Berthoud Utility Plan

Transcription

WASTEWATER UTILITY PLAN
FOR THE
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
NOVEMBER 2014
WASTEWATER UTILITY PLAN
FOR THE
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
JVA, Inc.
25 Old Town Square
Fort Collins, CO 80524
phone: 970-225-9099
JVA Project No. 1733.21c
NOVEMBER 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2 – INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 4 FACILITIES PLAN SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ........................................................................................................ 5 BERTHOUD ESTATES ........................................................................................................... 5 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ........................................................................................... 8 SUMMARY OF UTILITY PLAN STRUCTURE................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 3 – GENERAL PLANNING ........................................................................................... 9 208 PLAN COORDINATION AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSOLIDATION OF FACILITIES ......................... 9 WASTEWATER REUSE .......................................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS ......................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 4 – WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 12 SERVICE AREA DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................ 12 SERVICE AND PLANNING AREA ....................................................................................... 12 PLANNING PERIOD ......................................................................................................... 12 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION .................................................... 12 CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING ................................................................................... 13 PROJECTED LAND USE AND ZONING ................................................................................ 13 POPULATION DATASETS AND FORECASTS.............................................................................. 14 HISTORIC POPULATION ................................................................................................... 14 POPULATION PROJECTIONS............................................................................................. 16 CURRENT WASTEWATER FLOWS ........................................................................................... 19 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS ...................................................................... 19 EXISTING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FLOWS...................................................................... 19 EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FLOWS ........................................................................................ 20 TOTAL EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS............................................................................... 20 EXISTING PEAKING FACTOR ............................................................................................. 21 CURRENT ORGANIC, SOLIDS AND NUTRIENT LOADS AND PERFORMANCE ................................ 22 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOADS .......................................................................................... 22 EXISTING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LOADS ..................................................................... 23 EXISTING EDUCATIONAL LOADS ....................................................................................... 24 WASTEWATER FLOW AND ORGANIC LOAD PROJECTIONS ..................................................... 24 Town of Berthoud
Wastewater Utility Plan
i
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ...................................................................................... 24 PROJECTED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FLOWS ................................................................. 25 PROJECTED EDUCATIONAL FLOWS ................................................................................... 27 TOTAL PROJECTED FLOWS AND ORGANIC LOADING ......................................................... 28 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 29 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 29 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 29 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 29 CHARACTER OF INFLUENT ................................................................................................... 30 INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM (IPT) ......................................................................... 30 TREATMENT WORKS ............................................................................................................ 31 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 31 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 34 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 35 AIR QUALITY PERMIT .......................................................................................................... 35 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN..................................................................................... 36 “GREEN” ELEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 36 SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT ........................................................................................ 39 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 39 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 39 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 39 COLLECTION SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 39 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 39 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 45 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 5 – WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................. 50 WATER QUALITY OF RECEIVING WATER ............................................................................... 50 TMDLS AND/OR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS ....................................................................... 50 WATERSHED ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 51 LEVEL OF TREATMENT, PERMITTING AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................ 51 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 51 LEVEL OF TREATMENT, PERMITTING AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................ 51 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 51 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 55 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 57 TREATMENT WORKS ............................................................................................................ 57 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 57 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 57 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 57 LEVEL OF TREATMENT.......................................................................................................... 58 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 58 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 58 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 58 Town of Berthoud
ii
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SELECTION PROCESS ..................................................................... 58 TOWN OF BERTHOUD ...................................................................................................... 58 BERTHOUD ESTATES ......................................................................................................... 58 BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ......................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 7 – MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANS ................................................................ 59 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND AGREEMENTS ...................................................................... 59 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 59 WWTF UPGRADES ............................................................................................................ 59 COLLECTION SYSTEM UPGRADES......................................................................................... 59 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 61 EXISTING COSTS ............................................................................................................. 61 ABILITY TO PAY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 61 USER CHARGE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 62 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................. 62 DOLA ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT FUND .......................................................................... 62 STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND ............................................................. 62 USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 63 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS...................................................................................... 13 TABLE 2: PREFERRED LAND USE ............................................................................................... 14 TABLE 3: TOWN OF BERTHOUD HISTORIC POPULATION ............................................................... 14 TABLE 4: REMAINING 208 PLANNING AREA HISTORIC POPULATION............................................ 16 TABLE 5: TOWN OF BERTHOUD PROJECTED POPULATION (20-YEAR PLANNING PERIOD) ............... 17 TABLE 6: I-25 SUB-AREA PROJECTED POPULATION ................................................................... 17 TABLE 7: TOWN OF BERTHOUD BUILD-OUT PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL ZONING ............................... 18 TABLE 8: BERTHOUD ESTATES PROJECTED POPULATION (HOA IS BUILT-OUT) ............................... 18 TABLE 9: ESTIMATED EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FLOWS .................................................................. 20 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF AVERAGE EXISTING FLOWS BY USE ....................................................... 20 TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PEAKING FACTORS............................................................................. 22 TABLE 12: JULY 2011 THROUGH JUNE 2014 SUMMARY OF EXISTING WWTF LOADINGS ............... 22 TABLE 13: BERTHOUD WWTF TREATMENT PERFORMANCE JULY 2011 THROUGH JUNE 2014 ......... 23 TABLE 14: TOWN OF BERTHOUD PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER AND ORGANIC
PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 15: I-25 SUB-AREA PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION .. 25 TABLE 16: BERTHOUD ESTATES PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 17: TOWN OF BERTHOUD PER ACRE WASTEWATER PRODUCTION BASED ON ZONING.......... 26 Town of Berthoud
iii
TABLE 18: TOWN OF BERTHOUD PROJECTED COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER AND ORGANIC
PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 26 TABLE 19: I-25 SUB-AREA PROJECTED COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................... 27 TABLE 20: TOWN OF BERTHOUD PROJECTED INSTITUTIONAL FLOWS ............................................. 27 TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF TOWN OF BERTHOUD PROJECTED FLOWS/LOADINGS (20-YEAR)............ 28 TABLE 22: SUMMARY OF I-25 SUB-AREA PROJECTED FLOWS/LOADINGS (20-YEAR) .................... 29 TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF BERTHOUD ESTATES PROJECTED FLOWS/LOADINGS ............................... 29 TABLE 24: HISTORIC TOWN OF BERTHOUD INFLUENT PARAMETERS ............................................... 30 TABLE 25: EXISTING BERTHOUD WWTF PROCESS UNIT DETAILS ................................................... 31 TABLE 26: TOWN OF BERTHOUD LIFT STATIONS .......................................................................... 39 TABLE 27: IMPAIRMENT BY STREAM SEGMENT LISTED ON REG. 93 303(D) LIST .............................. 51 TABLE 28: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE BERTHOUD WWTF ..................................................... 54 TABLE 29: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR BERTHOUD ESTATES WWTF ............................................... 55 TABLE 30: PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF ....................... 56 TABLE 31: OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSIONS ......................... 61 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: BERTHOUD WWTF 1-MILE RADIUS MAP ..................................................................... 6 FIGURE 2: BERTHOUD WWTF 5-MILE RADIUS MAP ..................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: BERTHOUD 208 PLANNING BOUNDARY .................................................................... 10 FIGURE 4: BERTHOUD WWTF PROCESS SCHEMATIC .................................................................. 37 FIGURE 5: BERTHOUD ESTATES WWTF PROCESS SCHEMATIC ...................................................... 38 FIGURE 6: BERTHOUD WWTF SITE ENVELOPE ............................................................................ 41 FIGURE 7: BERTHOUD ESTATES WWTF SITE ENVELOPE ................................................................ 42 FIGURE 8: BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF SITE ENVELOPE............................................................ 43 FIGURE 9: TOWN OF BERTHOUD COLLECTION SYSTEM (PAGE 1) ................................................. 46 FIGURE 10: TOWN OF BERTHOUD COLLECTION SYSTEM (PAGE 2) ............................................... 47 FIGURE 11: TOWN OF BERTHOUD COLLECTION SYSTEM (PAGE 3) ............................................... 48 FIGURE 12: PROPOSED I-25 SUB-AREA COLLECTION SYSTEM .................................................... 49 FIGURE 13: TOWN OF BERTHOUD WATERSHED AND IMPAIRED WATERS ....................................... 53 Town of Berthoud
iv
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: NFRWQPA CHECKLIST APPENDIX B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EVIDENCE OF SITE OWNERSHIP APPENDIX C: AGENCY CONTACTS APPENDIX D: SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT AND SOIL TEST RESULTS APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (PELS) APPENDIX F: PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION APPENDIX G: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS APPENDIX H: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Town of Berthoud
v
CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Town of Berthoud (Town) Wastewater Utility Plan (Plan) is to develop a
comprehensive planning document that provides the guidance necessary for the municipal
wastewater infrastructure to reliably treat wastewater generated from the existing and future
service area. This Plan should be viewed as a dynamic working document, reviewed annually,
and updated as conditions in the Berthoud service area change. The Plan includes all areas and
communities within the 208 Planning Area, which extends several miles beyond the Town of
Berthoud Growth Management Boundary (GMB). This plan will be submitted to the North Front
Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA).
The Town’s capital improvement plan (CIP) is summarized herein to provide comprehensive
financial planning information that will assist the Town in prioritizing projects and developing
annual budgets. Recommendations identified in this Plan should be considered as conceptual
only. Additional details and potential alternatives should be further investigated and analyzed in
the preliminary engineering phase of each of the project designs. This Plan is a compilation of
previously completed studies and designs of the Town’s wastewater treatment facility, a review
of historic data generated at the wastewater treatment facility, and Utility Plans from other
entities within the 208 Planning Area. The CIP plan includes a review of the existing collection
system and lift stations and a capacity analysis of the existing wastewater treatment facility
infrastructure.
The 208 Planning Area, also referred to as the Ultimate Planning Area (UPA), is over 40 square
miles and includes the Berthoud GMB, wastewater utility service areas for the Berthoud Estates,
River Glen, Western Mini-Ranches, and Vaquero Estates homeowner associations, and up to 20
square miles of additional undeveloped or individual rural residences on septic systems.
There are three waste water treatment facilities (WWTFs) within the Berthoud 208 Planning
Area; the Berthoud WWTF (Berthoud WWTF), the Berthoud Estates WWTF (construction
begins spring 2015), and the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. The Berthoud WWTF
provides sewer service to residential, commercial, educational and municipal customers located
within and adjacent to the Town’s wastewater utility service area (WUSA). The Town WUSA is
considered to be the areas currently served by the Town’s wastewater system which is generally
defined as the Town limits, plus the nearby River Glen, Western Mini-Ranches, and Vaquero
Estates homeowner associations. These homeowner associations are located outside of the Town
limits and GMB, and have (i.e. River Glen) or are in the process (Western Mini-Ranches and
Vaquero Estates) of developing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) for the Town to treat the
wastewater conveyed from these areas. Per the IGAs the Town will also maintain and operate the
conveyance systems that deliver the wastewater to the Town’s collection system. The Berthoud
WWTF currently serves an estimated population of 5,000 people within the Town’s existing
service area. The River Glen Utility Plan was approved by NFRWQPA in June 2013. The
Western Mini-Ranches / Vaquero Estates Utility Plan will be submitted to NFRWQPA in 2015.
Town of Berthoud
1
The Berthoud Regional WWTF service area is considered to be the areas within the Berthoud
GMB near the interchange at Interstate 25 (I-25) and State Highway 56. This area is generally
referred to as the I-25 Sub-Area. The Berthoud Regional WWTF has not been constructed and
the temporary Serenity Ridge WWTF is currently serving an existing development in the I-25
Sub-Area, the Serenity Ridge homeowners association. The Serenity Ridge WWTF will be
decommissioned once the Berthoud Regional WWTF is constructed and in operation. The
Berthoud Regional WWTF Utility Plan and Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is being
submitted to NFRWQPA concurrently with the Town’s Wastewater Utility Plan.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF service area is limited to the Berthoud Estates and Foothills
Estates homeowner association boundaries located outside of the Town of Berthoud GMB. The
Berthoud Estates service area is located within the Town of Berthoud 208 Planning Area but will
be owned and operated by the Berthoud Estates Community Association. This area has reached
build-out and will not be further developed. The Berthoud Estates WWTF is currently under
engineering design for a new mechanical wastewater treatment facility. The Berthoud Estates
Utility Plan was approved by NFRWQPA in August 2014 and subsequently received approval
from CDPHE for the PER and Site Application in September 2014.
Population and wastewater treatment capacity projections for the Berthoud WWTF and the
Berthoud Regional WWTF are based on existing conditions, the Preferred Land Use Plan, and
approved development projects located within the GMB. The Berthoud Estates WWTF is not
expected to require expansions in wastewater treatment capacity throughout the planning period.
The planning period for a wastewater utility plan is typically 20-years. The Town prepared a 20year Wastewater Master Plan in 2011 which included all existing commitments to serve platted
developments within the GMB. The currently platted developments in Berthoud may or may not
be completed within 20-years, however as a conservative planning assumption, the Town
assumes all currently platted developments within the GMB will be developed within 20-years.
This would result in an approximate 7.2 percent annual growth rate for the Town, which is a high
but reasonable assumption. Limited development or growth has occurred in Berthoud since 2011
due to the economic conditions, therefore this Utility Plan generally includes the same projected
developments over the next 20-years as were included in the 2011 Master Plan.
Full build-out occurs when all existing developable land within the UPA has been developed.
The Town has not estimated when saturation development may occur, therefore, the sizing
recommendations and capital improvement plan is limited to current commitments to serve
platted developments.
The Berthoud WWTF historic average influent flow is 0.513 million gallons per day (MGD).
The average organic concentration in the influent wastewater has remained consistent since the
construction of the WWTF at approximately 235 mg/L of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) per day. CDPHE requires reporting of the maximum 30-day average BOD5
concentration. Calculated from the DMR data, the maximum 30-day average BOD5
concentration is 313 mg/L. A BOD5 concentration of 313 mg/L will be used in this evaluation.
The existing WWTF has a permitted hydraulic capacity of 2.0 MGD and an organic capacity of
Town of Berthoud
2
3,900 lbs of BOD5 per day. The 20-year planning period residential and non-residential
wastewater flows within the Town of Berthoud WUSA will total a projected 1.91 MGD.
Therefore, the existing facility is sufficiently sized to handle the committed growth throughout
the planning period. Planning for a WWTF expansion will not be required for about 16 to 20years. A biosolids handling facility is currently under construction and is sufficiently sized to
handle the committed growth for the Town and the 2.0 MGD WWTF. Based on the projected
hydraulic and organic loading, the WWTF will reach 80 percent of its capacity between 2030
and 2034, thus requiring expansion planning in accordance with CDPHE criteria.
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
This Plan includes proposed capital improvements within the Town of Berthoud GMB for
financial planning purposes. The Town of Berthoud 2011 Master Plan identified and prioritized
capital improvements for the Berthoud WWTF, and the Town of Berthoud collection system and
lift stations. The Master Plan CIP included a new digester and dewatering equipment for
biosolids handling, which received CDPHE design approval and is currently under construction,
and headworks improvements, which are currently in the design phase. The Town’s collection
system staff has implemented a detailed evaluation of the collection system using both site
observations and the use of closed circuit TV inspection. Based on this information and the
identification of sections of the collection system that have required extensive maintenance in the
last few years, staff identified roughly 8,000 feet of sewer pipe that needs to be either replaced or
rehabilitated to improve collection system capacity, address sewer design limitations, and/or
eliminate infiltration and inflow. The Town has five lift stations in the collection system,
including one for the River Glen Homeowners Association located outside the Town’s GMB.
Three of the five lift stations were constructed in the 1980’s and will require improvements
within the 20-year planning period.
The Berthoud Regional WWTF is a proposed capital improvement for the Town of Berthoud and
is expected to be completed between 2015 and 2016. The collection system for the Berthoud
Regional WWTF will be constructed as development occurs and projected to include over six
miles of sanitary sewer.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is currently in the design phase for a new mechanical wastewater
treatment facility that will replace their existing lagoon system. A State Revolving Fund (SRF)
loan has been obtained for this work and is expected to be complete in 2016. No future capital
improvements are anticipated for the Berthoud Estates WWTF.
Town of Berthoud
3
CHAPTER 2 – INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Town of Berthoud (Town) is located on Colorado’s Front Range, north of Longmont,
Colorado, and south of Loveland, Colorado, off State Highway 287. The Berthoud Growth
Management Boundary (GMB) straddles the border of Larimer and Weld Counties.
A 201 Wastewater Facility Plan was submitted to NFRWQPA in May 2000, but not approved.
The Town’s current WWTF was constructed in two phases: the first phase consisted of the
digester facility which was constructed and placed in service in 1999 on WCR #1 to handle the
biosolids produced at the original WWTF located in downtown Berthoud. The second phase,
constructed in 2004, included the conventional activated sludge facilities currently in operation
at the current Berthoud WWTF, and abandonment of the old WWTF. The 2004 construction also
included provisions for a future upgrade with additional clarifiers and aeration basins to increase
capacity when needed. The Town prepared an internal Wastewater Master Plan in 2011
identifying additional capital improvements for the Berthoud WWTF, collection system, and lift
stations. A solids handling facility has CDPHE design approval and is currently under
construction at the Berthoud WWTF, and headworks improvements are currently in design.
The NFRWQPA has approved the location for a proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF located
near the interchange at I-25 and State Highway 56. The Town currently owns and operates the
Serenity Ridge WWTF, located near the Serenity Ridge Subdivision and I-25. At the time the
Serenity Ridge WWTF was constructed, it was designed to treat wastewater from a maximum of
64 households. The developer intended the Serenity Ridge WWTF to serve as a temporary
facility until a Regional WWTF was constructed. A WUP for the new Berthoud Regional
WWTF is being submitted concurrently with this Town of Berthoud Utility Plan. Once
construction of the Berthoud Regional WWTF has been completed, and the facility is in
operation, the Serenity Ridge WWTF will be decommissioned and current services will be
consolidated and treated at the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. Construction of the
Berthoud Regional WWTF is anticipated to begin in 2015.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is located outside of the Town’s GMB and within the Berthoud
208 Planning Area. Berthoud Estates is in the design phase of a new mechanical WWTF.
NFRWQPA approved the Berthoud Estates Utility Plan in August 2014 and subsequently
received site application and PER approval from the CDPHE in September 2014.
Other improvements made within the Berthoud 208 Planning Area since 2000 include: the
addition of a lift station at the River Glen homeowner association with a force main connection
to the Town of Berthoud collection system, and the election by the Western Mini-Ranches /
Vaquero Estates homeowner associations to consolidate with a gravity sanitary sewer to the
Town’s collection system.
Town of Berthoud
4
This WUP covers the following wastewater treatment facilities within the Berthoud 208 Planning
Area:



Berthoud WWTF
Berthoud Estates WWTF (upgrade under construction in 2015)
Berthoud Regional WWTF (proposed for construction in 2015)
This utility plan also discusses, in limited detail, the following wastewater treatment facilities
within the Berthoud 208 Planning Area that are anticipated to be decommissioned within the
next two years:



