers) Design Agronomic Rates Irrigation System TD&H Job No. B116-048 Irrigation System Design Calculations Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan BOD5 Influent Concentration = BOD5 Effluent Concentration = Wettest-Year-in-10 Precipitation The design maximum irrigation application rates, LH, must be calculated for each month using hydraulic loading rates based on soil permeability and nitrogen loading. The limiting factor, permeability or nutrient uptake, will be used for design. Lake Evaporation Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 1 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Percolation Rate: EPA Process Design Manual - Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (EPA 625/1-81-013) Web Soil Survey - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) DEQ-4 Table 2.1-1 Percolation Rates Method 1: Soil Type = Attewan Clay Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beavwan Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Cobbly Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell-Beavwan Complex (Web Soil Survey) Percolation Rate = 28.5 min/inch (DEQ-4 T. 2.1-1, average for Clay loam, silty clay loam) Percolation Rate = 0.035087719 inches/min Percolation Rate = 2.105263158 inches/hr Design Percolation Rate = 0.084210526 inches/hr of Percolation Rate) Method 2: Soil Type = Attewan Clay Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beavwan Loam Beaverell Cobbly Loam (Web Soil Survey) Beaverell-Beavwan Complex (Web Soil Survey) Ksat = 64.1513 sec (Beaverell loam, Beaverell Cobbly Loam, Beaverell-Beavwan Complex, 91.5% of irrigation area.) Design Percolation Rate = 9.09 inches/hr Choose the most conservative Design Percolation Rate: Pw = 0.084210526 inches/hr (Design Percolation Rate) Initial Percolation: Use 3:1 drying: wetting ratio for each irrigated month. The irrigation time is equal to 1/4 of the irrigated days per month. The Design Percolation Rate is applied to the irrigation time per month. Month Irrigated Days Initial Irrigation Time Pw Hours Inches May 15 90 7.58 June 30 180 15.16 July 31 186 15.66 August 31 186 15.66 September 15 90 7.58 October 0 0 0.00 Crop Evapotranspiration Rate: Figure 4.1 Irrigation Climatic Areas of Montana, August 1986 Climatic Area = 4 Moderately Low Consumptive Use Crop = Alfalfa Estimated Irrigation Requirements Based on Belgrade's 2004 Design Report Month May June July August September October Permeability Water Balance: Precipitation Month ETc P Pw SE Lp Inches Inches Inches Inches @ SE=0.7 May 2.50 1.73 7.58 0.85 9.82 11.93 June 5.10 2.99 15.16 0.85 20.32 24.67 July 7.10 2.41 15.66 0.85 23.94 29.08 August 6.60 1.01 15.66 0.85 25.00 30.36 September 3.40 3.17 7.58 0.85 9.19 11.16 October 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.85 0.00 0 Annual 24.70 12.88 61.64 88.27 107.19 Total Consumptive Use (ETc) 5.10 7.10 6.60 0.00 2.50 The design percolation rate is 4 to 10 percent of the limiting permeability or hydraulic conductivity for the most restrictive soil layer. Inches 3.40 Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 2 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Nitrogen Calculations: Circular DEQ-2, Section 121.113.12 LN = inches (Hydraulic Loading) U = LB/acre-month (crop uptake as a function of yield) C = 4.41 (conversion constant) CN = mg/L (applied total nitrogen concentration) f = Nitrogen Loss factor Crop Nutrient Uptake: Ranges from 225 to 540 kg/ha-yr U avg = 382.5 kg/ha-yr U avg = 342.1 LB/acre-yr (2.21 LB/kg and 0.4047 ha/acre) Based on NRCS extension service research, assume: U avg = 183.2 LB/acre-yr (assume occurs during the irrigated days) (Based on MM 2004 design) Nitrogen Loss Factor: per DEQ-2 Section 112.113.12: Shall not exceed 0.2 for secondary treatment effluent. Shall not exceed 0.1 for effluent from facilities utilizing nutrient removal methods. f = 0.1 Total Nitrogen Concentration: DEQ-2 Equation 120-4 CN = 13.5 mg/L Nitrogen Water Balance: Month U LN LB/acre Inches May 18.54 6.73 June 37.82 13.73 July 52.65 19.11 August 48.94 17.76 September 25.21 9.15 October 0.00 0.00 Annual 183.16 66.48 Limiting Annual Hydraulic Loading Rate: The smallest Hydraulic Loading Rate per month controls. Month Lp LN LH Inches Inches Inches May 9.82 6.73 6.73 25,050,000 June 20.32 13.73 13.73 50,100,000 July 23.94 19.11 19.11 51,770,000 August 25.00 17.76 17.76 51,770,000 September 9.19 9.15 9.15 25,050,000 October 0.00 0.00 0.00 203,740,000 Annual 88.27 66.48 66.48 211,221,981 2.50 3.40 0.00 Nitrogen Nitrogen Inches Total Consumptive Use (ETc) 24.7 7.10 6.60 5.10 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Limiting Process Fort Smith Wastewater PER Irrigation System Design Calculations Page 3 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- NORTHWEST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ Checked: Date: 5/22/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION TD&H Job No. B16-048 NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the Northwest Regional Lift Station demands using the City's 2014 zoning map. Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ Checked: Date: 5/22/2017 BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION TD&H Job No. B16-048 NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION SEWER DEMANDS Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) M-1 15.8 5 79 140 11,060 BP-10 5 0 0 0 0 BP 60.3 0 0 0 0 R-3 17.5 26 455 90 40,950 R-2 302.8 16 4,845 90 436,032 B-2 16.6 10 166 140 23,240 R-2 105 16 1,680 90 151,200 Total 523.0 7,225 662,482 ADF = 662,482 gpd ADF = 461 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 7.22 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.09 PHF = 2,047,069 gpd (2.05 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 523.0 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 26,150 gpd (0.03 MGD) Design PHF = 2,073,219 gpd (2.07 MGD) Design PHF = 1,440 gpm Existing Sewer Demands at Cruiser Lift Station: 2017 Draft Wastewater Master Plan (calculated using SCADA event log data) PHF = 584 gpm PHF = 840,960 gpd (0.84 MGD) Total Sewer Demands in the Study Area: Peak Hour Flow: PHF = 2,914,179 gpd (2.91 MGD) PHF = 2,024 gpm The proposed lift station service area consists of a combination of zoned regions and the existing Crusier Lift Station contributing area. The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the City zoned areas. Impact Fee Area Average Day Demands ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ Checked: LPH Date: 5/22/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 140 BP-10 0 140 PL-1 0 140 Public Lands & Institutions* Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Commerical - Light Manufacturing Manufacturing & Industrial District *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards Residential - Medium Density District City of Belgrade Zoning Densities Use the City of Belgrade Design Standards and Specifications Policy to establish the population, average daily flow, and peak hour flow in the proposed regional lift station study area. Separate engineering reports have been completed for two proposed subdivisions in the study area; the sewer demands estimated in those reports, by others, will be added to the estimated flows in the impact fee areas. NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION SEWER DEMANDS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION TD&H Job No. B16-048 Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ Checked: LPH Date: 5/22/2017 NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION SEWER DEMANDS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION TD&H Job No. B16-048 Sewer Demands for the Impact Fees Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) Impact Fees R-1 92.5 16 1,480 90 133,200 Impact Fees* M-1 12.8 5 64 140 8,960 Impact Fees M-1 9.3 5 47 140 6,510 Impact Fees BP-10 4.3 0 0 140 0 Impact Fees PL-1 28.6 0 0 140 0 Impact Fees BP-10 60.6 0 0 140 0 Impact Fees R-4 21.5 51 1,097 90 98,685 Impact Fees PL-1 9.7 0 0 140 0 Impact Fees R-2 71.4 16 1,142 90 102,816 Impact Fees R-2 21.7 16 347 90 31,248 Impact Fees B-2 23.1 10 231 140 32,340 Future Dev. R-2 83.8 16 1,341 90 120,672 Total 439.3 5,748 534,431 Impact Fee Areas: ADF = 534,431 gpd ADF = 372 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 5.75 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.19 PHF = 1,704,835 gpd (1.70 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 439.3 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 21,965 gpd (0.02 MGD) Design PHF = 1,726,800 gpd (1.73 MGD) Design PHF = 1,200 gpm Impact Fee Area Average Day Demands *Area reduced by 3.7 acres to account for a proposed park easement which would produce no flow to the sewer. The proposed lift station service area consists of a combination of zoned impact fee regions, two proposed subdivisions, and the existing Crusier Lift Station contributing area. The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the impact fee areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ Checked: LPH Date: 5/22/2017 NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION SEWER DEMANDS BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NORTHWEST REGIONAL LIFT STATION TD&H Job No. B16-048 Sewer Demands in Proposed Subdivisions: Original calculations are provided in consultants' design reports. Henson Subdivision (all phases buildout) ADF = 64,102 gpd (0.06 MGD) ADF = 44.52 gpm PHF = 249,998 gpd (less infiltration) Infiltration = 1,552 gpd PHF = 251,550 gpd (0.25 MGD) PHF = 175 gpm DLM Prescott Subdivision (aggressive, full buildout in 2022) June 20, 2016 memo Prescott Property - estimated water and sewer demand ADF = 296,820 gpd (0.30 MGD) ADF = 207 gpm PHF = 1,015,124 gpd (1.02 MGD) PHF = 705 gpm Existing Sewer Demands at Cruiser Lift Station: 2017 Draft Wastewater Master Plan (calculated using SCADA event log data) PHF = 584 gpm PHF = 840,960 gpd (0.84 MGD) Total Sewer Demands in the Study Area: Peak Hour Flow: PHF = 3,834,434 gpd (3.83 MGD) PHF = 2,664 gpm June 14, 2016 Engineer's Report for Henson Subdivision No. 3, Phase I Water & Sewer Analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY SEWER FUNDS IMPACT FEES DLM PRESCOTT SUBDIVISION IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEES HENSON SUBDIVISION PL-1 R4 R2-M R-2 R2 PL-1 R3 R4 R2-D R2 R3 R2 BP-10 M1 BP-10 M1 B-2 R-2 R-2 R-1 R-3 R-2D R-4 PLI REVISION SHEET DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK: JOB NO. FIELDBOOK DRAWN BY: DATE: B16-048 STUDY FIGS REV DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF BELGRADE MASTER PLAN BELGRADE, MONTANA ZONING AREAS STUDY AREA B16-048 08/18/20106 .DWG 1 CJS Engineering 1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 [PHONE REDACTED] • tdhengineering.com LEGEND ZONING INDEX ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/1/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 2664 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 27 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.44 3.71 2.69 4.17 2.16 0.64 5.9 2,664 2.2 check: 0.000 Pipe is 64% full. Force Main Sizing: Design Q = 2664 gpm Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 0.989 SF Flow Diameter = 1.122 ft Flow Diameter = 13.5 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 12.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 7.6 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. Sewer Capacity Calculations Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 NORTHWEST REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BLUE = USER INPUT Calculated by: CEVJ RED = OUTPUT RESULT Date: 2017-05-22 Northwest Regional Lift Station Design Flows: Peak Hour = 2,664 gpm (5.94 cfs) Henson Phase I + Cruiser Lift Station Design Flows: Peak Hour = 759 gpm (1.69 cfs) Henson Phase I Design Flows: Peak Hour = 175 gpm (0.39 cfs) Alternative Northwest Regional Lift Station Design Flow: This flow is based on the City's 2014 zoning. It is included here for informational purposes only. Peak Hour = 2,024 gpm (4.51 cfs) Force Main Velocity Requirements: EPA and DEQ Minimum Velocity = 2 ft/sec Average Design Velocity = 6 ft/sec Montana DEQ Maximum Velocity = 8 ft/sec EPA Maximum Velocity = 10 ft/sec Henson flows documented by others. BELGRADE REGIONAL LIFT STATION BELGRADE, MONTANA TD&H Job No. B16-033 Northwest Regional Lift Station Force Main Velocity There are three design conditions: Northwest Regional Improvements (all areas), Henson Phase I plus Cruiser basin, and Henson Phase I only. Check the velocity in the existing Cruiser Lift Station force main and size a new force main for the Regional Lift Station. These flows include the Cruiser Lift Station's existing service area and the future planning area in northwest Belgrade. Two planned subdivisions will contribute to the lift station: Henson and DLM/Prescott. Flow calculations are documented separately. These flows include the Cruiser Lift Station's existing service area and Phase I of the Henson subdivision. Flow calculations are documented separately. ---PAGE BREAK--- Analysis and Results: Use the continuity equation to estimate velocities in the force mains at each design flow. Legend: Northwest Regional Design Flows Henson Phase I and Cruiser Design Flows Henson Phase I Design Flows Only Alternate Northwest Regional Design Flows PHF PHF PHF PHF 2,664 gpm 759 gpm 175 gpm 2,024 gpm 5.94 cfs 1.69 cfs 0.39 cfs 4.51 cfs 4 0.087 68.0 fps 19.4 fps 4.5 fps 51.7 fps 6 0.196 30.2 fps 8.6 fps 2.0 fps 23.0 fps 8 0.349 17.0 fps 4.8 fps 1.1 fps 12.9 fps 10 0.545 10.9 fps 3.1 fps 0.7 fps 8.3 fps 12 0.785 7.6 fps 2.2 fps 0.5 fps 5.7 fps 14 1.069 5.6 fps 1.6 fps 0.4 fps 4.2 fps Recommendations: Force main from Northwest Regional Lift Station to Cruiser force main: 12-inches Velocity in existing 10" Cruiser force main at Northwest Regional design flow: 10.9 fps A DEQ deviation will be required to approve velocities over 8 fps. It is also recommended that the City consider allowing Henson subdivision install a temporary 4-inch PE force main from the Phase I Henson Lift Station to the Cruiser force main. Nominal Flow Area (SF) Nominal Pipe Diameter (inches) Pink cells indicate velocities above 10 ft/sec or below 2 ft/sec. Blue cells indicate velocities between 8 ft/sec and 10 ft/sec. ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 584 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 12 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.66 3.81 0.55 1.90 0.95 0.29 1.3 584 2.4 check: 0 Pipe is 66% full. Force Main Sizing: Design Q = 584 gpm Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 0.217 SF Flow Diameter = 0.525 ft Flow Diameter = 6.3 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 6.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 6.6 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. DEQ Minimum Slope Sewer Size (inches) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 CRUISER LIFT STATION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main to convey flows to the Northwest Regional Lift Station. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. Sewer Capacity Calculations Diameter (ft) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate 75% Full Flow Pipe Area (SF) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- NORTHEAST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) NE Region R-1 81.8 16 1,309 90 117,792 Total 81.8 1,309 117,792 ADF = 117,792 gpd ADF = 82 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 1.31 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.72 PHF = 438,186 gpd (0.44 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 81.8 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 4,090 gpd (0.00 MGD) Design PHF = 442,276 gpd (0.44 MGD) Design PHF = 308 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 NORTHEAST REGION FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/2/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 308 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 8 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.49 4.14 0.28 1.38 0.58 0.20 0.7 308 2.5 check: 0.000 Pipe is 74% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 NORTHEAST REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- EAST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) E1 Region M-1 58.5 5 293 140 40,950 E1 Region R-2 96.0 16 1,536 90 138,240 Total 154.5 1,829 179,190 ADF = 179,190 gpd ADF = 125 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 1.83 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.62 PHF = 648,668 gpd (0.65 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 154.5 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 7,725 gpd (0.01 MGD) Design PHF = 656,393 gpd (0.66 MGD) Design PHF = 456 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EAST REGION 1 FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) E2 Region PL-1 38.4 0 0 0 0 E2 Region R-1 51.0 16 816 90 73,440 E2 Region R-3 36.0 26 936 90 84,240 Total 125.4 1,752 157,680 ADF = 157,680 gpd ADF = 110 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 1.75 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.63 PHF = 572,378 gpd (0.57 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 125.4 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 6,270 gpd (0.01 MGD) Design PHF = 578,648 gpd (0.58 MGD) Design PHF = 402 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EAST REGION 2 FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/2/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 402 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 10 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.55 3.79 0.38 1.58 0.79 0.24 0.9 402 2.3 check: 0 Pipe is 66% full. Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EAST REGION 2 FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. Sewer Capacity Calculations 75% Full Flow Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/1/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 858 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 15 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.82 3.77 0.85 2.36 1.19 0.36 1.9 858 2.2 check: 0 Pipe is 65% full. Force Main Sizing at the Meadowlark Lift Station: Design Q = 1141 gpm (includes 283 gpm peak hour from Meadowlark Ranch subdivision) Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 0.424 SF Flow Diameter = 0.735 ft Flow Diameter = 8.8 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 8.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 7.3 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Sewer Capacity Calculations Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EAST REGIONS 1 AND 2 FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/1/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 1141 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 18 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 0.92 3.61 1.14 2.71 1.46 0.42 2.5 1,141 2.2 check: 0 Pipe is 62% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 RYEN GLENN GRAVITY CONVEYANCE FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main to serve the Meadowlark Ranch subdivision and the east planning regions. The trunk main will convey flows to the Ryen Glenn Lift Station. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SOUTHEAST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) SE Region M-1 162.6 5 813 140 113,820 SE Region B-2 132.3 10 1,323 140 185,220 Total 294.9 2,136 299,040 ADF = 299,040 gpd ADF = 208 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 2.14 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.56 PHF = 1,064,582 gpd (1.06 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 294.9 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 14,745 gpd (0.01 MGD) Design PHF = 1,079,327 gpd (1.08 MGD) Design PHF = 750 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTHEAST REGION FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 750 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 15 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.75 3.54 0.77 2.21 1.23 0.35 1.7 750 2.2 check: 0 Pipe is 60% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTHEAST REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SOUTH PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) S Region B-2 28.4 10 284 140 39,760 S Region M-1 22.9 5 115 140 16,030 S Region B-2 80.8 10 808 140 113,120 Total 132.1 1,207 168,910 ADF = 168,910 gpd ADF = 118 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 1.21 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.75 PHF = 633,413 gpd (0.63 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 132.1 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 6,605 gpd (0.01 MGD) Design PHF = 640,018 gpd (0.64 MGD) Design PHF = 445 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTH REGION FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 445 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 10 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.59 4.02 0.42 1.67 0.76 0.25 1.0 445 2.4 check: 0 Pipe is 71% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTH REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SOUTHWEST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) SW Region AS 146.9 18.4 2,703 90 243,266 SW Region R-1 159.2 16 2,547 90 229,248 SW Region R-2 331.5 16 5,304 90 477,360 SW Region B-2 70.9 10 709 140 99,260 Total 708.5 11,263 1,049,134 ADF = 1,049,134 gpd ADF = 729 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 11.26 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 2.9 PHF = 3,042,490 gpd (3.04 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 708.5 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 35,425 gpd (0.04 MGD) Design PHF = 3,077,915 gpd (3.08 MGD) Design PHF = 2,138 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTHWEST REGION FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 2138 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 24 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.29 3.72 2.13 3.72 1.92 0.57 4.8 2,138 2.2 check: 0 Pipe is 64% full. Force Main Sizing: Design Q = 2138 gpm Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 0.794 SF Flow Diameter = 1.005 ft Flow Diameter = 12.1 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 12.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 6.1 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SOUTHWEST REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 6/5/2017 Force Main Sizing: Design Q = 2728 gpm Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 1.013 SF Flow Diameter = 1.136 ft Flow Diameter = 13.6 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 12.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 7.7 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 SID #78 LIFT STATION FUTURE SIZING Size the future force main to accommodate the Southwest Planning Region and SID #78. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- WEST PLANNING REGION ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: LPH BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: CEVJ RED = RESULTS Date: 5/23/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Description Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) W Region M-2 25.7 5 129 140 17,990 W Region B-2 2.4 10 24 140 3,360 W Region B-2 8.9 10 89 140 12,460 Total 37.0 242 33,810 ADF = 33,810 gpd ADF = 24 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 0.24 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 4.12 PHF = 139,297 gpd (0.14 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 37.0 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 1,850 gpd (0.00 MGD) Design PHF = 141,147 gpd (0.14 MGD) Design PHF = 99 gpm *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 WEST REGION FUTURE SEWER DEMANDS Estimate the future sewer demands in the planning region based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 99 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 8 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.25 2.61 0.12 0.87 0.64 0.13 0.2 99 1.9 check: 0 Pipe is 37% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 WEST REGION FUTURE SEWER SIZING Size the future gravity trunk main and force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- RYEN GLENN LIFT STATION IMPACTS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 6/5/2017 Velocity in Existing Force Main: Design Q = 1686 gpm Force Main Diameter = 8.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 10.8 ft/sec Force Main Sizing: Design Q = 1686 gpm Design Velocity = 6.0 ft/sec Flow Area = 0.626 SF Flow Diameter = 0.893 ft Flow Diameter = 10.7 inches Nominal Force Main Diameter = 10.0 inches Nominal Velocity = 6.9 ft/sec Is velocity less than 8.0 ft/sec? Yes. BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 RYEN GLENN LIFT STATION FUTURE SIZING Size the future force main in the planning region. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INTERSTATE 90 CROSSING IMPACTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 3173 gpm n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.444 0.00444 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 330 2.6 10 0.444 0.00444 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.3 597 3.0 12 0.444 0.00444 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 2.2 972 3.4 15 0.444 0.00444 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 3.9 1,762 4.0 18 0.444 0.00444 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 6.4 2,865 4.5 21 0.444 0.00444 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 9.6 4,321 5.0 24 0.444 0.00444 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 13.7 6,169 5.4 27 0.444 0.00444 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 18.8 8,446 5.9 30 0.444 0.00444 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 24.9 11,185 6.3 36 0.444 0.00444 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 40.5 18,188 7.1 42 0.444 0.00444 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 61.1 27,436 7.9 Gravity Main Diameter = 21 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 21 0.444 0.00444 1.75 2.41 1.05 3.54 1.50 3.10 1.72 0.49 7.1 3,173 4.7 check: 0 Pipe is 60% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) Existing Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) Existing Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 INTERSTATE 90 CROSSING - FUTURE SEWER UPSIZING Size the future sewer mains. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- EAST INTERCEPTOR IMPACTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 6/13/2017 Belgrade zoning densities and demands from the Design Standards, Tables 7 and 8: Zone Population Density (persons/acre) Sewer Demand (gpcd) R-1 16 90 R-2 16 90 R-2-D 16 90 R-2-M 16 90 R-3 26 90 R-4 51 90 RS 12 90 RS-M 25.4 90 AS 18.4 90 M-1 5 140 M-2 5 140 B-1 10 140 B-2 10 140 B-3 10 140 BP 0 0 BP-10 0 0 PL-1 0 0 *No population density defined in Belgrade Design Standards Neighborhood Business District Highway Business District Central Business District Business Park* Business Park* Public Lands & Institutions* Manufacturing & Industrial District Description Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family - Medium Density Residential - One & Two Family Residential - Single Family & Manufactured Home Residential - Medium Density District Residential - Apartment District Residential - Suburban District Residential - Suburban District - Manufactured Home Agricultural - Suburban District Commerical - Light Manufacturing City of Belgrade Zoning Densities BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EXISTING SEWER DEMANDS TO 21" EAST INTERCEPTOR Estimate the existing sewer demands contributing to the east interceptor sewer based on planned zoning designations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 6/13/2017 BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EXISTING SEWER DEMANDS TO 21" EAST INTERCEPTOR Sewer Demands for Zoned Areas: Vicinity to Frontage Road Zone Area (acres) Population Density (persons/acre) Population (persons) Sewer Demand (gpcd) Average Day Demand (gpd) North B-2 20.6 10 206 140 28,885 South R-3 10.3 26 268 90 24,102 South R-3 29.6 26 770 90 69,264 South R-2 17.5 16 280 90 25,200 South PL-1 8.2 0 0 0 0 South R-1 43.2 16 691 90 62,208 South R-2 11.3 16 181 90 16,272 South R-3 2.3 26 60 90 5,382 South PL-1 2.5 0 0 0 0 South R-3 9.1 26 237 90 21,294 South R-4 16.4 51 836 90 75,276 South R-4 8.3 51 422 90 38,016 South R-2-M 13.3 16 212 90 19,088 South R-2 10.7 16 172 90 15,475 Total 203.3 4,335 400,461 ADF = 400,461 gpd ADF = 279 gpm Peaking Factor = Qmax/Qavg = (18+P^0.5)/(4+P^0.5) P = 4.33 thousand persons Peaking Factor = 3.3 PHF = 1,321,522 gpd (1.32 MGD) Add the infiltration rate for the final PHF estimate: Area = 203.3 acres City Infiltration Allowance = 50 gal/acre/day Infiltration = 10,166 gpd (0.01 MGD) Design PHF = 1,331,688 gpd (1.33 MGD) Design PHF = 925 gpm The following table documents the calculations of the design flows from the zoned areas. Average Day Demands ---PAGE BREAK--- Design: CEVJ BLUE = USER INPUTS Checked: RED = RESULTS Date: 3/6/2018 Gravity Main Sizing: Design Q = 2797 gpm (less the existing capacity of the 21" outfall sewer) n = 0.013 (City of Belgrade Design Standards) Flow Depth = 75% (City of Belgrade Design Standards) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 8 0.4 0.004 0.67 0.35 0.50 4.19 0.28 1.40 0.58 0.20 0.7 313 2.5 10 0.28 0.0028 0.83 0.55 0.63 4.19 0.44 1.75 0.72 0.25 1.1 474 2.4 12 0.22 0.0022 1.00 0.79 0.75 4.19 0.63 2.09 0.87 0.30 1.5 684 2.4 15 0.15 0.0015 1.25 1.23 0.94 4.19 0.99 2.62 1.08 0.38 2.3 1,024 2.3 18 0.12 0.0012 1.50 1.77 1.13 4.19 1.42 3.14 1.30 0.45 3.3 1,489 2.3 21 0.1 0.001 1.75 2.41 1.31 4.19 1.94 3.67 1.52 0.53 4.6 2,051 2.4 24 0.08 0.0008 2.00 3.14 1.50 4.19 2.53 4.19 1.73 0.60 5.8 2,619 2.3 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.69 4.19 3.20 4.71 1.95 0.68 7.3 3,281 2.3 30 0.058 0.00058 2.50 4.91 1.88 4.19 3.95 5.24 2.17 0.75 9.0 4,043 2.3 36 0.046 0.00046 3.00 7.07 2.25 4.19 5.69 6.28 2.60 0.91 13.0 5,854 2.3 42 0.037 0.00037 3.50 9.62 2.63 4.19 7.74 7.33 3.03 1.06 17.6 7,920 2.3 Gravity Main Diameter = 27 inches (Pipe shall not flow more than 75% full.) (ft/100 ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (gpm) 27 0.067 0.00067 2.25 3.98 1.49 3.80 2.80 4.28 2.13 0.65 6.2 2,797 2.2 check: 0 Pipe is 66% full. Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Rate Velocity (ft/s) Flow Characteristics at the Design Q and Design Diameter Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Sewer Size (inches) DEQ Minimum Slope Diameter (ft) Pipe Area (SF) 75% Full Flow Depth (ft) Theta (rad) Flow Area (SF) Wetted Perimeter (ft) Top Width (ft) Sewer Capacity Calculations BELGRADE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 EAST INTERCEPTOR - FUTURE SEWER UPSIZING Size the future sewer main. Design flows documented separately. Utilize City and DEQ design criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX 7A ---PAGE BREAK--- ALTERNATIVE T-4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoon Improvements From: "Ben Lewis" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: "'Nicole Rediske'" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 3/16/2017 11:26 AM Subject: RE: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoon Improvements Cc: "'Camille Johnson'" <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, "'Dustin Nett'... Attachments: Belgrade MT. MARS Budgetary Quote. 3-14-2017 (4).pdf; Belgrade, MT. MARS Basis of Design. 3-14-2017.pdf; Belgrade, MT. NitrOx+D Basis of Design. 3-14- 2017.pdf; Belgrade, MT. NitrOx+D Budgetary Quote. 