Serenity Ridge WWTF
River Glen WWTF
Western Mini Ranches/Vaquero Estates WWTF
FACILITIES PLAN SUMMARY
Described below is a summary of the current facilities in use within the Berthoud 208 Planning
Area.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
The Town constructed the Berthoud WWTF in 2004 to replace its aging and undersized WWTF
located in downtown Berthoud. The Berthoud WWTF consists of headworks with screening and
grit removal, influent pump station, activated sludge treatment processes, secondary clarifiers,
and disinfection prior to discharge to the Little Thompson River. The WWTF is capable of
treating a maximum daily flow of 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and an organic load of
3,900 pounds per day (lbs/d) of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). 1-Mile and 5-Mile Radius
Maps are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
The existing Berthoud Estates WWTF was constructed in 1978 with three lagoon cells and was
later upgraded in 1992 to include an influent metering manhole, an intermittent sand filter in the
middle lagoon (Lagoon #2), a submersible pump lift station to pump sand filter effluent to the
chlorine contact basin, and additional plant piping to allow two possible treatment configurations
(with or without the sand filter.) In 2008 the sand filter was blinded by solids and algae, so the
plant has operated in the configuration for gravity flow through Lagoon #1 and Lagoon #3 since
that time.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is currently in the design phase for a new mechanical wastewater
treatment facility that will replace their existing lagoon system. A State Revolving Fund (SRF)
loan has been obtained for this work which is expected to be complete in 2015.
Town of Berthoud
5
BERTHOUD REGIONAL WWTF
The Town of Berthoud GMB includes approximately 4,075 acres of land surrounding the I-25
and Highway 56 interchange, generally referred to as the I-25 Sub-Area. This area was
determined in the previous Berthoud Regional WUP to be unfeasible to be served by the
Berthoud WWTF. The proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF is in the process of WUP approval
by the NFRWQPA (approval is anticipated by December 2014), and will serve the I-25 SubArea as part of the Berthoud GMB. Construction of a Phase I, 0.099 MGD WWTF will begin in
2015.
The Town currently owns and operates the Serenity Ridge WWTF located within the I-25 SubArea. The Serenity Ridge WWTF is a package sequencing batch reactor (SBR) that was
permitted in 2002 to serve the Serenity Ridge Subdivision located at the intersection of WCR 7
and Serenity Ridge Parkway south of State Highway 56. Currently, the Serenity Ridge WWTF
provides wastewater treatment to approximately 22 homes and has the capacity to serve a total of
64 homes. The Town has agreed that the Serenity Ridge WWTF will be decommissioned once
the Berthoud Regional WWTF is constructed and in operation.
SUMMARY OF UTILITY PLAN STRUCTURE
The structure of this document follows the North Front Range Water Quality Planning
Association’s (NFRWQPA) Utility Plan Checklist, and is consistent with the information
contained within the NFRWQPA Utility Plan Guidance document. The information included in
this Utility Plan covers the entire Berthoud 208 Planning Area. Applicable information and data
from the Town’s 2011 Wastewater Master Plan was used to develop this WUP.
Three minor facilities within the Berthoud 208 Planning Area will be decommissioned within the
next two years; the River Glen WWTF will be decommissioned in 2014 and the Western MiniRanches/Vaquero Estates WWTF and Serenity Ridge WWTF will be decommissioned in 2016.
River Glen, Western Mini-Ranches, and Vaquero Estates are neither within the Town GMB, nor
planned to be, but are included in the Town’s sewer collection system and WWTF capacity
projections.
Town of Berthoud
8
CHAPTER 3 – GENERAL PLANNING
208 PLAN COORDINATION AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSOLIDATION OF FACILITIES
The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA) is the 208 Water
Quality Planning Agency for Larimer and Weld County. The most recent Berthoud 208 Planning
Area Map was updated by NFRWQPA in 2013 and is shown in Figure 3. The Berthoud WWTF,
Berthoud Regional WWTF, Berthoud Estates WWTF, Serenity Ridge WWTF, River Glen
WWTF, and Western Mini-Ranches / Vaquero Estates WWTF are within the Berthoud 208
Planning Area.
The Town recently updated and renewed an existing IGA with the Town of Johnstown in 2014,
giving the Town authorization to serve the quarter section located adjacent to the interchange of
I-25 and Hwy 56. Previously, the IGA and 208 planning area identified this area to be served by
Johnstown. The Town’s 208 planning area should be updated by NFRWQPA to show that this
area is now within the Town’s GMB as shown in Figure 3. A copy of the IGA between the Town
and Johnstown and Town of Berthoud is included in Appendix G. The three minor facilities
(Serenity Ridge, River Glen, and Western Mini-Ranches / Vaquero Estates) will be
decommissioned and consolidated with nearby major facilities. Once decommissioned, these
three facilities will be removed from the Berthoud 208 Planning Area Map.
The Serenity Ridge WWTF was built as a temporary, minor facility with the requirement to be
decommissioned once the Berthoud Regional WWTF is constructed and in operation. The
Serenity Ridge will then consolidate with the entire I-25 Sub-Area.
The River Glen homeowner association selected consolidation with the Town of Berthoud as the
long term solution to wastewater treatment to meet new ammonia effluent limitations. A lift
station and force main connection to the Town’s Dry Creek Interceptor is currently under
construction, and will be owned and operated by the Town of Berthoud.
The Western Mini-Ranches / Vaquero Estates homeowner associations selected consolidation
with the Town of Berthoud. A gravity sanitary sewer connection to the Town’s Dry Creek
Interceptor will be constructed in 2016.
The three major facilities (Town of Berthoud, Berthoud Regional, and Berthoud Estates) have
each considered consolidation and were determined to be unfeasible. The Berthoud Regional
WWTF was the selected alternative over a lift station and force main to the Berthoud WWTF.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF was the selected alternative over several consolidation alternatives
to the Town of Berthoud including a gravity sanitary sewer, a lift station and force main, or a
joint gravity sanitary sewer with the Western Mini-Ranches/Vaquero Estates. The three proposed
permanent wastewater facilities for the Berthoud 208 Planning through the 20-year planning
period are the Berthoud WWTF, Berthoud Regional WWTF, and Berthoud Estates WWTF.
Town of Berthoud
9
FIGURE 3 - BERTHOUD 208 PLANNING BOUNDARY
TOWN OF BERTHOUD WASTEWATER UTILITY PLAN
OCTOBER 2014
WASTEWATER REUSE
Wastewater reuse infrastructure within the 208 Planning Area is not being pursued at this time
due to a lack of available beneficial uses. Considerations will be made during the design phase of
any WWTF upgrades or improvements for a small reuse system available for site irrigation and
other minor operational uses. Any wastewater reuse system will be designed to not impact
downstream water users and/or water rights.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS
For each wastewater facility improvement or consolidation project, the Water Quality Control
Division (WQCD) will determine if the project is categorically excluded from an Environmental
Assessment upon receipt of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). Potential environmental
impacts for a new WWTF are impacts to areas of archaeological significance, wetlands, wildlife
habitat, and/or floodplains.
An Environmental Assessments has been completed for the River Glen lift station and force
main. The Berthoud Estates WWTF has been categorically excluded from an Environmental
Assessment. The WQCD has determined that the Western Mini-Ranches/Vaquero Estates
gravity sanitary sewer will require an Environmental Assessment, which will be completed in
2015. The Berthoud Regional WWTF has not received a formal determination from the WQCD,
but will likely require an Environmental Assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Should the WQCD determine that a project is subject to an Environmental Assessment (EA),
provisions for this will be included as future wastewater collection and treatment projects are
planned within the Town’s GMB. Additionally, if the Town seeks State Revolving Funds, the
full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements will need to be met as outlined in
40 CFR, Parts 1500 – 1700. These provisions include, but are not limited to, the completion of
an EA and an Environmental Impact Statement.
Other than the WWTF and collection system projects outlined in this report (all of which would
have independent EAs and applicable NEPA requirements) there are no WWTF construction
projects proposed as part of this WUP, therefore, no NEPA information is provided herein
Town of Berthoud
11
CHAPTER 4 – WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
SERVICE AREA DESIGNATIONS
SERVICE AND PLANNING AREA
The Berthoud 208 planning area boundary, as currently established and approved through the
North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA), the Town Growth
Management Boundary (GMB), and the Berthoud WWTF, Berthoud Regional WWTF, and
Berthoud Estates WWTF Wastewater Utility Service Areas (WUSA) boundaries are shown in
Figure 3.
The Town of Berthoud and Johnstown revised their intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in
August 2014 to remove the Johnstown flagpole annex surrounded by Berthoud near the
interchange at I-25 and State Highway 56. The revised IGA is included in Appendix G. proposes
to modify the 208 Planning Area to show the Serenity Ridge WWTF, River Glen WWTF, and
Western Mini-Ranches/Vaquero Estates WWTF as “temporary minor facilities.” A more
contiguous 208 Planning Area, with three major facilities, is proposed as shown in Figure 3.
There are no further modifications proposed for the three WUSAs within the Berthoud 208
Planning Area within the 20-year planning period.
PLANNING PERIOD
The planning period for a WUP is typically 20 years. Planning is based on current commitments
the Town has made to serve annexed and platted developments. Full build-out will occur when
all existing developable land within the GMB has been developed. All planning and facility
improvement recommendations are based on wastewater treatment capacity necessary to serve
the development commitments by the Town.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION
The Berthoud 208 Planning Area, and the Town of Berthoud GMB, straddle Larimer and Weld
Counties. The Town of Berthoud will require both agencies to approve any modifications to the
Berthoud WWTF service area. The Berthoud WWTF is located in Weld County.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF and service area is in Larimer County while the Berthoud Regional
WWTF and entire I-25 Sub-Area are in Weld County.
Town of Berthoud
12
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING
Land use in the existing service area includes three commercial corridors: Interstate 25, US 287,
and State Highway 56 (Mountain Avenue). Mountain Avenue includes the Downtown and
Central Business District of Berthoud. Residential, municipal, and industrial uses are located on
collector roads surrounding these main thoroughfares. Chapter 30-5 of the Town of Berthoud
Development Code establishes the current zoning districts. Table 1 summarizes the current
zoning districts.
Table 1: Current Zoning Districts
Designation
Type
Residential Districts
AG
Agricultural
TN
Traditional Neighborhood
R1
Single Family
R2
Limited Multi-Family
R3
Multi-Family
R4
Mixed Use
R5
Manufactured/Mobile Home
Nonresidential Districts
C1
Limited Commercial
C2
General Commercial
M1
Light Industrial
M2
Industrial
T
Transition
Planned Unit Development Districts
PUD
Planned Unit Development
PROJECTED LAND USE AND ZONING
The Town of Berthoud Preferred Land Use Plan establishes land use categories for undeveloped
land within the GMB. These land use categories identify the preferred use and densities of areas
not currently annexed or platted. A unique Land Use Plan has been created for the I-25 SubArea. The designations in Table 2 below were used in this Plan to project population and
wastewater production for areas not currently developed.
Town of Berthoud
13
Table 2: Preferred Land Use
Designation
Use Category
Density
Very Low Density
Residential/Rural Cluster
1 DU* / 5 – 10 acres1
Low Density
Residential
1 -2 DU / acre
Moderate Density
Residential
2 – 6 DU / acre
High Density
Residential/Commercial/Mixed
Use
6-14 DU / acre, Multi family, Commercial,
Retail, Office/Employment, Civic/Public Use
* DU = Dwelling Unit
A copy of the Town’s Preferred Land Use Plan and the I-25 Sub-Area is attached in Appendix F.
POPULATION DATASETS AND FORECASTS
HISTORIC POPULATION
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
According to the United States Census Bureau, the population of the Town in the years 1990,
2000 and 2010 were 2,990, 4,839 and 5,105 people, respectively. There were 1,821 occupied
households in 2000, which equates to 2.66 people per household. Based on these estimated
populations, Berthoud grew at a rate of 6.2 percent between 1990 and 2000, and 0.5 percent
between 2000 and 2010.
The Town is located mostly in Larimer County with a small portion in Weld County. The
population of Berthoud is affected by the growth patterns of these counties. Table 3 compares the
population growth rate of Berthoud with that of Weld County and Larimer County.
Table 3: Town of Berthoud Historic Population
Year
Population*
Annual Growth
Rate (%)
Town of Berthoud
1990
2,990
-
2000
4,839
6.2
2010
5,105
0.5
1990
186,136
-
2000
251,494
3.5
2010
299,630
1.9
1990
131,821
-
2000
180,936
3.7
2010
252,825
4.0
Larimer County
Weld County
1
Assumed density by JVA, Inc. and confirmed by planning staff
Town of Berthoud
14
*Population from United States Census Bureau unless noted otherwise.
The Town, Larimer County, and Weld County experienced significant growth in the decade
between 1990 and 2000. Berthoud and Larimer County growth rates slowed in the latter part of
the decade as Weld County continued to see sustained population increases. The Town has the
potential for significant growth due to its proximity to Denver and availability of land for
development. Interest in development within the Town has resumed and the Town is expected to
grow within the next five years and through the 20-year planning period.
REMAINING 208 PLANNING AREA
The remaining 208 Planning Area includes Berthoud Estates, Western Mini Ranches / Vaquero
Estates, River Glen, Serenity Ridge, and several square miles of rural land.
The total number of occupied households for Berthoud Estates in 1990 and 2000 was 117 and
183 households, respectively with no additional development from 2000 to 2010. The 2010 U.S.
Census indicates a household population density of 2.4 people per household in Larimer County.
Assuming 2.4 people per household, this equates to 280 people in Berthoud Estates in 1990 and
439 people in Berthoud Estates for years 2000 and 2010. Based on these estimated populations,
the growth rate for Berthoud Estates from 1990 to 2000 was 5.7 percent, and 0 percent between
2000 and 2010 once the entire subdivision achieved build-out.
The total number of occupied households for Western Mini Ranches/Vaquero Estates was 85
households for 1990, 2000 and 2010. Assuming 2.4 people per household, this equates to 204
people for all three decades. The growth rate for Western Mini Ranches/Vaquero Estates from
1990 to 2010 was 0 percent and the entire subdivision has achieved build-out.
The current population for River Glen (including Riverside Farms) is 162 people. This
subdivision has been in existence since 1974 and has seen small, incremental growth since its
inception. Historic population data for this subdivision is unavailable.
The total number of occupied households for Serenity Ridge in 1990 and 2000 was zero homes,
increasing to 7 households in 2010. Assuming 2.66 people per household, this equates to 19
people in 2010. Table 4 below shows the historic population trends for the remaining 208
Planning Area.
Town of Berthoud
15
Table 4: Remaining 208 Planning Area Historic Population
Year
Population
Annual Growth Rate
(%)
Berthoud Estates
1990
312
-
2000
439
5.7%
2010
439
0%
Western Mini Ranches/Vaquero Estates
1990
204
-
2000
204
0%
2010
204
0%
162
-
0
-
River Glen
2013
Serenity Ridge
1990
2000
0
-
2010
19
-
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The Town annexed and/or approved numerous residential, commercial, and industrial
subdivisions in the early 2000’s. Due to the economic recession since 2008, the majority of these
projects have been put on hold. In 2012-2014 interest in developing these areas resumed. The
population and wastewater production projections are based on the Town’s commitments to
serve these projects as they develop. Table 5 is a summary of population growth contributed by
each proposed development, which were used to estimate wastewater flows. The historic 2.66
people per household are applied to the estimated number of residential units to establish
population projections. Based on platted developments presented in Table 5 below, an estimated
4,713 homes will be served by the Berthoud WWTF within the next 20-years. This translates to a
total population of 12,640 from the existing population of 5,105, yielding an average annual
growth rate of approximately 7.4 percent.
Town of Berthoud
16
Table 5: Town of Berthoud Projected Population (20-year Planning Period)
Total
Population
-
Dwelling Unit
Equivalents
(DUE)
1,919
20
2.65
53
141
6,011,280
138
0.09
12
32
15,768,720
362
1.28
463
1,232
479,160
11
1.73
19
51
Matthew's Farm Villages
1,045,440
24
1.25
30
80
Matthew's Farm Estates
2,962,080
68
0.29
20
53
O'Malley Glen
2,395,800
55
5.87
323
859
Peakview Meadows 1st
43,560
1
10.00
10
27
Peakview Meadows 2nd
1,611,720
37
0.54
20
53
Gateway Park
1,698,840
39
0.51
20
53
Heritage Ridge
2,178,000
50
3.52
176
468
Overlook at Dry Creek
2,570,040
59
3.08
182
484
Prairie Star
4,138,200
95
6.05
575
1,530
Bader
8,015,040
184
0.61
112
298
Berthoud Hollow
1,306,800
30
0.80
24
64
Area
(ft2)
Area
(acre)
Dwellings
Per Acre
-
-
871,200
Cottages at Berthoud Village
Heron Lakes
Subdivision Name
Existing Population
Collins Park
Mary's Farm Tract A
5,105
Fickel Farm 2nd
4,051,080
93
2.97
276
734
Green Acres
3,397,680
78
1.35
105
279
Hammond
3,267,000
75
0.91
68
181
* River Glen (2014)
11,717,640
269
0.41
110
293
* Western Mini Ranches/
Vaquero Estates (2016)
6,534,000
150
0.57
85
226
Trails at Sugar Creek
6,751,800
155
0.29
45
120
Westhaven / Brown
6,054,840
139
0.76
105
279
4,752
12,640
Total
* Existing homeowner associations with proposed connections to the Town of Berthoud collection system in the year
indicated
The I-25 Sub-Area is expected to grow over the next 20-years with residential development of
the Wilson Ranch subdivision. The projected residential population is shown below in Table 6.
Table 6: I-25 Sub-Area Projected Population
Subdivision Name
Area (ft2)
Area
(acre)
Dwellings
Per Acre
DUE
People Per
Household
Total
Population
3,484,800
80
0.8
64
2.66
171
69,696,000
1,600
0.1
160
2.66
426
Existing Population
Serenity Ridge
Projected Population
Wilson Ranch
Total
Town of Berthoud
1,680
224
597
17
Despite a significant amount of land already platted (either preliminarily or in the final stages),
there is a large area not accounted for in the April 2014 Land Use Map. This additional land had
been zoned but, other than in the I-25 Sub-Area, will largely not be developed within the 20-year
planning period. These flows are assigned per acre housing densities from which build-out
populations were projected. A summary of the zoning categories and populations projected from
2034 and beyond is displayed in Table 7 shows the future build-out population for the Town
through 2055. Table 7 includes zone areas within the I-25 Sub-Area.
Table 7: Town of Berthoud Build-Out Projected Residential Zoning
Area (ft2)
Area (acre)
Dwellings
Per Acre
Total
Dwellings
People Per
Household
Total
Population
Very Low Density
Residential1
55,212,068
1268
0.20
253
2.66
673
Low Density
Residential
70,474,501
1618
2.00
3,236
2.66
8,608
Med Density
Residential
41,111,676
944
4.00
3,775
2.66
10,042
High Density
Residential
24,574,604
565
10.00
5,642
2.66
15,008
Zoning Category
2035 thru 2055
Total
1
4,903
12,906
34,331
Very Low Density Residential was assumed to 1 house per 5 acres
Berthoud Estates and Foothills Estates are platted for 183 lots and have reached build-out
capacity. Berthoud Estates and Foothills Estates will see no growth in the next 20-years. The
built-out residential population is shown below in Table 8.
Table 8: Berthoud Estates Projected Population (HOA is Built-Out)
Subdivision Name
Area (ft2)
Area
(acre)
Dwellings
Per Acre
DUE
People Per
Household
Total
Population
Berthoud and
Foothills Estates
21,525,476
494
0.37
183
2.4
439
Total
494
183
439
Berthoud Estates and Foothills Estates are currently built-out and their populations are not
expected to change through 2055.
Town of Berthoud
18
CURRENT WASTEWATER FLOWS
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS
From July 2011 through July 2014 the reported monthly average influent flow to the Berthoud
WWTF was 0.513 million gallons per day (MGD). The maximum month flow was reported to be
0.634 MGD (August 2011). However, since 2011 the Town initiated an aggressive I/I removal
program and the monthly maximum flow has dropped to 0.561 MGD, which occurred during the
month of July 2012. The maximum day flow recorded at the WWTF was 0.91 MGD during the
month of May 2014 following a major rain storm. The above data does not include the month of
September 2013 which is when the catastrophic flood occurred and temporarily impacted the
WWTF. Since commercial, industrial and educational wastewater production is not monitored,
the aforementioned flows are the total of all flows to the WWTF, over 90 percent of which is
residential. CDPHE recommends a per capita wastewater design flow between 70 to 100 gpcd.
Based on a maximum month flow of 0.561 MGD the usage equals 110 gpcd, which is slightly
higher than the recommended range. However, since the maximum flow represents all influent to
the WWTF (including industrial and commercial flows), for the purposes of this Utility Plan 95
gpcd will be the design value for future residential development within the Town of Berthoud
and I-25 Sub-Area wastewater service areas. The per capita wastewater production value is
conservative and accounts for some degree of infiltration and inflow (I&I) and is reflective of
current wastewater flow rates during dry weather.
The Berthoud Regional WWTF, though not currently on line, will handle existing wastewater
flows and loading from the Serenity Ridge WWTF. The Serenity Ridge WWTF is expected to
treat up to 0.016 MGD by the end of 2014 as the Serenity Ridge Subdivision reaches build-out
capacity. Build-out population for Serenity Ridge is 171 people in 64 homes with an assumed 95
gpcd.
The average per capita wastewater flow (gpcd) in Berthoud Estates is estimated at 101 gpcd with
a population of 439 people and an annual average flow of 44,200 gpd.
EXISTING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FLOWS
The Town does not currently monitor commercial or industrial wastewater generation since the
existing service area is primarily residential with a minor contribution from retail, restaurants and
schools; however, it does monitor and bill commercial water users. According to metered water
data from August 2009 through July 2010, peak commercial water use was 4.62 million gallons
per month or 154,000 gpd and average commercial water use was 2.60 million gallons per month
or 86,667 gpd. Based on 10 percent consumptive use, peak commercial wastewater contributions
would be 138,600 gpd, and average commercial wastewater contributions would be 78,000 gpd.
In comparing the average commercial wastewater contribution to the average total daily flow of
0.513 MGD, the estimated commercial wastewater accounts for approximately 15 percent of
influent flows at the Berthoud WWTF.
Commercial flows are expected to be the primary contribution in the I-25 Sub-Area over the next
five to ten years with up to 82 percent of influent flows to the Berthoud Regional WWTF.
Town of Berthoud
19
There is no commercial flow contribution within Berthoud Estates, Western Mini
Ranches/Vaquero Estates, and River Glen.
EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FLOWS
The main institutional flows in the Town are from Berthoud Elementary School, Stockwell
Elementary School, Carrie Martin Elementary School, Turner Middle School, Berthoud High
School, Campion Academy, and HMS Richards Adventist School. Traditionally, school
wastewater production varies based on grade level. Elementary schools typically contribute
around 15 gallons per student/faculty member per day, whereas middle schools and high schools
contribute 20 and 25 gallons per student per day, respectively. The disparity between per
student/faculty flows has to do with shower usage, and middle schools and high schools have
significantly more shower usage than elementary schools due to after school sports. Based on the
per student/faculty flows, the schools are estimated to produce a total of around 50,000 gpd.
A summary of estimated existing institutional flows contributing to the WWTF are shown in
Table 9. In comparing the peak institutional wastewater contribution to the peak daily flow of
0.561 MGD, the estimated institutional wastewater accounts for approximately 9.8 percent of
influent flows.
Table 9: Estimated Existing Institutional Flows
School
Berthoud Elementary School
Stockwell Elementary School
Carrie Martin Elementary School
Turner Middle School
Berthoud High School
Campion Academy/HMS Richards2
# of Students/Faculty*
415
340
310
459
607
500
Per S/F Flow
15
15
15
20
25
20
Daily WW Flow (gpd)
6,225
5,100
4,650
9,180
15,175
10,000
Total
2,631
50,330
* Based on student population projections from Thompson School District and estimated student to faculty ratios.
No institutional flows exist or are expected in the I-25 Sub-Area, Western Mini
Ranches/Vaquero Estates and Berthoud Estates.
TOTAL EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS
Based on historic daily influent data, Berthoud’s existing WWTF sees an average flow of 0.513
MGD. This flow rate accounts for all domestic sources within the Town’s service area, as well as
all existing commercial/industrial and institutional flows that are currently served by the WWTF.
Table 10 below summarizes average flows for all use types with the assumed percentage coming
from commercial and educational sources.
Table 10: Summary of Average Existing Flows by Use
School
Residential
Commercial
3
Daily WW Flow (gpd)
% Total Flow
384,670
78,000
75%
15%
Campion Academy and HMS Richards were estimated at 500 total students and faculty between the two schools.
Town of Berthoud
20
School
Daily WW Flow (gpd)
% Total Flow
50,330
10%
513,000
100%
Educational
Total
The Town is primarily residential with limited existing commercial and residential facilities.
Residential flow and loading calculations are based on total flow at the Berthoud WWTF and
include commercial/industrial/educational flows.
EXISTING PEAKING FACTOR
The Berthoud WWTF maximum month peaking factor was calculated using the highest average
monthly flow (0.561 MGD) and dividing that figure by the overall average monthly flow (0.513
MGD). Using this method, the maximum month peaking factor is 1.09, which is a low but
acceptable value.
The peak day flow of 0.91 MGD, recorded on April 23, 2010, divided by the overall average
monthly flow results in a daily peaking factor of 1.77, which is reasonable.
The Berthoud WWTF does not record the instantaneous peak flow (peak hour); therefore, there
is no recorded data available to calculate a peak hour flow factor. Based on Metcalf & Eddy’s
Wastewater Treatment, for small towns with a population less than 5,000, the influent hourly
peaking factor for the Berthoud WWTF is estimated to be 4.0. As the Town of Berthoud grows,
the peak hourly flow is expected to flatten to a peaking factor of 3.25 within the 20-year planning
period. The hourly peaking factor, for towns over a 5,000 population size, may use the equation
suggested by the NFRWQPA Utility Plan Guidance document.
The peaking factor for the design hydraulic flow of 2.0 MGD for the Berthoud WWTF is
calculated as follows:
3.65
3.65
2.0
.
.
3.25
A peaking factor of 3.0 has been assumed in past design work for the Town and in the Town’s
2011 Wastewater Master Plan. An hourly peaking factor of 3.0 is assumed in this Utility Plan as
well.
All other peaking factors are projected to remain constant through build-out of the service areas.
Future expansions will be designed based on existing data available at that time. Similar peaking
factors have been determined for the Berthoud Regional WWTF and Berthoud Estates WWTF.
The peaking factors for each major facility are summarized below in Table 11.
Town of Berthoud
21
Table 11: Summary of Peaking Factors
WWTF
Average Daily
Flow
(MGD)
Peak Daily
Flow (MGD)
Daily Peaking
Factor
Peak Hourly
Flow (gpm)
Hourly
Peaking
Factor
Town of Berthoud
0.513
0.91
1.77
1,389
3.0
Berthoud Regional
0.099
0.198
2.0
275
4.0*
Berthoud Estates
0.044
0.084
1.90
*Based on Metcalf & Eddy’s Wastewater Treatment, for small service areas
123
4.0*
CURRENT ORGANIC, SOLIDS AND NUTRIENT LOADS AND PERFORMANCE
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOADS
From July 2011 through June 2014 the reported monthly influent wastewater data
indicates that the Berthoud WWTF experiences an average 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) of 235 mg/L and 243 mg/l, respectively.
CDPHE requires reporting of the maximum 30-day average BOD5 concentration. During
this same period the the maximum 30-day average BOD5 concentration and TSS
concentration were was 313 mg/L and 364 mg/l, respectively. These values are consistent
with the Berthoud WWTF design parameters. Shown on
Table 12 is a summary of the influent loadings to the Berthoud WWTF and Serenity Ridge
WWTF during the period July 2011 through June 2014. The permitted hydraulic and organic
loading to the Berthoud WWTF and Serenity Ridge WWTF is 2.0 MGD and 3,900 lbs/day
BOD5 and 0.022 MGD and 52 lbs/day BOD5, respectively. Currently based on maximum month
loadings the Berthoud WWTF is at 28 percent and 44 percent hydraulic and organic rated
capacities. The Serenity Ridge WWTF based on maximum month loadings is at 73 percent
hydraulic and 73 percent organic rated capacities. It should be noted that both the Berthoud
WWTF and Serenity Ridge WWTF do not monitor for influent NH3-N concentrations so an
assumed value of 30 mg/l NH3-N was used which is fairly conservative. Typical municipal
influent ammonia concentrations range from 25 mg/l to 35 mg/l.
Table 12: July 2011 through June 2014 Summary of Existing WWTF Loadings
WWTF
Town of Berthoud
Serenity Ridge
Average
Influent TSS
Loading
[lbs/day]
Max Month TSS
Loading
[lbs/day]
Average
Influent BOD5
Loading
[lbs/day]
Max Month
Influent BOD5
Loading
[lbs/day]
Influent
NH3-N
Loading
[lbs/day]
1040
1703
1005
1464
139
33
-
38
-
3.2
Notes: (1): Loadings calculated based on average influent flow and maximum monthly flow corresponding with
average and max monthly TSS and BOD5 concentrations. The maximum month and average flows for Berthoud
WWTF are 0.561 MGD and 0.513 MGD. Reported maximum month flow for Serenity Ridge is 0.016 MGD.
(2): The Berthoud WWTF and Serenity Ridge WWTF do not monitor for influent NH3-N concentrations.
A maximum monthly NH3-N concentration of 30 mg/l was used for calculating influent NH3-N loadings.
(3) Source of data is from the Berthoud and Serenity Ridge DMRs
Town of Berthoud
22
Shown in Table 13 is a summary of the treatment performance of the Berthoud WWTF for
BOD5, TSS and NH3-N for the period of July 2011 to June 2014.
Table 13: Berthoud WWTF Treatment Performance July 2011 through June 2014
Average Influent
BOD5
Concentration
[mg/l]
235
Average
Effluent BOD5
Concentration
[mg/l]
5.8
Average
Influent TSS
Concentration
[mg/l]
243
Average
Effluent TSS
Concentration
[mg/l]
4.8
Average
Effluent NH3-N
Concentration
[mg/l]
0.3
The treatment performance of the Berthoud WWTF was excellent as shown on Table 13. The
removal efficiencies for BOD5, TSS and NH3-N were 98%, 98% and 99%, respectively. Since
the Berthoud WWTF does not monitor for influent NH3-N an assumed influent NH3-N
concentration of 30 mg/l was used. The design and operation of the Berthoud WWTF includes
extended aeration process mode allowing for 24 hours hydraulic detention time (HRT) and over
30 days solids retention time (SRT) at 2.0 MGD and 3,500 mg/l MLVSS. The extended aeration
process will allow for complete nitrification and reduces WAS loading to the aerobic digester
compared to conventional activated sludge systems.
The average per capita wastewater flow (gpcd) in Berthoud Estates WWTF is estimated at 101
gpcd with a population of 439 people and an annual average flow of 44,200 gpd. The average
organic loading at the WWTF is 192 mg/L which equates to an existing daily load of 70.8 lbs/d
BOD. However, based on the load projections approved in the Berthoud Estates Site Application,
an organic loading of 250 mg/L will be used for projected organic loading, which equates to a
92.2 lbs/day capacity.
The Berthoud Regional facility, although not currently on line will handle existing wastewater
flows and loading from the Serenity Ridge WWTF. The Serenity Ridge WWTF is expected to
treat up to 0.016 MGD, with and average organic loading of 283 mg/L BOD, by the end of 2014
as Serenity Ridge Subdivision reaches build-out capacity. This equates to an average daily load
of 37.8 lbs/d BOD. However, based on the load projection described in the Berthoud Regional
WWTF PER, an organic loading of 350 mg/L will be used for projected organic loading, which
equates to a 164.5 lbs/day capacity.
EXISTING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LOADS
As noted above, the Town does not currently differentiate the commercial and industrial flows
from domestic sources at the WWTF. Therefore, the current organic loads and flows due to
commercial/industrial sources are unknown. It is recommended that the Town begin monitoring
commercial and industrial flows to the WWTF. This monitoring effort will enable the Town to
more accurately determine the per capita flow rate and enable the Town to determine the impact
of commercial/industrial flows to the WWTF. Monitoring will also assist the Town in
developing pretreatment ordinances, when needed, to ensure there is sufficient capacity for both
residential development and any future commercial/industrial development within the Berthoud
WWTF service area.
Town of Berthoud
23
Commercial flows in the I-25 Sub-Area are assumed to produce an average 350 mg/L BOD
concentration and 251 lbs/d BOD loading. No commercial flows are expected in Berthoud
Estates.
EXISTING EDUCATIONAL LOADS
Based on the total flow of 50,330 gpd from institutional facilities shown in Table 9: Estimated
Existing Institutional Flows for education flows to the Berthoud WWTF, and a 30-day maximum
average BOD concentration of 313 mg/L, the estimated existing load contributed by schools is
131 lbs BOD per day, or roughly 9.8 percent of the total influent organic load. No educational
flows are expected in the I-25 Sub Area or in Berthoud Estates.
WASTEWATER FLOW AND ORGANIC LOAD PROJECTIONS
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL FLOWS
Based on an average per capita flow of 95 gpcd and a BOD5 concentration of 313 mg/L, the
residential flows for the Town of Berthoud 20-year planning period are shown in Table 14. The
total residential flows expected within the 20-year planning period is 1.181 MGD.
Table 14: Town of Berthoud Projected Residential Wastewater and Organic Production
Subdivision Name
Existing Population
Collins Park
Heron Lakes
Mary's Farm Tract A
Population
Average Monthly
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
5,105
473,000
1,234.7
141
13,329
34.8
32
3,029
7.9
1,232
116,503
304.1
51
4,827
12.6
Matthew's Farm Villages
80
7,571
19.8
Matthew's Farm Estates
53
5,111
13.3
O'Malley Glen
859
81,297
212.2
Peakview Meadows 1st
27
2,555
6.7
Peakview Meadows 2nd
53
5,111
13.3
Gateway Park
53
5,111
13.3
Heritage Ridge
468
44,292
115.6
Overlook at Dry Creek
Prairie Star
Bader
484
45,806
119.6
1,530
144,612
377.5
298
28,203
73.6
Berthoud Hollow
64
6,057
15.8
Fickel Farm 2nd
734
69,467
181.3
Green Acres
279
26,500
69.2
Hammond
181
17,130
44.7
River Glen
293
21,755
56.8
Western Mini Ranches/ Vaquero
Estates
226
21,470
56.0
Town of Berthoud
24
Population
Average Monthly
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
Trails at Sugar Creek
120
11,357
29.6
Westhaven / Brown
279
26,500
69.2
12,640
1.181 MGD
3,082 lbs/d
Subdivision Name
Total
Based on an average per capita flow of 95 gpcd and a projected BOD5 concentration of 350
mg/L, the residential flows for the I-25 Sub-Area 20-year planning period are shown in Table 15.
The total residential flows expected within the 20-year planning period is up to 0.056 MGD.
Table 15: I-25 Sub-Area Projected Residential Wastewater and Organic Production
Subdivision Name
Population
Flow (MGD)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
171
0.016
47.7
426
0.040
116.8
597
0.056 MGD
164.5 lbs/d
Existing Residential
Serenity Ridge
Projected Residential
Wilson Ranch
Total
Based on an average per capita flow of 101 gpcd and a projected BOD5 concentration of 250
mg/L, the residential flows for the Berthoud Estates 20-year planning period are shown in Table
16. The total residential flow expected within the 20-year planning period is 0.044 MGD.
Table 16: Berthoud Estates Projected Residential Wastewater and Organic Production
Subdivision Name
Berthoud Estates
(including Foothills Estates)
Total
Population
Flow (MGD)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
439
0.0442
92.2
439
0.044 MGD
92.2 lbs/d
PROJECTED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FLOWS
With information regarding sizes of anticipated commercial or industrial flows from developers,
a per acre water demand was assigned to different zoning categories. The wastewater production
per acre was calculated assuming a 10 percent consumptive use. A summary of wastewater
production with respect to zoning category is shown in Table 17.
Town of Berthoud
25
Table 17: Town of Berthoud per Acre Wastewater Production Based on Zoning
Zoning Category
Wastewater Production
Commercial
720 gallons/acre/d
Public Demand
630 gallons/acre/d
Industrial Demand
900 gallons/acre/d
Transitional Demand
675 gallons/acre/d
There is a significant amount of mixed use development anticipated within the 20-year planning
period. The Town’s projected wastewater production is shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Town of Berthoud Projected Commercial Wastewater and Organic Production
Area (ft2)
Area
(acre)
522,720
12
2,290,820
52.59
87,991
Gateway Park
Parkway Plaza
Subdivision Name
WW Flow
Per Acre
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load
(lbs/d)
Existing
Existing Commercial
720
8,667
22.6
720
37,863
98.7
2.02
720
1,451
3.8
1,691,435
38.83
720
27,956
72.9
1,971,090
45.25
720
32,578
85.0
Safeway
1,191,802
27.36
720
19,702
51.4
Sommers
3,662,525
84.08
720
60,535
157.9
Allen Annexation
640,768
14.71
720
10,595
27.6
B&J Storage
341,075
7.83
720
5,636
14.7
3,076,207
70.62
720
50,847
132.6
Commercial
Berthoud Common
Commercial
Hammond
Parsons
345,431
7.93
720
5,708
14.9
Yeager
1,546,816
35.51
720
25,564
66.7
1,755,468
40.30
900
36,273
94.6
Sommers
420,790
9.66
900
8,690
22.7
Cole Pond
310,147
7.12
900
6,408
16.7
8,191,894
188.06
900
169,252
441.3
3,503,531
80.43
630
50,669
132.1
871,200
20.00
630
12,600
32.9
3,503,531
80.43
630
50,669
16.7
Mary's Farm Tract I
883,397
20.28
675
13,688
35.7
Meyers Annexation
327,136
7.51
675
5,069
13.2
1,119,056
25.69
675
17,338
45.2
Industrial
Champion Homes
TVI
Public
Wagners
O'Malley Glen
Transitional
Parsons
Town of Berthoud
26
Subdivision Name
Area (ft2)
Area
(acre)
WW Flow
Per Acre
Total
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load
(lbs/d)
0.658 MGD
1,717 lbs/d
A significant amount of commercial development is anticipated for the I-25 Sub-Area within the
next 20 years. Based on a projected concentration of 350 mg/L BOD, the projected organic loads
for the I-25 Sub-Area are shown in Table 19.
Table 19: I-25 Sub-Area Projected Commercial Wastewater and Organic Production
Subdivision Name
I-25 Sub-Area
Area (ft2)
Area
(acre)
WW Flow
Per Acre
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load
(lbs/d)
6,752,000
253
720
182,200
531.8
0.182 MGD
531.8 lbs/d
Total
253
No Commercial development exists or is anticipated within the Berthoud Estates wastewater
service area within the 20-year planning period.
PROJECTED EDUCATIONAL FLOWS
Based on discussions with the Thompson School District and review of the population
projections, the existing Berthoud middle and high schools have sufficient capacity to
accommodate future growth. The elementary schools are projected to be above their capacity
within the 20-year planning period, but only by a few students. Since the school populations are
not anticipated to grow significantly, projected school flows will not increase drastically over the
existing school flows. However, projected school flows and loadings based on school design
capacities are displayed in Table 20. Once the elementary schools reach capacity, the Town will
have to investigate if it will construct a new school, and evaluate the impacts to the WWTF at
that time. It is recommended that further discussions with the school district take place as growth
is initiated within the Town.
Table 20: Town of Berthoud Projected Institutional Flows
School
Berthoud Elementary School
Stockwell Elementary
School
Carrie Martin Elementary
School
Turner Middle School
Berthoud High School
Town of Berthoud
# of
Students/Faculty*
Per S/F
Flow
Daily WW
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load
(lbs/d)
505
15
7,575
19.8
372
15
5,580
14.6
297
15
4,455
11.6
796
1,026
20
25
15,920
25,650
41.6
67.0
27
School
Campion Academy/HMS
Richards3
Total
# of
Students/Faculty*
Per S/F
Flow
Daily WW
Flow (gpd)
BOD Load
(lbs/d)
500
20
10,000
26.1
69,180
180.7
3,496
* Based on design capacities from the 2012-2013 Thompson Facility Master Plan and
estimated faculty to student ratios.
No educational flows exist or are expected for the I-25 Sub-Area or Berthoud Estates.
TOTAL PROJECTED FLOWS AND ORGANIC LOADING
Based on the projected residential, commercial, and educational flows, it is anticipated that the
Berthoud WWTF will reach 80 percent of its design hydraulic capacity, thus requiring expansion
planning to commence per CDPHE criteria, between 2030 and 2034. Additionally, projections
indicate that the Town may require a discharge permit modification as the loadings in year 2034
of 4,980 lbs/d is well beyond the permitted capacity of 3,900 lbs/d. A summary of projected
flows and loadings for the Town is shown below in Table 21.
Table 21: Summary of Town of Berthoud Projected Flows/Loadings (20-Year)
Designated Use
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Educational
Total
Average Monthly Flow
(MGD)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
% Total
1.18
0.658
0.069
3,082
1,717
181
62%
34%
4%
1.91 MGD
4,980 lbs/d
-
In general, if the current organic concentration of 313 mg/L remains constant over the planning
period as anticipated, the total organic load to the Berthoud WWTF at its design flow of 2.0
MGD, will be about 5,220 lbs/d; well over the permitted organic loading of 3,900 lbs/d.
The Town of Berthoud will monitor organic loading entering the Berthoud WWTF and begin
planning for a capacity expansion once the organic loading reaches 80 percent of the design
loading. The Town anticipates the WWTF will reach 80 percent of its design organic capacity,
thus requiring expansion planning to commence, per CDPHE Criteria, between 2030 and 2034.
The projected flows and loadings for the I-25 Sub-Area for the 20-year planning horizon are
shown below in Table 22.
3
Campion Academy and HMS Richards were estimated at 500 total students and faculty between the two schools.
This is assumed to be the design capacity.
Town of Berthoud
28
Table 22: Summary of I-25 Sub-Area Projected Flows/Loadings (20-Year)
Area and Use
Average Monthly Flow
(MGD)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
% Total
0.057
0.182
-
166.4
531.3
-
24%
76%
-
0.239 MGD
697.7 lbs/d
-
Residential
Educational
Total
The projected flows and loadings for Berthoud Estates for the 20-year planning horizon are
shown below in Table 23.
Table 23: Summary of Berthoud Estates Projected Flows/Loadings
Area and Use
Average Monthly
Flow (MGD)
BOD Load (lbs/d)
% Total
Residential
Educational
0.0442
-
92.2
-
100%
-
Total
0.044
92.2
-
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
Based on historic data and staff observations, portions of the collection system have been subject
to infiltration and inflow, a concern that has only received the necessary attention in the last ten
years. Corrective actions implemented by the Town include a line inspection and maintenance
program, repair of several lines with cure-in-place-pipe (CIPP) and replacement of several lines
with new pipe. Town staff had developed a list of additional collection lines that are problematic
and are proactively addressing these limitations as time, manpower and budgets allow.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
Inflow and infiltration may be present throughout the collection system and contributing to the
influent flow to the WWTF. Berthoud Estates and Foothills Estates are in the process of
scheduling repairs to address two known sources of infiltration however no assumptions of the
impact of these improvements on the per capita flow are made or incorporated into the proposed
flow projections.
As this is a proposed facility, there are no inflow and infiltration concerns at this time.
Town of Berthoud
29
CHARACTER OF INFLUENT
The Berthoud WWTF primarily treats domestic waste from the Town of Berthoud and
surrounding developed areas. Identified non-domestic contributors to the WWTF include
numerous restaurants. There are no significant industrial contributors to the collection system.
Wastewater characteristics at Berthoud are relatively consistent throughout the year since the
majority of the population are year round residents with limited tourism.
All wastewater characteristics were obtained from plant operating data records and Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMR’s). The influent parameter values were the result of automatically
composited flow-paced samples. Table 24 summarizes the minimum day, average day,
maximum day, 90th percentile and maximum 30-day average values for influent flow, BOD5,
and total suspended solids (TSS) from January 2008 through September 2010. Influent ammonia
is not monitored at this time, thus a typical influent ammonia value of 30 mg/L is assumed for
this plan.
For the purposes of this evaluation, we have used the average flow value in most instances to
determine treatment unit hydraulic capacity. For organic loading, the 90th percentile BOD5 value
is consistent with the recorded peak month BOD5 values that the plant has experienced in the last
five years. This analysis does not use peak flow with peak BOD5 values to determine process
capacity. These combined high flow/high BOD5 scenarios would rarely occur. In addition, if the
combined high flow/high loading scenario was utilized, the results of our analysis would be
skewed and ultimately grossly overestimate the current loading at each treatment unit.
Table 24: Historic town of Berthoud Influent Parameters
Parameter
Minimum
Day
Average Day
Maximum
Day
90th Percentile
Maximum 30-day
Average (1)
Flow, MGD
0.340
0.513
0.905
0.624
0.698
BOD5, mg/L
76
235
487
326
313
TSS, mg/L
64
380
1128
596
562
1
Maximum 30-day average is a rolling 30-day average over the data set. The maximum rolling average is
indicated.
Restaurants have been shown to contribute high amounts of BOD, fats, oil, and grease to
collection systems, clogging sewer lines, contributing to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and
increasing cleaning and preventative maintenance costs incurred by the Town. Berthoud has a
grease control ordinance in place that requires all new restaurants to install and maintain grease
interceptors. Several existing restaurants have grease interceptors and the Town does require
proof of maintenance; however, some restaurants have obtained waivers for the grease
interceptors. It is recommended that the Town uniformly enforce the grease interceptor
ordinance for all restaurants and enforce reporting requirements to ensure proper interceptor
cleaning.
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM (IPT)
Town of Berthoud
30
The Town of Berthoud does not currently differentiate between commercial and industrial flows.
As such, an IPT program has not been necessary under current conditions. This may need to be
reviewed in the future as the Berthoud GMB develops.
TREATMENT WORKS
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
PROCESS SYSTEM
The Berthoud WWTF consists of headworks with screening and grit removal, influent pump
station, conventional activated sludge treatment process, secondary clarification, and UV
disinfection prior to discharge to the Little Thompson River. Solids produced in the secondary
processes are aerobically digested and dewatered via a centrifuge process. The WWTF is capable
of treating a maximum average 30-day day flow of 2.0 (MGD), an organic load of 3,900 lbs/d
BOD5 , and NH3-N loading of 500 lbs/day
The Berthoud WWTF consists of the following major unit processes:

Headworks: Includes an auger, fine screening with integral washing/compacting,
bypass channel with barscreen, and vortex grit removal basin and handling system.
Influent Pump Station: Includes screw centrifugal impeller pumps for headworks
effluent wastewater
Activated Sludge Process: Includes two (2) 1.0 MGD basins
Secondary Clarification: Includes two (2) 60-foot diameter, 14.5-foot side water
depth clarifiers
Return activated sludge (RAS) and WAS system: Includes pumps for RAS and
WAS/scum.
UV System: Includes UV for disinfection and ultrasonic flow element for effluent
flow measurement
Aerobic Digestion: Includes two (2) aerobic digesters whose total volume is 602,000
gallons






INFRASTRUCTURE SIZING AND STAGING
Table 25 describes the unit processes and sizes at the Berthoud WWTF.
Table 25: Existing Berthoud WWTF Process Unit Details
Process
WWTF Treatment Capacity/Applicable Data
Preliminary Treatment
Mechanical Bar Screen
▪ Type: Mechanical bar and rake with 1-11/16” clear openings
▪ Capacity: 9.0 MGD
Grinder/Screen
▪ Type: Mechanical fine screen (JWC Auger Monster) sized for peak flow
Auger
▪ Type: JWC Environmental Inclined Auger Monster with no grinder
Town of Berthoud
31
Process
Grit Removal Tank
▪ Type: 8-foot vortex grit basin
Grit Pumps
▪ Type: 15-hp non-clog, close coupled curved impeller
▪ Capacity: 250 gpm @ 24’ TDH
Influent Pump Station
Pumps
▪ Type: Screw centrifugal
▪ Two (2) 30-hp rated at 2,100 gpm @ 34’ TDH
▪ Two (2) 10-hp rated at 1,050 gpm @ 22’ TDH
Activated Sludge System and Secondary Clarification
Aeration Basins
▪ Type: Concrete 3-pass serpentine tapered aeration activated sludge
▪ Number of Trains: 2
▪ Volume: 1.0 MGD MMF capacity per train
Blowers
▪ Type: 125-hp multi-stage centrifugal
▪ Quantity: 4
▪ Capacity: 1,430 scfm @ 9.20 psig
Secondary Clarifiers
▪ Type: 60-foot center feed/peripheral overflow, bottom scraper return and scum
removal
▪ Quantity: 2
▪ Capacity: 3.0 MGD per clarifier
RAS Pumps
▪ Type: 7.5-hp screw centrifugal
▪ Quantity: 3
WAS Pumps
▪ Type: 5-hp rotary lobe positive displacement
▪ Quantity: 2
Scum Pumps
▪ Type: 5-hp rotary lobe positive displacement
▪ Quantity: 2
▪ Capacity: 100 gpm at 27’ TDH
Ultraviolet Disinfection
UV System
▪ Type: Channel
▪ Water level control: Adjustable weir
Flow Metering
Influent
▪ Type: Magnetic flow meter
Effluent
▪ Type: Ultrasonic flow element with a 30-inch weir
Sludge Processing and Handling
Digester
Blowers
▪ Type: Aerobic
▪ Quantity: 2
▪ Volume: 301,000 gallons
▪ Type: 75-hp multi stage centrifugal
▪ Quantity: 1
▪ Capacity: 750 scfm @ 9.5 psig
▪ Type: Positive Displacement
▪ Quantity: 2
▪ Capacity: 850 – 1150 SCFM
Transfer Pump
▪ Type: 3-hp progressive cavity
▪ Quantity: 1
▪ Capacity: 100 gpm at 35’ TDH
Grinder
▪ Capacity: 100 gpm
Centrifuge Feed Pump
▪ Type: 7.5-hp progressive cavity
Town of Berthoud
32
Process
▪ Quantity: 1
▪ Capacity: 90 gpm at 45 psi
Centrifuge
(no longer in service as
of summer 2012)
▪ Dewatering throughput: 800 lbs/hr
▪ Dewatering capacity: 40 gpm
▪ Thickening throughput: 600 lbs/hr
▪ Thickening capacity: 60 gpm
LOCATION AND SITING
The Berthoud WWTF is located on 20210 County Line Road. The geographic location of the
facility is 40º17’00” north, 105º04’00” west.
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING
The Town is in the process of upgrading their existing solids handling facility by adding a new
aerobic digester (Digester No. 2) capable of treating waste sludge to Class B biosolids standards
per the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Part 503 Regulations. The new
aerobic digester is identical in volume to the Town’s original aerobic digester (Digester No.1),
providing a treatment capacity equivalent to an influent flow of 2.0 MGD. The existing WWTF
currently treats an annual average daily flow of 0.6 (MGD) and is rated for a maximum 30-day
average flow of 2.0 MGD. The Class B biosolids are hauled weekly off-site and land applied
beneficially used for growing crops. .
BERTHOUD WWTF AND REGULATION 85
The original design for the Berthoud WWTF back in 2003 included set aside areas and
connection points for adding anaerobic basins up-front of the two (2) existing aeration basins.
The existing aeration basins can be modified or partitioned to include anoxic basins with internal
recycle to complete a 3-stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) system. With the addition of
anaerobic basins upfront and modifications to the aeration basins the Berthoud WWTF is capable
of meeting Regulation 85 for total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) and total phosphorus (TP). It is
anticipated that the Berthoud WWTF will maintain its capacity of 2 MGD and 3,900 lbs/day
BOD5 with the BNR improvements as described above. The site layout allows for a third train to
be added once the Berthoud WWTF approaches 80 percent of its rated capacity.
The Berthoud WWTF is not expected to meet Regulation 85 for TIN and TP until 2022 at which
time the Town would receive a compliance schedule with a 3 to 5 years period to implement the
BNR improvements.
SCHEMATIC OF TREATMENT WORKS
A schematic of the Berthoud WWTF is shown in Figure 4.
ODOR CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
Town of Berthoud
33
There are no odor control considerations in place at the Berthoud WWTF. For the time being, the
buffer between the WWTF and development is sufficient to abate any odor concerns, and the
Town owns most of the land surrounding the facility.
EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY
The Berthoud WWTF has an emergency diesel generator with an automatic transfer switch. The
generator has a capacity of 750 kilowatts which is adequate for providing power to all the major
process equipment
BERTHOUD ESTATES
PROCESS SYSTEM
Current treatment includes an aerated lagoon, one polishing pond, one intermittent sand filter
pond, and a chlorination chamber. However, construction of a new sequencing batch reactor
system will begin early in 2015. The major features of the upgraded facility include: 1) a passive
grit chamber, 2) mechanical bar screen or comminutor and lift station; , 3) automated influent
flow measurement, 4) a SBR system for biological treatment, 5) a digester for solids treatment,
6) ultraviolet disinfection and 7) site upgrade to three-phase power.
The Berthoud Estates service area has reached build-out and no additional connections are
anticipated. No increases in capacity are required within the 20-year planning period.
LOCATION AND SITING
The existing Berthoud Estates WWTF is located west of State Highway 287 near Berthoud,
Colorado and is immediately south of Dry Creek Reservoir. The legal description for the facility
is the N ½ of Section 30, Township 4N, Range 69W, 6th Prime Meridian. The latitude and
longitude of the facility is 40º 17' 5.28" North and 105º 10' 26.04" West. The new mechanical
WWTF will be constructed at the existing lagoon WWTF site with no changes to the discharge
location.
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING
The proposed SBR facility will include an aerobic digester for treating biosolids to Class B
standards followed by land application by a contractor.
A schematic of the new mechanical Berthoud Estates WWTF is shown in Figure 5.
There are currently no odor control measures in place at the Berthoud Estates WWTF.
Town of Berthoud
34
PROCESS SYSTEM
The regional WWTF will require advanced mechanical treatment to meet site specific PELs and
Reg. 85 nutrient requirements. Phase 1 of the Regional WWTF will include a 0.099 MGD
sequencing batch reactor (SBR) system that will be modular and common wall construction to
facilitate future expansions and improvements. The build-out capacity for the Regional WWTF
is projected to be 3.0 MGD. The draft of the Regional WWTF WUP dated October 2014
provides the design criteria and process for the recommended alternative.
The Regional WWTF will be designed and constructed for an initial capacity of 0.099 MGD and
phased to an ultimate build out capacity of 3.0 MGD. The first phase will meet the projected
demands for the next 5 to 10 years depending on growth in the I-25 sub area.
LOCATION AND SITING
The proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF site location is within the Town of Berthoud property
located half a mile east of I-25on the north side of State Highway 56. The legal description for
the facility is the SW ¼ of Section 14, Township 4N, Range 68 W, 6th Prime Meridian. The
latitude and longitude of the facility is 40° 18’ 32” North and 104° 58’ 19” West. The proposed
discharge location is to the Little Thompson River.
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING
Phase 1 of the Regional WWTF operation will include a biosolids hauling program where WAS
will be stored in an aerated tank and hauled to the Berthoud WWTF for biosolids treatment. As
the Regional WWTF is expanded a dedicated aerobic digester will be constructed to treat
biosolids to Class B criteria followed by land application at the regional WWTF site.
The Berthoud Regional WWTF is currently in the design phase. A process schematic will be
submitted with the Berthoud Regional Utility Plan and the Process Design Report.
Appropriate measures for odor control will be implemented for the Regional WWTF as the plant
is initially constructed and phased for future expansions. It is anticipated that this will need to be
addressed as development encroaches on the Regional WWTF. For the time being, the buffer
between the Regional WWTF site and development is sufficient to address any odor concerns.
AIR QUALITY PERMIT
Town of Berthoud
35
As specified in the NFRWQPA Utility Plan Document, all WWTFs rated for less than 10 MGD
are not required to submit an Air Quality Permit. All WWTFs within the Berthoud 208 Planning
Area are below 10 MGD.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A stormwater management plan will be developed for any construction performed at the three
WWTF sites within the 208 Planning Area, as well as construction of any collection system
pipelines, to minimize impacts during construction. To minimize the impacts associated with
construction along the river, across the river, and/or in areas with high groundwater, any required
pipeline construction will occur during the winter months and during period of low flow in the
Little Thompson River.
“GREEN” ELEMENTS
“Green” elements will be considered during the design phase on any WWTF improvements
where economically and technologically feasible. No specific “green” elements are being
considered at this time.
Town of Berthoud
36
SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
Ground Engineering, Inc. performed a geotechnical investigation at the Berthoud WWTF in the
anticipated new digester location. According to the report attached in Appendix D, the site
generally consists of topsoil underlain by alluvium soils. Bedrock is located at approximately 23
to 46 feet below grade. The water table is located at approximately 10 to 16 feet below grade. A
copy of the geotechnical report is included in Appendix D. The site envelope for the Berthoud
WWTF is shown in Figure 6.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
A geotechnical site evaluation performed by Ground Engineering was completed in October
2014 for the Berthoud Estates WWTF. The geotechnical report is available upon request. The
site envelope for the Berthoud Estates WWTF is shown in Figure 7.
A full geotechnical site evaluation will be performed during the Berthoud Regional WWTF
design. The geotechnical report, once completed, will be available upon request. The site
envelope for the Berthoud Regional WWTF is shown in Figure 8.
COLLECTION SYSTEM
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
MAJOR LIFT STATIONS
A summary of the Town’s major lift stations is shown below in Table 26.
Table 26: Town of Berthoud Lift Stations
Lift Station
Alarms
Standby-Generator
(fuel type – size)
Capacity (gallons)
Estimated Time
Available for
Repair (hours)
Bo-Mar
High and Low Level
Alarm with AutoDialer
Propane‐ 10 kW
1100
1.5 hours
Campion
High and Low Level
Diesel ‐ 50 kW
2000
2.0 hours
Mary’s Farm
High and Low Level
Natural Gas ‐ 15 kW
6000
1.5 hours
Hillsdale
High and Low Level
Diesel ‐ 116 kW
2000
3.0 hours
River Glen
High and Low Level
Diesel with ATS –
40 kW
1,000
2.5
Town of Berthoud
39
The following lift stations throughout the Town of Berthoud WUSA convey wastewater to the
Berthoud WWTF:
Bo-Mar Lift Station
The Bo Mar Lift Station was installed in 1982 and serves 35th Street Southwest and 36th Street
Southwest. The lift station consists of a manhole that is equipped with two 3-HP submersible
pumps rated for 80 gpm each at 45 feet of TDH. The small 3,000 gallon wet well is operated
using float switches to turn the pumps on and off. The Bo Mar Lift Station conveys wastewater
through a 4-inch diameter force main to a manhole at Lissa Drive and South Taft Avenue. Flow
from the Bo Mar Lift Station is then conveyed through an 8-inch gravity line east to the Campion
Lift Station. Based on discussion with Town staff, the Bo Mar lift station, although older, is in
relatively good condition and would likely serve the Town for many more years to come with
good regular maintenance of the equipment. The Bo Mar Lift Station will serve the future Dehn
subdivision. Besides Dehn, no additional flow is anticipated for the Bo Mar Lift Station and
there should not be a need for an expansion or other modifications beyond pump replacement.
Campion Lift Station
The Campion Lift Station is a package pump station that was initially constructed and placed
into service in the City of Boulder in 1967. The Town salvaged the lift station from the City of
Boulder and installed it in the current location in the Town in 1981. The lift station is located in
the Campion subdivision off Robin Court and services the Campion subdivision (Bellaire
Avenue, Leanne Drive, Robin Court, Denise Avenue, Southwest 35th Street, South Garfield
Avenue, and 42nd Street Southeast west of Hankins Lane). The Campion lift station also receives
influent from the Bo Mar Lift Station and pumps the combined flow to the Berthoud WWTF.
The Campion Lift Station is equipped with two 15-HP centrifugal pumps that have a design
capacity of 250 gpm each. The pumps at the Campion Lift Station are located in a dry pit next to
the 20,000 gallon lift station wet well. Only one pump operates on a float switch. If the primary
pump fails, the operator must manually select the alternate pump and place it into service.
The primary pump was replaced in early January 2011. This replacement required significant
coordination to first pump the wet well down to its lowest possible limit, and have a vacuum
truck on hand to remove flow from the wet well on a continuous basis. At the time the pump was
replaced, Town staff modified some of the piping to include isolation valves and to replace the
broken check valve. Additional electrical and controls upgrades will be required within the 20
year planning period. No additional flow is anticipated for the Campion Lift Station and there
should not be a need for an expansion.
Town of Berthoud
40
Mary’s Farm Lift Station
Mary’s Farm Lift Station is in relatively good condition and has not created undue maintenance
issues in the last few years. The capacity of this lift station is adequate for the anticipated growth
in the Towns development plan. It is possible that this lift station could also be removed from
service and flow redirected via new construction by the O’Malley Glen Project. Plans to remove
Mary’s Farm Lift Station should be reevaluated as development occurs.
Hillsdale Lift Station
The Hillsdale Lift Station could be removed from service at any time by connecting to the new
Dry Creek Line. However, connection to this service would require the Town to install roughly
1,000 feet of collection sewer line to the new development, and reimbursing the developer who
installed the Dry Creek line. In addition to the cost of the new collection sewer extension, a
maintenance fee for the lift station would be eliminated from residential bills, thus decreasing
revenues for the Town. Under the current operating and capital budget, removing this lift station
from service is not an option at this time, but should be planned for when developing future
CIPs. Since the Hillsdale lift station is operationally sound, does not incur a big annual
maintenance expense, and considering the capital and ancillary cost of tying into the new
development, it is recommended that the Hillsdale Lift Station remain in operation until either
the maintenance costs necessitate changes, or the fee associated with tying into the new
development are eliminated.
River Glen Lift Station
To comply with the River Glen WWTF’s discharge permit limits that will begin in 2017, the
River Glen homeowner association, located outside of the Town of Berthoud GMB, elected to
decommission their existing WWTF and consolidate their sanitary sewer flows with the
Berthoud WWTF for treatment.
The lift station at the existing WWTF site will be modified to transfer service area flows to the
Berthoud WWTF. The required lift station changes include: a dual submersible grinder pump
system with a capacity of 80 gallons per minute (gpm), automated flow measurement, site
upgrade to three-phase power, replacement of existing lift station controls and reusing the
existing lift station equipment shed. The proposed force main to connect to the Berthoud
collection system consists of approximately 5,920 linear feet of 4-inch high density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe and 15 linear feet of 8-inch HDPE pipe. The force main alignment connects to the
collection system at the Dry Creek Interceptor Sewer, north of County Road 4E. Once the lift
station is in service, the existing River Glen WWTF will be decommissioned. Remaining
wastewater in the lagoons will be properly removed and the WWTF site will be re-graded. The
re-built lift station, commissioned November 2014, will be owned and operated by the Town of
Berthoud and the River Glen homeowners association will remain outside the Berthoud GMB.
INTERCEPTORS
The only sanitary sewer pipelines throughout the Berthoud 208 Planning Area that are 24-inch or
larger and classify as an interceptor are part of the Dry Creek Interceptor near the south boundary
Town of Berthoud
44
of the Town of Berthoud. A 24-inch interceptor conveys waste from Larimer County Road 17
along Larimer County Road 42 until it reaches 1st Street. From 1st Street it roughly follows the
Little Thompson northeast until it reaches Larimer County Road 6C. From there it flows east to
Weld County Road (WRC) 1. At WRC 1 the 24-inch interceptor widens to a 30-inch interceptor.
It continues flowing east until it reaches the Berthoud WWTF. Figure 9, 10 and 11 show the
major collection system features including interceptors and lift stations.
The Town of Berthoud entered into an agreement with a local property owner, Kenneth A.
Williamson, Managing Partner of Alfa, LLC to develop the Dry Creek Interceptor privately. As
development in the area expands, Alfa, LLC will be reimbursed for the full expense of the
project through connection fees levied on future residents connecting to the Dry Creek
Interceptor. A copy of the reimbursement agreement is included in Appendix G.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
MAJOR LIFT STATIONS
The Berthoud Estates homeowners association is currently served by a gravity fed lagoon
system. In 2015, construction will begin to replace the existing lagoon system with a new SBR
treatment facility. A lift station will be required at the plant site to increase the hydraulic grade
required for the unit operations and unit treatment processes and final effluent discharge to Dry
Creek.
INTERCEPTORS
There are no interceptors serving the Berthoud Estates homeowners association. No future
interceptors will be necessary for this service area. The collection system for Berthoud Estates
consists of 8” to 12” sewer mains and is currently built out.
MAJOR LIFT STATIONS
Wastewater collection and conveyance within the service area of the Berthoud Regional WWTF
will be by gravity to a lift station located at the plant site. The lift station is required to increase
the hydraulic grade required for gravity flow through the unit operations and unit treatment
processes and final effluent discharge to the Little Thompson River.
INTERCEPTORS
The Berthoud Regional WWTF collection system will consist of pipelines all smaller than 24
inches. No interceptors will be necessary for this service area. The proposed I-25 Sub-Area
collection system is shown in Figure 12.
Town of Berthoud
45
FIGURE 9 - EXIST TOWN OF BERTHOUD
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
OCTOBER 2014
OCTOBER 2014
OCTOBER 2014
FIGURE 12 - PROPOSED I-25 SUB-AREA COLLECTION SYSTEM
OCTOBER 2014
CHAPTER 5 – WATER QUALITY
CHARACTERIZATION
WATER QUALITY OF RECEIVING WATER
The Town of Berthoud and the Berthoud Regional WWTFs discharge to Segment 09 of the Little
Thompson River, which is classified as a warm water aquatic life Class 2, existing primary
contact recreation Class 1a, and agriculture stream. This segment of the Little Thompson River is
currently on the CDPHE 303(d) list for impaired streams. This designation means that there are
parameters in the receiving stream that are inherently harmful to aquatic life, thus any discharge
of these parameters from a WWTF to the stream will be closely monitored and/or restricted. The
parameters of concern for this stream segment include copper, selenium, and E. coli. The Town’s
discharge permit is attached in Appendix E. Based on discussions with Town staff and our work
with other facilities in Colorado, the trend in water quality is tightening and it is anticipated that
stricter limits, and additional water quality parameters, specific to the Little Thompson River,
will be implemented at this facility in the next several permit cycles.
The Little Thompson River is regulated by the Water Quality Control Commission’s Regulation
38 Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin,
Republican River Basin, and Smoky Hill River Basin (Regulation 38), which was updated in
January 2011. This update included more stringent ammonia limits and mean weekly average
temperature (MWAT) limits to protect the razorback sucker.
Berthoud Estates WWTF discharges to a tributary of Dry Creek, which is regulated under
Regulation 38. Dry Creek falls under Segment 10 of the Little Thompson River, which is
classified as use protected, warm water aquatic Class 2, existing primary contact recreation Class
1a, and agricultural stream. Dry Creek is not currently listed on the 303(d) list for impaired
streams. Dry Creek is regulated by the Water Quality Control Commission’s Regulation 38.
TMDLS AND/OR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
The Big and Little Thompson River Basin serves as the main receiving water body for
wastewater effluent discharge for the Berthoud WWTF, Berthoud Estates WWTF, and the
proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. Under CDPHE Regulation 93, the constituents shown in
Table 27 are listed as impairments to the Little Thompson Stream Segment 9. Watershed
management agencies are encouraged to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and
Wasteload Allocations. No TMDLs or Wasteload Allocations are filed at CDPHE for the Little
Thompson Stream Segments 9 or 10 at this time. Segment 10 for Dry Creek is not currently
listed on the 303(d) list for impaired waters.
Town of Berthoud
50
Table 27: Impairment by Stream Segment Listed on Reg. 93 303(d) List
Impairment to The Little Thompson River, Segment 9
Constituent
Priority
TMDL (Yes/No)
Medium
No
Selenium
Low
No
E. coli (May-October)
High
No
Medium
No
Copper
Aquatic Life Use
WATERSHED ISSUES
The Little Thompson Watershed Restoration Coalition, sponsored by the Big Thompson
Conservation District, is currently undertaking a master planning effort for the restoration of the
Little Thompson Watershed. A request for proposal (RFP) for master planning services was
submitted on March 5, 2014. This is the only known watershed planning effort currently
underway.
A map of the Town of Berthoud impaired waters within the Little Thompson Watershed is
shown in Figure 13.
LEVEL OF TREATMENT, PERMITTING AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The following use classifications are taken from CDPHE Regulation 38.Existing level of
treatment and permitted effluent limitations for Berthoud’s WUSA are listed below.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
The Berthoud WWTF discharges to the mainstem of the Little Thompson along Segment 9. This
segment is regulated as an undesignated Class 2 Warm Water Aquatic Life, Recreation E, and
Agricultural use stream.
The Berthoud WWTF is permitted under CDPHE Discharge Permit #CO-0046663 and
discharges to Segment 9 of the Little Thompson River. The current effluent limitations (level of
treatment) is shown below in Table 28. The Berthoud WWTF discharge permit is included in
Appendix E.
Town of Berthoud
51
Figure 13.
LEVEL OF TREATMENT, PERMITTING AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The following use classifications are taken from CDPHE Regulation 38.Existing level of
treatment and permitted effluent limitations for Berthoud’s WUSA are listed below.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
The Berthoud WWTF discharges to the mainstem of the Little Thompson along Segment 9. This
The Berthoud WWTF is permitted under CDPHE Discharge Permit #CO-0046663 and
discharges to Segment 9 of the Little Thompson River. The current effluent limitations (level of
treatment) is shown below in Table 28. The Berthoud WWTF discharge permit is included in
Appendix E.
Town of Berthoud
52
FIGURE 13 - BERTHOUD WATERSHED AND
IMPAIRED WATERS
OCTOBER 2014
Table 28: Effluent Limitations for the Berthoud WWTF
Effluent Limitations for Discharge to The Little Thompson River, Segment 9
BOD5 (mg/L)
BOD5 (% removal)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/L)
TSS, mechanical plant (%
removal)
Oil and Grease (mg/L)
DO (mg/L)
pH (s.u.)
45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average)
85-min (30-day average)
10 (maximum)
5 (minimum)
6.5 – 9.0 (minimum-maximum)
Other Pollutants
E. coli (#/100 ml)
Max. Limits or WQBELs
252 (7-day geomean), 126 (30-day geomean)
TRC (mg/L)
0.019 (daily maximum), 0.011 (30-day average)
Cr+6 (µg/L)
Report (daily maximum), Report (30-day average)
Cu, PD (µg/L)
CN, WAD (µg/L)
5 (daily maximum)
Hg, Total (µg/L)
.01 (30-day average)
Se, PD (µg/L)
Wet Testing
WQBELs
Pimephales Lethality
Report Statistical Difference and IC25 ≥ IWC
Ceriodaphnia Lethality
Report Statistical Difference and IC25 ≥ IWC
Pimephales Toxicity
Report Statistical Difference and IC25
Ceriodaphnia Toxicity
Report Statistical Difference and IC25
Total Ammonia
WQBELs
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jan
28 (daily maximum), 5.5 (30-day average)
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Feb
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Mar
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Apr
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) May
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jun
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jul
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Aug
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Sep
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Oct
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Nov
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Dec
Town of Berthoud
54
BERTHOUD ESTATES
The sub-division of Berthoud Estates WWTF discharges to a tributary of Dry Creek, a tributary
of Little Thompson River Segment 10. Segment 10 of the Little Thompson River and all of its
tributaries are regulated as a use protected, Class 2 Warm Water Aquatic Life, Recreation E, and
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is permitted under CDPS Discharge Permit #COG-589097 and
discharges to Dry Creek, a tributary of the Little Thompson River Segment 10. The current
effluent limitations (level of treatment) is shown below in Table 29. The Berthoud Estates
discharge permit is included in Appendix E.
Table 29: Effluent Limitations for Berthoud Estates WWTF
Effluent Limitations for Discharge to Dry Creek
BOD5 (mg/L)
BOD5 (% removal)
TSS (mg/L)
TSS (% removal)
N/A
10 (maximum)
DO (mg/L)
5.0 (minimum)
pH (s.u.)
Other Pollutants
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/L)
Total Ammonia
WQBELs
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jan
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Feb
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Mar
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Apr
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) May
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jun
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Jul
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Aug
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Sep
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Oct
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Nov
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/L) Dec
Town of Berthoud
55
The Berthoud Regional WWTF will discharge to the Little Thompson River Segment 9. This
The Town applied for Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PELs) in June, 2014. PELs will be
included with the Berthoud Regional Utility Plan. The regional WWTF will be required to meet
Regulation 85 effluent limitations including 7 mg/L Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and 0.7
mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP). A summary of the preliminary effluent limitations is shown below
in Table 30.
Table 30: Preliminary Effluent Limitations for Berthoud Regional WWTF
Effluent Limitations for Discharge to The Little Thompson River, Segment 10
BOD5 (mg/L)
BOD5 (% removal)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/L)
TSS, mechanical plant (%
removal)
TIN (mg/L)
7 (annual median), 14 (95th percentile)
TP (mg/L)
0.7 (annual median), 1.75 (95th percentile)
DO (mg/L)
pH (s.u.)
Other Pollutants
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/L)
Town of Berthoud
10 (maximum)
5 (minimum)
56
CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TREATMENT WORKS
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
No significant improvement requiring a site application amendment or alternatives analysis over
the next 5 years is being considered for the Town of Berthoud under this WUP.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
No alternatives are being considered for the Berthoud Estates homeowners association as part of
this WUP. In 2012 Berthoud Estates considered consolidation with either the Berthoud WWTF
or the Western Mini-Ranches / Vaquero Estates WWTF. The selected alternative, with approval
from CDPHE and the NFRWQPA, is to construct a new mechanical WWTF at Berthoud Estates.
Construction is expected to begin in 2015.
Below is a list of the alternatives considered for the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF
Consolidation is discussed in some detail below under Alternative 1. For a full description of the
proposed alternatives, please see the Berthoud Regional Utility Plan submitted concurrently with
this report.
ALTERNATIVE 1 – CONSOLIDATION WITH THE BERTHOUD WWTF
In November 2004, the Town submitted an amendment to the previously approved Wastewater
Facility Plan that was prepared in the year 2000. The Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment was
submitted to the NFRWQPA identifying recommendations for servicing the I-25 Sub-Area. The
approved amendment provided a detailed evaluation that determined that a Regional WWTF
would be more feasible and cost effective than constructing a series of lift stations and force
main for consolidating with the Berthoud WWTF. The amendment identified capacity
requirements, redundancy, length of force main, and lift station size and all associated costs, as
the primary criterion that consolidation was not the most feasible and cost effective option.
Since the amendment in 2004, development interest in the I-25 Sub-Area slowed significantly.
This Regional WWTF WUP has revised the projected flows and loads for the regional facility,
however, the main argument to eliminate consolidation remains true. The lift station and
forcemain cost, along with the anticipated increase in flows and loads, make a Regional WWTF
the most cost effective long term solution for this area.
Town of Berthoud
57
Three treatment technologies were considered for the Berthoud Regional WWTF, including:



Alternative 2 – Three-Stage Activated Sludge Biological Nutrient Removal
Alternative 3 – Sequencing Batch Reactor
Alternative 4 – Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR)
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
Per Regulation 85, the Town of Berthoud will not be expected to meet the effluent limitations of
1 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) and 15 mg/L total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) for existing facilities
because the facility has a design capacity of less than or equal to 2.0 MGD. This exclusion is in
effect until May 31, 2022 when the Town of Berthoud will be expected to come into compliance
with the criteria listed above.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
Berthoud Estates WWTF is categorically excluded from meeting the Regulation 85 limitations of
0.7 mg/L TP and 7 mg/L TIN for existing discharge permits with a design capacity of less than
or equal to 1.0 MGD.
Per Regulation 85 for new facilities, the Berthoud Regional WWTF will be required to meet
discharge limitations of 0.7 mg/L TP and 7 mg/L TIN.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SELECTION PROCESS
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
The Town has regularly scheduled meetings which can be found on the Calendar of Events
located on the Town’s website.
BERTHOUD ESTATES
Berthoud Estates held a public meeting on March 14, 2013 to review the Preliminary
Engineering Report and voted to select the recommended alternative to construct a new
mechanical WWTF.
The Town will be holding a public meeting as part of the CDPHE Site Application process to
discuss the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF.
Town of Berthoud
58
CHAPTER 7 – MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL
PLANS
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND AGREEMENTS
The Town of Berthoud utilities department staff perform operation and maintenance of the
Berthoud WWTF, the Regional WWTF, and all lift stations and collection system pipelines. The
Town currently has a Class A operator capable of operating all existing and proposed WWTF
equipment.
Berthoud Estates contracts directly with an independent operator to operate and maintain the
Berthoud Estates WWTF. Ramey Environmental Compliance is the current contract operator and
employs Class A operators capable of operating all proposed WWTF equipment.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WWTF UPGRADES
In 2014 through early 2015, the Town completed several capital improvement projects at the
WWTF, including, an aerobic digester expansion, dewatering / biosolids handling system and the
addition of a headworks building to enclose the existing screening and grit removal system. No
additional upgrades are anticipated within the next five years for the Berthoud WWTF.
The Regional WWTF and two to three miles of collection system pipelines are anticipated for
construction within the next five years. Capital costs for the Regional WWTF are included in the
Regional WWTF Preliminary Engineering Report / WUP submitted concurrently with this
report.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF opinion of probable cost is $1,065,600. State Revolving Fund
(SRF) funding has been secured for the Berthoud Estates WWTF and design is underway for this
new mechanical wastewater treatment facility. Construction will begin spring 2015.
COLLECTION SYSTEM UPGRADES
LIFT STATIONS
The Town has five lift stations in the collection system, with all but one having been constructed
in the 1980’s. Equipment for the Campion lift station was originally placed into service in the
City of Boulder in 1967 and salvaged for use by the Town in 1981. The capacity of the lift
station is adequate to meet current and anticipated future flows; however, the Campion Lift
Station has required significant maintenance over the years, with increasing concerns for
Town of Berthoud
59
operational reliability and maintenance. Recently, the Town corrected piping configurations,
installed valves for isolating pumps, replaced one pump, and overhauled the other pump. Despite
these improvements, the pump station still needs some electrical and controls upgrades. The
proposed improvements include replacement and relocation of the pump control panel. . The
opinion of probable cost for the proposed improvements at this lift station is $63,000. This
improvement is considered to have the highest priority and is recommended to be completed by
the end of 2015.
Two undeveloped areas within the Town of Berthoud will require lift stations once they are
developed. The Heron Lakes Lift Station and Overlook at Dry Creek Lift Station will each be
designed and constructed once development occurs in these areas. The opinion of probable cost
is $1,000,000 for the Heron Lakes Lift Station and $400,000 for the Overlook at Dry Creek Lift
Station.
COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND REPAIR
The WWTF collection system staff has implemented a detailed evaluation of the collection
system using both site observations and the use of TV inspection. Based on this information and
the identification of sections of the collection system that have required extensive maintenance in
the last few years, staff identified roughly 8,000 feet of sewer pipe that needs to be either
replaced or rehabilitated to improve collection system capacity, address sewer design limitations
or flaws, and/or eliminate infiltration and inflow. In addition, the hydraulic modeling completed
as part of this plan identified necessary sewer pipe capacity increases. The opinion of probable
cost for the proposed improvements for the entire collection system is $1,110,000. The sections
of sewer should be prioritized, with immediate implementation of corrective actions for as many
sections of sewer as can be reasonably accomplished in as short a time as possible, with the
highest priority areas completed by 2015 and the remaining sections by 2020.
COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION
As development occurs in the Town, many proposed areas will require an expansion of the
existing collection system. Three major sanitary sewer arteries are proposed to service growth in
North Berthoud. The Heron Lakes Parkway and County Road 17 sanitary sewers will require
new construction connecting to existing stubs. The 1st Street sewer, currently servicing Campion,
will be upgraded from a 12-inch to a 15-inch sanitary sewer. Other sewer mains and force mains
that are planned for future growth include Yeager Farm sanitary sewer, O’Malley Glen/Green
Acres sanitary sewer, Heron Lakes force main, and Overlook at Dry Creek force main. A
summary of the opinion of probable cost for each of these collection system projects is provided
in Table 31.
Town of Berthoud
60
Table 31: Opinion of Probable Cost for Collection System Expansions
Collection System Component
Opinion of Probable Cost
Heron Lakes Parkway Sanitary Sewer
$1,320,000
County Road 17 Sanitary Sewer
$1,320,000
1st
$1,920,000
Street Sanitary Sewer Upgrade*
Yeager Farm Sanitary Sewer
$300,000
O’Malley Glen/Green Acres Sanitary Sewer
$150,000
Heron Lakes Force Main
$75,000
Overlook at Dry Creek Force Main
$180,000
Total
$5,265,000
COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION
In 2014, BBC Research & Consulting prepared a Preliminary Growth Projections and Select
Impact Fees report. This fee study provides guidance to the Town to determine the portion of
capital improvements related to growth and the required System Investment Fees to charge in
order to raise enough funds for all required infrastructure. The total capital amount included in
the System Investment Fees is $15.4 Million which will be funded as development occurs. The
estimated minimum wastewater System Investment Fee for a Single Family Equivalent (SFE) is
$5,932.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXISTING COSTS
The Town Wastewater Enterprise Fund receives revenue from monthly user fees to support
wastewater operation and maintenance expenses. According to the Town’s 2014 Wastewater
Enterprise Fund budget, attached in Appendix H, wastewater operation and maintenance
expenditures total $1,883,816 annually. Of these expenditures, $711,813 is associated with
existing debt service for previous bonds on the original digester (1997 bond, refinanced in 2006)
the new WWTF and digester (2002 SRF loan, refinanced to a bond in 2012), and for Mountain
Avenue infrastructure improvements (2007 bond). With the substantial amount of debt service
that the Town already has, they should strive towards saving one tenth of their debt service
annually on top of their operating reserves to use in case of any revenue shortfalls.
ABILITY TO PAY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Wastewater Plant & Collection System Capital Facility Fund receives revenue from System
Investment Fees and bond revenue to support capital improvement projects. The Town currently
charges $6,255 per single family equivalent (SFE) tap. The 2015 beginning fund balance is
$1,521,075 which may be used towards the Regional WWTF and collection system projects in
the I-25 Sub-Area. The OPC for the Regional WWTF is $2 million in which the Town plans to
pay for by a combination of sources including developer contribution, cumulative plant
Town of Berthoud
61
investment fees and cash on hand. At this time the Town has no plans to borrow funds or finance
the Regional WWTF. The Town will create a reimbursement agreement with the major
developers requiring the Regional WWTF in order to fund capital costs with repayment as
additional development occurs. A total of 357 SFEs may be served by the Phase I, 0.099 MGD
Regional WWTF, with 293 SFEs expected to pay System Investment Fees.
USER CHARGE SUMMARY
According to the 2014 Wastewater Enterprise Fund budget, the Town estimated $1.9 million in
wastewater user revenues. The Town currently bills wastewater customers a service charge of
$27.06 and a usage fee of $6.53 per 1,000 gallons (kgal) calculated from January and February
water usage. No user rate increase is required to cover the expected increase in operations and
maintenance expenses from the Regional WWTF. The Regional WWTF will not be funded
through user fees which are established by the Town of Berthoud Board of Trustees. A 20-year
cash flow projection is provided in Appendix H.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
There are numerous sources of available State and Federal funding opportunities for wastewater
infrastructure projects. The Town can pursue grant and/or loans to fund the necessary capital
improvement projects individually or combined. Listed below are funding sources that offer
water grants and loans for wastewater projects.




Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund
US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA RD)
State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (WPCRF)
Small Systems Technical and Training Assistance (SSTTA) Grant
The Town of Berthoud’s median household income (MHI) is slightly above the State average,
which eliminates a few of the “low-income community” funding opportunities. However, since
the Town’s population is below 10,000 people and currently has higher than average water and
wastewater rates, the Town has multiple viable options for financial assistance. The existing debt
obligations of the wastewater enterprise will limit the ability of the Town to borrow significant
funds so the focus will be on grants.
DOLA ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT FUND
The Town of Berthoud and Larimer County have been impacted by oil, gas, and mineral
development which qualify the Town for the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund. This
fund provides financial assistance for wastewater projects. The assistance includes loans and/or
grants for planning, design, and construction. There are matching grants for projects between
$200,000 and $2,000,000. Loans are also available, but other sources provide lower interest rates
and have better terms.
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND
Town of Berthoud
62
The State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (WPCRF) program provides financial
assistance for planning, design, and construction of treatment, distribution, and storage projects.
Direct loans are available to Berthoud for up to $2,000,000 and leveraged loans for larger
amounts. Recent direct loans have had interest rates of 2.0 percent and a term of 20 years. The
SRF loans can be used as matching funds for DOLA grants.
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The USDA RD program provides loans and grants to rural communities with populations less
than 10,000 people. Grants are only available to low and moderate income communities that
have a median household income of less than 80 percent of the State average. Therefore,
Berthoud would only qualify for a loan with USDA RD, not a grant. Currently, Berthoud would
qualify for a direct loan at 4.25 percent APR and a term up to 40 years. Due to the significant
effort of complying with the USDA RD program, this funding source is not recommended,
unless all other options are exhausted. There are better loan programs with less stringent
requirements; however, this option will be analyzed when evaluating debt servicing and the
ability to repay the loans, and there are instances where the USDA RD, 40-year loan option may
be attractive.
Town of Berthoud
63
APPENDIX A: NFRWQPA CHECKLIST
Town of Berthoud
Utility Plan Checklist
X New
□ Update
Chapter
Exec. Summary
Introduction
General Planning
Wastewater
Characterization
Entity:
□ Amendment
Includes
Background
Facilities Plan Summary
Implementation
Summary of UP Structure
Feasibility of Consolidation of
Facilities Reg. 22 @ 22.8(1)(b)
Wastewater Reuse
Environmental Components
Environmental (NEPA) Information
Service Area Designations
Population Datasets & Forecasts
Wastewater Flow Projections
Infiltration & Inflow Analysis
Character of Influent
Industrial Pretreatment Program
Treatment Works
Process System
Infrastructure Sizing & Staging
Location & Siting
Biosolids Handling
Schematic of Treatment Works
Odor Control Considerations
(back up power)
Air Quality Permit
Stormwater Management Plan
“Green” Elements
Site Characterization Report
Collection System
Major Lift Stations
Interceptors
Maps
Treatment Plant Site Envelope
Town of Berthoud
Location in
Report
Pages 6-8
Pages 9 & 10
Pages 10-13
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
Page 16
Page 16
Page 16
Pages 17 &
18
Page 19 - 22
Pages 23 - 32
Pages 32 &
33
Page 33
Page 34
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 34 - 40
Page 38
Page 38
Page 38
Page 41
Page 41 - 50
Page 41 - 50
Page 41 - 50
Page 42 - 43
Comments
Review Date:
Water Quality
Characterization
Alternative Analysis
Management &
financial Plans
References
Technical Support
Appendices
Service Area
Collection System
Water Quality of Receiving Water
Page 15
Page 47-49
Page 52
TMDLs &/or Wasteload Allocations
Watershed Issues
Level of Treatment (Existing Permit
Limits or Projected)
* Use classification
* Reviewable / Use Protected
Maps
Wastershed and Receiving Waters
Impaired Waters
Treatment Works
Level of Treatment
Public Participation in Selection
Process
Management Structure & Agreements
Page 52 & 53
Page 53
Page 55 - 57
Wastewater Management Plan
Financial Management Plan
Revolving Loan Interest (Other
application documents are required if
a facility applies for loan, which do
not need to be part of the utility plan)
User Charge Summary
Reports and Special Studies
Page 60 - 62
Page 62
Page 63 & 64
Legal Description and Evidence of
Site Ownership
Agency Contacts (Cover letters)
Special Surveys (e.g., Endangered
Species)
NEPA process
Site Characterization Report
Soil Test Results
PELs
Planning & Zoning Information (e.g.,
Portion of Local Comprehensive
Plan)
Page 54
Page 54
Page 58
Page 59
Page 59
Page 60
Page 62
See
Appendices
Appendix B
Appendix C
N/A
N/A
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Intergovernmental Agreements
User Charge Study Analysis
Air Quality Permit
Odor Control Studies or Plans
Stormwater Management Plan
Summary of Public Hearings and
Process
Infiltration and Inflow Study
Approvals by review agencies:
Appendix G
Appendix H
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
APPENDIX B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EVIDENCE
OF SITE OWNERSHIP
Town of Berthoud
Property Profile for Account # R7398398
October 20, 2014
Account Information
Account
R7398398
Parcel
Space
106119300068
Account Type
Tax Year
Tax Area
Buildings
2014
2706
5
Exempt
Actual Value
Assessed Value
739,716
214,520
Legal
BER PT SW4 19-4-68 (BERTHOUD UTILITY 2ND ANNEX) LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-2055
Subdivision
Block
Lot
Land Economic Area
0261 BERTHOUD
Property Address
Property City
BERTHOUD
Zip
000000000
Section
Township
Range
19
04
68
Owner Information
Account
Parcel
Space
Account Type
Tax Year
Tax Area
Buildings
Actual Value
Assessed
Value
R7398398
Owner(s)
BERTHOUD
TOWN OF
106119300068
Exempt
Address Line 1
328 MASSACHUSETTS AVE
2014
Address Line 2
PO BOX 1229
2706
5
City
BERTHOUD
739,716
214,520
ST
Zip
CO
805132229
Property Profile for Account # R4967808
October 20, 2014
Account Information
Account
R4967808
Parcel
Space
106114302002
Account Type
Tax Year
Tax Area
Buildings
2014
2768
0
Exempt
Actual Value
Assessed Value
7,870
2,280
Legal
BER 2BBM L2 BETZ BAIRD MINOR 2ND FG
Subdivision
Block
Lot
BETZ BAIRD MINOR SUB 2ND FG
Land Economic Area
2
Property Address
Property City
4407 44 CR
BERTHOUD
BETZ BAIRD MINOR 2ND FG
Zip
000000000
Section
Township
Range
14
04
68
Owner Information
Account
Parcel
Space
Account Type
Tax Year
Tax Area
Buildings
Actual Value
Assessed
Value
R4967808
Owner(s)
BERTHOUD
TOWN OF
106114302002
Exempt
Address Line 1
PO BOX 1229
2014
Address Line 2
2768
0
City
BERTHOUD
7,870
ST
CO
2,280
Zip
805132229
APPENDIX C: AGENCY CONTACTS
Town of Berthoud
APPENDIX D: SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
AND SOIL TEST RESULTS
Town of Berthoud
September 25, 2012
Subject: Subsurface Exploration Program,
Geotechnical Recommendations, Berthoud
WWTP Digester Tank, Berthoud, Colorado.
Job Number 12-0012
Mr. Kevin Tone
JVA, Inc.
1319 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Dear Mr. Tone,
This letter presents a summary regarding the recent site reconnaissance and
subsurface exploration performed by GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc.
(GROUND), with regard to the proposed improvements to the Berthoud WWTP located
east of County Line Road and E. County Road 6 in Berthoud, Colorado. The proposed
construction includes a new digester tank structure founded on a reinforced mat
foundation. Our scope of work has been performed in general accordance with
GROUND’s proposal # 1208-1426.
Field and office studies provided information regarding surface and subsurface
conditions, including existing site improvements. Material samples retrieved during the
subsurface exploration were tested in our laboratory to assess the engineering
characteristics of the site earth materials, and assist in the development of our
geotechnical recommendations. Results of the field, office, and laboratory studies are
presented below.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained and to present our
conclusions and recommendations based on the existing and proposed construction as
well as the subsurface conditions encountered.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed digester tank is to be located directly north of the existing digester on the
west side of the waste water treatment plant. The existing grades associated with the
proposed digester slope down to the north at approximately 7%. The WWTP is
generally surrounded by farmed land. The site vegetation is sparse and consists of
2468 East 9th Street, Loveland, CO 80537
Office Locations:
Englewood