3-13-2017.pdf; 2017 Montana Line Card.pdf Nicole, To meet effluent criteria for Belgrade, Triplepoint proposed an aeration upgrade (MARS) followed by Nitrox+D for nitrification and denitrification. Please find corresponding quotes and basis of design for each unit op. Please let me know when a good time would be to schedule a conference call with Triple Point to go over the attached options. Thank you, Ben Lewis 525 St. Johns Ave. STE D Billings, MT 59102 [EMAIL REDACTED] Direct: 4068500030 Office: 4069692022 Fax: 3033800664 Line Card : WWW.AMBIENTEH2O.COM PUMPS CLOGGING?? = Deragger II – Don’t Chop It, Pump It!!! Page 1 of 3 4/5/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Nicole Rediske [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Camille Johnson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Dustin Nett <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Keith Waring <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Matt McGee <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Wade DeBoo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoon Improvements Good Afternoon Ben, I am currently working with the City of Belgrade, Montana on a Wastewater Master Plan. Part of that plan is to assess their current treatment facility and look at possible improvements. The City discharges to groundwater though three IP beds. Their discharge permit sets limits on the maximum daily total nitrogen load to each bed. Would you be able to provide an estimate for a TriplePoint system's performance for the City of Belgrade? I have listed some of the properties of the existing system below as well as attached influent concentration data from November 2013 to December 2016. • This is a municipal system that does not take in any industrial waste • Current system was constructed in 2004 • Currently there are three ponds, 2 treatment ponds and 1 storage pond • The treated wastewater is disposed of through a combination of 3 IP beds and land application though irrigation ◦Ponds 1 & 2 (treatment ponds) ◾Aerated Lagoons ◾Static tube aerators ◾Water surface area is about 7 acres each. (554' x 550') ◾Operating depth is 10 feet in both ◾Each has a volume of about 16 MG ◾Sides slopes are 4:1 ◾7 feet of free board ◦Pond 3 (storage pond) ◾Water surface area is about 15.8 acres (580' X 1185') ◾Surface aerators ◾Operating depth is 19.25 feet ◾Volume is 81.5 MG ◾Side slopes are 3:1 ◾3 feet of free board ◦If at all possible, we would like to keep the same footprint • Design flows ◦Average day=1.67 MG ◦Peaking factor=2.2 ◦Peak hour flow=3.67 MG Page 2 of 3 4/5/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Average influent wastewater data ◾Ammonia (as N) = 34.3 mg/l ◾Total Nitrogen = 63.5 mg/l ◾BOD = 407.7 mg/l ◾TSS= 271.3 mg/l ◾Nitrates + Nitrites (as 0.5 mg/l ◾TKN (as N)=63.0 mg/l I am most curious about the amount of total nitrogen removal a TriplePoint system can a achieve without increasing the footprint of the existing lagoons. Please do not hesitate to contact me and [PHONE REDACTED] if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Virus-free. www.avast.com Page 3 of 3 4/5/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MARS Basis of Design Date: 3/14/2017 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 Biological Oxygen (BOD) Calculations Removal of BOD (and CBOD) takes place naturally in an aerated lagoon. The Characteristic Equation for treatment efficiency of 5-Day Biological Oxygen Demand is given in Equation 1, at bottom of report. These calculations are used to size the lagoons. They are independent of the aeration calculations and assume that sufficient dissolved oxygen levels are maintained in the water. The equation is dependent on time and temperature. For lagoons operated in series, the equation is applied separately to each cell and the results are combined. Aeration Requirement Calculations Aeration calculations are more complicated than biological calculations as they depend on several factors. These include: Site conditions, such as treatment depth, elevation, and temperature. Design parameters, such as minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) level and oxygen supply rate. Actual Oxygen Requirement (AOR) which is based on the nutrient loading rates (these can include BOD/CBOD and TKN/NH3-N and are based on the product of nutrient concentrations and the wastewater flow-rate). Type of aerator Oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) of the aerator, which should be measured by an independent lab. Field condition adjustments (see Equation 2, below). Mixing requirements, such as complete or partial mix. The former is generally only required for activated sludge basins (ASB) or other high strength processes with short detention times. Aerated Lagoons - Long Treatment Times Aerated lagoons are typified by their comparatively large size and long treatment times (usually greater than 10 days). Influent concentrations are low to moderate (usually less than 300 mg/L of BOD). The bulk of the treatment takes place aerobically with additional anaerobic respiration taking place on the lagoon floor. Aerated lagoons do not generally have a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) or return activated sludge (RAS) component. Partial mixing is required to prevent stratification and eliminate dead-zones; however, complete mix is not necessary. Aerated lagoons are typically designed to operate at a minimum DO level of 2 mg/L. Oxygen is usually supplied at a rate of 1.5 times the BOD demand. If nitrification/denitrification takes place, the oxygen supply rate is designed for 4.6 times the nitrogenous oxygen demand (NBOD). Activated Sludge Basins (ASB) Activated sludge basins (ASB) and other related wastewater tanks and lagoons are characterized by short treatment times (usually from 1 to 5 days), high wastewater and an active biomass that must be maintained in ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. suspension to prevent rapid sludge accumulation. A high strength (greater than 2,000 mg/L) return activated sludge (RAS) component is usually fed back into the basin from a clarifier. Biological nutrient removal is much faster in these basins. ASBs are typically designed to operate at a minimum DO level of 1 to 2 mg/L. Oxygen is supplied at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 times the BOD demand. If nitrification/denitrification takes place, the oxygen supply rate is designed for 4.0 to 4.6 times the nitrogenous oxygen demand (NBOD). Aeration system is based on both oxygenation requirements and complete mix requirements, whichever is greater. TRIPLEPOINT ENVIRONMENTAL Detailed Design Calculations: MARS Belgrade, MT SUMMARY - General Design Parameters V3.3.4 Design Scenario Name Design Nitrification 1 Influent Flowrate MGD 1.670 1.670 2 Influent Concentration mg/L 407.7 407.7 3 Effluent Concentration (summer) mg/L 22.4 22.4 4 Effluent Concentration (winter) mg/L 58.6 58.6 5 Actual Oxygen Supplied lb/day 8038.6 11240.3 6 Number of Aerators 180 246 7 Estimated Tubing Length ft 3400 5800 8 Airflow scfm 6093 8589 9 Design Pressure (includes cushion) psig 6.18 6.19 10 Brake Horsepower bhp 175.40 247.46 11 Min. Design Horsepower hp 252 356 1. FTE = α (SOTE) θ(T-20) (β C*∞T – DO) ÷ C*∞20 field transfer efficiency Where, α contaminant factor {contaminants, depth, bubble-size} (range: 0.40 – 0.70) β TDS factor {total dissolved solids} (range: 0.90-1.00) θ = 1.024 temperature factor DO target dissolved oxygen level (mg/L) C*∞T saturation oxygen concentration at site – adjusted for water depth C*∞20 sat. oxygen concentration at STP conditions – adjusted for water depth T water temperature (Celsius) 2. Airflow = AOR / (25.056 * FTE) 3. E = 2.3 * k * t / (1 + 2.3 * k * t) biological treatment efficiency Where, k = varies kinetic coefficient {related to temperature} (range: 0.06 to 0.12) t = time treatment time in days ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SUMMARY - Biological Treatment Calculations Item Description Units Design Nitrification Number of Treatment Cells 2 2 Flow Regime Series Series Site Elevation - HWL MSL - ft 4470 4470 Cell 1 1 Wastewater Flowrate MGD 1.670 1.670 2 Treatment Volume M-Gal 19.5 19.5 3 Treatment Time days 11.7 11.7 4 Design Water Temp °C 20 20 5 Treatment Type - Partial Mix Partial Mix 6 Standard Reaction Rate, k20 days-1 0.28 0.28 7 Design Reaction Rate, kT days-1 0.122 0.122 8 Biological Treatment Efficiency % 76.5% 76.5% 9 Influent BOD Loading lb/day 5,671 5,671 10 Influent BOD Concentration mg/L 407.7 407.7 11 BOD Removed lb/day 4,341 4,341 12 Effluent BOD Loading lb/day 1,330 1,330 13 Effluent BOD Concentration mg/L 95.6 95.6 14 Influent NBOD Loading lb/day 883 883 15 Influent NBOD Concentration mg/L 63.4 63.4 16 NBOD Removed* (Assumed) lb/day - 177 17 Effluent NBOD Loading* lb/day 883 707 18 Effluent NBOD Concentration* mg/L 63 51 Cell 2 19 Wastewater Flowrate MGD 1.670 1.670 20 Treatment Volume M-Gal 19.5 19.5 21 Treatment Time days 11.7 11.7 22 Design Water Temp °C 20 20 23 Treatment Type - Partial Mix Partial Mix 24 Standard Reaction Rate, k20 days-1 0.28 0.28 25 Design Reaction Rate, kT days-1 0.122 0.122 26 Biological Treatment Efficiency % 76.5% 76.5% 27 Influent BOD Loading lb/day 1330 1330 28 Influent BOD Concentration mg/L 95.6 95.6 29 BOD Removed lb/day 1018 1018 30 Effluent BOD Loading lb/day 312 312 31 Effluent BOD Concentration mg/L 22.4 22.4 32 Influent NBOD Loading lb/day 883 707 33 Influent NBOD Concentration mg/L 63.4 50.7 34 NBOD Removed* (Assumed) lb/day - 519 35 Effluent NBOD Loading* lb/day 883 187 36 Effluent NBOD Concentration* mg/L 63 13.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SUMMARY - Aeration Calculations Item Description Units Design Nitrification Cell 1 1 Lagoon Elevation ft, MSL 4470 4470 2 Lagoon Side Water Depth ft 10 10 3 Air Release Depth ft 9.25 9.25 4 O2 Loading Factor (BOD5) lb-O2/lb-BOD 1.5 1.5 5 O2 Loading Factor (NBOD5) lb-O2/lb-NBOD 4.6 4.6 6 AOR lb/day 6511 7324 7 SOTE/ft %/ft 1.96% 1.93% 8 SOTE % 18.11% 17.89% 9 Design DO Concentration mg/L 2.0 2.0 10 Alpha-value, α 0.60 0.60 11 Beta-value, β 0.95 0.95 12 Theta-value, θ 1.02 1.02 13 FTE 5.25% 5.18% 14 Air requirement scfm 4953 5639 15 Airflow per aeration unit scfm/unit 34.4 36.1 16 Number of aeration units units 144 156 17 Water Pressure psi 4.01 4.01 18 Aerator Pressure Loss psi 0.74 0.75 19 Header/Feeder Pressure Allowance psi 0.43 0.44 20 Total Operating Pressure psig 5.18 5.19 21 Design Motor Pressure psig 6.18 6.19 Cell 2 22 Lagoon Elevation ft, MSL 4470 4470 23 Lagoon Side Water Depth ft 10 10 24 Air Release Depth ft 9.25 9.25 25 O2 Loading Factor (BOD5) lb-O2/lb-BOD 1.5 1.5 26 O2 Loading Factor (NBOD5) lb-O2/lb-NBOD 4.6 4.6 27 AOR lb/day 1527 3916 28 SOTE/ft %/ft 2.00% 1.98% 29 SOTE % 18.46% 18.29% 30 Design DO Concentration mg/L 2.0 2.0 31 Alpha-value, α 0.60 0.60 32 Beta-value, β 0.95 0.95 33 Theta-value, θ 1.02 1.02 34 FTE 5.35% 5.30% 35 Air requirement cfm 1140 2950 36 Airflow per aeration unit cfm 31.7 32.8 37 Number of aeration units units 36 90 38 Water Pressure psi 4.01 4.01 39 Aerator Pressure Loss psi 0.74 0.74 40 Header/Feeder Pressure Allowance psi 0.43 0.43 41 Total Operating Pressure psig 5.17 5.18 42 Design Motor Pressure psig 6.17 6.18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MARS Budgetary Quote Date: 3/14/2017 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 QUOTE TO: Nicole Rediske TD&H Engineering C/O: Ben Lewis Ambiente H2O PREPARED BY: Tom Daugherty, Western Regional Manager Triplepoint Environmental LLC Phone: (208) 699-7090 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] MARS™ AERATION EQUIPMENT COSTS MARS AERATOR System Equipment: Design - Designed to Treat 1.670 MGD and Supply 8038.6-lbs of Oxygen Per Day. - Capable of injecting air at 6093 SCFM and 6.18 PSI. - Total Cost: $670,650 MARS Aeration Package: Design Quantity Unit MARS 750T Aerators with EPDM Membranes 180 SET 1.5'' Barbed Fittings: Stainless Steel 180 EA 1.5" Weighted Flexible Tubing 3300 LF Aeration Orifice Plate: Air Balancing 180 EA 1.5" Full Port Ball Valve & Fittings: Stainless Steel 180 EA Hose Mender: Stainless Steel 4 SET Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Duty 3 EA Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Standby 1 EA Blower Starter Panel: NEMA 3R 1 EA NOT Included: Optional Items Real Time Monitoring: DO (Optional DO Control with Blower VFD: Integrated) Triplepoint Installation Kaeser Blower Startup & Baffle Curtain: 6730 Be Determined) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MARS™ AERATION EQUIPMENT COSTS MARS AERATOR System Equipment: Nitrification - Designed to Treat 0.1.670 MGD and Supply 11240.3-lbs of Oxygen Per Day. - Capable of injecting air at 8589 SCFM and 6.19 PSI. - Total Cost: $898,260 MARS Aeration Package: Nitrification Quantity Unit MARS 750T Aerators with EPDM Membranes 246 SET 1.5'' Barbed Fittings: Stainless Steel 246 EA 1.5" Weighted Flexible Tubing 5700 LF Aeration Orifice Plate: Air Balancing 246 EA 1.5" Full Port Ball Valve & Fittings: Stainless Steel 246 EA Hose Mender: Stainless Steel 8 SET Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Duty 4 EA Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Standby 1 EA Blower Starter Panel: NEMA 3R 1 EA NOT Included: Optional Items Real Time Monitoring: DO (Optional DO Control with Blower VFD: Integrated) Triplepoint Installation Kaeser Blower Startup & Baffle Curtain: 6730 Be Determined) TERMS & CONDITIONS Scope of Supply Triplepoint Environmental will supply all process expertise and equipment as part of this quote. The customer is responsible for the costs associated with the installation and infrastructure needed, including the concrete tanks, pumps (if required), operations building (as needed) and any influent/effluent/connecting piping that may be necessary. Payment Terms The quote in this proposal remains valid for a period of 90 days. Fifty percent (50%) is due upon contract acceptance, prior to shipment, forty percent (40%) is due upon offer to ship, and the final ten percent (10%) is due upon startup by Triplepoint’s personnel. Currency & Taxes All quotes are in United States Dollars. This price does not include local taxes and/or duties as applicable; any additional taxes will be added to final invoice and payable by the customer. A 1% per month late fee will be applied to all past due invoices Delivery All equipment will be delivered within a period of ten (10) to twenty-four (24) weeks. All packing and shipping costs are FOB ORIGINATION. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Optional Equipment & Installation Supervision At the customer’s request Triplepoint Environmental can provide additional equipment and installation supervision as a part of this scope of work. This equipment includes redundant blowers, baffles, liner, surface laterals, variable frequency drives, monitoring equipment, and control panel. A Triplepoint certified project manager can provide installation supervision, inspection, testing, training and startup for a minimum of three days during installation. Warranty Triplepoint Environmental warrants your MARS™ products to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of substantial project completion. If a defect is discovered in any of the constituent components covered by this warranty, Triplepoint will repair at our option using new or refurbished components for equal or improved quality. If a suitable repair is not possible, the product will be replaced. All defective parts, assemblies, and products become the property of Triplepoint Environmental. Any soft costs incurred during a warranty claim, including costs associated with removing, shipping and re-installing a warranted component, shall be the responsibility of the customer. Limits of Liability Triplepoint Environmental shall not be liable for any loss of profits, business, goodwill, interruption of business, nor for incidental or consequential merchantability or fitness of purpose, damages related to this quote. Confidentiality Notice The MARS™ Processes are the subject of one or more confidential patents or patent applications filed in the United States Patent Office, and may be the subject of one or more confidential foreign patent applications, the customer and any other related parties contracted recognize the importance of maintaining the continued confidentiality of the design of the MARS Processes. The customer and any other parties contracted all agree that they shall not sell, transfer or disclose any such confidential information relating to the design of the MARS Processes to any other person, organization, or corporation without the express written authorization of Triplepoint Environmental LLC and pursuant to an enforceable agreement of confidentiality, except as required by law or as necessary in connection with the use, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the system. Additionally, the customer and any other parties contracted all agree to preserve the confidentiality of this proposal and all materials attached and not to distribute or copy such materials for any other party’s not previously authorized by Triplepoint. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NitrOx Basis of Design Date: 3/14/2017 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 The NitrOx™ Process The patent pending NitrOx Process was developed based on the principle that nitrification will reliably occur when the proper conditions are created. For wastewater lagoon systems that receive primarily domestic waste, the critical conditions required for nitrification include: 1. CBOD of 20-30 mg/L 2. Dissolved oxygen of 4.6 lb/O2 per pound of NH3-N (Metcalf & Eddy) 3. Sufficient Population of Nitrifying bacteria 4. Given sufficient Nitrifying bacteria, a water temperature of 4-5 ºC NitrOx Process utilizes the existing lagoon infrastructure for 90% BOD removal, after which nitrifying bacteria begin to nitrify. The effluent from the lagoons then flows hydraulically or is pumped into a two-stage nitrification reactor. In colder climates where the winter water temperature drops below 4 ºC, a thermal regulation heat exchanger is added in order to increase the water temperature; typically, only a few degrees during the coldest months of the year. In the two NitrOx reactor cells, there are millions of individual biofilm carriers that provide a habitat for nitrifying bacteria –ensuring that there are sufficient nitrifying bacteria even in the coldest water conditions. Each Nitrox reactor cell has a stainless-steel aeration grid to provide the necessary oxygen, as well as to create a complete mix environment to keep the biofilm carriers in constant motion. The two cells are covered with floating insulated covers to mitigate heat loss and the media is kept in the tanks with stainless steel sieves. Finally, the effluent from the second NitrOx reactor is discharged into a final polishing/clarification lagoon prior to the ultimate discharge from the lagoon system. Figure 1: Basic flow process of the NitrOx Lagoon Ammonia Removal Process ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRIPLEPOINT ENVIRONMENTAL Detailed Design Calculations: NitrOx Belgrade, MT Plant Influent Characteristics 1 Average Daily Flow 1,670,000 gpd 2 Maximum Daily Flow 2,505,000 gpd 3 Peak Hourly Flow 3,674,000 4 Influent BOD 408 mg/L 5 Influent BOD 5,683 lbs/day 6 Influent TSS 271 mg/L 7 Influent TSS 3,774 lbs/day 8 Influent NH3-N 35 mg/L 9 Influent NH3-N 487 lbs/day 10 Influent TKN 63 mg/L 11 Influent TKN 877 lbs/day 12 Influent pH 7 13 Water Temperature 12 deg-C MBBR Influent Characteristics 14 Average Daily Flow 1,670,000 gpd 15 Maximum Daily Flow (Assumes Equalization) 2,505,000 gpd 16 Influent BOD 59 mg/L 17 Influent TSS 59 mg/L 18 Influent NH3-N 14 mg/L 19 Influent TKN 14 mg/L 20 Design Influent TKN 14 mg/L 21 Design Influent NOx-N 33 mg/L 22 Influent pH 7 23 Water Temperature 10.0 deg-C BOD/Nitrification Tank Sizing Summary 24 No. of Tanks Proposed 3 25 Length of Each 28.0 ft 26 Width of Each 28.0 ft 27 Side Water Depth of Each 17 ft 28 Tank Height of Each 20 ft 29 Volume of Each 99,693 gallons 30 Volume Total 299,080 gallons 31 Hydraulic Retention Time at Average Flow 4.3 hours 32 Hydraulic Retention Time at Peak Flow 2.9 hours ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BOD/Nitrification MBBR Aeration Requirement Summary Stage 1 Stage 2 & 3 (Combined) 35 AOR (lbs/day) 1,221 685 36 Assumed Diffuser Subm. at AWL (ft.) 16.25 16.25 37 Elevation (ft.) 4,459 4,459 38 Alpha 0.70 0.70 39 Beta 0.9 0.9 40 Target DO Residual (MBBR Process) (mg/L) 3.0 5.0 41 SOR (lbs/day) 3,294 2,779 42 Target Diffuser Efficiency/ft. Submergence 1.1 1.1 43 Airflow (scfm) 731 617 Post-Anoxic Tank Sizing Summary 44 No. of Tanks Proposed 1 45 Width of Each 28 ft Length of Each 28 ft 46 Side Water Depth of Each 17 ft 47 Volume of Each 99,693 gallons 48 Volume Total 99,693 gallons 49 Hydraulic Retention Time 1.4 hours 50 Total Media Surface Area Requirement 97,776 m2 51 Total Media Surface Area Proposed 98,125 m3 MBBR Blower Requirement Summary 52 No. of Blowers 3 53 Airflow Requirement per Blower 674 scfm 54 Airflow per 1,000 scfm 34 scfm/1,000 cf 55 Discharge Pressure 8.34 psig 56 Assumed Overall Efficiency 0.62 57 Approximate BHP Requirement/Blower 47.3 bhp 58 Approximate BHP Requirement Total 94.6 bhp 59 Estimated Nameplate HP / Blower 50 hp 60 Blower Type Tri-Lobe PD Chemical Quantity Estimates 61 Estimated MicroC per NOx-N Removed 11 lbs/lb. 62 Estimated MicroC Dosage 3,530 lbs/day 63 Estimated MicroC Dosage 365 gpd 64 Assumed Storage Tank Size (to Receive Bulk Truck) 5,500 gallons 65 Estimated HRT in Storage Tank 15 days 66 Estimated Chemical Feed Pump Max. Capacity Rqmt 30.4 gph 67 Estimated Chemical Feed Pump Min. Rt. Rqmt 3.8 gph ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 4 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post-Denite MBBR Effluent Parameters Solids Separation) 68 Effluent BOD 15 mg/L 69 Effluent BOD 208.9 lbs/day 70 Effluent TSS 20 mg/L 71 Effluent TSS 279 lbs/day 72 Effluent NH3-N 1.0 mg/L 73 Effluent NH3-N 13.9 lbs/day 74 Effluent TIN 11.0 mg/L 75 Effluent TIN 153.2 lbs/day 76 Effluent Total N 13.5 mg/L 77 Effluent Total N 188.0 lbs/day 1. FTE = α (SOTE) θ(T-20) (β C*∞T – DO) ÷ C*∞20 field transfer efficiency Where, α contaminant factor {contaminants, depth, bubble-size} (range: 0.40 – 0.70) β TDS factor {total dissolved solids} (range: 0.90-1.00) θ = 1.024 temperature factor DO target dissolved oxygen level (mg/L) C*∞T saturation oxygen concentration at site – adjusted for water depth C*∞20 sat. oxygen concentration at STP conditions – adjusted for water depth T water temperature (Celsius) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NitrOx+D Budgetary Quote Date: 3/13/2017 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 QUOTE TO: Nicole Rediske TD&H Engineering C/O: Ben Lewis Ambiente H2O PREPARED BY: Tom Daugherty, Western Regional Manager Triplepoint Environmental LLC Phone: (208) 699-7090 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] NITROX+D™ NITRIFICATION EQUIPMENT COSTS NitrOx+D Reactor System Equipment: - Engineered to heat and treat an Average Daily Flow of 1,670,000 GPD. - Capable of handling an Influent of NH3-N up to 35 mg/L and producing an Effluent of NH3-N at 1.0 mg/L, TIN at 11 mg/L, and Total N at 13.5 mg/L. - Total Cost: $1,140,420 Standard NitrOx+D Package Quantity Unit MBBR Tank Media: High Surface Area 4 SET Aeration Grid: Stainless Steel 3 EA Media Retention Sieves: Custom Welded 4 EA Heat Exchanger & Boiler: Integrated 1 EA Kaeser Blower EB291C 50HP: Duty 3 EA Kaeser Blower EB291C 50HP: Standby 1 EA Control Panel: NEMA 3R 1 EA Carbon Feed Storage Tank: Micro-C Not Included 1 EA Post Anoxic Tank Mixer 1 EA NitrOx+D Tank Cover: Thermal Shield 4 EA NOT Included: Optional Items Real Time Monitoring: DO, NH3-N, pH, & Temperature Probe…………….…………….……$18,160.00 (DO Probe Control with Blower VFD: Integrated) Triplepoint Installation Kaeser Blower Startup & ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TERMS & CONDITIONS Scope of Supply Triplepoint Environmental will supply all process expertise and equipment as part of this quote. The customer is responsible for the costs associated with the installation and infrastructure needed, including the concrete tanks, pumps (if required), operations building (as needed) and any influent/effluent/connecting piping that may be necessary. Thermal Regulation The NitrOx+D Reactor will achieve nitrification at temperatures water temperatures as low as 4 degrees Centigrade. If the influent water temperature for the reactor is likely to dip below this level in the winter months, a thermal regulation system is necessary to regulate the water temperature in order to guarantee year-round nitrification. Real Time Monitoring & Control System An optional Real Time Monitoring System provides real-time monitoring of various parameters (including but not limited to BOD, COD, DO, NH3-N, pH, Temperature). Monitoring is completed with immersion probes—no reagents required. Telemetry capability can be incorporated such that real-time values can be viewed in remote locations, including via phone app. Payment Terms The quote in this proposal remains valid for a period of 90 days. Fifty percent (50%) is due upon contract acceptance, prior to shipment, forty (40%) is due upon offer to ship, and the final ten percent (10%) is due upon startup by Triplepoint’s personnel. Currency & Taxes All quotes are in United States Dollars. This price does not include local taxes and/or duties as applicable; any additional taxes will be added to final invoice and payable by the customer. A 1% per month late fee will be applied to all past due invoices. Delivery All equipment will be delivered within a period of ten (10) to twenty-four (24) weeks. All packing and shipping costs are FOB ORIGINATION. Optional Equipment & Installation Supervision At the customer’s request Triplepoint Environmental can provide additional equipment as a part of this scope of work. This equipment includes redundant blowers, additional media sieves, variable frequency drives, monitoring equipment, and control panel. Warranty Triplepoint Environmental warrants your NitrOx+D™ products to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of substantial project completion. If a defect is discovered in any of the constituent components covered by this warranty, Triplepoint will repair at our option using new or refurbished components for equal or improved quality. If a suitable repair is not possible, the product will be replaced. All defective parts, assemblies, and products become the property of Triplepoint Environmental. Any soft costs incurred during a warranty claim, including costs associated with removing, shipping and re-installing a warranted component, shall be the responsibility of the customer. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Limits of Liability Triplepoint Environmental shall not be liable for any loss of profits, business, goodwill, interruption of business, nor for incidental or consequential merchantability or fitness of purpose, damages related to this quote. Confidentiality Notice The NitrOx+D™ Process is the subject of one or more confidential patents or patent applications filed in the United States Patent Office, and may be the subject of one or more confidential foreign patent applications, the customer and any other related parties contracted recognize the importance of maintaining the continued confidentiality of the design of the NitrOx+D Process. The customer and any other parties contracted all agree that they shall not sell, transfer or disclose any such confidential information relating to the design of the NitrOx+D Process to any other person, organization, or corporation without the express written authorization of Triplepoint Environmental LLC and pursuant to an enforceable agreement of confidentiality, except as required by law or as necessary in connection with the use, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the system. Additionally, the customer and any other parties contracted all agree to preserve the confidentiality of this proposal and all materials attached and not to distribute or copy such materials for any other party’s not previously authorized by Triplepoint. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MARS Budgetary Quote Date: 4/22/2017 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 QUOTE TO: Nicole Rediske TD&H Engineering C/O: Ben Lewis Ambiente H2O PREPARED BY: Tom Daugherty, Western Regional Manager Triplepoint Environmental LLC Phone: (208) 699-7090 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] MARS™ AERATION EQUIPMENT COSTS MARS AERATOR System Equipment: Design - Designed to Treat 0.1.670 MGD and Supply 8038.6-lbs of Oxygen Per Day. - Capable of injecting air at 6093 SCFM and 6.18 PSI. - Total Cost: $677,650 MARS Aeration Package: Design Quantity Unit MARS 750T Aerators with EPDM Membranes 180 SET 1.5'' Barbed Fittings: Stainless Steel 180 EA 1.5" Weighted Flexible Tubing 3400 LF Aeration Orifice Plate: Air Balancing 180 EA 1.5" Full Port Ball Valve & Fittings: Stainless Steel 180 EA Hose Mender: Stainless Steel 18 SET Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Duty 3 EA Kaeser Blower FB791C 100HP: Standby 1 EA Blower Starter Panel with VFD: NEMA 3R 1 EA NOT Included: Optional Items Real Time Monitoring: DO Probe (depending on options)………………………………….……$6,000-$15,000 Triplepoint Installation Kaeser Blower Startup & Baffle Curtain: 6730 Be Determined) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MARS™ AERATION EQUIPMENT COSTS MARS AERATOR System Equipment: Post NitrOx - Designed to mitigate odors in storage lagoon after the NitrOx. - Total Cost: $134,970 MARS Aeration Package: Nitrification Quantity Unit MARS 750T Aerators with EPDM Membranes 30 SET 1.5'' Barbed Fittings: Stainless Steel 30 EA 1.5" Weighted Flexible Tubing 2500 LF 1.5" Full Port Ball Valve & Fittings: Stainless Steel 30 EA 8 Port Stainless Steel Manifolds (2 caps) EA TERMS & CONDITIONS Scope of Supply Triplepoint Environmental will supply all process expertise and equipment as part of this quote. The customer is responsible for the costs associated with the installation and infrastructure needed, including the concrete tanks, pumps (if required), operations building (as needed) and any influent/effluent/connecting piping that may be necessary. Payment Terms The quote in this proposal remains valid for a period of 90 days. Fifty percent (50%) is due upon contract acceptance, prior to shipment, forty percent (40%) is due upon offer to ship, and the final ten percent (10%) is due upon startup by Triplepoint’s personnel. Currency & Taxes All quotes are in United States Dollars. This price does not include local taxes and/or duties as applicable; any additional taxes will be added to final invoice and payable by the customer. A 1% per month late fee will be applied to all past due invoices Delivery All equipment will be delivered within a period of ten (10) to twenty-four (24) weeks. All packing and shipping costs are FOB ORIGINATION. Optional Equipment & Installation Supervision At the customer’s request Triplepoint Environmental can provide additional equipment and installation supervision as a part of this scope of work. This equipment includes redundant blowers, baffles, liner, surface laterals, variable frequency drives, monitoring equipment, and control panel. A Triplepoint certified project manager can provide installation supervision, inspection, testing, training and startup for a minimum of three days during installation. Warranty Triplepoint Environmental warrants your MARS™ products to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of substantial project completion. If a defect is discovered in any of the constituent components covered by this warranty, Triplepoint will repair at our option using new or refurbished components for equal or improved quality. If a suitable repair is not possible, the product will be replaced. All defective parts, assemblies, and products become the property of Triplepoint Environmental. Any soft costs incurred during a warranty claim, including costs associated with removing, shipping and re-installing a warranted component, shall be the responsibility of the customer. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 3 Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Limits of Liability Triplepoint Environmental shall not be liable for any loss of profits, business, goodwill, interruption of business, nor for incidental or consequential merchantability or fitness of purpose, damages related to this quote. Confidentiality Notice The MARS™ Processes are the subject of one or more confidential patents or patent applications filed in the United States Patent Office, and may be the subject of one or more confidential foreign patent applications, the customer and any other related parties contracted recognize the importance of maintaining the continued confidentiality of the design of the MARS Processes. The customer and any other parties contracted all agree that they shall not sell, transfer or disclose any such confidential information relating to the design of the MARS Processes to any other person, organization, or corporation without the express written authorization of Triplepoint Environmental LLC and pursuant to an enforceable agreement of confidentiality, except as required by law or as necessary in connection with the use, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the system. Additionally, the customer and any other parties contracted all agree to preserve the confidentiality of this proposal and all materials attached and not to distribute or copy such materials for any other party’s not previously authorized by Triplepoint. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Page 1 of 2 NitrOx Annual Opperating Costs Date: 4/12/17 Project Name: Belgrade, MT Project Number: 2672 Pressure 8.34 psi Brake horsepower 94.6 bhp Motor Efficiency 95% Cost per Kwh $0.09 Power Consumed 74.68 kW Hourly Cost $6.72 /hr Daily Cost $161.32 /day Cost $4,908.90 /mon Annual Cost $58,906.84 /yr NitrOx Aeration with Kaeser Blower 1 This is the total rated hp from the info plates mounted on all motors. 2 This is what percent of the maximum rated horsepower, the motors are running at. Normally this should be 75-80%. If the motors are constantly burning out, use 95- 105%. Note: All costs are in United States Dollars Estimated MicroC Dosage 365 GPD Estimated MicroC Dosage 3,530 lbs/Day Estimated MicroC Feed 3.8 GPH Price Per MicroC Gallon $2.10 Gallon Price Per Day $766.50 Day Price Per Year $279,772.50 Year NitrOx MicroC Dosage Note: All costs are in United States Dollars ---PAGE BREAK--- Copyright 2017, Triplepoint Environmental, LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Page 2 of 2 Gallons Per Day 1,670,000.00 gpd Gallons Per Hour Q = 69583 gph Water density ρ = 8.34 lb/gal Water mass flow W = W*ρ W = 580,322 lb/hr Final temperature T2 = 41 °F Initial temperature T1 = 37 °F Temperature rise ΔT = T2 - T1 ΔT 4 °F Energy required Eh = W*ΔT Eh = 2,321,288 Btu/hr Energy Required/day Ed = Eh*24 Ed = 55,710,912 Btu/day Energy required/week Ew = Eh*24*7 Ew = 389,976,384 Btu/week HX efficiency e = 83.00% Efficiency adjustment Ed' = Ed/e Ed' = 67,121,581 Btu/day Efficiency adjustment Ew' = Ew/e Ew' = 469,851,065 Btu/week Therms/day Th = Ed'/100000 Th = 671.22 Therms/day Therms/week Th = Ew'/100000 Th = 4,698.51 Therms/week Cost Per Therm $1.10 $/Therm Cost C = Th*1.1 C = $738.34 /day Cost C = Th*1.1 C = $5,168.36 /week Cost C = Th*1.1 C = $22,519.37 /month Cost C = Th*1.1 C = $270,232.44 /year Natural Gas NitrOx Heating Cost Calculation Note: This pricing assumes $1.10/100,000 BTU. Heating of the NitrOx System is only required when temperature drops below 4C. All heating costs are calculated at heating the water up to a conservative 5C°, instead of the required 4C°. ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: FW: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) From: Tom Birkeland <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 4/7/2017 10:34 AM Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Attachments: Upflow Sand Filter.pdf Nicole, Thanks for getting back to me. Please see the answers below in red. Let me know if you need any other information. Best regards, Tom Birkeland Lemna Environmental Technologies O: (612) 2531968 / C: (612) 6168392 / E: [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Nicole Rediske [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 2:48 PM To: Tom Birkeland Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Good Afternoon Tom, I have been looking through the information you sent over and was hoping you could clarify something for me: • are the diffusers in the complete mix cell and settling cell the same fine bubble diffusers? The two types of diffusers are essentially the same of the flexible membrane tube type. The difference is in their The high rate diffusers are 4’ long and supply 18 SCFM, while the lowrate diffusers are 2’ long and supply 9 SCFM. • I just wanted to make sure no biological or chemical additives would be required for the LPR. This is correct. The bacteria naturally establish colonies on the surface of the fixed film reactor without any chemical or biological additives. • For the denitrification filters, is there any brochures or literature you could forward on to me? I have attached some diagrams of the filter. A description is below: “The upflow, gravity filter is a moving bed design that provides a continuous supply of filtered water without the interruptions of backwash cleaning cycles. Influent enters the center of the filter through a feed chamber and flows downward through the central feed chamber and radial arm system. Filtered water is collected in the effluent nozzle located at the top of the filter cell after passing through a minimum of 80 inches of filter media. Solids captured in the filter bed are drawn downward with the sand into the suction of an airlift pump. The turbulent, upward flow in the airlift provides a scrubbing action that effectively separates the sand and solids before discharging into the filter washbox. The washbox is a baffled chamber that allows for gravity Page 1 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- separation of the cleaned sand and the concentrated waste solids. This process is accomplished by utilizing filtrate water to clean the contaminated sand. From here, the regenerated sand is returned to the top of the filter bed, and the solids, or “reject”, are piped to a suitable disposal point.” is the carbon needed for the filter available through LEMNA and is it included in the $1.2 million estimate I did not include the cost of the chemical feed equipment in the $1.2 million estimate. I think that this would add on another $5060K. The carbon source would also be additional. There are many alternatives available including MicroC and methanol. ◦do you have an idea on how often the filters will need to be replaced? If operated and maintained properly, the media in the sand filters should not need to be replaced. Thank you for all of your help on this. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you with my questions. Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Tom Birkeland <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 3/20/2017 10:32 AM Nicole, Just following up with you regarding the TN solution for Belgrade, MT. As per my previous email, our proposed design utilizes one of the existing lagoons to handle a total design flow of 1.67 MGD. Following the treatment lagoon, a Lemna Polishing Reactor (LPR) will provide additional BOD removal and ammonia treatment. Denitrification would be accomplished via carbon addition and filtration through media filters after the LPR. The media filters have an approximate footprint of 10’ x 10’, and a total of 6 would be required for this project. The cost of the filters is approximately $1,200,000. One of the benefits to this approach is that it maintains the simple, flow through process of a lagoon system in place. I will followup with you today to see if you require any other additional information. Best regards, Tom Birkeland Lemna Environmental Technologies O: (612) 2531968 / C: (612) 6168392 / E: [EMAIL REDACTED] Page 2 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Nicole Rediske [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:18 AM To: Tom Birkeland Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; Camille Johnson; Dustin Nett; Wade DeBoo Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Hello Tom, Thank you for getting that proposal to me. I see that the treatment system is very efficient at removing ammonia from the wastewater, does much denitrification occur to remove the nitrates? The City's discharge permit sets limits on total nitrogen loading to each of the IP Beds. Any upgrades to the City's treatment system will need to maintain total nitrogen concentrations of 13.5 mg/l in the effluent. I was also wondering if a headworks facility will be required for this system? Currently the City does not have one but we are considering including one in suggested upgrades. Finally, any information you can provide on the following would be very helpful: • Details regarding the Polishing Reactor including cut sheets, maintenance information, ect. • Projected power consumption at a range of flow rates under the design flow rate • Maintenance information for the aeration system • Details on the blowers including size and air requirements Thanks again for all of your help. Please let me know if you have any questions. Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Tom Birkeland <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 1/25/2017 10:48 AM Nicole, Please find the attached proposal and design drawing for the Belgrade Lagoon Project. We are upgrading the aeration in one of the existing lagoons and adding our polishing reactor on the backend to achieve the performance requirements. Page 3 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Once you have had a chance to review the proposal and design, please feel free to contact me with any questions or for more detail regarding our process design. Thanks again for contacting us regarding this opportunity and best regards, Tom Birkeland Lemna Environmental Technologies O: (612) 2531968 / C: (612) 6168392 / E: [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Nicole Rediske [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:00 AM To: Tom Birkeland Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: FW: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Tom, I have attached all the pond inflow/outflow data that I currently have. There is a period between March 2011 and Oct 2013 that I am still trying to get my hands on. Also, the operators try to keep the DO concentration around 2 mg/l within the treatment ponds. The construction of the existing ponds finished up in July 2004. And lastly, I misspoke yesterday, the treatment ponds have static tube aerators, not the fine bubble diffusers. The storage lagoon does have the surface aerators still. Thank you and let me know if you have any further questions. Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Tom Birkeland <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 1/9/2017 10:33 AM Nicole, Page 4 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Thanks for taking the time to speak with me today regarding the Belgrade project. If you could send over any effluent data you have on the system that would help us assess current and future performance of the lagoons. The treatment lagoons are aerated with a fine bubble diffuser system, while the settling pond has surface aerators. Also, as we discussed the current permit allows for a maximum of 7274 pound per day of N for each of the individual IP beds. This number may change with the new permit. We will take these factors along with the influent data you sent over when we propose possible upgrades to the system. Thanks and best regards, Tom Birkeland Lemna Environmental Technologies O: (612) 2531968 / C: (612) 6168392 / E: [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Scott Forsling [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 5:04 PM To: Tom Birkeland Subject: Fwd: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Hi Tom— Please see below from TD&H for Belgrade, MT. Thanks, Scott Forsling, PE Coombs Hopkins Company [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Begin forwarded message: From: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Belgrade, MT Wastewater Lagoons Design Conditions (B16-048) Date: January 6, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM MST Page 5 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- To: <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Camille Johnson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Dustin Nett <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Wade DeBoo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Good Afternoon Scott, I met with you about a month ago in Great Falls, MT and discussed LEMNA's aerated lagoons. TD&H is currently working with the City of Belgrade on a Wastewater Master Plan. Part of that Master Plan will be evaluating the current treatment lagoons and assessing possible improvements. I was hoping you would be able to provide me with an estimate for LEMNA's aerated lagoon system's performance with the following design conditions: • This is a municipal system that does not take in any industrial waste • Currently there are three ponds, 2 treatment ponds and 1 pond ◦ Ponds 1 & 2 (treatment ponds) ◾Aerated Lagoons ◾Water surface area is about 7 acres each. (554' x 550') ◾Operating depth is 10 feet in both ◾Each has a volume of about 16 MG ◾Sides slopes are 4:1 ◾7 feet of free board ◦Pond 3 (storage pond) ◾Water surface area is about 15.8 acres (580' X 1185') ◾Operating depth is 19.25 feet ◾Volume is 81.5 MG ◾Side slopes are 3:1 ◾3 feet of free board ◦If at all possible, we would like to keep the same footprint • Design flows ◦Average day=1.67 MG ◦Peaking factor=2.7 ◦Peak hour flow=4.51 MG • Influent wastewater data ◦I have attached concentration data for the influent wastewater from Nov 2013 to Dec 2016. The average concentrations are listed below: ◾Ammonia (as N) = 34.3 mg/l ◾Total Nitrogen = 63.5 mg/l ◾BOD = 407.7 mg/l Page 6 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- ◾TSS= 271.3 mg/l ◾Nitrates + Nitrites (as 0.5 mg/l ◾TKN (as N)=63.0 mg/l • Currently the lagoons discharge to three IP beds and an irrigation system • Treatment requirements ◦85% TSS and BOD removal ◦The current groundwater discharge permit sets limits on total nitrogen loading to each IP bed and TN concentrations are the end of the mixing zone. I am most an LEMcurious about the amount of nitrogen removal NA system could achieve. Please do not hesitate to contact me and [PHONE REDACTED] if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you and Happy New Year. Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 7 of 7 4/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INNOVATIVE WASTEWATER SOLUTIONS M u n i c i p a l a n d I n d u s t r i a l T r e a t m e n t LemTec TMProcess ---PAGE BREAK--- The LemTec™ Biological Treatment Process (LBTP) treats wastewater as it flows through a series of aerated lagoons that are divided by baffles to reduce short-circuiting. In colder climates, each cell is covered by a LemTec™ Modular Cover, which enhances system kinetics, retains heat, controls odors, and prevents algae growth. In warmer climates, it may be necessary to cover only the final settling cell in order to promote digestion of sludge and prevent algae growth. Additional technologies, including the Lemna Polishing Reactor and the Lemna Phosphorus Removal System, may also be used for enhanced nutrient removal. THE LEADER IN LAGOON PROCESS TECHNOLOGY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IS OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY . . . “The installation went very well, and the performance of the system has been excellent. We have been within our discharge limits since the installation, and have been more than satisfied with the performance of this system. I would most certainly recommend the Lemna system to other municipalities which use oxidation ponds and find themselves having problems with discharge limits.” Operator - R.D., Louisiana “Lemna is definitely a leader rather than a follower. In addition, the LemTec™ Biological Treatment Process has over the last two years proven to be an excellent choice. The installation process is simple yet effective in its high degree performance and low maintenance cost.” Client - B.L., New Hampshire “It has been a pleasure to work with Lemna Technologies. The service and support is fast and friendly.” Client - P.V., Wisconsin ---PAGE BREAK--- LEMTEC TM PROCESS FAMILY LemTec™ Biological Treatment Process is an effective, reliable and affordable solution for existing aerated municipal and industrial wastewater lagoon facilities. The system incorporates the LemTec™ Modular Cover to create a reduced footprint and an operation that is virtually odor-free. The LemTec™ system is the highest performing pond-based aerated lagoon process in the world. Utilizing a series of aerobic treatment cells followed by an anaerobic settling zone and polishing reactor, the LemTec™ Process is capable of achieving year-round effluent limits as low as 10 mg/l BOD, 15 mg/l TSS and 2 mg/l NH3-N for typical municipal or pre-treated industrial wastewater. Other nutrients such as Phosphorus can also be addressed within the process. EXISTING LAGOONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION LemTec™ Facultative Treatment Process is an effective, reliable and affordable solution for existing facultative municipal and industrial wastewater lagoon facilities. At a fraction of the cost of other traditional systems, the LemTec™ Facultative Treatment Process is unmatched in its ability to meet stringent effluent limits that other traditional pond-based systems can't reach. Utilizing a series of facultative treatment cells followed by a covered settling zone and Lemna Polishing Reactor, the LemTec™ Process is capable of achieving year-round effluent limits as low as 10 mg/l BOD, 15 mg/l TSS and 2 mg/l NH3-N. ---PAGE BREAK--- BOD REMOVAL Achieving BOD levels below 10 mg/l reliably and consistently throughout the year. BOD removal to below 30 mg/l is accomplished in the complete mix and partial mix cells of the treatment process with final polishing to below 10 mg/l in the Lemna Polishing Reactor, if required. Lemna's design minimizes temperature fluctuations and the adverse treatment effects of peak flow events on BOD removal. Our low horsepower design is efficient in both aeration and mixing and requires a smaller footprint that is typically 12 days or less in detention time. NEW HAMPSHIRE BOD DATA Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 BOD (mg/l) 50 250 300 350 400 200 150 100 EFFLUENT INFLUENT Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Source: Independent Laboratory Actual Data INFLUENT FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSER FLOATING MODULAR COVER AERATION LATERAL ASPIRATOR/MIXER HYDRAULIC BAFFLE DIFFUSER FEEDER LINE AERATION HEADER PIPE AERATION CELLS (PLAN VIEW) ---PAGE BREAK--- TSS REMOVAL Lemna's settling cell - a clarifier without the moving parts. The settling pond, covered with the LemTec™ Modular Cover, creates an effective zone for clarification of biosolids. The cover prevents algae growth by eliminating sunlight and improves clarification in two ways: 1) it prevents wind action on the water surface, thereby establishing a quiescent zone for solids to settle; and 2) the insulation minimizes seasonal and diurnal temperature fluctuation thereby reducing stirring by thermal currents. In addition, the anaerobic environment in the settling pond digests the biosolids significantly over time with no sludge disposal required for at least 5 to 7 years. NEW HAMPSHIRE TSS DATA Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 TSS (mg/l) 50 250 300 350 400 200 150 100 EFFLUENT INFLUENT Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb SETTLING CELL INFLUENT FLOATING MODULAR COVER Source: Independent Laboratory Actual Data TSS REMOVAL SETTLING CELL FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSER (PLAN VIEW) ---PAGE BREAK--- THE LEMTEC TM BIOLOGIC CUSTOM-DESIGNED TO ME “Since installation, we have noticed excellent odor control, algae control, and our effluent test levels are remarkable. To encourage the choice of Lemna Technologies products, we welcome anyone interested to tour our facilities and/or review our weekly test results.” Client - J.R., Iowa “We have done numerous projects over the last five years using Lemna Technologies Inc., and I highly recommend this company. They are very proficient, have excellent take-offs, detailed instructions, the product is easy to install and their supervisors are knowledgeable and skilled. We look forward to the next opportunity to work with them.” Contractor - T.S., Louisiana Lemna’s cover and staff have provided performance as promised. Anytime we’ve had questions related to technical support, Lemna has been prompt in their response. I can safely state that maintenance on our cover has been virtually non-existent, and I highly recommend Lemna for anyone considering them for a cover or liner.” Client - R.L., Minnesota INFLUENT WALKWAY CASING COMPLETE MIX CELL ASPIRATOR/MIXER FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSER AERATION LATERAL LEMNA’S REVERSE MITER DESIGN HYDRAULIC BAFFLE PARTIAL MIX CELL CONTR ---PAGE BREAK--- CAL TREATMENT PROCESS ET YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS! ROL PANEL SETTLING CELL EFFLUENT INFLUENT PRE-AERATION AMMONIA POLISHING MODULES BOD POLISHING MODULES COARSE BUBBLE AERATION RACK AERATION FEEDER LINES AERATION LATERALS WITH ISOLATION VALVES PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL INFLUENT FLASH MIXER DOSING CONTROL PANEL CHEMICAL STORAGE TO SETTLING POND (CROSS SECTION) POLISHING REACTOR FLOATING MODULAR COVER ---PAGE BREAK--- AMMONIA REMOVAL The Lemna Polishing Reactor (LPR) reduces Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) and BOD. The majority of both BOD and Ammonia removal in the Lemna design occurs in the complete mix cell. However, the LPR is included in the LBTP design to meet low BOD5 (<10 mg/l) and NH3 mg/l) limits if required. The LPR utilizes fixed media to promote an environment for submerged attached-growth bacteria. The LPR is composed of stainless steel hardware and frames that compress UV resistant PVC media, making the reactor sturdy and one of the best filters in the industry. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month 10 NH3 (mg/l) 40 30 20 ILLINOIS AMMONIA DATA 50 0 Feb Oct Nov 60 70 EFFLUENT INFLUENT INFLUENT PRE-AERATION AMMONIA POLISHING MODULES BOD POLISHING MODULES COARSE BUBBLE AERATION RACK AERATION FEEDER LINES AERATION LATERALS WITH ISOLATION VALVES POLISHING REACTOR Source: Independent Laboratory Actual Data ---PAGE BREAK--- We use a chemical dosing system, low horsepower pumps and mixers that make operation easy. Phosphorus is precipitated chemically by the addition of coagulants, including alum or ferric chloride. Precipitation causes contaminants that are either dissolved or suspended to settle out of solution as solid floc particles that are removed along with waste biological sludge. Our system is low cost and reliable. WISCONSIN PHOSPHORUS DATA Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 5 25 20 15 10 INFLUENT Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb EFFLUENT 35 30 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL INFLUENT FLASH MIXER DOSING CONTROL PANEL CHEMICAL STORAGE TO SETTLING POND (CROSS SECTION) Source: Independent Laboratory Actual Data PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- CASE HISTORY AERATED LAGOON UPGRADES CASE STUDY: JASONVILLE, INDIANA PROJECT BACKGROUND: The wastewater treatment plant, located in Jasonville, Indiana, was an existing lagoon system that no longer performed to the new environmental regulations for Ammonia. The Ammonia removal process, which is difficult in any wastewater treatment system, is especially complex in cold weather climates like Jasonville. This system was designed to incorporate the existing lagoons and aeration equipment to create the most cost effective system. There were two existing large wastewater treatment ponds. The entire first pond was incorporated into this design and half of the second pond was used by constructing a berm in that pond. The aeration pond has a detention time of 15.8 days. The aeration cell is partially mixed. New diffused aeration was added to supplement the existing aeration. The third cell is a settling cell with a detention time of 7.4 days. The settling pond is followed by a Lemna Polishing Reactor (LPR) consisting of sixteen media modules for effluent polishing. SITE PERFORMANCE: The Jasonville facility provides reliable removal of CBOD, TSS and Ammonia over a wide range of operating conditions including high flows, cold operating temperatures and variable loads. JASONVILLE CBOD DATA Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 CBOD (mg/l) 5 25 20 15 10 EFFLUENT EFFLUENT LIMIT Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Source: USEPA Environment and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database JASONVILLE TSS DATA EFFLUENT EFFLUENT LIMIT Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 TSS (mg/l) 5 25 20 15 10 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Source: USEPA Environment and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database JASONVILLE AMMONIA DATA EFFLUENT EFFLUENT LIMIT Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Month 0 NH3 (mg/l) 5 25 20 15 10 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Source: USEPA Environment and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database ---PAGE BREAK--- FLEXIBLE DESIGNS New or existing lagoons Reliable at high or low flows Easy to expand for future flows Designs for any climate EASY TO OPERATE Minimal operator requirements No complicated sludge handling No solids return/recycle Start-up and operator training provided AFFORDABLE Small footprint and land required Minimal HP required Low operator costs Simple construction FEATURES AND BENEFITS PROVEN TECHNOLOGY 25 years of experience The leader in lagoon nitrification Dedicated to the environment “The city purchased a turn-key wastewater treatment facility over 20 years ago. I would recommend Lemna to any community or industry in need of water treatment.” Client - J.M., North Dakota ---PAGE BREAK--- WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPERTS LEMNA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2445 PARK AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, U.S.A. 55404-3790 PHONE: (612) 253-2002 FAX: (612) 253-2003 E-MAIL: [EMAIL REDACTED] WWW.LEMNATECHNOLOGIES.COM Lemna has been the world leader for more than 25 years in high-performance lagoon-based wastewater treatment technologies. We have 100’s of treatment facilities with installations on four continents. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Lemna designs and installs systems for all municipal and industrial applications. Lemna provides a full range of wastewater design and engineering services, backed by exceptional results and customer service. “LEMNA PROVIDES A SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROBLEMS” ---PAGE BREAK--- Lemna Technologies, Inc. Engineering Belgrade, MT Rev. 0 1/17/2017 Wastewater Data Summer Winter Summer Winter Site Data Flow 1.67 1.67 MGD Winter Air Temperature 23 oF BOD 408 408 mg/L 30 30 mg/L Winter Air Temperature -5.0 oC TSS 272 272 mg/L 30 30 mg/L Elevation 4459 ft AMSL Ammonia 63 63 mg/L 2.0 2.0 mg/L Atmospheric Pressure 12.5 psia Total Nitrogen - - - - mg/L Distance to Site 1003 miles Phosphorus - - mg/L - - mg/L Basin # 1 Included? yes Influent Temperature 10.0 oC Flow 1.7 MGD Covered? yes Water Depth 10.0 ft Freeboard 7.0 ft Slope 4.0 to 1 Length (waterline) 554 ft Width (waterline) 550 ft Length (bottom) 474 ft Width (bottom) 470 ft Length (at top of berm) 610 ft Width (at top of berm) 606 ft Cover Area 304,700 sf Floor Area 222,780 sf Volume 2,606,697 cf Volume 19.5 MG Detention Time 11.7 days Selected R (Nominal) 8.0 ºF·hr·sqft/BTU Delta T 1.89 oF Heat Loss Rate 1,099,593 BTU/hr Heat Balance Convergence 0.0 Water Temperature 48.1 oF Covered Basin Temp. 8.9 ºC Uncovered Basin Temp. 0.0 oC Cell Sizing Cell Mixing Det Time Depth (ft) Winter Temp. Rate (d-1) CBOD5 In CBOD5 Out NH3 In NH3 Out Nitrification? 1A CM 4.2 10.0 9.6 4.5 408 12 63 46 no 1B SC 7.5 10.0 8.9 12 12 46 46 no Cell Mixing Det Time Depth (ft) Summer Temp Rate (d-1) CBOD5 In CBOD5 Out NH3 In NH3 Out Nitrification? 1A CM 4.2 10.0 20.0 6.0 408 11 63 0.6 yes 1B SC 7.5 10.0 20.0 11 11 0.6 0.6 no Aeration and Mixing Requirements Cell Mixing CBOD5 (lb/d) NH3 (lb/d) CBOD5 (SCFM) NH3 (SCFM) Mixing (SCFM) Benthal Air (SCFM) Asp. Air (HP) Sup. Mixer (HP) Nitrification Air? Benthal Air 1A CM 5,530 877 3,336 2,435 5,711 0 569 -2 yes 0% 1B SP 0 0 0 0 0 1668 169 no 100% Equipment Selection Cell Diffuser Type Air per Diffuser (SCFM) No. of Diffusers No. of Laterals Lateral Length (ft) No. of Units Aspirator - Hp No. of Units Mixer - Hp Air Flow (SCFM) 1A HR 18 325 10 510 0 0.0 0 0.0 5850 1B LR 9 192 8 510 0 0.0 0 0.0 1728 0 0 Total 517 18 0 0 7578 Stabilization Estimated Stabilization Area 192,387 sf Sludge Density 5% Biodegradable Solids 1,702 lbs/d Rate of Sludge Accumulation 1.51 MG/year Nondegradable Solids 1722 lbs/d Desludging Volume 6 MG Stabilzation Loading Rate 43 g-solids/m2/d Desludging Interval 4.2 years LPR Sizing Winter LPR Aeration Winter Temperature 8.9 deg. C Cube Total 176 Cubes Influent CBOD5 12 mg/L Media Depth 8 ft Effluent CBOD5 12 mg/L BOD Oxygen Requirement 0 lbs/day BOD Load 0 lbs/d NH3 Oxygen Requirement 2,803 lbs/day BOD Cube Density 48 sf/cf Total Oxygen Requirement 2,803 lbs/day Loading Rate 0.00169 lb-CBOD5/sf/d Transfer Efficiency 13.3% BOD Cubes Required 0 Cubes LPR Aeration 1,700 SCFM Influent Ammonia 46 mg/L LPR Mixing 1760 SCFM Effluent Ammonia 2 mg/L Ammonia Load 609 lbs/day Channels 16 Channels NH3 Cube Density 69 sf/cf Spaces per Channel 11 Cubes Loading Rate 0.00018 lb-NH3/sf/d Unused Spaces 0 Spaces NH3 Cubes Required 172 Cubes Detention Time 10.6 Hours Blower Sizing Transfer Rates for Mechanical Aeration Maximum Water Depth 10 Feet Blower Efficiency 66.8 % SOTR 2.0 lb-O2/HP/hr Aeration Req. 9,338 SCFM Blower Motor Power Req. 443.4 BHP OTR, summer 0.70 lb-O2/HP/hr Mass Air Flow 11.7 lb/s Number of Blowers 4 Units OTR, winter 0.79 Outlet Blower Pressure 5.63 psig Suggested Blower Size 200 HP Equipment Summary Insulated Cover Aeration Aeration LPR Blower Packages Cover 314,600 square feet Total Length 9180 1408 feet Blower 4 Packages R-Value 8 R Laterals 18 16 Motor 200 HP Walkway Casings Adder 71,280 square feet Diameter 4 4 inches Enclosure No (Yes/No) LR Diffusers 192 0 units Hydraulic Baffle HR Diffusers 325 0 units Aspirators and Mixers Number HP Total Baffle Length 554 ft 2HR Diffusers 0 0 units Aspirator Size #1 0 0 Baffle Depth 11 ft Aspirator Size #2 0 0 Number of Baffles 1 LPR Mixer Size #1 0 0 BOD Cube 0 Cubes Mixer Size #2 0 0 Mooring Equipment Ammonia Cube 176 Cubes Cable 0 feet Cube Depth 8 feet Panels Posts 0 units Lateral Connections 176 number Number of Panels 1 Panels PEG 2013 Version 2.0 K:\PropUS\MT\Belgrade\Eng\Belgrade PEG_1-17-2017 3/3/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- LEMTEC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESS BELGRADE, MT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PROPOSAL FOR: BELGRADE, MT PREPARED FOR: Nicole Rediske TD&H Engineering Great Falls, MT PREPARED BY: TOM BIRKELAND DIRECTOR OF SALES LET LEMTEC™ BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESS Proposal Number: 1550 Revision Number: 0 January 25, 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION Thank you for including Lemna in the planning of the Belgrade, MT wastewater treatment facility. Based on the information provided, we have developed a preliminary design and budget estimate for this project. The objective of our proposed system is to provide the best possible biological treatment solution capable of meeting or exceeding your requirements in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. This proposal has been prepared for Ms. Nicole Rediske, who is currently evaluating treatment alternatives, and is interested in products/technologies that can provide improvements to the existing facility, in order to accommodate projected flows as well as meet BOD, TSS and ammonia limits. Lemna Environmental Technologies’ proposed process design is based upon the following design parameters and site data. DESIGN PARAMETERS Influent Summer Influent Winter Effluent Summer Effluent Winter Flow 1.67 1.67 MGD CBOD5 408 408 mg/L 30 30 mg/L TSS 272 272 mg/L 30 30 mg/L Ammonia 63 63 mg/L 2 2 mg/L The proposed design described below will achieve the basic requirements and provide a number of advantages to the end user which are unmatched by alternative technologies. The LemTec™ process is capable of achieving year-round effluent limits of 20 mg/l BOD, 20 mg/l TSS and 1.5 mg/l NH3-N at a fraction of the cost of other traditional wastewater treatment systems. With a reduced footprint, a process that is extremely reliable, and simple to operate, the LemTec™ process is the highest performance lagoon-based package in the world and offers numerous advantages over other systems, including lower capital and operating costs, expandability and low maintenance. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN OVERVIEW This proposed design utilizes one of the existing lagoons to handle a total design flow of 1.67 MGD. The depth of the lagoon will be 10’ for the purposes of this design. Following the treatment lagoon, the LemTecTM Polishing Reactor (LRR) will provide additional ammonia treatment. For this design, the lagoon will be divided into two cells using Lemna’s custom designed LemTec™ Reverse Miter Hydraulic, which will be installed to minimize short-circuiting between each cell. The first cell will be a complete mix cell with a detention time of 4.2 days. The complete mix zone of the LBTP process is an aerated, aggressively mixed cell that establishes an environment suitable for the rapid removal of BOD5 by heterotrophic bacteria. The reduction of BOD5 is calculated using state-of-the-art “mechanistic” models that relate to the growth of bacteria and removal of BOD5 in relation to detention time and wastewater temperature. Similar models are currently used for the design of activated sludge plants. In addition to BOD5 removal, ammonia is also removed by heterotrophic bacteria present in the complete mix cell. Ammonia is utilized by the bacteria to support its nitrogen requirement for growth. Also, nitrifier growth will occur in the complete mix cell resulting in additional (and significant) ammonia reduction. Aeration and mixing will be provided by fine bubble diffusers. Following the complete mix cell, water will flow into a settling cell with a detention time of 7.5 days. Both the cells in the proposed design will be covered by Lemna’s LemTec™ Modular Insulated Cover rated at R8. The LemTec™ Cover prevents algae growth by eliminating sunlight below the cover and improves clarification in two ways: 1) it prevents wind action on the water surface thereby establishing a quiescent zone for solids to settle, and 2) the insulation minimizes seasonal and diurnal temperature fluctuations, thereby reducing stirring by thermal currents. The LemTec™ Cover improves TSS removal, provides algae prevention and encourages nitrification by regulating temperatures within the treatment system. Following the treatment lagoon, the LemTec™ Polishing Reactor will provide additional BOD and ammonia treatment. The LPR consists of submerged, attached-growth media modules used for maintaining an adequate population of bacteria. The LPR enhances the growth of nitrification bacteria to encourage conversion of ammonia to nitrates in an aerobic environment. Aeration is provided by rack-mounted coarse-bubble diffusers located under the media, which evenly distribute the air and shear coarse bubbles into very fine bubbles. The LPR produces BOD and TSS effluent levels less than 10 mg/l and NH3-N as low as 1 mg/l. Typically housed in a concrete or metal structure near the effluent of the pond, the LPR is the final stage of the lagoon based LemTec Biological Treatment Process. The approximate size of the proposed LPR for this option is 128’x88’x12’. ---PAGE BREAK--- The oxygen requirements for the LPR will be met 200 HP blowers, of which 3 will be in continuous operation. A schematic of the proposed design is attached for your reference. DESIGN SUMMARY Water Depth (ft) Freeboard (ft) Slope Waterline Length (ft) Waterline Width (ft) Volume (MG) Detention Time (days) Basin # 1 10 7 4 554 550 19.5 11.7 Mixing Detention Time (days) Winter Temp. Cell 1A CM 4.2 9.6 Cell 1B SC 7.5 8.9 A summary of the equipment supplied is provided in the table below: EQUIPMENT SUMMARY Cover Baffle Blower Cubes Diffusers Sq. Ft. Qty. Ft. Qty. HP 6'x6'x8' Units Aeration Pond 304,700 1 554 4 200 Complete Mix 325 Settling 192 LPR 9,900 176 DESIGN LAYOUT/DRAWINGS Layout drawings are included. LET PROJECT SUPPLY SCOPE Engineering/Technical Services Lemna System Design Recommendations Lemna System Equipment Details Lemna System Plans and Specifications Lemna Design Calculations ---PAGE BREAK--- Regulatory Technical Support Equipment Supply LemTecTM Insulated Cover LemTecTM Aeration System LemTec™ LPR Installation/Start-Up/Training Equipment Installation Supervision (Lemna Equip.) Process Start-Up/Training (Lemna Process) Ongoing Technical Support LET PROJECT PRICING By others: Civil Design, Electrical Design, Mechanical Design, Other Design Services (if required). Pond De-Sludging, Site Work/Improvements, Concrete Structures, Septic Tanks, Yard Piping (out of basin),Electrical Service to Site, Interconnect Wiring (Equipment to Equipment/ Remote Disconnect/MCCs/Control Panels). Proposed pricing is based on available information and is valid for 60 days. Prices are in US funds and do not include any applicable taxes. All sales are subject to LET’s standard terms and conditions. Proposed price subject to change based on changes in final design and final scope at time of bid or based on size changes at time of final survey. Typical equipment lead time is 6-12 weeks after approval of final submittals. Equipment lead time is subject to change based on size of project, complexity of design, customer requirements and shop-loading at time of order. LIMITED WARRANTY All LET supplied components are warranted against manufacturer’s defects for a period of twelve months. This warranty does not cover wear or damage caused by improper installation, operation or maintenance. In the event of a manufacturer’s defect, Lemna will repair or replace the damaged component. A process warranty based on the design parameters included as part of this proposal. This process warranty is contingent upon the full supply by LET of all equipment detailed in this proposal. Equipment/Services Equipment Freight (estimate) $ 2,893,054 $ 155,946 Total Proposed Price $ 2,995,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- A= Cross sectional area (SF) Q= flow rate (SCFM) Pa= Prevailing absolute pressure. Sea level is 14.7 Pd= compressor gauge pressure minus the prevailing absolute V= Design pipe velocity (ft/sec) * Velocity not to exceed 30 ft/sec Pipe Diameter=SQRT(A*4/3.14) A=(144*Q*Pa)/(V*60*(Pd+Pa)) Treatment Lagoons LEMNA Proposal Q= 7578 scfm Pa= 12.5 psi Pd= 5.63 psi V= 30 ft/sec A= 330.9018 square inches Pipe Diameter= 20.53122 Triplepoint Proposal Q= 6093 scfm Pa= 12.5 psi Pd= 6.18 psi V= 30 ft/sec A= 258.224 square inches Pipe Diameter= 18.13692 Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan Preliminary Air Header Sizing ---PAGE BREAK--- Nitrification Reactor LEMNA Proposal Q= 1790 scfm Pa= 12.5 psi Pd= 5.63 psi V= 30 ft/sec A= 78.16235 square inches Pipe Diameter= 9.97847 inches Q= 2022 scfm Pa= 12.5 psi Pd= 8.34 psi V= 30 ft/sec A= 76.81142 square inches Pipe Diameter= 9.891862 inches Triplepoint Proposal ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR Checked by: CEVJ Date: 4/12/2017 BLUE TEXT = USER INPUTS RED TEXT = CALCULATION RESULTS GREEN TEXT = ENERGY EQUATION TERM Project Specific Design Criteria: Q = 2000 gpm (Original pump design capacity) Q = 4.4560 cfs (1 gal = 0.13368 CF) ν = 0.0000121 ft2/sec (assume water 60°F) Assumptions: Only 1 pump is operating. Use known Q to find the total pump head (total dynamic head TDH). Darcy-Weisbach friction losses System Diagram: Equations: Energy: Reynold's Number: Minor Head Loss: Darcy Weisbach Friction Head Loss: Swamee-Jain Friction Factor: Hazen-Williams Friction Head Loss: BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative T-4A Transfer Line D-A Appropriate if: 10^-6 < ε/D < 10^-2 5000 < Re < 10^8 PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- System Properties: Tank Lagoon #3 12" PVC 12" SDR18 C900 PVC 10" SDR18 C900 PVC ε = 0.0000625 ft ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.0001 ft 4404 ID = 12 in ID = 12 in ID = 9.79 in 4415.25 D = 1.000 ft D = 1.000 ft D = 0.816 ft A = 0.785 ft2 A = 0.785 ft2 A = 0.523 ft2 vp = 5.674 ft/sec vp = 5.674 ft/sec vp = 8.524 ft/sec Re = 468,889 Re = 468,889 Re = 574,736 ε/D = 0.00006 ε/D = 0.00042 ε/D = 0.000123 L = 220 ft L = 1,256 ft L = - ft f = 0.01412 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01730 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01451 (S-J eqn) Ch = 150 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 140 (Hazen- Williams) Σk = 15.000 (fittings) Σk = 15.000 (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Energy Equation: Each term is calculated separately and then used to find the pump head. Velocity Head 1 Velocity Head 2 v1 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) v2 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) 0 ft 0 ft Elevation Head 1 Elevation Head 2 z1 = 4404 ft z2 = 4415.25 ft Pressure Head 1 Pressure Head 2 P1 = 0 LB/ft2 (atmosphere) P2 = 0 (atmosphere) γ = 62.4 LB/ft3 γ = 62.4 LB/ft2 0 ft 0 ft Pump Head Turbine Head hp = 38.66 ft RESULT hT = 0 ft (N/A) Friction Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A Pipe A hf = 1.55 ft hf = 1.553 ft Pipe B Pipe B hf = 10.86 ft hf = 10.777 ft Pipe C Pipe C hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Minor Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A hm = 7.50 ft Pipe B hm = 7.50 ft Pipe C hm = 0.00 ft Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C open to atmosphere open to atmosphere Darcy-Weisbach (Used in Energy Equation): Hazen-Williams (Check only): PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR Checked by: CEVJ Date: 4/12/2017 BLUE TEXT = USER INPUTS RED TEXT = CALCULATION RESULTS GREEN TEXT = ENERGY EQUATION TERM Project Specific Design Criteria: Q = 1843.822131 gpm (Original pump design capacity) 2,655,104 gpd Q = 4.1080 cfs (1 gal = 0.13368 CF) ν = 0.0000121 ft2/sec (assume water 60°F) Assumptions: Only 1 pump is operating. Use known Q to find the total pump head (total dynamic head TDH). Darcy-Weisbach friction losses System Diagram: Equations: Energy: Reynold's Number: Minor Head Loss: Darcy Weisbach Friction Head Loss: Swamee-Jain Friction Factor: Hazen-Williams Friction Head Loss: BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative T-4A Transfer Line B-A Sizing Appropriate if: 10^-6 < ε/D < 10^-2 5000 < Re < 10^8 PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- System Properties: Lagoon #2 Tank 16" PVC 12" SDR18 C900 PVC 10" SDR18 C900 PVC ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.0001 ft 4410.9 ID = 16 in ID = 11.65 in ID = 9.79 in 4404 D = 1.333 ft D = 0.971 ft D = 0.816 ft A = 1.396 ft2 A = 0.740 ft2 A = 0.523 ft2 vp = 2.942 ft/sec vp = 5.550 ft/sec vp = 7.859 ft/sec Re = 324,205 Re = 445,261 Re = 529,856 ε/D = 0.00031 ε/D = 0.00043 ε/D = 0.000123 L = 1,670 ft L = - ft L = - ft f = 0.01703 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01743 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01463 (S-J eqn) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 140 (Hazen- Williams) Σk = 30.000 (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Energy Equation: Each term is calculated separately and then used to find the pump head. Velocity Head 1 Velocity Head 2 v1 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) v2 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) 0 ft 0 ft Elevation Head 1 Elevation Head 2 z1 = 4410.9 ft z2 = 4404 ft Pressure Head 1 Pressure Head 2 P1 = 0 LB/ft2 (atmosphere) P2 = 0 (atmosphere) γ = 62.4 LB/ft3 γ = 62.4 LB/ft2 0 ft 0 ft Pump Head Turbine Head hp = (0.00) ft RESULT hT = 0 ft (N/A) Friction Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A Pipe A hf = 2.87 ft hf = 3.040 ft Pipe B Pipe B hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Pipe C Pipe C hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Minor Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A hm = 4.03 ft Pipe B hm = 0.00 ft Pipe C hm = 0.00 ft open to atmosphere open to atmosphere Darcy-Weisbach (Used in Energy Equation): Hazen-Williams (Check only): Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed by: NMR Checked by: Date: 5/22/2017 BLUE TEXT = USER INPUTS RED TEXT = CALCULATION RESULTS GREEN TEXT = ENERGY EQUATION TERM Project Specific Design Criteria: Q = 2464.297813 gpm (Original pump design capacity) 3,548,589 gpd Q = 5.4905 cfs (1 gal = 0.13368 CF) ν = 0.0000121 ft2/sec (assume water 60°F) Assumptions: Only 1 pump is operating. Use known Q to find the total pump head (total dynamic head TDH). Darcy-Weisbach friction losses Equations: Energy: Reynold's Number: Minor Head Loss: Darcy Weisbach Friction Head Loss: Swamee-Jain Friction Factor: Hazen-Williams Friction Head Loss: BELGRADE SEWER MASTER PLAN CITY OF BELGRADE TD&H Job No. B16-048 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative T-4B Transfer Line B-B ( Lagoon #3 WSE=4407ft) Sizing Appropriate if: 10^-6 < ε/D < 10^-2 5000 < Re < 10^8 PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- System Properties: Lagoon #2 Lagoon #3 16" PVC 12" SDR18 C900 PVC 10" SDR18 C900 PVC ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.000416667 ft ε = 0.0001 ft 4410.9 ID = 16 in ID = 11.65 in ID = 9.79 in 4407 D = 1.333 ft D = 0.971 ft D = 0.816 ft A = 1.396 ft2 A = 0.740 ft2 A = 0.523 ft2 vp = 3.932 ft/sec vp = 7.417 ft/sec vp = 10.503 ft/sec Re = 433,306 Re = 595,098 Re = 708,160 ε/D = 0.00031 ε/D = 0.00043 ε/D = 0.000123 L = 500 ft L = - ft L = - ft f = 0.01664 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01716 (S-J eqn) f = 0.01423 (S-J eqn) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 135 (Hazen- Williams) Ch = 140 (Hazen- Williams) Σk = 10.000 (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Σk = - (fittings) Energy Equation: Each term is calculated separately and then used to find the pump head. Velocity Head 1 Velocity Head 2 v1 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) v2 = 0 ft/sec (negligible) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) 0 ft 0 ft Elevation Head 1 Elevation Head 2 z1 = 4410.9 ft z2 = 4407 ft Pressure Head 1 Pressure Head 2 P1 = 0 LB/ft2 (atmosphere) P2 = 0 (atmosphere) γ = 62.4 LB/ft3 γ = 62.4 LB/ft2 0 ft 0 ft Pump Head Turbine Head hp = (0.00) ft RESULT hT = 0 ft (N/A) Friction Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A Pipe A hf = 1.50 ft hf = 1.556 ft Pipe B Pipe B hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Pipe C Pipe C hf = 0.00 ft hf = - ft Minor Head Loss g = 32.2 ft/sec2 (gravity) Pipe A hm = 2.40 ft Pipe B hm = 0.00 ft Pipe C hm = 0.00 ft open to atmosphere open to atmosphere Darcy-Weisbach (Used in Energy Equation): Hazen-Williams (Check only): Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoons sludge removal (B16-048) From: Eric Lillberg <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 5/2/2017 2:33 PM Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoons sludge removal (B16-048) Nicole, You could probably pump it out in a months’ time. Now that depends on how difficult it will be to maneuver around the pond. Also how long the dewatering process takes. What is the plan for the dewatering? Eric From: Nicole Rediske [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 3:02 PM To: Eric Lillberg <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoons sludge removal (B16048) Hello again Eric, I misspoke in my previous e-mail. We believe there is about 5.6 MG of sludge in the two treatment cells combined, not in the first cell alone. Sorry for the confusion, Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Eric Lillberg <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 4/21/2017 11:39 AM Nicole, I am pretty sure I found the lagoons on Google Earth, one is over 1000’ long. We don’t like to run the traverse cable much over 500’, so you could go between the aerators. I don’t know if that is possible without hitting power cords etc. I think the lagoons are too large to use a slurry pump and just pump them out. Do you have an idea on the volume that needs to be removed? I have attached some information on our unmanned dredges and a rental chart. ERIC LILLBERG Applications Engineer Page 1 of 2 6/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Office: [PHONE REDACTED] Direct: [PHONE REDACTED] From: Nicole Rediske [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:27 AM To: SRS Crisafulli Subject: Belgrade Wastewater Lagoons sludge removal (B16-048) Good Afternoon, I am working with the city of Belgrade, MT on a Wastewater Master Plan. I was hoping you could help me with some sludge removal ideas. Their existing plant has three aerated basins lined with a 60 mil HDPE liner. In two of the basins the liner is exposed. A thin layer of rip rap covers the liner in the third. Additionally, static tube aerators, standing 6 feet from the bottom of the ponds are included. The lagoons are large. The two treatment lagoons each have a water surface area of about 7 acres and an operating depth of 10 feet. The storage lagoon has a water surface area of almost 16 acres and an operating depth of 19.25 feet. Can you provide some guidance into the best method of sludge removal for two scenarios? 