Phone (970) 622-0800
Commerce City

Loveland
Fax (970) 622-0801

Granby

Gypsum
www.groundeng.com

Grand Junction

Casper
Berthoud WWTP: Proposed Digester
Berthoud, Colorado
grass and weeds. The Little Thompson River is located approximately 300 to 400 feet
north of the proposed digester.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The subsurface exploration for the project was conducted in August of 2012. A total of
two (2) test holes were drilled with a truck-mounted, continuous flight power auger rig to
evaluate the subsurface conditions as well as to retrieve soil samples for laboratory
testing and analysis. The test holes were advanced to depths of approximately 30 and
35 feet below existing grades. A representative of GROUND directed the subsurface
exploration, logged the test holes in the field, and prepared the soil samples for
transport to our laboratory. The approximate test hole locations are provided in Figure 1.
Samples of the subsurface materials were retrieved with a 2-inch I.D. California liner
sampler. The California sampler was driven into the substrata with blows from a 140pound hammer falling 30 inches. This procedure is similar to the Standard Penetration
Test described by ASTM Method D1586. Penetration resistance values, when properly
evaluated, indicate the relative density or consistency of soils.
Samples retrieved from our test holes were examined and visually classified in the field
by the project engineer. A laboratory-testing program was performed on soil samples
obtained from the subject site, which included standard property tests, such as natural
moisture contents, dry unit weights, grain size analyses, swell-consolidation testing, and
liquid and plastic limits. A water soluble sulfate content test was performed on a sample
retrieved from one of the test holes. Laboratory tests were performed in general
accordance with applicable ASTM protocols.
The approximate locations of the test holes are shown in Figure 1. Logs of the
exploratory test holes are presented in Figure 2. Explanatory notes and a legend are
provided in Figure 3. A summary of the laboratory testing is provided in Table 1. The
figures and table are provided at the end of this report.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered in the test holes generally consisted of
approximately 3 to 14 feet of man-made fill materials. The fill was generally underlain
by interbedded sand and clay soils. These materials were underlain by silty to clayey
sand soils and extended to the test hole termination depths. See Figure 2 (Logs of Test
Holes) for specific material depths and transition locations for each individual hole. See
Figure 3 (Legend and Notes) for a description of the material types and consistencies.
Job No. 12-0012
Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Page 2 of 12
Berthoud, Colorado
Groundwater was observed in the test holes ranging in depth of approximately 12 to 17
feet below existing grades at 2 days after drilling. These depths are identified on the
boring logs in Figure 2. Groundwater levels should be anticipated to fluctuate, however,
in response to annual and longer term cycles of precipitation and seasonal water levels
of the Little Thompson River, adjacent to the site. Dewatering efforts ,may be required
during excavation.
WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES
The concentrations of water-soluble sulfates measured in selected samples retrieved
from the test holes ranged up to 0.13 percent by weight (See Table 1). Such
concentrations of soluble sulfates represent a moderate environment for sulfate attack
on concrete exposed to these materials. Degrees of attack are based on the scale of
'negligible,' 'moderate,' 'severe' and 'very severe' as described in the “Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures,” published by the Portland Cement Association (PCA).
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) utilizes a corresponding scale with
4 classes of severity of sulfate exposure (Class 0 to Class 3) as described in the
published table below.
Severity of
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (SO4)
Water
Cementitious
Sulfate
Sulfate (SO4)
In Water
Cementitious
Material
Exposure
In Dry Soil
(ppm)
Ratio
Requirement
(%)
(maximum)
s
Class 0
0.00 to 0.10
0 to 150
0.45
Class 0
Class 1
0.11 to 0.20
151 to 1500
0.45
Class 1
Class 2
0.21 to 2.00
1501 to 10,000
0.45
Class 2
10,001 or
0.40
Class 3
greater
Based on our test results and PCA and CDOT guidelines, GROUND recommends use
of sulfate-resistant cement in all concrete exposed to site soil, conforming to one of the
following Class 1 requirements:
Class 3
2.01 or greater
(1) ASTM C 150 Type II or V; Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for cement.
(2) ASTM C 595 Type IP(MS) or IP(HS); Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for
cement.
(3) ASTM C 1157 Type MS or HS; Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for
cement.
Job No. 12-0012
Page 3 of 11
Berthoud, Colorado
(4) When ASTM C 150 Type III cement is allowed, as in Class E concrete, it shall
have no more than 8 percent C3A. Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for
cement.
When fly ash is used to enhance sulfate resistance, it shall be used in a proportion
greater than or equal to the proportion tested in accordance to ASTM C 1012, shall be
the same source and it shall have a calcium oxide content no more than 2.0 percent
greater than the fly ash tested according to ASTM C 1012.
In addition, all concrete used should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
The contractor should be aware that certain concrete mix components affecting sulfate
resistance including, but not limited to, the cement, entrained air, and fly ash, can affect
workability, set time, and other characteristics during placement, finishing and curing.
The contractor should develop mix(es) for use in project concrete which are suitable with
regard to these construction factors, as well as sulfate resistance. A reduced, but still
significant, sulfate resistance may be acceptable to the owner, in exchange for desired
construction characteristics.
FOUNDATIONS
GROUND understands that a concrete digester tank structure will be installed at an
elevation of approximately 4,913.5 feet or approximately 12 to 16 feet below existing
grades. Based on our subsurface exploration, the structure will bear on loose to
medium dense and/or medium to stiff sand and clay materials, at elevations near the
ground water table. Dewatering efforts may be required during excavation and
construction of the tank foundation and walls. Dewatering should not be conducted from
inside the excavation as this may reduce bearing capacity values.
GROUND understands that a mat foundation will be utilized for the proposed digester.
The proposed tank foundation may be founded on the site soils utilizing an allowable
bearing pressure of 1,500 psf at the proposed bearing depths above. To aid in
construction GROUND recommends overexcavating by an additional 12 inches below
the bottom of foundations, placing a layer of Mirafi 170N or equivalent filter fabric,
followed by placement of 12 inches of ½” to ¾” crushed rock. If subgrade soils at the
bottom of this overexcavation are very loose or unstable, a small layer (3 to 6 inches) of
the stabilization rock (3/4” to 2” crushed rock) may be placed and pushed into these soft
soils prior to placement of the filter fabric, if needed.
Job No. 12-0012
Page 4 of 12
Berthoud, Colorado
Based on the allowable bearing capacity above, we anticipate post-construction
settlements on the order of 1 inch and differential movements on the order of ½ inch.
Care should be taken when excavating the foundation to avoid disturbing the supporting
materials.
Hand excavation or careful backhoe soil removal may be required in
excavating the last few inches. Soils at footing elevation may pump or deform
excessively under the wheel loads of heavy construction vehicles.
The Contractor
should utilize relatively light weight construction equipment to limit this possibility. Use
of track-mounted vehicles, which exert lower ground pressures, is recommended if
these conditions arise. It should be noted that groundwater levels may rise as a function
of the water level or spring run-off in the Little Thompson River adjacent to the site. The
tank foundation design should account for buoyant forces associated with the potential
rise of groundwater associated with the proximity of the Little Thompson River.
The Geotechnical Engineer should observe foundation excavations prior to and during
installation of filter fabric and prior to placement of concrete.
FOUNDATION WALLS
Foundation walls which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a
limited amount of deflection, i.e., an “at-rest” condition, should be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight as
indicated in the following table
At Rest Earth
At Rest Earth
Pressure (pcf)
Pressure (pcf)
Soil Type
Above
Below
Groundwater
Groundwater
Imported Class 1 Structural Backfill
55
90
Onsite Fill Materials
80
103
GROUND recommends use of structural backfill behind the walls to achieve lower
lateral earth pressures. To realize the lower equivalent fluid unit weight, structural fill
should be placed behind the wall to a minimum distance equal or greater than half of the
wall height. Where structural backfill is used, the upper 1 foot of the wall backfill should
be a relatively impermeable soil or otherwise protected to reduce surface water
infiltration into the backfill.
Job No. 12-0012
Page 5 of 11
Berthoud, Colorado
Select, granular materials imported for use as wall backfill should meet the criteria for
CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill as tabulated below. All imported soils should be tested
and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to transport to the site.
CDOT CLASS 1 STRUCTURE BACKFILL
Sieve Size or
Acceptable Range
Parameter
2-inch
100% passing
No. 4
30% to 100% passing
No. 50
10% to 60% passing
No. 200
5% to 20% passing
Liquid Limit
< 35
Plasticity Index
<6
The additional loading of an upward sloping backfill, hydrostatic loads, as well as loads
from traffic, stockpiled materials, etc., should be included in foundation wall design.
Backfill soils should be thoroughly mixed to achieve a uniform moisture content, placed
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and properly compacted. Fill
soils should be compacted to 95 or more percent of the maximum standard Proctor
density at moisture contents within 2 percent of the optimum as determined by ASTM
D698. The Contractor should take care not to over-compact the backfills, which could
result in excessive lateral pressures on the walls.
The Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to observe the exposed excavation prior
to placement of backfill, observe earthwork operations, and test the soils.
Some settlement of wall backfills will occur even where the material was placed
correctly. This settlement likely will be differential, increasing with depth of fill. Where
shallowly founded structures and pavements must be placed on backfilled zones,
structural design, pipe connections, etc., should take into account backfill settlement,
including differential movement and the associated risks are understood by the Owner.
EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Test holes for subsurface exploration were advanced to the depths indicated on the test
hole logs by means of truck-mounted, flight auger equipment. We anticipate no unusual
Job No. 12-0012
Page 6 of 12
Berthoud, Colorado
excavation difficulties for the proposed construction in these materials with conventional,
medium- to heavy-duty excavating equipment in good working condition.
Groundwater was encountered during subsurface exploration at depths as shallow as 12
to 17 feet. Based on the likely depths of earthworking and construction, groundwater
may be encountered at elevations nearing the bottom of the excavation and may be
factor for the lower portion of the tank excavation. A properly designed and installed dewatering system may be required during excavation and construction of the proposed
digester tank. The risk of slope instability will be significantly increased in areas of
seepage along the excavation slopes. If seepage is encountered, the slopes should be
re-evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer.
We recommend that temporary, un-shored excavation slopes up to 12 feet in height be
cut no steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal : vertical) in the cohesive native and fill soils in the
absence of seepage.
Soils below 12 feet shall be cut at a minimum slope of
2:1(horizontal: vertical). Some surficial sloughing may occur on slope faces cut at these
angles. Local conditions encountered during construction, such as loose, dry sand, or
soft or wet materials, or seepage will require flatter slopes. Stockpiling of materials
should not be permitted closer to the tops of temporary slopes than 5 feet or a distance
equal to the depth of the excavation, whichever is greater.
Should site constraints prohibit the use of the recommended slope angles, then
temporary shoring should be used.
Shoring designed to allow the soils to deflect
sufficiently to utilize the full active strength of the soils may be designed for lateral earth
pressures computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 59 pcf for a level
adjacent ground condition that is not saturated and 92.0 pcf for the submerged
condition.
In addition to this lateral earth pressure, shoring design should include
surcharge loads exerted by equipment, traffic, material stockpiles, etc. Actual shoring
system(s) should be designed for the Contractor by a registered engineer.
The Contractor should take care during excavations not to compromise the bearing or
lateral support for the foundations of adjacent existing structures.
Good surface drainage should be provided around temporary excavation slopes to direct
surface runoff away from the slope faces. A properly designed drainage swale should
Job No. 12-0012
Page 7 of 11
Berthoud, Colorado
be provided at the top of the excavations. In no case should water be allowed to pond
at the site. Slopes should also be protected against erosion. Erosion along the slopes
will result in sloughing and could lead to a slope failure.
Excavations in which personnel will be working must comply with all OSHA Standards
and Regulations.
The Contractor’s “responsible person” should evaluate the soil
exposed in the excavations as part of the Contractor’s safety procedures. GROUND
has provided the information above solely as a service to the CLIENT and is not
assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities.
UTILITY INSTALLATION AND BACKFILLING
Soils excavated from trenches will be suitable, in general, for use as trench backfill
however; drying time should be anticipated prior to backfilling. Backfill soils should be
free of vegetation, debris and other deleterious materials. Cobbles or fragments of rock
coarser than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be incorporated into trench
backfills.
Pipe bedding materials, placement and compaction should meet the specifications of
the pipe manufacturer or governing municipal standards. The Contractor should not
assume that the granular site soils are suitable for use as free-draining bedding
material. Materials proposed for use as pipe bedding should be tested for suitability
prior to use according to the project specifications. Imported materials should be tested
and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to transport to the site.
The trench bottom should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement
of pipe bedding. Bedding materials should be placed and properly compacted or
consolidated. Bedding should be brought up evenly on both sides of the pipe to reduce
the development of unbalanced loads on the pipe.
We recommend the use of CLSM or similar material in lieu of granular bedding and
compacted soil backfill where the tolerance for surface settlement is low. (Placement of
CLSM as bedding to at least 12 inches above the pipe can protect the pipe and assist
construction of a well-compacted conventional backfill, although possibly at an
increased cost relative to the use of conventional bedding.)
If a granular bedding material is specified, GROUND recommends that with regard to
potential migration of fines into the pipe bedding, design and installation follow ASTM
D2321. If the granular bedding does not meet filter grading criteria or the bedding is
considered to be a relatively coarse open graded gravel, then non-woven filter fabric
Job No. 12-0012
Page 8 of 12
Berthoud, Colorado
®
(e.g., Mirafi 140N, or the equivalent) should be placed around the bedding to reduce
migration of fines into the bedding which can result in severe, local surface settlements.
Where this protection is not provided, settlements can develop/continue several months
or years after completion of the project. In addition, clay or concrete cut-off walls should
be installed to interrupt the granular bedding section to reduce the rates and volumes of
water transmitted along the pipe alignment which can contribute to migration of fines.
Trench Backfilling: Some settlement of compacted soil trench backfill materials should
be anticipated, even where all the backfill is placed and compacted correctly. Typical
settlements are on the order of 1 to 2 percent of fill thickness. However, the need to
compact to the lowest portion of the backfill must be balanced against the need to
protect the pipe from damage from the compaction process. Some thickness of backfill
may need to be placed at compaction levels lower than recommended or specified (or
smaller compaction equipment used together with thinner lifts) to avoid damaging the
pipe. Protecting the pipe in this manner can result in somewhat greater surface
settlements.
Therefore, although other alternatives may be available, the following
options are presented for consideration:
Controlled Low Strength Material: Because of these limitations, we recommend
backfilling the entire depth of the trench (both bedding and common backfill zones) with
“controlled low strength material” (CLSM), i.e., a lean, sand-cement slurry, “flowable fill,”
or similar material along all trench alignment reaches with low tolerances for surface
settlements. We recommend that CLSM used as pipe bedding and trench backfill
exhibit a 28-day unconfined compressive strength between 50 to 200 psi so that reexcavation is not unusually difficult. Placement of the CLSM in several lifts or other
measures likely will be necessary to avoid ‘floating’ the pipe. Measures also should be
taken to maintain pipe alignment during CLSM placement.
Compacted Soil Backfilling: Where compacted soil backfilling is employed, using the
site soils or similar materials as backfill, the risk of backfill settlements entailed in the
selection of this higher risk alternative must be anticipated and accepted by the Owner.
If it is necessary to import material for use as backfill, the imported soils should be free
of vegetation, organic debris, and other deleterious materials. Imported material should
consist of relatively impervious soils that have less than 60 percent passing the No. 200
Sieve and should have a plasticity index of less than 20. Representative samples of the
materials proposed for import should be tested and approved prior to transport to the
site.
Job No. 12-0012
Page 9 of 11
Berthoud, Colorado
Soils placed for compaction as trench backfill should be conditioned to a relatively
uniform moisture content, placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose
thickness and compacted in accordance with the following recommendations.
Soil should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor density at
moisture contents within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by
ASTM D698. It may be necessary to rework the fill materials more than once by
adjusting moisture and replacing the materials, in order to achieve the recommended
compaction and moisture criteria.
No fill materials should be placed, worked, rolled while they are frozen, thawing, or
during poor/inclement weather conditions.
Care should be taken with regard to achieving and maintaining proper moisture contents
during placement and compaction. Based on the results of the laboratory tests some of
the existing silt and clay soils are currently at moisture contents several percentage
points above their anticipated optimum moisture content. These materials along with
other materials that are not properly moisture conditioned may exhibit significant
pumping, rutting, and deflection at moisture contents near optimum and above. The
Contractor should be prepared to handle soils of this type.
Compaction areas should be kept separate, and no lift should be covered by another
until relative compaction and moisture content within the recommended ranges are
obtained.
CLOSURE
Geotechnical Review: The author of this report should be retained to review project
plans and specifications to evaluate whether they comply with the intent of the
recommendations in this report. The review should be requested in writing.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon
observation and testing of project earthworks by representatives of GROUND. If
another geotechnical consultant is selected to provide materials testing, then that
consultant must assume all responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by
concurring in writing with the recommendations in this report, or by providing alternative
recommendations.
Materials Testing: The Client should consider retaining a Geotechnical Engineer to
perform materials testing during construction. The performance of such testing or lack
Job No. 12-0012
Page 10 of 12
Berthoud, Colorado
thereof, in no way alleviates the burden of the contractor or subcontractor from
constructing in a manner that conforms to applicable project documents and industry
standards. The contractor or pertinent subcontractor is ultimately responsible for
managing the quality of their work; furthermore, testing by the geotechnical engineer
does not preclude the contractor from obtaining or providing whatever services they
deem necessary to complete the project in accordance with applicable documents.
Limitations: This report has been prepared for JVA, Inc. as it pertains to design of the
Berthoud WWTP Digester Tank project as described herein. It may not contain
sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This document, together with
the concepts and recommendations presented herein, as an instrument of service, is
intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of
and/or improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaption by
GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. shall be without liability to GROUND
Engineering Consultants, Inc.
In addition, GROUND has assumed that project construction will commence by Winter
of 2012/2013. Any changes in project plans or schedule should be brought to the
attention of the Geotechnical Engineer, in order that the geotechnical recommendations
may be re-evaluated and, as necessary, modified.
The geotechnical conclusions and recommendations in this report relied upon
subsurface exploration at a limited number of exploration points, as shown in Figure 1,
as well as the means and methods described herein. Subsurface conditions were
interpolated between and extrapolated beyond these locations. It is not possible to
guarantee the subsurface conditions are as indicated in this report. Actual conditions
exposed during construction may differ from those encountered during site exploration.
If during construction, surface, soil, bedrock, or groundwater conditions appear to be at
variance with those described herein, the Geotechnical Engineer should be advised at
once, so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made in a timely manner.
In addition, a contractor who relies upon this report for development of his scope of work
or cost estimates may find the geotechnical information in this report to be inadequate
for his purposes or find the geotechnical conditions described herein to be at variance
with his experience in the greater project area. The contractor is responsible for
obtaining the additional geotechnical information that is necessary to develop his
workscope and cost estimates with sufficient precision. This includes current depths to
groundwater, etc.
Job No. 12-0012
Page 11 of 11
Test Hole
1
Test Hole
2
Approx. Top of Tank = 4936.7'
4930
23/12
4925
32/12
13/12
Approximate Elevation - feet
4920
14/12
15/12
4915
Approximate Bottom of Tank = 4913.5'
2
2
0
6/12
0
9/12
4910
6/12
10/12
4905
11/12
11/12
4900
4/12
7/12
4895
LOGS OF TEST HOLES
JOB NO.: 12-0012
FIGURE: 2
CADFILE NAME: 0012LOG.DWG
Subsurface Exploration Program
and Geotechnical Evaluation
Berthoud Estates Wastewater Treatment Facility
Improvements
Larimer County, Colorado
Prepared for:
JVA, Inc.
1319 Spruce Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Attention: Ms. Mandy Rasmussen
Job Number: 14-0023
October 13, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Scope of Study ...................................................................................... 1
Proposed Construction ................................................................................................ 1
Site Conditions ............................................................................................................ 2
Geologic Setting ........................................................................................................... 2
Subsurface Exploration ............................................................................................... 3
Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 3
Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................ 4
Seismic Classification .................................................................................................. 4
Geotechnical Considerations for Design ...................................................................... 5
Shallow Foundations for Buildings ............................................................................... 7
Slab-on-Grade Building Floors ..................................................................................... 9
Basin Foundations ........................................................................................................ 13
Basin Floors .................................................................................................................. 13
Basin Walls ................................................................................................................... 14
Lateral Loads ............................................................................................................... 15
Water Soluble Sulfates ................................................................................................. 16
Soil Corrosivity ............................................................................................................. 17
Project Earthwork ....................................................................................................... 19
Excavation Considerations .......................................................................................... 23
Buried Pipe Installation ................................................................................................ 25
Surface Drainage ......................................................................................................... 27
Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................................... 29
Closure ........................................................................................................................ 31
Locations of Test Holes ..................................................................................... Figure 1
Logs of Test Holes ........................................................................................... Figure 2
Legend and Notes ............................................................................................. Figure 3
Typical Underdrain Detail ................................................................................... Figure 4
Summary of Laboratory Test Results ........................................................ Tables 1 & 2
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsurface exploration program performed by
GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GROUND) to provide a geotechnical
evaluation in support of design and construction of improvements to the Berthoud
Estates wastewater treatment facility in Larimer County, southwest of Berthoud,
Colorado. Our study was conducted in general accordance with GROUND’s Proposal
No. 1408-1565, dated August 25, 2014.
Field and office studies provided information obtained at the test hole locations regarding
surface and subsurface conditions, including the existing site vicinity improvements.
Material samples retrieved during the subsurface exploration were tested in our
laboratory to assess the engineering characteristics of the site earth materials, and
assist in our geotechnical analysis. Results of the field, office, and laboratory studies are
presented below.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained and to present our
findings and conclusions based on the proposed construction and the subsurface
conditions encountered.
Design parameters and a discussion of engineering
considerations related to construction of the proposed improvements are included
herein.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that the proposed improvements will consist of a new mechanical
treatment building, a small steel building, an approximately 20-foot by 80-foot concrete
treatment basin, a 6-foot diameter grit chamber, and re-grading of the existing lagoons.
None of the buildings will have below-grade (basement) levels. We are not aware that
any of the buildings will be for residential use, even in part. We assume that wall and
column loads will be low, typical of this type of construction. Buried PVC piping will be
installed to serve the new facility.
If the proposed construction differs significantly from that described above, GROUND
should be notified to re-evaluate the conclusions and parameters contained herein.
Job No. 14-0023
GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Page 1
SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our subsurface exploration program, the site consisted of the existing
Berthoud Estates Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Two small control buildings were
present near the southwest corner. Three, 100- to 110-foot square water treatment
ponds occupied a large portion of the site.
The site sloped gently to the north and east and displayed approximately 7 feet of relief
across the site excluding the existing basins. An approximately 2-foot deep ditch was
observed traversing the eastern portion of the site from north to south.
The ground surface supported grasses, weeds, and a row of mature trees between the
existing water treatment basins and South County Road 23E. A similar row of smaller
trees lay along the western margin of the facility. Cattails were noted in the drainage to
the north and east. The site was surrounded by a mix of undeveloped land and singlefamily residences.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Published geologic maps, e.g., Colton (1976)1 depict the site as underlain by Pleistocene
to Holocene (relatively recent) Colluvium (Qc) and the Middle Shale Member of the
Pierre Shale (Kpm) or possibly Pleistocene Slocum Alluvium (Qs). A portion of that
geologic map is reproduced below.
Site
Qc
Kpm─
Qe
Qs
1
Colton, R.B., 1976, Geologic Map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Colorado, U.S. Geological
Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-855-G.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 2
Colluvium (“slope wash”) in the project area consists largely of sandy silts and clays, but
may include sands and gravels locally.
gravels with cobbles and boulders.
The Slocum Alluvium consists typically of
The Middle Shale Member of the Pierre Shale
formation consists largely of interbedded claystones / clay shales, and sandy siltstones
with sandstones locally. The claystones and clay shales typically are highly expansive.
We interpret the native sands and clays encountered at the site to be colluviual soils.
We interpret the underlying bedrock claystones to be materials of the Middle Shale
Member of the Pierre Shale.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Subsurface exploration for the project was conducted in September, 2014. A total of
four (4) test holes were drilled with a conventional, truck-mounted, drilling rig to evaluate
the subsurface conditions as well as to retrieve samples for laboratory testing and
analysis. Test holes were advanced to depths between approximately 18 feet and 26
feet in the areas of the proposed improvements. A GROUND engineer directed the
subsurface exploration, logged the test holes in the field, and prepared the samples for
transport to our laboratory.
Samples of the subsurface materials were retrieved with a 2-inch I.D. ‘California’ liner
sampler.
The sampler was driven into the substrata with blows from a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches, a procedure similar to that described by ASTM Method
D1586. Penetration resistance values, when properly evaluated, indicate the relative
density or consistency of soils.
Depths at which the samples were obtained and
associated penetration resistance values are shown on the test hole logs.
The approximate locations of the test holes are shown on Figure 1. Logs of the test
holes are presented on Figure 2. Explanatory notes and a legend are provided on
Figure 3.
LABORATORY TESTING
Samples retrieved from our test holes were examined and visually classified in the
laboratory by the project engineer. Laboratory testing of soil samples included standard
property tests, such as natural moisture contents, dry unit weights, grain size analyses,
and Atterberg limits.
Job No. 14-0023
Swell-consolidation, water-soluble sulfate content and a suite of
Page 3
corrosivity tests were completed on selected samples, as well. Laboratory tests were
performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM protocols.
Results of the
laboratory testing program are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Beneath a variably thick layer of poorly developed topsoil, the test holes penetrated up
to about 8 feet of native clays which were underlain by claystone to the depths explored.
Fill soils were not recognized in the test holes but likely are present at the site based on
prior construction. Delineation of the complete lateral and vertical extents of any fills at
the site, or their compositions, was beyond our present scope of services. If fill soil
volumes and compositions at the site are of significance, they should be evaluated by
the contractor using test pits.
Coarse gravel and larger clasts are not well represented in small diameter liner samples
collected from 4-inch diameter test holes. Therefore, such materials may be present
even where not called out in the material descriptions herein.
Clays were sandy, moist to very moist, moderately to highly plastic, stiff to very stiff and
brown in color. The sand fractions were fine to coarse.
Claystone Bedrock was slightly moist to very moist, moderately plastic, hard to very
hard, and brown to gray-brown in color.
Groundwater was encountered in the Test Holes 1 and 4 at depths of about 9 feet
below existing grades at the time of drilling. The test holes were backfilled after drilling
due to safety considerations.
Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate, however, in response to annual and
longer-term cycles of precipitation, irrigation, surface drainage, land use, and the
development of transient, perched water conditions.
SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION
Based on extrapolation of available data to depth and our experience in the project area,
we consider the site likely to meet the criteria for a Seismic Site Classification of C
according to the 2012 IBC classification (Table 1613.5.2). Exploration and/or shear
Job No. 14-0023
Page 4
wave velocity testing to a depth of 100 feet or more (necessary to evaluate the Seismic
Site Classification quantitatively, or possibly to obtain a higher classification) was not
part of our present scope of services. GROUND can provide a proposal in that regard
upon request. We consider the likelihood of achieving a Site Classification of B at the
subject location to be moderate.
The USGS’s Earthquake Ground Motion Tool v.5.0.9a indicated an SDS value of 0.185g
and an SD1 value of 0.065g for the site’s latitude/longitude coordinates and Seismic Site
Class of C.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN
Geotechnical Risk The soils and bedrock underlying the site exhibited potentials for
post-construction heave that can cause damaging, post-construction, structural
movements. This condition, if not mitigated, could affect nearly all improvements at the
site, and represent the primary geotechnical constraint on design at the facility. The
relatively shallow groundwater level at the site (presumably a result of the existing watertreatment ponds) mitigates the potential movements to a degree, however. Specific
geotechnical measures in this regard are provided in subsequent sections of this report.
Additional discussion and information regarding the geotechnical risks that they address
are provided below.
The conclusions and parameters provided in this report were based on the data
presented herein, our experience in the general project area with similar structures, and
our engineering judgment with regard to the applicability of the data and methods of
forecasting future performance. A variety of engineering parameters were considered as
indicators of potential future soil movements.
Our conclusions were based on our
judgment of “likely movement potentials,” (i.e., the amount of movement likely to be
realized if site drainage is generally effective, estimated to a reasonable degree of
engineering certainty) as well as our assumptions about the owner’s willingness to
accept geotechnical risk. “Maximum possible” movement estimates necessarily will be
larger than those presented herein. They also have a significantly lower likelihood of
being realized in our opinion, and generally require more expensive measures to
address.
We encourage the JVA, Inc., and the owner, upon receipt of this report,
however, to discuss these risks and the geotechnical alternatives with us. In addition to
the risks and remedial approaches presented in this report, JVA, Inc., and the owner
Job No. 14-0023
Page 5
also must understand the risk-cost trade-offs addressed by the civil engineer and
structural engineer in order to direct his design team to the portion of the Higher Cost /
Lower Risk – Lower Cost / Higher Risk spectrum in which this project should be
designed. If the JVA, Inc., or the owner does not understand these risks, it is critical that
additional information or clarification be requested so that the owner’s expectations
reasonably can be met.
Likely Post-Construction Movements Based on the data obtained for this study and
our experience on other projects in similar geotechnical settings, we estimate likely,
post-construction, vertical movements on the order of 2 to 3 inches where improvements
are supported directly on the existing earth materials. Lateral movements will result, as
well. As noted above, significant structure distress could result from movements of
these magnitudes.
We also understand, however, that the facility has been in operation for 15 years or
more.
The performance of the existing buildings which may have been supported
directly on the site soils, may have been acceptable to date. Therefore, the owner’s
perception of the risk associated with construction at this site may differ from that we
infer from the data reported herein.
General Building Foundation Types Supporting the buildings on deep foundations
and providing them with structural floors also supported on deep foundations can reduce
estimated post-construction movements to about ½ inch. We have assumed that the
use of deep foundations is not practical for this facility. Geotechnical parameters for
deep foundation design can be provided upon request, however.
Conventional, shallow, foundations can be used for the proposed buildings, together with
slab-on-grade concrete floors, if supported on a section of properly compacted fill at
least 3 feet in thickness beneath a slab and at least 1 foot in thickness beneath a
shallow, spread footing foundation.
If footings and floor slabs bear on properly
compacted fill, and effective drainage is established and maintained, we estimate likely
post-construction foundation movements to be on the order of 1 inch, with similar
differential movements over spans of about 40 feet.
More detailed parameters for
design and construction of shallow, spread footing foundations and slab-on-grade floors
are provided in the Shallow Foundations for Buildings and Slab-on-Grade Building
Floors sections of this report.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 6
Concrete Treatment Basin and Grit Chamber The considerations discussed above
for the proposed buildings apply to the proposed treatment basin and grit chamber, as
well, although because these improvements will be installed at greater depths (5 or more
feet) than the building foundations, closer to the water table, the magnitude of
anticipated expansive soils heave is reduced significantly. The potential for soft, wet,
unstable conditions and fluctuations in water level are increased, however. Therefore,
footings and floors for the basin and grit chamber should bear on at least 2 feet of
properly densified, granular “pit run” material. Likely, post-construction movements are
estimated to be about 1 inch, with similar differential movements over spans of about 40
feet. More detailed parameters for design and construction of shallow, spread footing
foundations and slab-on-grade floors are provided in the Basin Foundations and Basin
Floors sections of this report.
Construction in wet soils, or the presence of groundwater, will represent a challenge for
the contractor. Measures likely will be needed to establish a firm platform for the basin
and chamber foundations and floors.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR BUILDINGS
Geotechnical Parameters for Shallow Foundation Design
1)
Footings should bear on a section of properly compacted fill soils 1 foot or more
in thickness.
This is in addition to scarification and re-compaction of the
underlying surface, as outlined in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
If project earthworking exposes existing, undocumented fill soils that extend to
depths of more than 1 foot below foundation bearing elevation, then those soils
should be excavated to their full depth and replaced with properly compacted fill.
Where grades are raised in areas where existing fills are present, any existing fill
soils still should be excavated fully and replaced with properly compacted fill.
The fill section should extend should extend at full thickness across the building
footprint and at least 3 feet laterally beyond the building perimeter.
Considerations for fill placement and compaction are provided in the Project
Earthwork section of this report.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 7
The fill section beneath the building should be laterally consistent and of uniform
depth to reduce differential, post-construction foundation movements.
A
differential fill section will tend to increase differential movements.
The contractor should provide survey data of the excavation beneath each
building indicating the depth and lateral extents of the remedial excavation.
2)
Footings bearing on firm native soils or properly compacted fill may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for footings up to 6 feet in
width (least lateral dimension). This value may be increased by ⅓ for transient
loads such as wind or seismic loading. For larger footings, a lower allowable
bearing pressure may be appropriate.
The estimated 1 inch of likely, post-construction settlement associated with this
fill section and allowable bearing pressure is based on an assumption of effective
site drainage. If foundation soils are subjected to an increase/fluctuation in
moisture content, the effective bearing capacity will be reduced and greater postconstruction movements than those estimated above may result.
In order to reduce differential settlements between footings or along continuous
footings, footing loads should be as uniform as possible. Differentially loaded
footings will settle differentially.
3)
Spread footings should have a minimum lateral dimension of 16 or more inches
for linear strip footings and 24 or more inches for isolated pad footings. Actual
footing dimensions, however, should be determined by the structural engineer.
4)
Footings should bear at an elevation 3 or more feet below the lowest adjacent
exterior finish grades to have adequate soil cover for frost protection.
5)
Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an
unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
6)
Geotechnical parameters for lateral resistance to foundation loads are provided
in the Lateral Loads section of this report.
7)
Connections to the building of all types must be flexible and/or adjustable to
accommodate the anticipated, post-construction movements.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 8
Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations
8)
Care should be taken when excavating the foundations to avoid disturbing the
supporting materials. Hand excavation or careful backhoe soil removal may be
required in excavating the last few inches.
9)
Footing excavation bottoms may expose loose, organic or otherwise deleterious
materials, including debris.
excavation process.
Firm materials may become disturbed by the
All such unsuitable materials should be excavated and
replaced with properly compacted fill.
10)
Foundation soils may be disturbed or deform excessively under the wheel loads
of heavy construction vehicles as the excavations approach footing bearing
levels.
Construction equipment should be as light as possible to limit
development of this condition. Track-mounted vehicles generally should be used
because they exert lower contact pressures. The movement of vehicles over
proposed foundation areas should be restricted.
11)
All footing areas should be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor prior to
placement of concrete.
12)
Compacted fill placed against the sides of the footings should be compacted in
accordance with the criteria in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
SLAB-ON-GRADE BUILDING FLOORS
Geotechnical Parameters for Design of Slab-on-Grade Floors
1)
Slab-on-grade floors should bear on a section of properly compacted fill at least 3
feet in thickness. This is in addition to scarification and re-compaction of the
underlying surface, as outlined in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
(If project earthworking exposes existing, undocumented fill soils that extend to
depths of more than 3 feet below slab bearing elevation, then those soils should
be excavated to their full depth and replaced with properly compacted fill. Where
grades are raised in areas where existing fills are present, the existing fill soils
still should be excavated fully and replaced with properly compacted fill.)
Job No. 14-0023
Page 9
The remedial fill section should extend at full depth 3 or more feet laterally
beyond the slab perimeter.
The thickness of the re-worked section should be taken from the bottom of the
slab + gravel layer system. (If the gravel layer is not installed, the re-worked
section should be correspondingly thickened.)
Criteria and compaction standards for fill placement and compaction are provided
in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
2)
Floor slabs should be adequately reinforced. Floor slab design, including slab
thickness, concrete strength, jointing, and slab reinforcement should be
developed by a structural engineer.
3)
A vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (Kv) of 74 tcf (86 pci) may be used for
design of a concrete, slab-on-grade floor bearing on firm, properly compacted,
clayey fill. This value is for a 1-foot x 1-foot plate; it should be adjusted for slab
dimension.
4)
Floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with slip
joints, which allow unrestrained vertical movement.
Slip joints should be observed periodically, particularly during the first several
years after construction.
joints to bind.
Slab movement can cause previously free-slipping
Measures should be taken to assure that slab isolation is
maintained in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to walls and other interior
improvements.
5)
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with properly designed control
joints.
ACI, AASHTO and other industry groups provide guidelines for proper design
and construction concrete slabs-on-grade and associated jointing. The design
and construction of such joints should account for cracking as a result of
shrinkage, curling, tension, loading, and curing, as well as proposed slab use.
Joint layout based on the slab design may require more frequent, additional, or
deeper joints, and should reflect the configuration and proposed use of the slab.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 10
Particular attention in slab joint layout should be paid to areas where slabs
consist of interior corners or curves (e.g., at column blockouts or reentrant
corners) or where slabs have high length to width ratios, significant slopes,
thickness transitions, high traffic loads, or other unique features. The improper
placement or construction of control joints will increase the potential for slab
cracking.
6)
Interior partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with slip joints so that
if the slabs move, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure.
This detail is also important for wallboards and doorframes. Slip joints which will
allow 1½ inches or more of differential vertical movement should be considered.
Accommodation for differential movement also should be made where partitions
meet bearing walls.
7)
Post-construction soil movements may not displace slab-on-grade floors and
utility lines in the soils beneath them to the same extent.
Design of floor
penetrations, connections and fixtures should accommodate at least 2 inches of
differential movement.
8)
Moisture can be introduced into a slab subgrade during construction and
additional moisture will be released from the slab concrete as it cures. A properly
compacted layer of free-draining gravel, 4 or more inches in thickness, should be
placed beneath the slabs. This layer will help distribute floor slab loadings, ease
construction, reduce capillary moisture rise, and aid in drainage.
The free-draining gravel should contain less than 5 percent material passing the
No. 200 Sieve, more than 50 percent retained on the No. 4 Sieve, and a
maximum particle size of 2 inches.
The capillary break and the drainage space provided by the gravel layer also
may reduce the potential for excessive water vapor fluxes from the slab after
construction as mix water is released from the concrete.
We understand, however, that professional experience and opinion differ with
regard to inclusion of a free-draining gravel layer beneath slab-on-grade floors. If
these issues are understood by the owner and appropriate measures are
implemented to address potential concerns including slab curling and moisture
fluxes, then the gravel layer may be deleted.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 11
9)
A vapor barrier beneath a building floor slab can be beneficial with regard to
reducing exterior moisture moving into the building, through the slab, but can
retard downward drainage of construction moisture. Uneven moisture release
can result in slab curling.
Elevated vapor fluxes can be detrimental to the
adhesion and performance of many floor coverings and may exceed various
flooring manufacturers’ usage criteria.
Per the 2006 ACI Location Guideline, a vapor barrier is required under concrete
floors when that floor is to receive moisture-sensitive floor covering and/or
adhesives, or the room above that floor has humidity control.
Therefore, in light of the several, potentially conflicting effects of the use vaporbarriers, the owner and the architect and/or contractor should weigh the
performance of the slab and appropriate flooring products in light of the intended
building use, etc., during the floor system design process and the selection of
flooring materials. Use of a plastic vapor-barrier membrane may be appropriate
for some building areas and not for others.
In the event a vapor barrier is utilized, it generally should consist of a minimum
15 mil thickness, extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven
materials), maintain a permeance less than 0.01 perms per ASTM E-96 or ASTM
F-1249, and comply with ASTM E-1745 (Class “A”). Vapor barriers should be
installed in accordance with ASTM E-1643.
Polyethylene (“poly”) sheeting (even if 15 mils in thickness which polyethylene
sheeting commonly is not) does not meet the ASTM E-1745 criteria and
generally should not be used as vapor barrier material. It can be easily torn
and/or punctured, does not possess necessary tensile strength, gets brittle, tends
to decompose over time, and has a relatively high permeance.
Construction Considerations for Slab-on-Grade Floors
10)
Loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable materials exposed on the prepared surface
on which the floor slab will be cast should be excavated and replaced with
properly compacted fill.
11)
The fill section beneath a slab should be of uniform thickness. Where existing, fill
soils are encountered and re-worked (See the Project Earthwork section of this
Job No. 14-0023
Page 12
report.) a fill section thicker than that indicated above may result. The increased
section thickness should be constructed beneath the entire slab.
12)
Concrete floor slabs should be constructed and cured in accordance with
applicable industry standards and slab design specifications.
13)
All plumbing lines should be carefully tested before operation. Where plumbing
lines enter through the floor, a positive bond break should be provided.
BASIN FOUNDATIONS
Geotechnical Parameters for Shallow Foundation Design
The geotechnical
parameters provided above for building foundations may be used for design of shallow
foundations for the water treatment basin and the grit chamber, as modified below. As
noted in the Geotechnical Considerations for Design section of this report, we have
assumed that the foundations for these features will bear at depths of at least 5 feet
below existing grades.
1)
Footings should bear firm on at least 2 feet of properly densified, granular fill.
The granular fill under the basin and grit chamber should consist of “3-inch minus
pit run” fill material. Materials proposed for import should be approved prior to
transport to the site.
CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill or Class 6 Aggregate Base course should not
be used for this purpose.
Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations
9)
Footing excavation bottoms may expose soft, wet or otherwise deleterious or
unstable materials.
process.
Firm materials may become disturbed by the excavation
Unstable subgrades should be stabilized prior to construction of
footings. Stabilization is discussed in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
BASIN FLOORS
Geotechnical Parameters for Design of Slab-on-Grade Floors
The geotechnial
parameters provided above for design of the building floors may be used for floors for
the water treatment basin and the grit chamber, as modified below.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 13
1)
Slab-on-grade floors should bear on at least 2 feet of properly densified, granular
fill.
The granular fill under the basin and grit chamber should consist of “3-inch minus
pit run” fill material. Materials proposed for import should be approved prior to
transport to the site.
CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill or Class 6 Aggregate Base course should not
be used for this purpose.
3)
A vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (Kv) of 120 tcf (136 pci) may be used for
design of a concrete, slab-on-grade floor bearing on firm, properly densified “pit
run” fill. This value is for a 1-foot x 1-foot plate; it should be adjusted for slab
dimension.
4)
Floor slabs may be connected to basin / chamber foundations or foundation
walls.
BASIN WALLS
Foundation Wall Design Parameters Equivalent fluid pressures for use in design of
foundation walls are provided in the Lateral Loads section of this report.
If select, granular fill is placed as foundation wall backfill, in order to realize the (lower)
value for that material, then the select granular fill should be placed behind the wall to a
minimum distance equal or greater than half of the wall height.
In such cases, a
relatively low permeability soil (rather than the select, granular soil) should comprise the
upper one (1) foot of the wall backfill to reduce infiltration into the backfill or other
measures taken to reduce surface water infiltration.
The local clayey soils and
excavated bedrock are suitable, in general for this purpose.
Recommendations for fill placement and compaction are provided in the Project
Earthwork section of this report.
Foundation Wall Construction Considerations
Wall backfill soils should be
compacted properly, but the contractor should take care not to over-compact the
backfills because excessive lateral pressures on the walls could result.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 14
Some settlement of wall backfill will occur even where the material was placed and
compacted correctly. This settlement likely will be differential, increasing with depth of
fill.
Where shallowly founded structures or pavements are be placed on backfilled zones, the
associated risks should be understood by the owner.
Structural design, pipe
connections, etc., should take into account (differential) foundation wall backfill
settlements. A geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide design parameters
where improvements are placed in backfilled areas.
LATERAL LOADS
Shallow Foundations Resisting Lateral Loads
Footings and similar elements
designed for frictional resistance to lateral loads may be designed using a friction
coefficient between the foundation element and fill soils of 0.30 (0.38 for footings bearing
on “pit run” fill).
Passive soil pressure may be estimated at this site using an equivalent fluid pressure of
300 pcf for drained conditions and 210 pcf for below the water table / saturated
conditions, to a maximum of 2,100 psf. The upper 1 foot of embedment should be
neglected for passive resistance. Where passive soil pressure is used to resist lateral
loads, it should be understood that significant lateral strains will be required to mobilize
the full value indicated above, likely 1 inch or more. A reduced passive pressure can be
used for reduced anticipated strains, however.
Where CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill is placed as backfill behind a basin or chamber
wall, an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 59 pcf may be used and an active equivalent
fluid pressure of 38 pcf. To utilize these parameters, the Class 1 Structure Backfill
section should be placed to a minimum distance behind the wall equal or greater than
half of the wall height. The upper 1 foot of the wall backfill, however, should be a
relatively impermeable soil or otherwise protected to reduce surface water infiltration into
the backfill. The site clays and claystones are suitable, in general, for this purpose.
Note that the values indicated above (and preliminarily, below) were based on a moist
unit weight (γ') of 127 pcf and an angle of internal friction () of 24 degrees for the
shallow, on-site soils (132 pcf and 34 degrees, respectively, for CDOT Class 1 Structure
Job No. 14-0023
Page 15
Backfill) and are un-factored. Appropriate factors of safety should be included in design
calculations.
Actual wall design should incorporate any upward sloping backfills, live loads such as
construction equipment, material stockpiles, etc., and other surcharge pressures. The
build-up of hydrostatic pressures behind a wall also will increase lateral earth pressures
on the walls.
WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES
The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in a selected sample of site soils
was approximately 0.02 percent by weight. (See Table 2.) Such concentrations of
soluble sulfates represents a negligible environment for sulfate attack on concrete
exposed to these materials. Degrees of attack are based on the scale of 'negligible,'
'moderate,' 'severe' and 'very severe' as described in the “Design and Control of
Concrete Mixtures,” published by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). The Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) utilizes a corresponding scale with four classes of
severity of sulfate exposure (Class 0 to Class 3) as described in the table below.
REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT AGAINST DAMAGE TO
CONCRETE BY SULFATE ATTACK FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES OF SULFATE
Severity of
Sulfate
Exposure
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (SO4=)
In Dry Soil
(%)
Sulfate (SO4=)
In Water
Water /
Cementitious Ratio
(ppm)
(maximum)
Class 0
0.00 to 0.10
0 to 150
0.45
Class 0
Class 1
0.11 to 0.20
151 to 1,500
0.45
Class 1
Class 2
0.21 to 2.00
1,501 to 10,000
0.45
Class 2
Class 3
2.01 or greater
10,001 or greater
0.40
Class 3
Cementitious
Material
Requirements
Based on our experience in the area, however, in GROUND’s opinion, the site should be
considered to represent a moderate risk of sulfate attack. Therefore, Type II, Type
IP(MS), Type IS(MS), Type P(MS), Type I(PM)(MS), or Type I(SM)(MS) sulfate-resistant
cement should be used in all concrete exposed to site soils and bedrock. (Cement Type
II is specified by ASTM C150. The other types and blends are specified by ASTM
C595.)
Job No. 14-0023
Page 16
All concrete used should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45 by weight. All
concrete used should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi. Concrete
mixes should be relatively rich and should be air entrained.
The contractor should be aware that certain concrete mix components affecting sulfate
resistance including, but not limited to, the cement, entrained air, and fly ash, can affect
workability, set time, and other characteristics during placement, finishing and curing.
The contractor should develop mix(es) for use in for project concrete which are suitable
with regard to these construction factors, as well as sulfate resistance. A reduced, but
still significant, sulfate resistance may be acceptable to the owner, in exchange for
desired construction characteristics.
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Data were obtained to support an initial assessment of the potential for corrosion of
ferrous metals in contact with earth materials at the site, based on the conditions at the
time of GROUND’s evaluation. The test results are summarized in Table 2.
Soil Resistivity In order to assess the “worst case” for mitigation planning, samples of
materials retrieved from the test holes were tested for resistivity in the laboratory, after
being saturated with water, rather than in the field. Resistivity also varies inversely with
temperature.
Therefore, the laboratory measurements were made at a controlled
temperature. Measurement of electrical resistivity indicated a value of approximately
9,486 ohm-centimeters in samples of site soils.
pH Where pH is less than 4.0, soil serves as an electrolyte; the pH range of about 6.5 to
7.5 indicates soil conditions that are optimum for sulfate reduction. In the pH range
above 8.5, soils are generally high in dissolved salts, yielding a low soil resistivity.2
Testing indicated a pH value of about 7.2.
Reduction-Oxidation testing indicated red-ox potentials of -77 millivolts.
Such low
potentials typically creates a more corrosive environment.
Sulfide Reactivity testing indicated a ‘positive’ results in the local soils. The presence
of sulfides in the soils suggests a more corrosive environment.
2
American Water Works Association ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5-05 Standard.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 17
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has
Corrosivity Assessment
developed a point system scale used to predict corrosivity. The scale is intended for
protection of ductile iron pipe but is valuable for project steel selection. When the scale
equals 10 points or higher, protective measures for ductile iron pipe are indicated. The
AWWA scale is presented below. The soil characteristics refer to the conditions at and
above pipe installation depth.
Table A.1 Soil-test Evaluation
Soil Characteristic / Value
Points
Soil Resistivity
<1,500 ohm-cm ..........................................................................................…
1,500 to 1,800 ohm-cm ................................................................……......….
1,800 to 2,100 ohm-cm .............................................................................….
2,100 to 2,500 ohm-cm ...............................................................................…
2,500 to 3,000 ohm-cm ..................................................................................
>3,000 ohm-cm ................................................................................…
10
8
5
2
1
0
pH
0 to 2.0 ............................................................................................................
2.0 to 4.0 .........................................................................................................
4.0 to 6.5 .........................................................................................................
6.5 to 7.5 .........................................................................................................
7.5 to 8.5 .........................................................................................................
>8.5 ..........................................................................................................
5
3
0
0*
0
3
Redox Potential
< 0 (negative values) .......................................................................................
0 to +50 mV ................................................................................................….
+50 to +100 mV ............................................................................................…
> +100 mV ...............................................................................................
5
4
3½
0
Sulfide Reactivity
Positive ........................................................................................................….
Trace .............................................................................................................…
Negative .......................................................................................................….
3½
2
0
Moisture
Poor drainage, continuously wet ..................................................................….
Fair drainage, generally moist ....................................................................…
Good drainage, generally dry ........................................................................
2
1
0
* If sulfides are present and low or negative redox-potential results (< 50 mV) are
obtained, add three (3) points for this range.
We anticipate that drainage at the site after construction will be effective. Nevertheless,
based on the values obtained for the soil parameters, the overburden soils and bedrock
appear to comprise a severely corrosive environment for ferrous metals (11½ points).
Job No. 14-0023
Page 18
If additional information or evaluations are needed regarding soil corrosivity, then the
American Water Works Association or a corrosion engineer should be contacted. It
should be noted, however, that changes to the site conditions during construction, such
as the import of other soils, or the intended or unintended introduction of off-site water,
might alter corrosion potentials significantly.
PROJECT EARTHWORK
The earthwork criteria below are based on our interpretation of the geotechnical
conditions encountered in the test holes. Where these criteria differ from applicable
municipal specifications, e.g., for backfill compaction for a publicly maintained utility line,
the latter should be considered to take precedence.
Prior to earthwork construction, existing construction debris, vegetation and other
deleterious materials should be removed and disposed of off-site. Relic underground
utilities should be abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations, removed as
necessary, and properly capped.
Use of Existing Fill Soils Fill soils were not recognized in the test holes, but likely are
present on-site. In general, we anticipate that most fill soils will be suitable for re-use as
compacted fill. Because they were not sampled and tested, however, it is possible that
some existing fill materials when excavated may not be suitable for re-use as compacted
fill, including trash, organic material, coarse cobbles and boulders, and construction
debris. Excavated fill materials should be evaluated and tested, as appropriate, with
regard to re-use.
Cobbles and fragments of rock, as well as inert construction debris, e.g., concrete or
asphalt, up to 6 inches in maximum dimension may be included in project fills, in
general. Such materials should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where identified
during earthwork.
Use of Native Site Soils and Bedrock
The existing site soils – free
of organic
materials, coarse cobbles, boulders, or other deleterious materials – appeared suitable,
in general, for re-use as compacted fill.
The elevated moisture contents commonly
encountered in those soils may require significant volumes of them to be dried
somewhat prior to placement as fill.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 19
Where excavated bedrock materials are placed as fill, the contractor should anticipate
significantly more than typical efforts to compact the fill properly.
The excavated
materials should be processed until they are broken down into fragments no larger than
3 inches in maximum dimension and properly moisture-conditioned prior to compaction.
Because of the capacity of the bedrock fragments to absorb water into the structures of
the clay mineral grains, sufficient applied water to bring them to desired moisture
contents at the time of initial placement may not be sufficient for them to remain at those
moisture levels.
Some of the excavated bedrock materials will require processing,
moisture conditioning, placement and compaction more than once into order to comply
with this criterion.
The contractor should anticipate this and plan his means and
methods accordingly.
Imported Fill Materials Materials imported to the site as fill should be free of organic
material, and other deleterious materials. Imported material should exhibit 70 percent
or less passing the No. 200 Sieve and a plasticity index of 15 or less.
Materials
proposed for import should be approved prior to transport to the site.
Fill Platform Preparation Prior to filling, the top 12 inches of in-place materials on
which fill soils will be placed (except for utility trench bottoms where bedding will be
placed) should be scarified, moisture conditioned and properly compacted in accordance
with the criteria below to provide a uniform base for fill placement.
Wet Conditions and Unstable Subgrades Relatively shallow groundwater and wet
soils were encountered across the site.
The contractor likely will require additional
efforts to complete project earthwork. Stabilization commonly will be required there prior
to filling or construction of improvements.
Where wet, soft or unstable subgrades are encountered, the contractor must establish a
stable platform for fill placement and achieving compaction in the overlying fill soils.
Therefore, excavation of the unstable soils and replacing them with relatively dry or
granular material, possibly together with the use of stabilization geo-textile or geo-grid,
may be necessary to achieve stability. Although his stabilization approach should be
determined by the contractor, GROUND offers the alternatives below for consideration.
Proof-rolling can be beneficial for identifying unstable areas.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 20

Replacement of the existing subgrade soils with clean, coarse, aggregate (e.g.,
crushed rock or “pit run” materials) or road base. Excavation and replacement to a
depth of 1 to 2 feet commonly is sufficient, but greater depths may be necessary to
establish a stable surface.
On very weak subgrades, an 18- to 24-inch “pioneer” lift that is not well compacted
may be beneficial to stabilize the subgrade.
Where this approach is employed,
however, additional settlements of up to ½ inch may result.

Where coarse, aggregate alone does not appear sufficient to provide stable
conditions, it can be beneficial to place a layer of stabilization geo-textile or geo-grid
(e.g., Tencate Mirafi® HP370 or RS 580i, or Tensar® BX 1100) at the base of the
aggregate section.
The stabilization geo-textile / geo-grid should be selected based on the aggregate
proposed for use.
It should be placed and lapped in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
Geo-textile or geo-grid products can be disturbed by the wheels or tracks of
construction vehicles. We suggest that appropriate care be taken to maintain the
effectiveness of the system. Placement of a layer of aggregate over the geo-textile /
geo-grid prior to allowing vehicle traffic over it can be beneficial in this regard.
When a given remedial approach has been selected, a test section should be
constructed to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach prior to its use over a larger
area.
General Considerations for Fill Placement Fill soils should be thoroughly mixed to
achieve a uniform moisture content, placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
loose thickness, and properly compacted. No fill materials should be placed, worked,
rolled while they are frozen, thawing, or during poor/inclement weather conditions.
Where soils supporting foundations or on which foundation will be placed are exposed to
freezing temperatures or repeated freeze – thaw cycling during construction – commonly
due to water ponding in foundation excavations – bearing capacity typically is reduced
and/or settlements increased due to the loss of density in the supporting soils. After
Job No. 14-0023
Page 21
periods of freezing conditions, the contractor should re-work areas affected by the
formation of ice to re-establish adequate bearing support.
Care should be taken with regard to achieving and maintaining proper moisture contents
during placement and compaction. Materials that are not properly moisture conditioned
may exhibit significant pumping, rutting, and deflection at moisture contents near
optimum and above. The contractor should be prepared to handle soils of this type,
including the use of chemical stabilization, if necessary.
Compaction areas should be kept separate, and no lift should be covered by another
until relative compaction and moisture content within the specified ranges are obtained.
Compaction Standards Fill soils should be compacted to 95 percent or more of the
maximum dry density at moisture contents from 1 percent below to 3 percent above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698, the ‘standard Proctor.’
Use of Squeegee Relatively uniformly graded fine gravel or coarse sand, i.e.,
“squeegee,” or similar materials commonly are proposed for backfilling foundation
excavations, utility trenches (excluding approved pipe bedding), and other areas where
employing compaction equipment is difficult. In general, this procedure should not be
followed.
Even when properly densified, uniformly graded granular materials are comparatively
permeable and allow water to reach and collect in the lower portions of the excavations
backfilled with those materials. This leads to wetting of the underlying soils and resultant
potential loss of bearing support as well as increased local heave or settlement.
Wherever possible, excavations should be backfilled with approved, on-site soils placed
as properly compacted fill. Where this is not feasible, use of “Controlled Low Strength
Material” (CLSM), i.e., a lean, sand-cement slurry (“flowable fill”) or a similar material for
backfilling should be considered.
Where “squeegee” or similar materials are proposed for use by the Contractor, the
design team should be notified by means of a Request for Information (RFI), so that the
proposed use can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Where “squeegee” meets
the project requirements for pipe bedding material, however, it is acceptable for that use.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 22
Settlements Settlements will occur in filled ground, typically on the order of 1 to 2
percent of the fill depth.
For a 6-foot fill, for example, that corresponds to a total
settlement of about 1 inch.
If fill placement is performed properly and is tightly
controlled, in GROUND’s experience the majority (on the order of 60 to 80 percent) of
that settlement typically will take place during earthwork construction, provided the
contractor achieves the compaction levels indicated herein. The remaining potential
settlements likely will take several months or longer to be realized, and may be
exacerbated if these fills are subjected to changes in moisture content.
Cut and Filled Slopes Permanent, graded slopes supported by local soils up to 5 feet
in height should be constructed no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal : vertical). Minor raveling
or surficial sloughing should be anticipated on slopes cut at this angle until vegetation is
well re-established. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from
slope faces into designed drainage pathways or structures.
EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Excavation Difficulty Test holes for the subsurface exploration were advanced to the
depths indicated on the test hole logs by means of conventional, truck-mounted,
geotechnical drilling equipment.
We anticipate no unusual excavation difficulties in
these materials, in general, for the proposed construction with conventional, heavy duty,
excavating equipment. Locally, however, even the relatively shallow bedrock was very
hard and resistant. At Test Hole 2, for example, a penetration resistance value of ‘50 for
2 inches’ was obtained at a depth of about 8 feet, indicating more resistant conditions.
Gravel, cobbles or even boulders, as well as construction debris may be encountered,
as well. The contractor should be prepared to excavate, handle, process and export
these materials, as well.
Temporary Excavations and Personnel Safety Excavations in which personnel will
be working must comply with all applicable OSHA Standards and Regulations,
particularly CFR 29 Part 1926, OSHA Standards-Excavations, adopted March 5, 1990.
The contractor’s “responsible person” should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. GROUND has provided the
information in this report solely as a service to JVA, Inc. and is not assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 23
The contractor should take care when making excavations not to compromise the
bearing or lateral support for any adjacent, existing improvements. The contractor also
should take sufficient care to locate the existing, buried utility lines and other in-ground
improvements which appeared to be relatively numerous.
Temporary, un-shored excavation slopes up to 10 feet in height, in general, should be
cut no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal : vertical) in the on-site soils in the absence of
seepage.
Some surface sloughing may occur on the slope faces at these angles.
Should site constraints prohibit the use of the above-indicated slope angle, temporary
shoring should be used. GROUND is available to provide shoring design upon request.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Groundwater was encountered at depths of as
shallow as about 9 feet below existing grades. Therefore, wet soils and groundwater
should be anticipated in project excavations deeper than about 5 feet.
Should seepage or flowing groundwater be encountered in project excavations, the
slopes should be flattened as necessary to maintain stability or a geotechnical engineer
should be retained to evaluate the conditions.
The risk of slope instability will be
significantly increased in areas of seepage along excavation slopes.
The contractor should take pro-active measures to control surface waters during
construction and maintain good surface drainage conditions to direct waters away from
excavations and into appropriate drainage structures. A properly designed drainage
swale should be provided at the tops of the excavation slopes. In no case should water
be allowed to pond near project excavations.
Temporary slopes should also be protected against erosion. Erosion along the slopes
will result in sloughing and could lead to a slope failure.
Temporary Dewatering Groundwater was encountered in the test holes at about 9 feet
below existing grades and likely will be encountered at shallower depths, at least
seasonally.
For planning purposes only, based on the data obtained for this study, GROUND
estimates the likely, steady state, water flux into the project excavations to be
approximately 0.01 to 0.03 gallons per minute per square foot of submerged excavation.
Actual water fluxes into the excavation will vary and likely will be significantly higher
Job No. 14-0023
Page 24
during initial draw-down than after a period of sustained de-watering that approaches a
steady state.
The temporary de-watering system(s) should be designed for the
contractor by an experienced engineer, based on hydraulic conductivity / flow rate data,
etc., and include an appropriate factor of safety based on the de-watering system type,
layout, etc., as well as the job conditions.
BURIED PIPE INSTALLATION
The measures and criteria below are based on GROUND’s evaluation of the local,
geotechnical conditions. Where the parameters herein differ from applicable municipal
requirements, the latter should be considered to govern.
Pipe Support The bearing capacity of the site soils appeared adequate, in general, for
support of typical utility lines. The pipes + contents are less dense than the soils which
will be displaced for installation. Therefore, GROUND anticipates no significant pipe
settlements in these materials where properly bedded.
Areas allowed to pond water will require excavation and replacement with properly
compacted fill or bedding.
The contractor should take particular care to ensure
adequate support near pipe joints which are less tolerant of extensional strains.
Where thrust blocks are needed, the parameters provided in the Lateral Loads section of
this report may be used for design.
Trench Backfilling Some settlement of compacted soil trench backfill materials should
be anticipated, even where all the backfill is placed and compacted correctly. Typical
settlements are on the order of 1 to 2 percent of fill thickness. However, the need to
compact to the lowest portion of the backfill must be balanced against the need to
protect the pipe from damage from the compaction process. Some thickness of backfill
may need to be placed at compaction levels lower than specified (or smaller compaction
equipment used together with thinner lifts) to avoid damaging the pipe. Protecting the
pipe in this manner can result in somewhat greater surface settlements. Therefore,
although other alternatives may be available, the following options are presented for this
project:
Controlled Low Strength Material Because of the above considerations, the entire depth
of the trench should be backfilled (both bedding and common backfill zones) with
“controlled low strength material” (CLSM), i.e., a lean, sand-cement slurry, “flowable fill,”
Job No. 14-0023
Page 25
or a similar material (e.g., air-entrained “flash fill”) along all trench alignment reaches
with low tolerances for surface settlements.
CLSM used as pipe bedding and trench backfill should exhibit a 28-day unconfined
compressive strength between 50 to 150 psi so that re-excavation is not unusually
difficult. The contractor should establish design mix and a quality control program to
facilitate keeping the CLSM strengths within this range.
Placement of the CLSM in several lifts or other measures likely will be necessary to
avoid ‘floating’ the pipe. Measures also should be taken to maintain pipe alignment
during CLSM placement.
Compacted Soil Backfilling As an alternative that will result in surface settlements, for
use in reaches that are tolerant of such settlements, the utility trenches may be
backfilled with compacted soil using the on-site soils or similar materials.
Where
compacted soil backfilling is employed as backfill, the risk of trench backfill settlements
entailed must be anticipated and accepted by JVA, Inc., and the owner.
We anticipate that the on-site soils excavated from trenches will be suitable, in general,
for use as common trench backfill within the above-described limitations. Backfill soils
should be free of vegetation, organic debris and other deleterious materials. Fragments
of rock, cobbles, and inert construction debris (e.g., concrete or asphalt) coarser than 6
inches in maximum dimension should not be incorporated into trench backfills.
As
discussed in the Project Earthwork section of this report, the excavated soils commonly
will exhibit moisture contents above the optimum which will require drying prior to
placement as compacted fill.
If it is necessary to import material for use as backfill, the imported soils should be free
of vegetation, organic debris, and other deleterious materials and meet the criteria for
imported soils provided in the Project Earthwork section of this report.
Soils placed for compaction as trench backfill should be conditioned to a relatively
uniform moisture content, placed and compacted in accordance with the criteria in the
Project Earthwork section of this report.
Pipe Bedding Pipe bedding materials, placement and compaction should meet the
specifications of the pipe manufacturer and applicable municipal standards. Bedding
should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe to reduce differential loadings.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 26
As discussed above, we CLSM or similar material should be used in lieu of granular
bedding and compacted soil backfill where the tolerance for surface settlement is low.
(Placement of CLSM as bedding to at least 12 inches above the pipe can protect the
pipe and assist construction of a well-compacted conventional backfill, although possibly
at an increased cost relative to the use of conventional bedding.)
If a granular bedding material is specified, then with regard to potential migration of fines
into the pipe bedding, design and installation should follow ASTM D2321, Appendix
X1.8. The on-site sols largely classify as Class IV soils with regard to that standard. If
the granular bedding does not meet filter criteria for the enclosing soils, then non-woven
filter fabric (e.g., TenCate Mirafi® 140N, or the equivalent) should be placed around the
bedding to reduce migration of fines into the bedding which can result in severe, local
surface settlements.
Where this protection is not provided, settlements can
develop/continue several months or years after completion of the project.
In addition, clay or concrete cut-off walls should be installed at the margins of the pad to
interrupt the granular bedding section to reduce the rates and volumes of water
transmitted along utility alignments which can contribute to migration of fines. We
anticipate that cut-off walls also will be beneficial with regard to limiting migration of
methane along the pipe bedding.
If granular bedding is specified, some site soils may be suitable for that use with
significant processing. Materials proposed for use as pipe bedding should be tested for
suitability prior to use. Imported materials should be approved prior to transport to the
site.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The site soils are relatively stable with regard to moisture content – volume relationships
at their existing moisture contents.
Other than the anticipated, post-placement
settlement of fills, post-construction soil movements will result primarily from the
introduction of water into the soils underlying the proposed structure, hardscaping and
pavements. Wetting of the soils may result from infiltrating surface waters (precipitation,
irrigation, etc.), water flowing along constructed pathways such as bedding in utility pipe
trenches, or a rise in the local water table.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 27
The following drainage measures should be followed both for during construction and as
part of project design.
The facility should be observed periodically to evaluate the
surface drainage and identify areas where drainage is ineffective. Routine maintenance
of site drainage should undertaken throughout the design life of the proposed facility. If
these measures are not implemented and maintained effectively, the movement
estimates provided in this report could be exceeded.
1)
Wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during and after construction as well as throughout the improvements’
design life.
Permitting increases/variations in moisture to the adjacent or
supporting soils may result in a decrease in bearing capacity and an increase in
volume change of the underlying soils, and increased total and/or differential
movements.
2)
Positive surface drainage measures should be provided and maintained to
reduce water infiltration into foundation soils.
The ground surface surrounding the exterior of each building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. A minimum slope of 12 inches in
the first 10 feet should be incorporated in the areas not covered with pavement or
concrete slabs, or a minimum 3 percent in the first 10 feet in the areas covered
with pavement or concrete slabs.
Reducing the slopes to comply with ADA
requirements may be necessary by other design professionals but may entail an
increased potential for moisture infiltration and subsequent volume change of the
underlying soils and resultant distress.
In no case should water be allowed to pond near or adjacent to foundation
elements, utility trench alignments, etc.
It should be noted that the maintenance necessary to maintain effective surface
drainage may include removal and replacement of improvements, local
earthwork to restore drainage gradients, etc.
3)
Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the perimeter of the
structure foundations (minimum 10 feet) and backfill zones and be provided with
positive conveyance off-site for collected waters.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 28
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
As a component of project civil design, properly functioning, subsurface drain systems
(underdrains) can be beneficial for collecting and discharging saturated subsurface
waters.
Underdrains will not collect water infiltrating under unsaturated (vadose)
conditions, or moving via capillarity, however. In addition, if not properly constructed and
maintained, underdrains can transfer water into foundation soils, rather than remove it.
This will tend to induce heave or settlement of the subsurface soils, and may result in
distress.
Underdrains can, however, provide an added level of protection against
relatively severe post-construction movements by draining saturated conditions near
individual structures should they arise, and limiting the volume of wetted soil.
However, if below-grade or partially below-grade level(s) are added to a building, then
damp-proofing should be applied to the exteriors of below-grade elements.
The
provision of Tencate MiraFi® G-Series backing (or comparable wall drain provisions) on
the exteriors of (some) below-grade elements may be appropriate, depending on the
intended use. If a (partially) below-grade level is limited in extent, it may be efficient to
install a separate, local underdrain system, in that area.
Geotechnical Parameters for Underdrain Design Where an underdrain system is
included in project drainage design, design should incorporate the parameters below.
The actual underdrain layout, outlets, and locations should be developed by a civil
engineer. A typical, cross-section detail of an underdrain for this project is provided on
Figure 4.
An underdrain system should be tested by the contractor after installation and after
placement and compaction of the overlying backfill to verify that the system functions
properly.
1)
An underdrain system for a building should consist of perforated, rigid, PVC
collection pipe at least 4 inches in diameter, non-perforated, rigid, PVC discharge
pipe at least 4 inches in diameter, free-draining gravel, and filter fabric, as well as
a waterproof membrane.
2)
The free-draining gravel should contain less than 5 percent passing the No. 200
Sieve and more than 50 percent retained on the No. 4 Sieve, and have a
Job No. 14-0023
Page 29
maximum particle size of 2 inches. Each collection pipe should be surrounded
on the sides and top (only) with 6 or more inches of free-draining gravel.
3)
The gravel surrounding the collection pipe(s) should be wrapped with filter fabric
(MiraFi 140N® or the equivalent) to reduce the migration of fines into the drain
system.
4)
The waterproof membrane should underlie the gravel and pipe, and be attached
to the foundation stem wall as shown in the detail.
5)
The underdrain system should be designed to discharge at least 8 gallons per
minute of collected water.
6)
The high point(s) for the collection pipe flow lines should be below the grade
beam or shallow foundation bearing elevation as shown on the detail. Multiple
high points can be beneficial to reducing the depths to which the system would
be installed.
The collection and discharge pipe for the underdrain system should be laid on a
slope sufficient for effective drainage, but a minimum of 1 percent.
Pipe gradients also should be designed to accommodate at least ½ inch of
differential movement after installation along a 40-foot run.
Gradients flatter than 1 percent may be used but will convey water less efficiently
and entail an increased risk of local post-construction movements.
Steeper
gradients, e.g., 1½ percent, will make the system more tolerant of local,
differential settlements, possibly resulting in less frequent repairs.
7) Underdrain ‘clean-outs’ should be provided at intervals of no more than 100 feet
to facilitate maintenance of the underdrains. Clean-outs also should be provided
at collection and discharge pipe elbows of 60 degrees or more.
8) The underdrain discharge pipes should be connected to one or more sumps from
which water can be removed by pumping, or to outlet(s) for gravity discharge.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 30
We suggest that collected waters be discharged directly into the storm sewer
system, if possible.
CLOSURE
Geotechnical Review The author of this report should be retained to review project
plans and specifications to evaluate whether they comply with the intent of the measures
discussed in this report. The review should be requested in writing.
The geotechnical conclusions and parameters presented in this report are contingent
upon observation and testing of project earthworks by representatives of GROUND. If
another geotechnical consultant is selected to provide materials testing, then that
consultant must assume all responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by
concurring in writing with the parameters in this report, or by providing alternative
parameters.
Materials Testing JVA, Inc. or the owner should consider retaining a geotechnical
engineer to perform materials testing during construction. The performance of such
testing or lack thereof, however, in no way alleviates the burden of the contractor or
subcontractor from constructing in a manner that conforms to applicable project
documents and industry standards.
The contractor or pertinent subcontractor is
ultimately responsible for managing the quality of his work; furthermore, testing by the
geotechnical engineer does not preclude the contractor from obtaining or providing
whatever services that he deems necessary to complete the project in accordance with
applicable documents.
Limitations This report has been prepared for JVA, Inc. as it pertains to design and
construction of the proposed building and related improvements as described herein. It
may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
In addition, GROUND has assumed that project construction will commence by Summer,
2015. Any changes in project plans or schedule should be brought to the attention of a
geotechnical engineer, in order that the geotechnical conclusions in this report may be
re-evaluated and, as necessary, modified.
The geotechnical conclusions and criteria in this report relied upon subsurface
exploration at a limited number of exploration points, as shown in Figure 1, as well as
Job No. 14-0023
Page 31
the means and methods described herein.
Subsurface conditions were interpolated
between and extrapolated beyond these locations. It is not possible to guarantee the
subsurface conditions are as indicated in this report. Actual conditions exposed during
construction may differ from those encountered during site exploration.
If during construction, surface, soil, bedrock, or groundwater conditions appear to be at
variance with those described herein, a geotechnical engineer should be retained at
once, so that re-evaluation of the conclusions for this site may be made in a timely
manner. In addition, a contractor who relies upon this report for development of his
scope of work or cost estimates may find the geotechnical information in this report to be
inadequate for his purposes or find the geotechnical conditions described herein to be at
variance with his experience in the greater project area. The contractor is responsible
for obtaining the additional geotechnical information that is necessary to develop his
workscope and cost estimates with sufficient precision. This includes current depths to
groundwater, etc.
ALL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS INHERENT RISKS. It is important that ALL aspects
of this report, as well as the estimated performance (and limitations with any such
estimations) of proposed improvements are understood by JVA, Inc. and the owner.
Utilizing these criteria and measures herein for planning, design, and/or construction
constitutes understanding and acceptance of the conclusions with regard to risk and
other information provided herein, associated improvement performance, as well as the
limitations inherent within such estimates.
If any information referred to herein is not well understood, then JVA, Inc., the owner, or
anyone using this report, should contact the author or a GROUND principal immediately.
We will be available to meet to discuss the risks and remedial approaches presented in
this report, as well as other potential approaches, upon request.
This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practice in the Larimer County, Colorado, area at the date of preparation.
Current applicable codes may contain criteria regarding performance of structures
and/or site improvements which may differ from those provided herein. Our office should
be contacted regarding any apparent disparity. GROUND makes no warranties, either
expressed or implied, as to the professional data, opinions or conclusions contained
herein.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 32
This document, together with the concepts and conclusions presented herein, as an
instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was
prepared. Reuse of or improper reliance on this document without written authorization
and adaption by GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc., shall be without liability to
GROUND appreciates the opportunity to complete this portion of the project and
welcomes the opportunity to provide JVA, Inc. or the owner with a proposal for
construction observation and materials testing prior to construction commencement.
Sincerely,
Brian H. Reck, P.G., C.E.G., P.E.
Reviewed by James B. Kowalsky, P.E.
Job No. 14-0023
Page 33
4
9
8
18
2
5
1
1
2
2
3
4
10.6
14.1
14.3
8.8
13.6
20.2
Sample Location Natural
Test
Moisture
Hole
Depth Content
(feet)
(%)
No.
121.6
116.0
88.2
107.4
120.3
104.3
Natural
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Gravel
(%)
Sand
(%)
Gradation
65
78
58
63
70
58
Passing
No. 200
Sieve
(%)
37
38
30
34
29
31
14
19
16
16
12
16
200
2,200
1,100
500
* Negative values indicate consolidation.
6.5
-1.4
0.0
-1.6
Atterberg Limits Swell - Consolidation
Unconf.
Liquid Plasticity Swell or
Compress.
Limit
Index
Consol. * Surcharge Strength
(%)
(%)
(%)
(psf)
(psf)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
USCS
Classification
Job No. 14-0023
CLAYSTONE Bedrock
Lean CLAY with Sand
CLAYSTONE Bedrock
CLAYSTONE Bedrock
CLAYSTONE Bedrock
Sandy Lean CLAY
Soil or
Bedrock Type
2
8
Sample Location
Test
Hole
Depth
(feet)
No.
0.02
WaterSoluble
Sulfates
(%)
9,486
Resisitivity
(ohm-cm)
7.2
pH
-77
Redox
Potential
(mV)
Positive
Sulfide
Reactivity
Job No. 14-0023
CLAYSTONE Bedrock
Soil or
Bedrock Type
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS, CONTINUED
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
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
Weld County,
Colorado,
Southern Part
Berthoud Regional WWTF Site
September 29, 2014
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 (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) 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 alternative means
2
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
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................7
Soil Map................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part...........................................................12
4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded................................................................12
References............................................................................................................14
4
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
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
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 soillandscape 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
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
6
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.
7
502340
502360
502380
502400
502420
502440
502460
502480
104° 58' 11'' W
104° 58' 21'' W
Soil Map
502500
502520
502540
502560
40° 18' 33'' N
4461930
4461930
502360
502380
502400
502420
502440
502460
Map Scale: 1:1,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
N
Meters
90
Feet
0
50
100
200
300
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0
15
30
502480
502500
502520
502540
502560
104° 58' 11'' W
502340
104° 58' 21'' W
40° 18' 28'' N
4461950
4461950
4461970
4461970
4461990
4461990
4462010
4462010
4462030
4462030
4462050
4462050
4462070
4462070
40° 18' 33'' N
60
8
40° 18' 28'' N
MAP LEGEND
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
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
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.
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Mine or Quarry
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Jan 3, 2014
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Date(s) aerial images were photographed:
2012
Sinkhole
Apr 22, 2011—Apr 13,
Slide or Slip
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.
Sodic Spot
9
Map Unit Legend
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO618)
Map Unit Symbol
4
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded
Totals for Area of Interest
Percent of AOI
3.5
100.0%
3.5
100.0%
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.
10
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 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. AlphaBeta 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.
11
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 362l
Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F
Frost-free period: 100 to 165 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent
Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Aquolls
Setting
Landform: Depressions, drainageways, plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Recent alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.06 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to moderately saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/
cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Salt meadow (R067BY035CO)
12
Description of Aquepts, Flooded
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Recent alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.06 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to moderately saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/
cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Wet meadow (R067BY038CO)
Minor Components
Haverson
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Thedalund
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
13
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
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
14
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
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
15
APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(PELS)
Town of Berthoud
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, (25-8-101 et seq., CRS, 1973 as
amended), for both discharges to surface and ground waters, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the "Act"), for discharges to surface waters only, the
Town of Berthoud
is authorized to discharge from the Town's wastewater treatment plant located at SW 1/4, Section 19, T4N, R68W,
6th P.M.; 20213 WCR #1, Berthoud, CO; 40°17'00'' N, 105°04'00'' W
to the Little Thompson River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Parts I and II
hereof. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.
The applicant may demand an adjudicatory hearing within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of the final permit
determination, per the Colorado State Discharge Permit System Regulation 61.7(1). Should the applicant choose to
contest any of the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements or other conditions contained herein, the applicant
must comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS 1973 and the Colorado State Discharge Permit System Regulations.
Failure to contest any such effluent limitation, monitoring requirement, or other condition, constitutes consent to the
condition by the applicant.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, August 31, 2014
Modified and Reissued and Signed this 28h day of February, 2013
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Janet Kieler, Permits Section Manager
Water Quality Control Division
Permit Summary
Modification 1 – Minor Amendment Issued February 28, 2013, Effective April 1, 2013 (Part I.A.2 and I.B.7a)
Originally Issued July 31, 2009 and Effective September 1, 2009
Permit, Part I
Page 2 of 29
Permit No. CO-0046663
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 3
1. Effluent Limitations, Monitoring Frequencies and Sample Types ............................................................................................................ 3
2. Frequency and Sample Type Influent Parameters ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Monitoring Outfall 300I............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Service Area.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2. Design Capacity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3. Expansion Requirements .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Facilities Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Percentage Removal Requirements (BOD5 and TSS Limitations)............................................................................................................ 6
6. Chronic WET Testing -Outfall(s):001A ................................................................................................................................................... 6
7. Compliance Schedule(s) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8
8. Industrial Waste Management .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
C. DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10
D. General Monitoring, SAmpling and reporting requirements........................................................................................................................... 13
1. Routine Reporting of Data ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2. Annual Biosolids Report ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Representative Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
4. Influent and Effluent Sampling Points .................................................................................................................................................... 14
5. Analytical and Sampling Methods for Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 14
6. Records ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
7. Flow Measuring Devices ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16
8. Signatory Requirements .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
PART II .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
1. Notification to Parties ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Change in Discharge ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
3. Special Notifications - Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
4. Noncompliance Notification ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Other Notification Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
6. Bypass Notification................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
7. Upsets ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
8. Discharge Point ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
9. Proper Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
10. Minimization of Adverse Impact ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
11. Removed Substances .............................................................................................................................................................................. 21
12. Submission of Incorrect or Incomplete Information ............................................................................................................................... 21
13. Bypass ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
14. Reduction, Loss, or Failure of Treatment Facility .................................................................................................................................. 21
B. RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
1. Inspections and Right to Entry .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
2. Duty to Provide Information ................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
4. Availability of Reports............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
5. Modification, Suspension, Revocation, or Termination of Permits By the Division .............................................................................. 23
6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability ................................................................................................................................................... 25
7. State Laws ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
8. Permit Violations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
9. Property Rights ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
10. Severability ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
11. Renewal Application............................................................................................................................................................................... 26
12. Confidentiality ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
13. Fees ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
14. Duration of Permit .................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
15. Section 307 Toxics.................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
16. Effect of Permit Issuance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26
PART III ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Permit, Part I
Page 3 of 29
PART I
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.
Effluent Limitations, Monitoring Frequencies and Sample Types
During the period beginning no later than the effective date of the permit and lasting through the expiration date, the
permittee is authorized to discharge from the following outfall(s). Self-monitoring samples taken in compliance with
the monitoring requirements, should be taken from the following location(s): Outfall 001A, following disinfection and
to entering the Little Thompson River.
In order to obtain an indication of the compliance or non-compliance with the effluent limitations specified in Part I,
Section A.5, the permittee shall monitor effluent parameters at the following required frequencies, the results to be
reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (See Part I, Section D.2.):
If the permittee, using an approved analytical method, monitors any parameter more frequently than required by this
permit, then the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (DMRs) or other forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency
shall also be indicated.
Oil and Grease Monitoring: For every outfall with oil and grease monitoring, in the event an oil sheen or floating oil is
observed, a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for oil and grease, and reported on the appropriate DMR under
parameter 03582. In addition, corrective action shall be taken immediately to mitigate the discharge of oil and grease.
A description of the corrective action taken should be included with the DMR.
Total Residual Chlorine: Monitoring for TRC is required only when chlorine is used for disinfection.
Metals: Metals concentrations measured in compliance with the effluent monitoring requirements listed in Part I.A of
this permit may be used to satisfy any pretreatment or industrial waste management metals monitoring requirements
listed in Part I.B.8, with the potentially dissolved, dissolved, or total recoverable concentrations, as specified in Part I.A,
being substituted for the total metals concentrations specified in Part I.B.8. However, the special sampling procedures
(e.g. 24-hour composite samples) specified in Part I.B.8 must be followed.
In accordance with the Water Quality Control Commission Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Section 62.4, and the
Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 61.8(2), 5 C.C.R. 1002-61, the permitted discharge shall not
contain effluent parameter concentrations which exceed the following limitations specified below or exceed the
specified flow limitation.
2.
Frequency and Sample Type Influent Parameters
Regardless of whether or not an effluent discharge occurs and in order to obtain an indication of the current influent
loading as compared to the approved capacity specified in Part I, Section A.2.; the permittee shall monitor influent
parameters at the following required frequencies, the results to be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (See
Part I, Section D.2.):
If the permittee monitors at the point of discharge any pollutant limited by the permit more frequently than required by
the permit, using an approved test procedure or as specified in the permit, the result of this monitoring shall be included
in the calculation and reporting of data to the Division.
Self-monitoring samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the
following location(s): 300I.
Permit, Part I
Page 4 of 29
Outfall 001
Effluent Limitations Maximum Concentrations
Effluent Parameter
Effluent Flow (MGD)
30-Day
7-Day
Daily
2-Year
Average * Average * Maximum * Average *
2
Report
pH (su)
6.5-9
Frequency *
Sample Type *
Daily
Recorder
Daily
Grab
2 Days/Week
Grab
E. coli (#/100 ml) *
126
TRC (mg/l)
0.011
0.019
Weekly
Grab
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jan
5.5
28
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Feb
6
32
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Mar
5.4
31
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Apr
4.9
28
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) May
4.7
33
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jun
3.7
38
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jul
2.8
22
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Aug
3.3
30
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Sep
3.7
33
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Oct
3.7
26
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Nov
4.8
30
Monthly
Composite
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Dec
5.7
32
Monthly
Composite
BOD5, effluent (mg/l)
30
Monthly
Composite
BOD5 (% removal)
85 (min)
Monthly
Calculated
TSS, effluent (mg/l)
30
Monthly
Composite
TSS (% removal)
85 (min)
Monthly
Calculated
Daily
Visual
Oil and Grease (mg/l)
252
Monitoring Requirements
45
45
10
Cr+6, PD (µg/l)
Report
Report
Monthly
Composite
Cu, PD (µg/l)
Report
Report
Quarterly
Composite
Report
Monthly
Composite
5
Monthly
Composite
Monthly
Composite
CN, WAD µg/l
Until 08/31/2012
Beginning 09/01/2012
Hg, Tot (µg/l)
Until 08/31/2013
Beginning 09/01/2013
Se, PD (µg/l)
Report
0.01
Report
Monthly
Composite
Report
Quarterly
Composite
Stat Diff &
IC25 > IWC
Annualyy
3 Composites / Test
Annaully
3 Composites / Test
Report Stat
Diff & IC25
Annaully
3 Composites / Test
Annaully
3 Composites / Test
WET, chronic
Pimephales Lethality
Ceriodaphnia Lethality
Pimephales Toxicity
Ceriodaphnia Toxicity
Permit, Part I
Page 5 of 29
3.
Monitoring Outfall 300I
Influent Parameter
Flow, MGD
BOD5, mg/l
BOD5, lbs/day
Total Suspended Solids, TSS, mg/l
Frequency
Sample Type f/
Continuous
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.
Service Area
The service area for this treatment facility is delineated in Figure 1. All wastewater flows contributed in this service
area may be accepted by the Town of Berthoud for treatment at the permittee's wastewater treatment plant provided that
such acceptance does not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the throughput or design capacity of the treatment
works or the effluent limitations in Part I.A.5, or constitute a substantial impact to the functioning of the treatment
works, degrade the quality of the receiving waters, or harm human health, or the environment.
In addition, the permittee shall enter into and maintain service agreements with any municipalities that discharge into
the wastewater treatment facility. The service agreements shall contain all provisions necessary to protect the financial,
physical, and operational integrity of the wastewater treatment works.
2.
Design Capacity
Based on Site Approval #4694, the design capacity of this domestic wastewater treatment works is 2 million gallons
per day (MGD) for hydraulic flow (30-day average) and 3900 lbs. BOD5 per day for organic loading (30-day
average).
3.
Expansion Requirements
Pursuant to Colorado Law, C.R.S. 25-8-501 (5 d & e), the permittee is required to initiate engineering and financial
planning for expansion of the domestic wastewater treatment works whenever throughput reaches eighty (80) percent of
the treatment capacity. Such planning may be deemed unnecessary upon a showing that the area served by the
domestic wastewater treatment works has a stable or declining population; but this provision shall not be construed as
preventing periodic review by the Division should it be felt that growth is occurring or will occur in the area.
The permittee shall commence construction of such domestic wastewater treatment works expansion whenever
throughput reaches ninety-five (95) percent of the treatment capacity or, in the case of a municipality, either commence
construction or cease issuance of building permits within such municipality until such construction is commenced;
except that building permits may continue to be issued for any construction which would not have the effect of
increasing the input of wastewater to the sewage treatment works of the municipality involved.
Where unusual circumstances result in throughput exceeding 80% of treatment capacity, the permittee may, in lieu of
initiating planning for expansion, submit a report to the Division that demonstrates that it is unlikely that the event will
reoccur, or even if it were to reoccur, that 95% of the treatment capacity would not be exceeded.
Where unusual circumstances result in throughput exceeding 95% of the treatment capacity, the permittee may, in lieu
of initiating construction of the expansion, submit a report to the Division that demonstrates that the domestic
wastewater treatment works was in compliance at all times during the events and that it is extremely unlikely that the
event will reoccur.
Where the permittee submits a report pursuant to unusual circumstances, and the Division, upon review of such report,
determines in writing to the permittee that the report does not support the required findings, the permittee shall initiate
planning and/or construction of the domestic wastewater treatment works as appropriate.
Permit, Part I
Page 6 of 29
4.
Facilities Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
including all portions of the collection system and lift stations owned by the permittee (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the permittee as necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit.
Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems when installed by
the permittee only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. However, the permittee
shall operate, at a minimum, one complete set of each main line unit treatment process whether or not this process is
needed to achieve permit effluent compliance. Any sludge produced at the wastewater treatment facility shall be
disposed of in accordance with State and Federal guidelines and regulations.
5.
Percentage Removal Requirements (BOD5 and TSS Limitations)
If noted in the above limits table(s), the arithmetic mean of the BOD5 and TSS concentrations for effluent samples
collected during the calendar month shall demonstrate a minimum of eighty-five percent (85%) removal of both BOD5
and TSS, as measured by dividing the respective difference between the mean influent and effluent concentrations for
the calendar month by the respective mean influent concentration for the calendar month, and multiplying the quotient
by 100.
6.
Chronic WET Testing -Outfall(s):001A
a.
Chronic WET Testing and Reporting Requirements
Tests shall be done at the frequency listed in Part I.A.1. Test results shall be reported along with the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the reporting period during which the sample was taken. (i.e., WET
testing results for the first calendar quarter ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28.) The
results shall be submitted on the Chronic Toxicity Test report form, available from the Division. Copies of these
reports are to be submitted to the Division along with the DMR.
The permittee shall conduct each chronic WET test in general accordance with methods described in Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms, Fourth
Edition, October 2002, EPA 821-R-02-013 or the most current edition. The permittee shall conduct such tests
using Ceriodaphnia dubia and fathead minnows.
b.
Failure of Test and Division Notification
A chronic WET test is failed whenever 1) there is a statistically significant difference in lethality between the
control and any effluent concentration less than the instream waste concentration ("IWC") and, 2) the IC25, which
represents an estimate of the effluent concentration at which 25% of the test organisms demonstrate inhibition as
reflected by lethality, is at any effluent concentration less than the IWC. The IWC for this permit has been
determined to be 100%. The permittee must provide written notification of the failure of a WET test to the
Division, along with a statement as to whether a Preliminary Toxicity Investigation ("PTI")/Toxicity Identification
Evaluation ("TIE") or accelerated testing is being performed. Notification must be received by the Division
within 21 calendar days of the demonstration of chronic WET in the routine required test. "Demonstration"
for the purposes of Part I.B.6.b, c, d and f. means no later than the last day of the laboratory test.
c.
Automatic Compliance Schedule Upon Failure of Test
If a routine chronic WET test is failed, regardless of whether the limit is in effect, the following automatic
compliance schedule shall apply. As part of this, the permittee shall either:
i.
ii.
Proceed to conduct the PTI/TIE investigation as described in Part I.B.6.d., or
Conduct accelerated testing using the single species found to be more sensitive.
If accelerated testing is being performed, the permittee shall provide written notification of the results
within 14 calendar days of completion of the "Pattern of Toxicity"/"No Toxicity" demonstration. Testing
Permit, Part I
Page 7 of 29
will be at least once every two weeks for up to five tests until; 1) two consecutive tests fail or three of five tests fail,
in which case a pattern of toxicity has been demonstrated or 2) two consecutive tests pass or three of five tests pass,
in which case no pattern of toxicity has been found. If no pattern of toxicity is found the toxicity episode is
considered to be ended and routine testing is to resume. If a pattern of toxicity is found, a PTI/TIE investigation is
to be performed. If a pattern of toxicity is not demonstrated but a significant level of erratic toxicity is found, the
Division may require an increased frequency of routine monitoring or some other modified approach.
d.
PTI/TIE
The results of the PTI/TIE investigation are to be received by the Division within 120 days of the
demonstration of chronic WET in the routine test, as defined above, or if accelerated testing is performed,
the date the pattern of toxicity is demonstrated. A status report is to be provided to the Division at the 30, 60
and 90 day points of the PTI/TIE investigation. The Division may extend the time frame for investigation where
reasonable justification exists. A request for an extension must be made in writing and received prior to the 120
day deadline. Such request must include a justification and supporting data for such an extension.
The permittee may use the time for investigation to conduct a PTI or move directly into the TIE. A PTI consists of
a brief search for possible sources of WET, which might reveal causes of such toxicity and appropriate corrective
actions more simply and cost effectively than a formal TIE. If the PTI allows resolution of the WET incident, the
TIE need not necessarily be conducted. If, however, WET is not identified or resolved during the PTI, the TIE
must be conducted within the allowed 120 day time frame.
Any permittee that is required to conduct a PTI/TIE investigation shall do so in conformance with procedures
identified in the following documents, or as subsequently updated: 1) Toxicity Identification Evaluation:
Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I, EPA/600/6-91/005F May 92, 2) Methods for Aquatic
Toxicity Identification Evaluations, Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures, EPA/600/6-91/003 Feb. 91 and
3) Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations, Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures,
EPA/600/3-88/035 Feb. 1989.
A fourth document in this series is Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations, Phase III Toxicity
Confirmation Procedures, EPA/600/3-88/036 Feb. 1989. As indicated by the title, this procedure is intended to
confirm that the suspected toxicant is truly the toxicant. This investigation is optional.
Within 90 days of the determination of the toxicant or no later than 210 days after demonstration of toxicity,
whichever is sooner, a control program is to be developed and received by the Division. The program shall set
down a method and procedure for elimination of the toxicity to acceptable levels.
e.
Request For Relief
The permittee may request relief from further investigation and testing where the toxicant has not been determined
and suitable treatment does not appear possible. In requesting such relief, the permittee shall submit material
sufficient to establish the following:
i.
ii.
It has complied with terms and conditions of the permit compliance schedule for the PTI/TIE investigation and
other appropriate conditions as may have been required by the WQCD;
During the period of the toxicity incident it has been in compliance with all other permit conditions, including,
in the case of a POTW, pretreatment requirements;
iii. During the period of the toxicity incident it has properly maintained and operated all facilities and systems of
treatment and control; and
iv. Despite the circumstances described in paragraphs (i) and (iii) above, the source and/or cause of toxicity could
not be located or resolved.
If deemed appropriate by the Division, the permit or the compliance schedule may be modified to revise the
ongoing monitoring and toxicity investigation requirements to avoid an unproductive expenditure of the permittee's
resources, provided that the underlying obligation to eliminate any continuing exceedance of the toxicity limit shall
remain.
Permit, Part I
Page 8 of 29
f.
Spontaneous Disappearance
If toxicity spontaneously disappears at any time after a test failure, the permittee shall notify the Division in writing
within 14 days of a demonstration of disappearance of the toxicity. The Division may require the permittee to
develop and submit additional information, which may include, but is not limited to, the results of additional
testing. If no pattern of toxicity is identified or recurring toxicity is not identified, the toxicity incident response is
considered closed and normal WET testing shall resume.
g.
Toxicity Reopener
This permit may be reopened and modified (following proper administrative procedures) to include new
compliance dates, additional or modified numerical permit limitations, a new or different compliance schedule, a
change in the whole effluent toxicity testing protocol, or any other conditions related to the control of toxicants if
one or more of the following events occur:
i.
Toxicity has been demonstrated in the effluent and the permit does not contain a toxicity limitation.
ii.
The PTI/TIE results indicate that the identified toxicant(s) represent pollutant(s) that may be controlled with
specific numerical limits and the permit issuing authority agrees that the control of such toxicants through
numerical limits is the most appropriate course of action.
iii. The PTI/TIE reveals other unique conditions or characteristics, which, in the opinion of the permit issuing
authority, justify the incorporation of unanticipated special conditions in the permit.
7.
Compliance Schedule(s)
a.
Code
Activities to Meet Cyanide and Total Mercury Final Limits – In order to meet the cyanide and total mercury
limitations, the following schedule will be included in the permit. If the permittee determines that upgrades to the
facility will need to be made to meet these limitations, note that this will be subject to a site approval amendment
and Division review of facility plans.
Event
Description
Permit Citation
Due Date
43699
Facility
Evaluation Plan
Submit a report that identifies sources of cyanide and mercury to
the wastewater treatment facility and identifies strategies to
control these sources or treatment alternatives such that
compliance with the final limitations may be attained.
Part I.B.7.
08/31/10
00899
Implementation
Schedule
Submit a progress report summarizing the progress in
implementing the strategies to control sources such that
compliance with the final cyanide and mercury limitations may be
attained.
Part I.B.7.
08/31/11
CS017
Achieve Final
Compliance
with Emissions
or Discharge
Limits
Submit study results that show compliance has been attained with
the final cyanide limitations.
Part I.B.7.
08/31/12
CS017
Achieve Final
Compliance
with Emissions
or Discharge
Limits
Submit study results that show compliance has been attained with
the final mercury limitations.
Part I.B.7.
08/31/13
All information and written reports required by the following compliance schedules should be directed to the Permits
Unit for final review unless otherwise stated.
Permit, Part I
Page 9 of 29
8.
Industrial Waste Management
a.
The Permittee has the responsibility to protect the Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works (DWTW), as defined at
section 25.8.103(5) of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, or the Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW),
as defined at 40 CFR section 403.3(q) of the federal pretreatment regulations, from pollutants which would cause
pass through or interference, as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(p) and (k), or otherwise be incompatible with operation of
the treatment works including interference with the use or disposal of municipal sludge.
b.
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Section 403.5) developed pursuant to Section 307 of the Federal Clean Water Act
(the Act) require that the Permittee shall not allow, under any circumstances, the introduction of the following
pollutants to the DWTW from any source of non-domestic discharge:
i.
Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the DWTW, including, but not limited to, wastestreams
with a closed cup flashpoint of less than sixty (60) degrees Centigrade (140 degrees Fahrenheit) using the test
methods specified in 40 CFR Section 261.21;
ii.
Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the DWTW, but in no case discharges with a pH of
lower than 5.0 s.u., unless the treatment facilities are specifically designed to accommodate such discharges;
iii. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the DWTW, or otherwise
interfere with the operation of the DWTW;
iv. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (e.g., BOD), released in a discharge at a flow rate
and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with any treatment process at the DWTW;
v.
Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the DWTW resulting in Interference, but in no case
heat in such quantities that the temperature at the DWTW treatment plant exceeds forty (40) degrees
Centigrade (104 degrees Fahrenheit) unless the Approval Authority, upon request of the DWTW, approves
alternate temperature limits;
vi. Petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
Interference or Pass Through;
vii. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the DWTW in a quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
viii. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the DWTW; and
ix. Any specific pollutant that exceeds a local limitation established by the Permittee in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Section 403.5(c) and (d).
x.
Any other pollutant which may cause Pass Through or Interference.
c.
EPA shall be the Approval Authority and the mailing address for all reporting and notifications to the Approval
Authority shall be: USEPA 1595 Wynkoop St. 8ENF-W-NP, Denver, CO 80202-1129. Should the State be
delegated authority to implement and enforce the Pretreatment Program in the future, the Permittee shall be notified
of the delegation and the state permitting authority shall become the Approval Authority.
d.
In addition to the general limitations expressed above, more specific Pretreatment Standards have been and will be
promulgated for specific industrial categories under Section 307 of the Act (40 CFR Part 405 et. seq.).
e.
The Permittee must notify the state permitting authority and the Approval Authority, of any new introductions by
new or existing industrial users or any substantial change in pollutants from any industrial user within sixty (60)
days following the introduction or change. Such notice must identify:
Permit, Part I
Page 10 of 29
i.
Any new introduction of pollutants into the DWTW from an industrial user which would be subject to Sections
301, 306, or 307 of the Act if it were directly discharging those pollutants; or
ii.
Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the DWTW by any
industrial user;
iii. For the purposes of this section, adequate notice shall include information on:
(A) The identity of the industrial user;
(B) The nature and concentration of pollutants in the discharge and the average and maximum flow
of the discharge to be introduced into the DWTW; and
(C) Any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from
or biosolids or sludge produced at such DWTW.
iv. For the purposes of this section, an industrial user shall include:
(A) Any discharger subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under Section 307 of the Act and
40 CFR chapter I and subchapter N;
(B) Any discharger which has a process wastewater flow of 25,000 gallons or more per day;
(C) Any discharger contributing five percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the DWTW treatment plant;
(D) Any discharger who is designated by the Approval Authority as having a reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the DWTWs operation or for violating any Pretreatment Standard or
requirements;
f.
At such time as a specific Pretreatment Standard or requirement becomes applicable to an industrial user of the
Permittee, the state permitting authority and/or Approval Authority may, as appropriate:
i.
Amend the Permittee's CDPS discharge permit to specify the additional pollutant(s) and corresponding effluent
limitation(s) consistent with the applicable national Pretreatment Standards;
ii.
Require the Permittee to specify, by ordinance, order, or other enforceable means, the type of pollutant(s) and
the maximum amount which may be discharged to the Permittee's DWTW for treatment. Such requirement
shall be imposed in a manner consistent with the program development requirements of the General
Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR Part 403; and/or,
iii. Require the Permittee to monitor its discharge for any pollutant which may likely be discharged from the
Permittee's DWTW, should the industrial user fail to properly pretreat its waste.
The state permitting authority and the Approval Authority retains, at all times, the right to take legal action against any
source of nondomestic discharge, whether directly or indirectly controlled by the Permittee, for violations of a permit,
order or similar enforceable mechanism issued by the Permittee, violations of any Pretreatment Standard or
requirement, or for failure to discharge at an acceptable level under national standards issued by EPA under 40 CFR,
chapter I, subchapter N. In those cases where a CDPS permit violation has occurred because of the failure of the
Permittee to properly develop and enforce Pretreatment Standards and requirements as necessary to protect the DWTW,
the state permitting authority and/or Approval Authority shall hold the Permittee and/or industrial user responsible and
may take legal action against the Permittee as well as the Industrial user(s) contributing to the permit violation.
C. DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.
"Acute Toxicity" means there shall be no acute toxicity in the effluent from this discharge point. The acute toxicity
limitation is exceeded if 1) a statistically significant difference in mortality (at the 95% confidence level) is observed for
Permit, Part I
Page 11 of 29
either species between the control and any dilution less than or equal to the identified IWC or 2) a species mortality in
any dilution of effluent (including 100% effluent) exceeds 50%.
2.
"Chronic lethality" occurs when a statistically significant difference, at the 95% confidence level, occurs in the chronic
test between the mortality of the test species in 100% effluent (the chronic IWC = 100%) and the control.
3.
"Composite" sample is a minimum of four (4) grab samples collected at equally spaced two (2) hour intervals and
proportioned according to flow.
4.
"Continuous" measurement, is a measurement obtained from an automatic recording device which continually measures
provides measurements.
5.
"Daily Maximum limitation" for all parameters except temperature, means the limitation for this parameter shall be
applied as an instantaneous maximum (or, for pH or DO, instantaneous minimum) value. The instantaneous value is
defined as the analytical result of any individual sample. DMRs shall include the maximum (and/or minimum) of all
instantaneous values within the calendar month. Any instantaneous value beyond the noted daily maximum limitation
for the indicated parameter shall be considered a violation of this permit.
6.
“Daily Maximum Temperature (DM)” is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water 1002-31,
as the highest two-hour average water temperature recorded during a given 24-hour period.
7.
"Dissolved (D) metals fraction" is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water 1002-31, as that
portion of a water and suspended sediment sample which passed through a 0.40 or 0.45 UM (micron) membrane filter.
Determinations of "dissolved" constituents are made using the filtrate. This may include some very small (colloidal)
suspended particles which passed through the membrane filter as well as the amount of substance present in true
chemical solution.
8.
“Geometric mean” for fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria concentrations, the thirty (30) day and seven (7) day averages
shall be determined as the geometric mean of all samples collected in a thirty (30) day period and the geometric mean
of all samples taken in a seven (7) consecutive day period respectively. The geometric mean may be calculated using
two different methods. For the methods shown, a, b, c, d, etc. are individual sample results, and n is the total number of
samples.
Method 1:
(1/n)
Geometric Mean = (a*b*c*d*...)
"*" - means multiply
Method 2:
Geometric Mean = antilog ( [log(a)+log(b)+log(c)+log(d)+...]/n )
Graphical methods, even though they may also employ the use of logarithms, may introduce significant error and may
not be used.
In calculating the geometric mean, for those individual sample results that are reported by the analytical laboratory to be
"less than" a numeric value, a value of 1 should be used in the calculations. If all individual analytical results for the
month are reported to be less than numeric values, then report "less than" the largest of those numeric values on the
monthly DMR. Otherwise, report the calculated value.
For any individual analytical result of "too numerous to count" (TNTC), that analysis shall be considered to be invalid
and another sample shall be promptly collected for analysis. If another sample cannot be collected within the same
sampling period for which the invalid sample was collected (during the same month if monthly sampling is required,
during the same week if weekly sampling is required, etc.), then the following procedures apply:
i.
A minimum of two samples shall be collected for coliform analysis within the next sampling period.
ii.
If the sampling frequency is monthly or less frequent: For the period with the invalid sample results, leave the
spaces on the corresponding DMR for reporting coliform results empty and attach to the DMR a letter noting
Permit, Part I
Page 12 of 29
that a result of TNTC was obtained for that period, and explain why another sample for that period had not
been collected.
If the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly: Eliminate the result of TNTC from any further calculations,
and use all the other results obtained within that month for reporting purposes. Attach a letter noting that a result of
TNTC was obtained, and list all individual analytical results and corresponding sampling dates for that month.
9.
"Grab" sample, is a single "dip and take" sample so as to be representative of the parameter being monitored.
10. "In-situ" measurement is defined as a single reading, observation or measurement taken in the field at the point of
discharge.
11. "Instantaneous" measurement is a single reading, observation, or measurement performed on site using existing
monitoring facilities.
12. “Maximum Weekly Average Temperature (MWAT)” is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water 1002-31, as an implementation statistic that is calculated from field monitoring data. The MWAT is calculated
as the largest mathematical mean of multiple, equally spaced, daily temperatures over a seven-day consecutive period,
with a minimum of three data points spaced equally through the day. For lakes and reservoirs, the MWAT is assumed
to be equivalent to the maximum WAT from at least three profiles distributed throughout the growing season (generally
July-September).
13. "Potentially dissolved (PD) metals fraction” is defined in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water
1002-31, as that portion of a constituent measured from the filtrate of a water and suspended sediment sample that was
first treated with nitric acid to a pH of 2 or less and let stand for 8 to 96 hours prior to sample filtration using a 0.40 or
0.45-UM (micron) membrane filter. Note the "potentially dissolved" method cannot be used where nitric acid will
interfere with the analytical procedure used for the constituent measured.
14. "Quarterly measurement frequency" means samples may be collected at any time during the calendar quarter if a
continual discharge occurs. If the discharge is intermittent, then samples shall be collected during the period that
discharge occurs.
15. "Recorder" requires the continuous operation of a chart and/or totalizer (or drinking water rotor meters or pump hour
meters where previously approved.)
16. "Seven (7) day average" means, with the exception of fecal coliform or E. coli bacteria (see geometric mean), the
arithmetic mean of all samples collected in a seven (7) consecutive day period. When calculating the 7-day average, a
value of zero should be used in place of any value that is less than the reporting limit. If all values are less than the