1) Protecting the existing liner and aerators or 2) if the liner and aerators were to be removed and replaced. A preliminary cost estimate for both would also be very much appreciated. Thank you Nicole Rediske Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 2 of 2 6/7/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- ELECTRIC PANEL 7-1/2 HORSEPOWER ELECTRIC HYDRAULIC POWER UNIT LIMIT SWITCH MOUNT 1-1/2 HORSEPOWER, VARIABLE SPEED TRAVERSE WINCH 102" (2.59 M) CUTTERHEAD TANDEM SEAL BEARING FRAME MODULAR PONTOONS 3/4 HORSEPOWER MOTOR MODULAR FRAMEWORK OIL FILLED SHAFT COLUMN HYDRAULIC RESERVOIR SEVERE DUTY PUMP FEATURES DREDGE DEPTH WEIGHT PLATFORM LENGTH PLATFORM HEIGHT 12' (3.66 M) 3,500 LBS (15570 N) 18' (5.49 M) 6' (1.83 M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUMP MOTOR NPT DISCHARGE SEVERE DUTY MODULAR INDUSTRIAL FLUMP Date: 7/22/13 The data and information contained in this document is considered proprietary and shall not be reproduced, released, or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of SRS Crisafulli Inc. of Glendive, Montana. --PROPRIETARY INFORMATION-- Sludge Removal Systems 1610 Crisafulli Drive Glendive, MT 59330 USA PHONE: (406) 365-3393 FAX: (406) 365-8088 Drafted By: SDP DWG# 96108 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- DREDGE MODEL & Description of rental PACKAGE Rental rate ROTOMITE 6000CD package including: Rotomite 6000CD Dredge; 305’ of 8” diameter floating discharge line; (Optional) Traverse system to cover a 300’ x 600’ area. $38,500 initial month $34,500 thereafter $24,250 Damage deposit* plus round‐trip freight ROTOMITE 6000 package including: Rotomite 6000 Dredge; 305’ of 8” diameter floating discharge line; (Optional) Traverse system to cover a 300’ x 600’ area. $29,885 initial month $25,885 thereafter $15,000 Damage deposit* plus round‐trip freight ROTOMITE SD110 package including: Rotomite SD110 Dredge; 305’ of 6” diameter floating discharge line; (Optional) Traverse system to cover a 300’ x 600’ area. $22,650 initial month $18,650 thereafter $11,000 damage deposit* plus round‐trip freight FLUMP 4” SEVERE DUTY package including: 4” severe duty 50 HP FLUMP dredge; Handheld radio remote control; 500’ of power & control cord; 305’ of 6” diameter floating discharge line; Traverse system, 4‐post manual, to cover a 300’ x 600’ area. $16,700 initial month $12,700 thereafter $8,250 damage deposit* plus round‐trip freight FLUMP, 3” STANDARD DUTY package including: 3” standard duty 25 HP FLUMP dredge; Handheld radio remote control; 500’ of power & control cord; 305’ of 6” diameter floating discharge line; Traverse system, 4‐post manual, to cover a 300’ x 600’ area. $14,800 initial month $10,800 thereafter $7,400 Damage deposit* plus round‐trip freight ADDITIONAL FLOATING DISCHARGE LINE RENTAL RATE 6” diameter x 15’ length, rigid section, including couplings $92.00 each/month 6” diameter x 5’ length, flexible section, including couplings $40.00 each/month 8” diameter x 15’ length, rigid section, including couplings $110.00 each/month 8” diameter x 20’ length, flexible section, including couplings (Poly/Foam) $140.00 each/month 8” diameter x 5’ length, flexible section, including couplings $55.00 each/month *Damage deposit may be credited and/or refunded upon return of all rental equipment in satisfactory condition. SRS Crisafulli reserves the right to revise above rental rates and damage deposits based on intended application. Rates are subject to change without notice. Rentals are available within the United States and (on a limited basis) in Canada. Call to inquire about our “Try Before You Buy” program! Initial month rental fee credited toward dredge purchase Please call our Factory for any special request Rental items. Toll‐free: 1‐800‐442‐7867 SRS Crisafulli Inc. 1610 Crisafulli Drive Glendive MT 59330 USA Ph: [PHONE REDACTED] Toll-free 800-442- 7867 Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Website: www.crisafullipumps.com RENTAL RATES Effective Jan. 1, 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) From: "Campbell, Terry" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 4/7/2017 10:59 AM Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Hi Nicole: These complete mix aerated lagoon designs are something outside-the-box with respect to DEQ 2 or the Ten States Standards. The design standards (Ten State) primarily were constructed to achieve secondary limits only. DEQ 2 has added components for newer nutrient removal facilities, but we haven’t kept up with the industry – nor have other states. With respect to complete mix designs, we have really only had a couple of facility designs including the Three Forks project design submitted for DEQ review to date – so not a lot of experience with them. Alberton did something similar with Lemna baffles and floating cover, but not really a complete mix design and no ammonia or TN limit there. The Montana Law Enforcement Academy here in the Helena valley did a complete mix design that wasn’t a Lemna package, but they are strictly a land application discharger, so that also is different. The Three Forks design met all of the Table 93.2 criteria for a continuous discharge facility. I do think that because Belgrade uses IP “controlled discharge” in conjunction with spray irrigation, the minimum number of aerated cells per DEQ 2 would need to be 3 – but having the large storage cell could, in this my mind, negate that need (serve as a third cell) and be sufficient to replace the third aerated cell if only secondary standards were contained and expected in the discharge permit. Also, the storage cell could be used in the overall detention time calculation – even though it is facultative. Unfortunately when we review projects like this at DEQ, you don’t always get a consistent take on what standards apply. So one reviewer might take a strict look at that 20 day detention time in the table and tell you to apply for a deviation. I would view this design as something that doesn’t fit that partial mix standard and would try to review without using the deviation process and just have the designer do an adequate job of justifying a treatment outcome. Having said that – I would view 12.5 days of detention time within the “treatment” cells as pretty minimal for a facility that has an ammonia or TN limit and doesn’t recycle flow like an activated sludge process. I don’t think you could expect much further TN reduction in the storage cell prior to discharge (so that would put a lot of reliance on the carbon filter option) – you might get good BOD reduction in the storage cell and TSS could go either way, depending on algae. If the discharge permit contained only secondary standards for BOD and TSS, I would be less concerned and likely to approve. I think until we have more experience and comfort with the performance of these complete mix designs, we would need very strong supporting data to approve a reduction from the 20 day detention time criteria for the “treatment cells” at facilities that have ammonia or TN limits. For land application projects, it is better to not convert ammonia to nitrite/nitrate. Plants are better able to quickly utilize the ammonia form of nitrogen. Also, the land area under irrigation was likely Page 1 of 5 6/7/2017 DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- sized for a TN load, so if you significantly reduce the TN being discharged to the land area, they may be able to use more water on the crop. This may not be key to the Belgrade design, but I just wanted to mention these issues. Anyway, without more detail of the alternative you are looking at those are my initial thoughts and hope they are helpful in guiding your analysis. Feel free to contact me at any time and I will do my best to discuss with others here and provide feedback. Terry Campbell, PE DEQ Program (406) 444-7343 From: Nicole Rediske [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 3:32 PM To: Campbell, Terry Subject: RE: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Good Afternoon Terry, I have been looking more closely at some of design information from LEMNA regarding the possible Belgrade lagoon upgrades. The conceptual design that has been provided to me has a complete mix cell with high rate diffusers, a settling cell with low rate diffusers, and the LEMNA Polishing reactor. Based on the 20-year design average day flow rate, the detention time for the complete mix cell is 4.2 days, for the settling cell it is 7.5 day and the LPR is 0.6 days, for a total detention time under aeration of 12.3 days. DEQ-2 lists the required detention time for partially aerated lagoons with land application at 15 days. LEMNA has calculated effluent concentrations of 30 mg/l BOD and TSS and 2.0 mg/l ammonia. Belgrade's discharge permit set limits on total nitrogen so LEMNA has suggested sending the effluent through a series of 6 carbon filters to get TN concentrations below 13.5 mg/l. The City's existing storage lagoon has an operating capacity of 81.5 MG, and would remain to store treated water for disposal by irrigation and IP beds. My question for you is do you have a feel for how likely it would be for us to get a deviation approved for a shorter detention time? Thank you, Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 2 of 5 6/7/2017 DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- "Campbell, Terry" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 3/8/2017 9:07 AM No worries. Our email has been acting up a bit of recent, so possible it just didn’t get out of the state system Terry From: Nicole Rediske [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:03 AM To: Campbell, Terry Subject: Re: FW: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) thank you! sorry for the confusion. "Campbell, Terry" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> 3/8/2017 8:54 AM Here is what I sent yesterday. Terry From: Campbell, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:15 PM To: Lavigne, Paul; Nicole Rediske Cc: Camille Johnson; Dustin Nett; Keith Waring; Matt McGee; Wade DeBoo Subject: RE: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Nicole (all): The Three Forks project was reviewed in 2011 & 2012 under the aerated lagoon standards as a partial mix aerated lagoon facility. In reality, the primary cell is a complete mix cell, where the following cells are stepped aeration/settling basins. They also included a Lemna polishing reactor and UV disinfection. The polishing reactor is an post lagoon mechanical addition that uses fixed film and intensive aeration in a channelized concrete basin to nitrify remaining ammonia prior to discharge. That component really didn’t fit any portion of the DEQ 2 standard, so from our review perspective was considered “experimental”. We had pretty good supporting documentation from the Lemna folks up front on performance capabilities of that polishing reactor. The only deviations secured for the project were with respect to liner testing (only primary cell was hydraulically tested and others constructed in same manner with electrostatic tests) and a second deviation having to do with the influent channel construction details. All other portions of the design met the standards applied under review. Three Forks has an ammonia limit in the discharge permit due to the receiving water being cold water salmonid stream, but there were no impairments for nutrients or metals on the receiving stream at the time the project was reviewed. Page 3 of 5 6/7/2017 DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- We will know in a few months how the system performs. Substantial completion of this project was just achieved last month. The AOC for the system gives them several months to develop the biology before they must meet permit conditions. Terry Campbell, PE DEQ Program (406) 444-7343 From: Lavigne, Paul Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:17 PM To: Nicole Rediske Cc: Camille Johnson; Dustin Nett; Keith Waring; Matt McGee; Wade DeBoo; Campbell, Terry Subject: RE: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Nicole, I know that Glasgow put in a Lemna system a few years ago and Three Forks is wrapping their Lemna system up this spring, so it’s doable not sure which deviations were processed though. Terry Campbell (copied here) may be able to provide more information on this project. Attached is the lagoon optimization report for Belgrade, conducted by our contractor, Steve Harris. This work included a fairly rigorous sludge depth measurement procedure among other things. I hope this helps. Thanks. Paul From: Nicole Rediske [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:02 AM To: Lavigne, Paul Cc: Camille Johnson; Dustin Nett; Keith Waring; Matt McGee; Wade DeBoo Subject: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Good Afternoon Paul, TD&H Engineering is working with the City of Belgrade on a Wastewater Master Plan. We are currently is the process of evaluating the existing treatment lagoons and assessing possible upgrades. We have been in contact with various advanced aeration systems suppliers such as LEMNA and TriplePoint for possible upgrades. We were unsure if these types of modified aerated lagoon systems are reviewed under the biological lagoon or mechanical system standards. Either way, it looks as if a number of deviations from DEQ-2 will be required in order to get DEQ approval. Are you aware of any such advanced aeration systems that have been recently constructed in Montana? If so, can you provide any insight into the best approach for obtaining DEQ approval and the likelihood of deviations being accepted? Also, do you know who to contact for a copy of the sludge survey that was conducted by DEQ last year. The operator recently mentioned that some from DEQ was on-site last year to measure sludge depths in the lagoons. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or concerns at [PHONE REDACTED]. Page 4 of 5 6/7/2017 DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Nicole Rediske I Engineer TD&H Engineering 1800 River Drive N. I Great Falls, MT 59401 t:[PHONE REDACTED] www.tdhengineering.com Page 5 of 5 6/7/2017 DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- DEQ CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Nicole Rediske - RE: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) From: "Lavigne, Paul" <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Nicole Rediske <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: 3/7/2017 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Belgrade Wastewater Master Plan (TDH B16-048) Cc: Camille Johnson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Dustin Nett