PQL, and the PQL is greater than the permit limit “BDL” should be reported. If all values are less than the
PQL, and the PQL is less than or equal to the permit limit, “<x” should be reported, where “x” is the reporting
limit. Otherwise, the calculated average shall be reported. Note that it does not matter if a calculated average is
greater or less than the PQL, it must be reported as a value. Such seven (7) day averages shall be calculated for all
calendar weeks, which are defined as beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday. If the calendar week overlaps two
months (i.e. the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the following month), the seven (7) day average calculated
for that calendar week shall be associated with the month that contains the Saturday. Samples may not be used for
more than one (1) reporting period.
17. "Thirty (30) day average" means, except for fecal coliform or E. coli bacteria (see geometric mean), the arithmetic
mean of all samples collected during a thirty (30) consecutive-day period. When calculating the 30-day average, a
value of zero should be used in place of any value that is less than the PQL. If all values are less than the PQL, and
the PQL is greater than the permit limit “BDL” should be reported. If all values are less than the PQL, and the
PQL is less than or equal to the permit limit, “<x” should be reported, where “x” is the reporting limit.
Otherwise, the calculated average shall be reported. Note that it does not matter if a calculated average is
greater or less than the PQL, it must be reported as a value. The permittee shall report the appropriate mean of all
self-monitoring sample data collected during the calendar month on the Discharge Monitoring Reports. Samples shall
not be used for more than one (1) reporting period.
Permit, Part I
Page 13 of 29
18. “Total Inorganic Nitrogen (T.I.N.)” is an aggregate parameter determined based on ammonia, nitrate and nitrite
concentrations. Given that there are no approved analytical procedures for determining T.I.N. itself as an aggregate
parameter, daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations for T.I.N. shall be determined using the calculated T.I.N.
concentrations versus T.I.N. analytical results. Specifically, the facility must monitor for total ammonia and total
nitrate plus nitrite on the same days. The calculated T.I.N. concentrations in mg/L shall then be determined as the sum
of the analytical results of same-day sampling for total ammonia (as N) in mg/L, and total nitrate plus nitrite (as N) in
mg/L. From these calculated T.I.N. concentrations in mg/L, the daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations
must then be determined in the same manner as the previously set out definitions.
19. "Total Metals" means the concentration of metals determined on an unfiltered sample following vigorous digestion
(Section 4.1.3), or the sum of the concentrations of metals in both the dissolved and suspended fractions, as described in
Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1979,
or its equivalent.
20. “Total Recoverable Metals” means that portion of a water and suspended sediment sample measured by the total
recoverable analytical procedure described in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 1979 or its equivalent.
21. "Twenty four (24) hour composite" sample is a combination of at least eight (8) sample aliquots of at least 100
milliliters, collected at equally spaced intervals during the operating hours of a facility over a twenty-four (24) hour
period. For volatile pollutants, aliquots must be combined in the laboratory immediately before analysis. The
composite must be flow proportional; either the time interval between each aliquot or the volume of each aliquot must
be proportional to either the wastewater or effluent flow at the time of sampling or the total wastewater or effluent flow
since the collection of the previous aliquot. Aliquots may be collected manually or automatically.
22. "Twice Monthly" monitoring frequency means that two samples shall be collected each calendar month on separate
weeks with at least one full week between the two sample dates. Also, there shall be at least one full week between the
second sample of a month and the first sample of the following month.
23. "Visual" observation is observing the discharge to check for the presence of a visible sheen or floating oil.
24. "Water Quality Control Division" or "Division" means the state Water Quality Control Division as established in 25-8101 et al.)
Additional relevant definitions are found in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, CRS §§ 25-8-101 et seq., the
Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Regulation 61 (5 CCR 1002-61) and other applicable regulations.
D. GENERAL MONITORING, SAMPLING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1.
Routine Reporting of Data
Reporting of the data gathered in compliance with Part I.B.1 shall be on a monthly basis. Reporting of all data
gathered shall comply with the requirements of Part I.E. (General Requirements). Monitoring results shall be
summarized for each calendar month and reported on Division approved discharge monitoring report (DMR) forms
(EPA form 3320-1). One form shall be mailed to the Water Quality Control Division, as indicated below, so that the
DMR is received no later than the 28th day of the following month (for example, the DMR for the first calendar quarter
must be received by the Division by April 28th). If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, "No Discharge"
shall be reported.
The original signed copy of each discharge monitoring report (DMR) shall be submitted to the Division at the following
address:
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WQCD-P-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
Permit, Part I
Page 14 of 29
The Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be filled out accurately and completely in accordance with requirements
of this permit and the instructions on the forms. They shall be signed by an authorized person as identified in Part I.E.6.
2.
Annual Biosolids Report
The permittee shall provide the results of all biosolids monitoring and information on management practices, land
application sites, site restrictions and certifications. Such information shall be provided no later than February 19th of
each year. Reports shall be submitted addressing all such activities that occurred in the previous calendar year. If no
biosolids were applied to the land during the reporting period, "no biosolids applied" shall be reported. Until further
notice, biosolids monitoring results shall be reported on forms, or copies of forms, provided by the Division. Annual
Biosolids Reports required herein, shall be signed and certified in accordance with the Signatory Requirements, Part
I.D.1, and submitted as follows:
The original copy of each form shall be submitted to the following address:
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
WQCD-PERMITS-B2
4300 CHERRY CREEK DRIVE SOUTH
DENVER, COLORADO 80246-1530
A copy of each form shall be submitted to the following address:
WATER PROGRAM REGIONAL BIOSOLIDS PROGRAM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII,
1595 WYNKOOP STREET
DENVER, CO 80202-2466
ATTENTION: BIOSOLIDS PROGRAM MANAGER
3.
Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken for the respective identified monitoring points as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of: 1) all influent wastes received at the facility, including septage, biosolids,
etc.; 2) the monitored effluent discharged from the facility; and 3) biosolids produced at the facility. All samples shall
be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the influent, effluent,
or biosolids wastestream joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to and prior approval by the Division.
4.
Influent and Effluent Sampling Points
Influent and effluent sampling points shall be so designed or modified so that: 1) a sample of the influent can be
obtained after preliminary treatment and prior to primary or biological treatment and 2) a sample of the effluent can be
obtained at a point after the final treatment process and prior to discharge to state waters. The permittee shall provide
access to the Division to sample at these points.
5.
Analytical and Sampling Methods for Monitoring
The permittee shall install, calibrate, use and maintain monitoring methods and equipment, including biological and
indicated pollutant monitoring methods. All sampling shall be performed by the permittee according to specified
methods in 40 C.F.R. Part 136; methods approved by EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 136; or methods approved by the
Division, in the absence of a method specified in or approved pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 136.
The analytical method and PQL selected for a parameter shall be the one that can measure compliance with the
permit limitation. If all analytical methods and corresponding PQLs are greater than the permit limit, then the
analytical method with the lowest PQL shall be used. If the permit contains a monitoring or report only
Permit, Part I
Page 15 of 29
requirement, the analytical method with the lowest PQL shall be used.
When the analytical method which complies with the above requirements has a PQL greater than the permit
limit, the permittee shall report "BDL" on the DMR. Such reports will not be considered as violations of the
permit limit, as long as the lowest available PQL is used for the analysis. When the analytical method which
complies with the above requirements has a PQL that is equal to or less than the permit limitation, “< X” (where
X = the actual PQL used) shall be reported on the DMR. For parameters that have only a monitoring or report
only limitation, “< X” (where X = the actual PQL used) shall be reported on the DMR.
The present lowest PQLs for specific parameters, as determined by the State Laboratory (November 2008) are provided
below for reference. Note that these PQLs are not necessarily the PQLs required to be used in this permit, dependent
upon the requirements laid out in bold above. For a listing of the PQLs for organic parameters, please refer to the
Division’s Practical Quantitation Limitation Guidance Document, July 2008. Future requirements for metals PQLs
will be contained in the Division’s Practical Quantitation Limitation Guidance Document for Metals.
Parameter
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
BOD / CBOD
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chlorine
Total Residual Chlorine
DPD colorimetric
Amperometric titration
Chromium
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide (Direct / Distilled)
Cyanide, WAD+A47
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Practical
Quantitation
Limits,
50 µg/l
1 mg/l
1 µg/l
5 µg/l
1 µg/l
1 mg/l
50 µg/l
1 µg/l
20 µg/l
2 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
0.10 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
20 µg/l
20 µg/l
5 µg/l
10 µg/l
5 µg/l
0.1 mg/l
10 µg/l
1 µg/l
20 µg/l
Parameter
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury (low-level)
Nickel
N-Ammonia
N Nitrate/Nitrite
N-Nitrate
N-Nitrite
Total Nitrogen
Phenols
Phosphorus
Radium 226
Radium 228
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfide
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Thallium
Uranium
Zinc
Practical
Quantitation
Limits, µg/l
2 µg/l
0.1 µg/l
0.003 µg/l
50 µg/l
50 µg/l
0.5 mg/l
50 µg/l
10 µg/l
0.5 mg/l
100 µg/l
10 µg/l
1 pCi/l
1 pCi/l
1 µg/l
0.5 µg/l
0.2 mg/l
5 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
1 µg/l
1 µg/l
10 µg/l
These limits apply to the total recoverable or the potentially dissolved fraction of metals.
For hexavalent chromium, samples must be unacidified so dissolved concentrations will be measured rather than
potentially dissolved concentrations.
In the calculation of average concentrations, those analytical results that are less than the practical quantitation limit
shall be considered to be zero for calculation purposes. If all individual analytical results that would be used in the
calculations are below the practical quantitation limit, then "less than x ", where x is the practical quantitation limit,
shall be reported on the monthly DMR. Otherwise, report the calculated value.
Permit, Part I
Page 16 of 29
6.
Records
a.
The permittee shall establish and maintain records. Those records shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
b.
7.
The date, type, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
The date(s) the analyses were performed;
The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
The analytical techniques or methods used; and
The results of such analyses.
The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three (3) years records of all monitoring information, including all
original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, all calibration and maintenance records,
copies of all reports required by this permit and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit.
This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of
pollutants by the permittee or when requested by the Division or Regional Administrator.
Flow Measuring Devices
Flow metering at the headworks shall be provided to give representative values of throughput and treatment of the
wastewater system. The metering device shall be equipped with a local flow indication instrument and a flow
indication-recording-totalization device suitable for providing permanent flow records, which should be in the plant
control building. For mechanical facilities, where influent flow metering is not practical and the same results may be
obtained from metering at the effluent end of the treatment facility, this type of flow metering arrangement will be
considered. For lagoons, an instantaneous or continuous effluent flow measuring device shall be required in addition to
the above described influent flow measuring device. At the request of the Division, the permittee must be able to show
proof of the accuracy of any flow-measuring device used in obtaining data submitted in the monitoring report. The
flow-measuring device must indicate values within ten (10) percent of the actual flow entering the facility.
8.
Signatory Requirements
a.
All reports and other information required by the Division, shall be signed and certified for accuracy by the
permittee in accord with the following criteria:
i)
In the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For purposes of this section, the responsible
corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge described in
the form originates;
ii) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner;
iii) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor;
iv) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer, or ranking
elected official. For purposes of this section, a principal executive officer has responsibility for the overall
operation of the facility from which the discharge originates;
v) By a duly authorized representative of a person described above, only if:
1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in i, ii, iii, or iv above;
2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position); and,
Permit, Part I
Page 17 of 29
3) The written authorization is submitted to the Division.
b.
If an authorization as described in this section is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of this section
must be submitted to the Division prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by
an authorized representative.
The permittee, or the duly authorized representative shall make and sign the following certification on all such
documents:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Permit, Part II
Page 18 of 29
PART II
A. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
1. Notification to Parties
All notification requirements under this section shall be directed as follows:
a.
Oral Notifications, during normal business hours shall be to:
Water Quality Protection Section - Domestic Compliance Program
Telephone: (303) 692-3500
b.
Written notification shall be to:
Water Quality Protection Section - Domestic Compliance Program
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WQCD-WQP-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
2. Change in Discharge
The permittee shall notify the Division, in writing, of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility.
Notice is required only when:
a.
The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged, or;
b.
The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and such
alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the
existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported pursuant to an approved land
application plan.
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Division of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which
may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
Whenever notification of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility is required pursuant to this
section, the permittee shall furnish the Division such plans and specifications which the Division deems reasonably necessary
to evaluate the effect on the discharge, the stream, or ground water. If the Division finds that such new or altered discharge
might be inconsistent with the conditions of the permit, the Division shall require a new or revised permit application and
shall follow the procedures specified in Sections 61.5 through 61.6, and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
3. Special Notifications - Definitions
a.
Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
b.
Severe Property Damage: Substantial physical damage to property at the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in
the absence of a bypass. It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
c.
Upset: An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance
to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of
preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Permit, Part II
Page 19 of 29
4. Noncompliance Notification
a.
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any discharge limitations or
standards specified in this permit, the permittee shall, at a minimum, provide the Division and EPA with the following
information:
i)
A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
ii) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will
return to compliance; and
iii) Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
b.
The permittee shall report the following circumstances orally within twenty-four (24) hours from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances, and shall mail to the Division a written report containing the information
requested in Part II.A.4 (a) within five (5) days after becoming aware of the following circumstances:
i)
Circumstances leading to any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment regardless of the cause
of the incident;
ii) Circumstances leading to any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitations in the permit;
iii) Circumstances leading to any upset which causes an exceedance of any effluent limitation in the permit;
iv) Daily maximum violations for any of the pollutants limited by Part I.A of this permit and specified as requiring 24hour notification. This includes any toxic pollutant or hazardous substance or any pollutant specifically identified as
the method to control any toxic pollutant or hazardous substance.
c.
5.
The permittee shall report instances of non-compliance which are not required to be reported within 24-hours at the time
Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in sub-paragraph (a) of this
section.
Other Notification Requirements
Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any
compliance schedule in the permit shall be submitted no later than fourteen (14) days following each scheduled date, unless
otherwise provided by the Division.
The permittee shall notify the Division, in writing, thirty (30) days in advance of a proposed transfer of permit as provided in
Part II.B.3.
The permittee's notification of all anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers must notify the Division as soon as they know
or have reason to believe:
a.
That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any
toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels":
i)
One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/l);
ii) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/l) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500
µg/l) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and 2-methyl-4.6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1.0 mg/l) for antimony;
iii) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance
with Section 61.4(2)(g).
Permit, Part II
Page 20 of 29
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(f).
b.
That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of
a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels":
i)
Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/l);
ii) One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony; and
iii) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
iv) The level established by the Division in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(f).
6.
Bypass Notification
If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, a notice shall be submitted, at least ten days before the date of the
bypass, to the Division. The bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed by the Division.
Violations of requirements imposed by the Division will constitute a violation of this permit.
7.
Upsets
a.
Effect of an Upset
An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with permit effluent limitations if the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims
that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject
to judicial review.
b.
Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate through properly signed
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
i)
An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; and
ii) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated and maintained; and
iii) The permittee submitted proper notice of the upset as required in Part II.A.4. of this permit (24-hour notice); and
iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measure necessary to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or
disposal in violation of this permit which has a reason able likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
In addition to the demonstration required above, a permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset for
a violation of effluent limitations based upon water quality standards shall also demonstrate through monitoring,
modeling or other methods that the relevant standards were achieved in the receiving water.
c.
Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.
8.
Discharge Point
Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other than specifically authorized by this permit is prohibited.
Permit, Part II
Page 21 of 29
9.
Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control including all
portions of the collection system and lift stations owned by the permittee (and related appurtenances) which are installed or
used by the permittee as necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance includes effective performance and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality
assurance procedures (40 CFR 122.41(e). This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems which are installed by the permittee only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
10. Minimization of Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge of sludge use or disposal in violation of
this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. As necessary,
accelerated or additional monitoring to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge is required.
11. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed in
accordance with applicable state and federal regulations.
For all domestic wastewater treatment works, at industrial facilities, the permittee shall dispose of sludge in accordance with
all State and Federal regulations.
12. Submission of Incorrect or Incomplete Information
Where the permittee failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit
application or report to the Division, the permittee shall promptly submit the relevant information which was not submitted or
any additional information needed to correct any erroneous information previously submitted.
13. Bypass
a.
Bypasses are prohibited and the Division may take enforcement action against the permittee for bypass, unless:
i)
The bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
ii) There were no feasible alternatives to bypass such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated
wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
iii) Proper notices were submitted in compliance with Part II.A.4.
b.
"Severe property damage" as used in this Subsection means substantial physical damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
c.
The permittee may allow a bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is
for essential maintenance or to assure optimal operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraph
(a) above.
d.
The Division may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering adverse effects, if the Division determines that the
bypass will meet the conditions specified in paragraph (a) above.
14. Reduction, Loss, or Failure of Treatment Facility
The permittee has the duty to halt or reduce any activity if necessary to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations of
Permit, Part II
Page 22 of 29
the permit. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain
compliance with its permit, control production, control sources of wastewater, or all discharges, until the facility is restored
or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This provision also applies to power failures, unless an alternative power
source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities is provided.
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would be necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Inspections and Right to Entry
The permittee shall allow the Division and/or the authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials:
a.
To enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or in which any records are
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
b.
At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit and to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in the permit; and
c.
To enter upon the permittee's premises in a reasonable manner and at a reasonable time to inspect and/or investigate, any
actual, suspected, or potential source of water pollution, or to ascertain compliance or non compliance with the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act or any other applicable state or federal statute or regulation or any order promulgated by the
Division. The investigation may include, but is not limited to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process
waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing of any person having knowledge related to the discharge permit or
alleged violation, access to any and all facilities or areas within the permittee's premises that may have any affect on the
discharge, permit, or alleged violation. Such entry is also authorized for the purpose of inspecting and copying records
required to be kept concerning any effluent source.
d.
The permittee shall provide access to the Division to sample the discharge at a point after the final treatment process but
prior to the discharge mixing with state waters upon presentation of proper credentials.
In the making of such inspections, investigations, and determinations, the Division, insofar as practicable, may designate as
its authorized representatives any qualified personnel of the Department of Agriculture. The Division may also request
assistance from any other state or local agency or institution.
2.
Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Division, within a reasonable time, any information which the Division may request to
determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Division, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this
permit.
3.
Transfer of Ownership or Control
a.
Except as provided in paragraph b. of this section, a permit may be transferred by a permittee only if the permit has been
modified or revoked and reissued as provided in Section 61.8(8) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations,
to identify the new permittee and to incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Federal Act.
b.
A permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee if:
i)
The current permittee notifies the Division in writing 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date; and
ii) The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittee(s) containing a specific date for
transfer of permit responsibility, coverage and liability between them; and
Permit, Part II
Page 23 of 29
iii) The Division does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of its intent to modify, or revoke
and reissue the permit.
iv) Fee requirements of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 61.15, have been met.
4.
Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Colorado Discharge
Permit System Regulations 5 CCR 1002-61, Section 61.5(4), all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit
shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The name and address of the permit applicant(s) and permittee(s), permit applications, permits and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential. Knowingly making false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and Section 25-8-610 C.R.S.
5.
Modification, Suspension, Revocation, or Termination of Permits By the Division
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, termination or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
a.
A permit may be modified, suspended, or terminated in whole or in part during its term for reasons determined by the
Division including, but not limited to, the following:
i)
Violation of any terms or conditions of the permit;
ii) Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failing to disclose any fact which is material to the granting or denial of
a permit or to the establishment of terms or conditions of the permit; or
iii) Materially false or inaccurate statements or information in the permit application or the permit.
iv) A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the classified or existing uses of state waters
and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modifications or termination.
b.
A permit may be modified in whole or in part for the following causes, provided that such modification complies with
the provisions of Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations:
i)
There are material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility or activity which occurred after
permit issuance which justify the application of permit conditions that are different or absent in the existing permit.
ii) The Division has received new information which was not available at the time of permit issuance (other than
revised regulations, guidance, or test methods) and which would have justified the application of different permit
conditions at the time of issuance. For permits issued to new sources or new dischargers, this cause includes
information derived from effluent testing required under Section 61.4(7)(e) of the Colorado Discharge Permit
System Regulations. This provision allows a modification of the permit to include conditions that are less stringent
than the existing permit only to the extent allowed under Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
iii) The standards or regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended
standards or regulations or by judicial decision after the permit was issued. Permits may be modified during their
terms for this cause only as follows:
(A) The permit condition requested to be modified was based on a promulgated effluent limitation guideline, EPA
approved water quality standard, or an effluent limitation set forth in 5 CCR 1002-62, § 62 et seq.; and
(B) EPA has revised, withdrawn, or modified that portion of the regulation or effluent limitation guideline on which
the permit condition was based, or has approved a Commission action with respect to the water quality standard
or effluent limitation on which the permit condition was based; and
Permit, Part II
Page 24 of 29
(C) The permittee requests modification after the notice of final action by which the EPA effluent limitation
guideline, water quality standard, or effluent limitation is revised, withdrawn, or modified; or
(D) For judicial decisions, a court of competent jurisdiction has remanded and stayed EPA promulgated regulations
or effluent limitation guidelines, if the remand and stay concern that portion of the regulations or guidelines on
which the permit condition was based and a request is filed by the permittee in accordance with this Regulation,
within ninety (90) days of judicial remand.
iv) The Division determines that good cause exists to modify a permit condition because of events over which the
permittee has no control and for which there is no reasonable available remedy.
v) The permittee has received a variance.
vi) When required to incorporate applicable toxic effluent limitation or standards adopted pursuant to § 307(a) of the
Federal act.
vii) When required by the reopener conditions in the permit.
viii) As necessary under 40 C.F.R. 403.8(e), to include a compliance schedule for the development of a pretreatment
program.
ix) When the level of discharge of any pollutant which is not limited in the permit exceeds the level which can be
achieved by the technology-based treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee under Section 61.8(2) of the
Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
x) To establish a pollutant notification level required in Section 61.8(5) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
xi) To correct technical mistakes, such as errors in calculation, or mistaken interpretations of law made in determining
permit conditions, to the extent allowed in Section 61.10 of the Colorado State Discharge Permit System
Regulations.
xii) When required by a permit condition to incorporate a land application plan for beneficial reuse of sewage sludge, to
revise an existing land application plan, or to add a land application plan.
xiii) For any other cause provided in Section 61.10 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
c.
At the request of a permittee, the Division may modify or terminate a permit and issue a new permit if the following
conditions are met:
i)
The Regional Administrator has been notified of the proposed modification or termination and does not object in
writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification,
ii) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes
and regulations for such modifications or termination;
iii) Requirements of Section 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations have been met, and
iv) Requirements of public notice have been met.
d.
Permit modification (except for minor modifications), termination or revocation and reissuance actions shall be subject
to the requirements of Sections 61.5(2), 61.5(3), 61.6, 61.7 and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System
Regulations. The Division shall act on a permit modification request, other than minor modification requests, within 180
days of receipt thereof. Except for minor modifications, the terms of the existing permit govern and are enforceable until
the newly issued permit is formally modified or revoked and reissued following public notice.
Permit, Part II
Page 25 of 29
e.
Upon consent by the permittee, the Division may make minor permit modifications without following the requirements
of Sections 61.5(2), 61.5(3), 61.7, and 61.15 of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations. Minor
modifications to permits are limited to:
i)
Correcting typographical errors; or
ii) Increasing the frequency of monitoring or reporting by the permittee; or
iii) Changing an interim date in a schedule of compliance, provided the new date of compliance is not more than 120
days after the date specific in the existing permit and does not interfere with attainment of the final compliance date
requirement; or
iv) Allowing for a transfer in ownership or operational control of a facility where the Division determines that no other
change in the permit is necessary, provided that a written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage and liability between the current and new permittees has been submitted to the Division; or
v) Changing the construction schedule for a discharger which is a new source, but no such change shall affect a
discharger's obligation to have all pollution control equipment installed and in operation prior to discharge; or
vi) Deleting a point source outfall when the discharge from that outfall is terminated and does not result in discharge of
pollutants from other outfalls except in accordance with permit limits.
6.
f.
When a permit is modified, only the conditions subject to modification are reopened. If a permit is revoked and reissued,
the entire permit is reopened and subject to revision and the permit is reissued for a new term.
g.
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or termination does not stay
any permit condition.
h.
All permit modifications and reissuances are subject to the antibacksliding provisions set forth in 61.10(e) through (g).
Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 (Oil and Hazardous
Substance Liability) of the Clean Water Act.
7.
State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority granted
by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to prevent or limit application of any
emergency power of the division.
8.
Permit Violations
Failure to comply with any terms and/or conditions of this permit shall be a violation of this permit. The discharge of any
pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of
the permit. Except as provided in Part I.D and Part II.A or B, nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance (40 CFR 122.41(a)(1)).
9.
Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property or water rights in either real or personal property, or stream flows,
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
10. Severability
Permit, Part II
Page 26 of 29
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the application of the
remainder of this permit shall not be affected.
11. Renewal Application
If the permittee desires to continue to discharge, a permit renewal application shall be submitted at least one hundred eighty
(180) days before this permit expires. If the permittee anticipates there will be no discharge after the expiration date of this
permit, the Division should be promptly notified so that it can terminate the permit in accordance with Part II.B.5.
12. Confidentiality
Any information relating to any secret process, method of manufacture or production, or sales or marketing data which has
been declared confidential by the permittee, and which may be acquired, ascertained, or discovered, whether in any sampling
investigation, emergency investigation, or otherwise, shall not be publicly disclosed by any member, officer, or employee of
the Commission or the Division, but shall be kept confidential. Any person seeking to invoke the protection of this
Subsection (12) shall bear the burden of proving its applicability. This section shall never be interpreted as preventing full
disclosure of effluent data.
13. Fees
The permittee is required to submit payment of an annual fee as set forth in the 2005 amendments to the Water Quality
Control Act. Section 25-8-502 (l) (b), and the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations 5 CCR l002-61, Section 61.l5
as amended. Failure to submit the required fee when due and payable is a violation of the permit and will result in
enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-8-60l et. seq., C.R.S. l973 as amended.
14. Duration of Permit
The duration of a permit shall be for a fixed term and shall not exceed five (5) years. Filing of a timely and complete
application shall cause the expired permit to continue in force to the effective date of the new permit. The permit's duration
may be extended only through administrative extensions and not through interim modifications.
15. Section 307 Toxics
If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition, including any applicable schedule of compliance specified, is established by
regulation pursuant to Section 307 of the Federal Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the permittee's discharge and
such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in the discharge permit, the Division
shall institute proceedings to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition.
16. Effect of Permit Issuance
a.
The issuance of a permit does not convey any property rights or any exclusive privilege.
b.
The issuance of a permit does not authorize any injury to person or property or any invasion of personal rights, nor does
it authorize the infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
c.
Except for any toxic effluent standard or prohibition imposed under Section 307 of the Federal act or any standard for
sewage sludge use or disposal under Section 405(d) of the Federal act, compliance with a permit during its term
constitutes compliance, for purposes of enforcement, with Sections 301, 302, 306, 318, 403, and 405(a) and (b) of the
Federal act. However, a permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated during its term for cause as set
forth in Section 61.8(8) of the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations.
d.
Compliance with a permit condition which implements a particular standard for sewage sludge use or disposal shall be
an affirmative defense in any enforcement action brought for a violation of that standard for sewage sludge use or
disposal.
Permit, Part III
Page 27 of 29
PART III
CATEGORICAL INDUSTRIES
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Builders' Paper and Board Mills
Canned & Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing
Canned & Preserved Seafood Processing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Dairy Products Processing
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Explosives Manufacturing
Feedlots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills
Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing
Hospital
Ink Formulation
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Meat Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
Mineral Mining and Processing
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Oil and Gas Extraction
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Ore Mining and Dressing
Paint Formulation
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)
Pesticide Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Phosphate Manufacturing
Photographic
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing
Rubber Manufacturing
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
ORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN EACH OF FOUR FRACTIONS
IN ANALYSIS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROSCOPY (GC/MS)
Volatiles
Base/Neutral
Acid Compounds
Pesticides
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
bromoform
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chlorodibromomethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichlorethane
1,2-dichlorethane
1,1-dichlorethylene
1,2-dichlorpropane
1,3-dichlorpropylene
ethylbenzene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzidine
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(ghi)perylene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
butylbenzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
chrysene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4,-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
dieldrin
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
Permit, Part III
Page 28 of 29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
ORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN EACH OF FOUR FRACTIONS
IN ANALYSIS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROSCOPY (GC/MS)
Volatiles
Base/Neutral
Acid Compounds
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
fluorene
fluoranthene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorcyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenanthrene
pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
OTHER TOXIC POLLUTANTS
(METALS AND CYANIDE) AND TOTAL PHENOLS
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Beryllium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Thallium, Total
Zinc, Total
Cyanide, Total
Phenols, Total
Pesticides
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene
Permit, Part III
Page 29 of 29
TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Toxic Pollutants
REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIED BY EXISTING DISCHARGERS
IF EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT
Asbestos
Hazardous Substances
Acetaldehyde
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
Amyl acetate
Aniline
Benzonitrile
Benzyl chloride
Butyl acetate
Butylamine
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbon disulfide
Chlorpyrifos
Coumaphos
Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Cyclohexane
2,4-D(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid)
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dichlone
2,2-Dichloropropionic acid
Dichlorvos
Diethyl amine
Dimethyl amine
Dinitrobenzene
Diquat
Disulfoton
Diuron
Epichlorohydrin
Ethanolamine
Ethion
Ethylene diamine
Ethylene dibromide
Formaldehyde
Furfural
Guthion
Isoprene
Isopropanolamine
Keithane
Kepone
Malathion
Mercaptodimethur
Methoxychlor
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Mexacarbate
Monoethyl amine
Monomethyl amine
Naled
Napthenic acid
Nitrotoluene
Parathion
Phenolsulfanate
Phosgene
Propargite
Propylene oxide
Pyrethrins
Quinoline
Resorcinol
Strontium
Strychnine
Styrene
TDE (Tetrachlorodiphenylethane)
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid)
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid]
Trichlorofan
Triethylamine
Trimethylamine
Uranium
Vandium
Vinyl Acetate
Xylene
Xylenol
Zirconium
SCANNED
5/13/2 14
8:34:15
.
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS)
FACT SHEET TO MODIFICATION 1
PERMIT NUMBER C00046663
TOWN OF BERTHOUD,BERTHOUD WWTF
WELD COUNTY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
TYPE OF PERMIT
..........................................................................................................................................................................
1
II. FACILITY INFORMATION ...............................................................................................................................................................1
III. PURPOSE OF MODIFICATION.......................................................................................................................................................1
IV. CHANGES TO PERMIT..................................................................................................................................................................1
V. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS .........................................................................................................................................................1
I.
TYPE OF PERMIT
A. Permit Type:
Modification 1
B.
Surface Water
Discharge To:
Minor Amendment
-
II. FACILITY INFORMATION
A. SIC Code:
B.
Facility
Classification:
4952 Sewerage
Systems
Class B per Section 100.6.2 of the Water and Wastewater Facility
Operator Certification
Requirements
C.
Facility
Location:
D. Permitted Features:
20213 WCR #1, Berthoud, CO, 80513, Latitude: 40017’00 "N,Longitude: 105004’00" W
Outfall OOlA, Latitude: 40017’00" N, Longitude: 105004’00" W
and prior to discharge to the Little Thompson River.
following disinfection
III. PURPOSE OF MODIFICATION
This modification is being completed in response to a permit modification application received from the facility, as a part of
compliance schedule report. In the letter, the facility requested a year extension on their compliance deadline for cyanide and
mercury. After communication with the facility representative and an email received from the facility, the Division is granting a
year extension to the mercury compliance schedule only, as the facility can meet the cyanide limitations. Based on the email, the
Town ofBerthoud is actively sampling the collection system to detect sources of mercury and have found several potential
sources based on the testing as well as business questionnaires. The Town of Berthoud has three dentist offices of which two have
mercury recovery systems in place. The third has been identified and will be asked to comply with these standards asap. One
business has been issued a discharge permit of which they have chose to eliminate the discharge.
compliance schedule for mercury has been expired on August 31, 2012 and the limits became
facility request letter was dated August 16,2012 with no "received" stamp on it, and it appears that the letter was
lost temporarily. The attachments however have a received stamp of ’Aug 24, 2012’. It should also be noted that the Permit
Section received the document in the middle of second week of December. Since the permit limitation for this parameter has been
in effect since September 1,2012,the Permit Section contacted both the Division’s Compliance Unit and Pretreatment Program to
determine if there are any concerns on their parts. No concerns have been raised and therefore, the Permits Section is granting a
year extension for mercury compliance schedule.
It should be noted here that the
effective. The
IV. CHANGES TO PERMIT
A compliance schedule item has been added to the compliance schedule to allow incorporation of year extension to the
compliance schedule. Also, typographical errors in the compliance schedule have been corrected.
Kenan Diker
December 19,2012
v. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS
public notice period was from January 18,2013 to February 18,2013.
period.
The
No comments were received
during the public notice
July 16, 2014
Ed Schemm
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
1525 Blue Spruce Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: PEL200410, Berthoud Estates Community Association WWTF
Dear Schemm:
The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment has prepared, per your request, the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) for the
rehabilitation and expansion of the proposed Berthoud Estates Community Association
wastewater treatment facility (Berthoud Estates WWTF). These effluent limits were developed
as detailed in the attached document, for use as one of the submittals in your application for Site
Approval.
With a hydraulic design capacity of 0.063 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge into an
unnamed tributary to Dry Creek, which is identified as stream segment COSPBT10, the
Berthoud Estates WWTF may be covered by a general permit.
PELs developed for this facility are based on the water quality standards for the receiving stream
identified in the PEL application, and/or on technology based limitations established in the
Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62). The water quality standard based
limitations presented in this PEL may be incorporated into a CDPS permit contingent on
analyses conducted during permit development.
As explained in the attached document, these limitations have been developed based on the
water quality standards for the receiving stream, the ambient water quality of the receiving
stream, the calculated low flows, the stated design flow of the facility, technology based
limitations established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62),
applicable federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), and where necessary the
antidegradation regulations,
mixing zone policies, and any designation of a receiving stream by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service as habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish. A determination of
which PELs ultimately apply in a permit will be dependent on decisions made by the permittee
regarding treatment facilities, discharge type, industrial contributions, industrial sector, applicable
1
water quality standards, receiving streams, design flows, parameters of concern, reasonable potential
analyses, or other information presented to the Division at the time of application.
Table 1 contains a summary of the limitations that have been developed in this PEL, for which the
proposed treatment facility will be evaluated against, under the Site Approval Process. This
evaluation will include a determination of whether the proposed treatment facility as designed, can
meet these limitations. A new wastewater treatment facility will be expected to meet the limitations
for these parameters upon commencement of discharge.
Table 1
Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation under the Site Approval Process
Discharge to Unnamed Tributary to Dry Creek at a Design Flow of 0.063 MGD
Technology Based Limitations
BOD5 (mg/l)
BOD5 (% removal)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l)
TSS, mechanical plant (% removal)
pH (s.u.)
Other Pollutants
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Total Ammonia
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Jan
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Feb
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Mar
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Apr
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) May
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Jun
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Jul
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Aug
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Sep
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Oct
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Nov
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l) Dec
85 (30-day average)
85 (30-day average)
10 (maximum)
6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
252 (7-day Geomean), 126 (30-day Geomean)
0.019 (daily Max.), 0.011 (30-day average)
WQBELs
13 (daily Max.), 5.1 (30-day Avg.)
7.3 (daily Max.), 3.2 (30-day Avg.)
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3608.
Sincerely,
Eric T. Oppelt, P.E.
Assessment Based Permits Unit
cc:
Doug Camrud, WQCD – Engineering Section
PEL200410 file
2
Berthoud Estates Community Association WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits
PEL200410
Preliminary Effluent Limitations
Unnamed Tributary to Dry Creek
Berthoud Estates Community Association WWTF
Table of Contents
I. PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 III. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 3 Narrative Standards .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides............................................................................................... 4 Salinity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Segment Specific Numeric Standard ........................................................................................................................... 5 Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations .................................................................................................... 6 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and
Monitoring and Evaluation List .................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 Low Flow Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Mixing Zones ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Ambient Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 8 V. FACILITY INFORMATION AND POLLUTANTS EVALUATED ........................................................................................ 8 Facility Information .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Pollutants of Concern ................................................................................................................................................. 9 VI. DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (WQBELS) .............................................. 10 Technical Information ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Calculation of WQBELs ............................................................................................................................................ 11 VII. ANTIDEGRADATION EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 13 VIII. TECHNOLOGY BASED LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 13 Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 13 Regulations for Effluent Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 14 Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations ............................................................................................................. 14 IX. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 I. Preliminary Effluent Limitations Summary
Table A-1 includes summary information related to this PEL. This summary table includes key
regulatory starting points used in development of the PEL such as: receiving stream information;
threatened and endangered species; 303(d) and Monitoring and Evaluation listings; low flow and facility
flow summaries; and a list of parameters evaluated.
Table A-1
PEL Summary
Facility Information
Appendix A (PEL V 7.1)
Page 1 of 17
Last Revised by EO 7/15/14
PEL200410
Facility Name
Permit
Number
Design Flow
(max 30-day ave,
MGD)
Design Flow
(max 30-day ave,
CFS)
Berthoud Estates WWTF
PEL200410
0.063
0.098
Receiving Stream Information
Receiving Stream
Name
Unnamed Tributary to
Dry Creek
Segment ID
Designation
Classification(s)
COSPBT10
Use Protected
Aquatic Life Warm 2, Recreation
Class E, Agriculture
Low Flows (cfs)
Receiving Stream
Name
1E3
(1-day)
7E3
(7-day)
30E3
(30-day)
Ratio of 30E3 to the
Design Flow (cfs)
0
0
0
0:1
Dry Creek
T&E
Species
No
303(d)
(Reg 93)
Dissolved Se, Big
Hollow portion of
segment
Regulatory Information
Monitor and
Existing
Eval (Reg 93)
TMDL
None
No
Temporary
Modification(s)
Control
Regulation
None
Reg. 85
Pollutants Evaluated
Ammonia, E. coli, TRC, Temp
II.
Introduction
The Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PEL) of unnamed tributary to Dry Creek near the Berthoud
Estates Community Association wastewater treatment facility (Berthoud Estates WWTF), located in
Larimer County, is intended to determine the assimilative capacities available for pollutants found to be
of concern. This PEL describes how the water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) are developed.
These parameters may or may not appear in the permit with limitations or monitoring requirements,
subject to other determinations such as reasonable potential analysis, evaluation of federal effluent
limitation guidelines, implementation of state-based technology based limits, mixing zone analyses,
303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species listing, or other requirements as discussed in the
permit rationale. Figure A-1 contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL.
FIGURE A-1
Page 2 of 17
PEL200410
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is a new facility that will serve a relatively small, fixed, number of
residential homes. The WWTF will discharge to an unnamed tributary to Dry Creek, which is in stream
segment COSPBT10. This means the South Platte River Basin, Big Thompson River Sub-basin, Stream
Segment 10. This segment is composed of the “All tributaries to the Little Thompson River, including
all wetlands, from the Culver Ditch diversion to the confluence with the Big Thompson River.”. Stream
segment COSPBT10 is classified for Aquatic Life Warm 2, Recreation Class E, and Agriculture.
Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the Berthoud Estates WWTF, Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and communications with the local water commissioner.
The data used in the assessment consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of
this PEL analysis.
III. Water Quality Standards
Narrative Standards
Narrative Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(1) of the regulations, and
apply to any pollutant of concern, even where there is no numeric standard for that pollutant. Waters of
Page 3 of 17
PEL200410
the state shall be free from substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source
discharges in amounts, concentrations or combinations which:
for all surface waters except wetlands;
(i) can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses. Depositions are stream
bottom buildup of materials which include but are not limited to anaerobic sludge, mine slurry or
tailings, silt, or mud; or (ii) form floating debris, scum, or other surface materials sufficient to harm
existing beneficial uses; or (iii) produce color, odor, or other conditions in such a degree as to create
a nuisance or harm existing beneficial uses or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible
aquatic species or to the water; or (iv) are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals,
plants, or aquatic life; or (v) produce a predominance of undesirable aquatic life; or (vi) cause a film
on the surface or produce a deposit on shorelines; and for surface waters in wetlands;
(i) produce color, odor, changes in pH, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or
harm water quality dependent functions or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic
species of the wetland; or (ii) are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life of the wetland.
In order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations and/or monitoring
requirements for any parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits.
Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides
Radionuclides: Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(2) and (3) of The
Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water to protect the waters of the state from
radionuclides and organic chemicals.
In no case shall radioactive materials in surface waters be increased by any cause attributable to
municipal, industrial, or agricultural practices or discharges to as to exceed the following levels,
unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. Standards for radionuclides are shown
in Table A-2.
Table A-2
Radionuclide Standards
Parameter
Americium 241*
Cesium 134
Plutonium 239, and 240*
Radium 226 and 228*
Strontium 90*
Thorium 230 and 232*
Tritium
Picocuries per Liter
0.15
80
0.15
5
8
60
20,000
*Radionuclide samples for these materials should be analyzed using unfiltered (total) samples.
These Human Health based standards are 30-day average values for both plutonium and
americium.
Page 4 of 17
PEL200410
Organics: The organic pollutant standards contained in the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals
Table are applicable to all surface waters of the state for the corresponding use classifications, unless
alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. These standards have been adopted as
“interim standards” and will remain in effect until alternative permanent standards are adopted by
the Commission. These interim standards shall not be considered final or permanent standards
subject to antibacksliding or downgrading restrictions. Although not reproduced in this PEL, the
specific standards for organic chemicals can be found in Regulation 31.11(3).
requirements for radionuclides, organics, or any other parameter of concern could be put in CDPS
discharge permits.
The aquatic life standards for organics apply to all stream segments that are classified for aquatic life.
The water supply standards apply only to those segments that are classified for water supply. The water
+ fish standards apply to those segments that have a Class 1 aquatic life and a water supply
classification. The fish ingestion standards apply to Class 1 aquatic life segments that do not have a
water supply designation. The water + fish and the fish ingestion standards may also apply to Class 2
aquatic life segments, where the Water Quality Control Commission has made such determination.
Because the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek is classified for Aquatic Life Warm 2, without a water
supply designation, the aquatic life organic standards apply to this discharge.
Salinity
Salinity: The Division’s policy, Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the
Protection of Irrigated Crops, may be applied to discharges where an agricultural water intake exists
downstream of a discharge point. Limitations for electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio
may be applied in accordance with this policy.
Temperature
Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt
changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deemed
deleterious to the resident aquatic life. This standard shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner
inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S.
Segment Specific Numeric Standards
Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream
segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. The standards in Table A-3 have been assigned to
stream segment COSPBT10 in accordance with the Classifications and Numeric Standards for South
Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin.
Table A-3
In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COSPBT10
Physical and Biological
Page 5 of 17
PEL200410
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) = 5 mg/l, minimum
pH = 6.5 - 9 su
E. coli chronic = 126 colonies/100 ml
Temperature (March-Nov) = 27.5° C MWAT and 28.6° C DM
Temperature (Dec-Feb) = 13.8° C MWAT and 14.3° C DM
Inorganic
Total Ammonia acute and chronic = TVS
Chlorine acute = 0.019 mg/l
Chlorine chronic = 0.011 mg/l
Free Cyanide acute = 0.005 mg/l
Sulfide chronic = 0.002 mg/l
Boron chronic = 0.75 mg/l
Nitrite acute = 0.5 mg/l
Nitrate acute = 100 mg/l
Metals
Dissolved Arsenic acute = 340 µg/l
Total Recoverable Arsenic chronic = 100 µg/l
Dissolved Cadmium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Trivalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Copper acute and chronic = TVS
Total Recoverable Iron chronic = 1,000 µg/l
Dissolved Lead acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Manganese acute and chronic = TVS
Total Mercury chronic = 0.01 µg/l
Dissolved Nickel acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Selenium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Silver acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Zinc acute and chronic = TVS
Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations
As metals with standards specified as TVS are not included as parameters of concern for this facility at
this time, the hardness value of the receiving water and the subsequent calculation of the TVS equations
is inconsequential and is therefore omitted from this PEL.
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List
This stream segment is not listed on the Division’s monitoring and evaluation list.
However a portion of this stream segment (Big Hollow) is on the 303(d) list of water quality impacted
streams for dissolved selenium.
Page 6 of 17
PEL200410
For a receiving water placed on this list, the Restoration and Protection Unit is tasked with developing
the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the Waste Load Allocation (WLAs) to be distributed to
the affected facilities. WLAs for dissolved selenium have not yet been established and the allowable
concentration calculated in the following sections may change upon further evaluation by the Division.
IV. Receiving Stream Information
Low Flow Analysis
The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality based
effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute low flow, referred to as
1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing
limitations based on an acute standard. The 7-day average low flow, 7E3, represents the seven-day
average low flow recurring in a 3 year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a
Maximum Weekly Average Temperature standard (MWAT). The chronic low flow, 30E3, represents
the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations
based on a chronic standard.
Although there is periodic flow in the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek upstream of the Berthoud
Estates WWTF, the 1E3 and 30E3 monthly low flows are set at zero based on information provided by
the Berthoud Estates WWTF, and the local Water Commissioner. For this analysis, low flows are
summarized in Table A-4.
Table A-4
Low Flows for the Unnamed Tributary to Dry Creek at the Berthoud Estates WWTF
Low
Flow
(cfs)
1E3
Acute
7E3
Chronic
30E3
Chronic
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The ratio of the low flow of the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek to the Berthoud Estates WWTF design
flow is 0:1
Note that since the low flow has been determined to be zero, the ambient water quality discussion is
unnecessary and has therefore been deleted in this PEL. This is explained in more detail under the
Technical Information discussion in Section VI
Page 7 of 17
PEL200410
Mixing Zones
The amount of the available assimilative capacity (dilution) that may be used by the permittee for the
purposes of calculating the WQBELs may be limited in a permitting action based upon a mixing zone
analysis or other factor. These other factors that may reduce the amount of assimilative capacity
available in a permit are: presence of other dischargers in the vicinity; the presence of a water diversion
downstream of the discharge (in the mixing zone); the need to provide a zone of passage for aquatic life;
the likelihood of bioaccumulation of toxins in fish or wildlife; habitat considerations such as fish
spawning or nursery areas; the presence of threatened and endangered species; potential for human
exposure through drinking water or recreation; the possibility that aquatic life will be attracted to the
effluent plume; the potential for adverse effects on groundwater; and the toxicity or persistence of the
substance discharged.
Unless a facility has performed a mixing zone study during the course of the previous permit, and a
decision has been made regarding the amount of the assimilative capacity that can be used by the
facility, the Division assumes that the full assimilative capacity can be allocated. Note that the review of
mixing study considerations, exemptions and perhaps performing a new mixing study (due to changes in
low flow, change in facility design flow, channel geomorphology or other reason) is evaluated in every
permit and permit renewal.
If a mixing zone study has been performed and a decision regarding the amount of available assimilative
capacity has been made, the Division may calculate the water quality based effluent limitations
(WQBELs) based on this available capacity. In addition, the amount of assimilative capacity may be
reduced by T&E implications.
Since the receiving stream has a zero low flow as calculated above, the WQBELs would be equal to the
WQS, and therefore consideration of full or reduced assimilative capacity is inconsequential.
Ambient Water Quality
The Division evaluates ambient water quality based on a variety of statistical methods as prescribed in
Section 31.8(2)(a)(i) and 31.8(2)(b)(i)(B) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 31, and as outlined in the Division’s
Policy for Characterizing Ambient Water Quality for Use in Determining Water Quality Standards
Based Effluent Limits (WQP-19). The ambient water quality was not assessed for the unnamed
tributary to Dry Creek because the background in-stream low flow condition is zero, and because no
ambient water quality data are available for the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek upstream of the
proposed Berthoud Estates Community Association WWTF discharge point.
V.
Facility Information and Pollutants Evaluated
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is located at 3/4 of a mile north of CR 4 on CR 23E, west of Berthoud,
CO; at 40.286599° latitude North and 105.159328° longitude West in Larimer County in Larimer
County. The current design capacity of the facility is 0.063 MGD (0.098 cfs). Wastewater treatment is
Page 8 of 17
PEL200410
proposed to be accomplished using a mechanical wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses
that follow include assessments of the assimilative capacity based on this design capacity.
An assessment of Division records indicate that there are facilities discharging to the same stream
segment or other stream segments immediately upstream or downstream from this facile
An assessment of nearby facilities based on EPA’s Permit database found 83 dischargers in the Larimer
County area. Several of the facilities were discharging to another watershed. More than two-thirds of
the facilities conducted construction-related operations (e.g., sand and gravel) and thus had no pollutants
of concern in common with the Berthoud Estates WWTF. There are also the Berthoud, Riverglen, Cross
Point, and current Johnstown WWTF's downstream on the Little Thompson River. Other facilities were
located more than twenty miles from the Berthoud Estates WWTF and thus were not considered. The
nearest dischargers were:

River Glen Homeowners Association (CO-0029742) with a design flow of 0.029 MGD
discharges directly into Little Thompson River, approximately two miles upstream of the
confluence with Dry Creek.

Vaquero Estates (COG589095), with design capacity of 0.025 MGD, discharges to Dry Creek
both at approximately ½ mile upstream of the confluence of Dry Creek with Little Thompson
River.
The Berthoud Estates WWTF is the sole known point source contributor to the unnamed tributary to
Dry Creek. No other point sources were identified as dischargers to the unnamed tributary to Dry
Creek upstream or downstream of the proposed discharge point.
Due to the in-stream low flow of zero, the assimilative capacities during times of low flow are not
affected by nearby contributions. Therefore, modeling nearby facilities in conjunction with this facility
was not necessary at this time.
Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants of concern may be determined by one or more of the following: facility type; effluent
characteristics and chemistry; effluent water quality data; receiving water quality; presence of federal
effluent limitation guidelines; or other information. Parameters evaluated in this PEL may or may not
appear in a permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as a
reasonable potential analysis, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species
listings or other requirement as discussed in a permit rationale.
There are no site-specific in-stream water quality standards for BOD5 or CBOD5, TSS, percent removal,
and oil and grease for this receiving stream. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for these
parameters. The applicable limitations for these pollutants can be found in Regulation No. 62 and will
be applied in the permit for the WWTF.
The following parameters were identified by the Division as pollutants to be evaluated for this facility:
Page 9 of 17




PEL200410
E. coli
Ammonia
Temperature
Based upon the size of the discharge, the lack of industrial contributors, and the fact that no unusually
high metals concentrations are expected to be found in the domestic wastewater effluent, metals are not
evaluated further in this Preliminary Effluent Limitations.
During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional
parameters were identified as pollutants of concern.
VI. Determination of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Technical Information
Note that the WQBELs developed in the following paragraphs, are calculations of what an effluent
limitation may be in a permit. The WQBELs for any given parameter, will be compared to other
potential limitations (federal Effluent Limitations Guidelines, State Effluent Limitations, or other
applicable limitation) and typically the more stringent limit is incorporated into a permit. If the WQBEL
is the more stringent limitation, incorporation into a permit is dependent upon a reasonable potential
analysis.
In-stream background data and low flows evaluated in Sections II and III are used to determine the
assimilative capacity of the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek near the Berthoud Estates WWTF for
pollutants of concern, and to calculate the WQBELs. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the
Division’s approach to calculate the WQBELs using the lowest of the monthly low flows (referred to as
the annual low flow) as determined in the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is the standard procedure
of the Division to determine monthly WQBELs using the monthly low flows, as the regulations allow
the use of seasonal flows.
The Division’s standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most pollutants
and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the Division to
calculate the WQBELs, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a pollutant at the existing
quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water quality standard. The massbalance equation is expressed as:
M2 
M 3Q 3  M 1Q1
Q2
Where,
Page 10 of 17
Q1
Q2
Q3
M1
M2
M3
PEL200410
= Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3)
= Average daily effluent flow (design capacity)
= Downstream flow (Q1 + Q2)
= In-stream background pollutant concentrations at the existing quality
= Calculated WQBEL
= Water Quality Standard, or other maximum allowable pollutant concentration
When Q1 equals zero, Q2 equals Q3, and the following results:
M2  M3
Because the low flow (Q1) for the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek is zero, the WQBELs for the
unnamed tributary to Dry Creek for the pollutants of concern are equal to the in-stream water quality
standards.
A more detailed discussion of the technical analysis is provided in the pages that follow.
Calculation of WQBELs
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section VI, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section IV, ambient water quality as discussed in Section IV, and the in-stream
standards shown in Section III, the WQBELs for were calculated. The data used and the resulting
WQBELs, M2, are set forth in Table A-5a for the chronic WQBELs and A-5b for the acute WQBELs.
When the ambient water quality exceeds the in-stream standard,]] the Division standard procedure is to
allocate the water quality standard to prevent further degradation of the receiving waters.
Chlorine: There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile of the Berthoud
Estates WWTF. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels of residual chlorine are detected
only for a short distance below a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed to be zero.
E. coli: There are no point sources discharging E. coli within one mile of the Berthoud Estates WWTF.
Thus, WQBELs were evaluated separately. In the absence of E. coli ambient water quality data, fecal
coliform ambient data are used as a conservative estimate of E. coli existing quality. For E. coli, the
Division establishes the 7-day geometric mean limit as two times the 30-day geometric mean limit and
also includes maximum limits of 2,000 colonies per 100 ml (30-day geometric mean) and 4,000 colonies
per 100 ml (7-day geometric mean). This 2000 colony limitation also applies to discharges to ditches.
Temperature: The 7E3 low flow is 0, so the discharge is to an effluent dependent (ephemeral stream
without the presence of wastewater) water, therefore in accordance with Regulation 31.14(14), no
temperature limitations are required.
Page 11 of 17
PEL200410
Table A-5a
Chronic WQBELs
Parameter
Q1 (cfs)
Q2 (cfs)
Q3 (cfs)
M1
M3
M2
E. coli (#/100 ml)
0
0.098
0.098
0
126
126
TRC (mg/l)
0
0.098
0.098
0
0.011
0.011
M1
M3
M2
0
0.019
252
0.019
Table A-5b
Acute WQBELs
Parameter
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Q1 (cfs)
Q2 (cfs)
Q3 (cfs)
for E coli calculations: chronic X 2 = acute
0
0.098
0.098
Ammonia: The Ammonia Toxicity Model (AMMTOX) is a software program designed to project the
downstream effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities available to each discharger
based on upstream water quality and effluent discharges. To develop data for the AMMTOX model, an
in-stream water quality study should be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions,
particularly the pH and corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year.
There were no pH or temperature data available for the unnamed tributary to Dry Creek or the
Berthoud Estates WWTF that could be used as adequate input data for the AMMTOX model.
Therefore, the Division standard procedure is to rely on statistically-based, regionalized data for pH and
temperature compiled from similar facilities and receiving waters.
The AMMTOX may be calibrated for a number of variables in addition to the data discussed above.
The values used for the other variables in the model are listed below:
0.4d
 Stream velocity = 0.3Q
 Default ammonia loss rate = 6/day
 pH amplitude was assumed to be medium
 Default times for pH maximum, temperature maximum, and time of day of occurrence
 pH rebound was set at the default value of 0.2 su per mile
 Temperature rebound was set at the default value of 0.7 degrees C per mile.
The results of the ammonia analyses for the Berthoud Estates WWTF are presented in Table A-6.
Page 12 of 17
PEL200410
Table A-6
AMMTOX Results for the Unnamed Tributary to Dry Creek
at the Berthoud Estates WWTF
(Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total Ammonia Chronic (mg/l)
5.1
4.7
3.2
1.9
2.4
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.4
3.7
3.7
Total Ammonia Acute (mg/l)
13
11
7.3
6.1
7.9
10
9.7
7.9
8.7
11
11
8.9
VII. Antidegradation Evaluation
As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Section 31.8(2)(b), an
antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving water is designated as “Use
Protected.” Note that “Use Protected” waters are waters “that the Commission has determined do not
warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation
review process” as set out in Section 31.8(2)(b). The antidegradation section of the regulation became
effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are applicable to this PELs
analysis.
According to the Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River
Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, stream segment COSPBT10 is Use Protected.
Because the receiving waters are designated as Use Protected, no antidegradation review is necessary in
accordance with the regulations. Thus, for purposes of this PELs analysis, antidegradation review
requirements have been met and no further antidegradation evaluation is necessary.
VIII. Technology Based Limitations
Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines
The Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines for domestic wastewater treatment facilities are the
secondary treatment standards. These standards have been adopted into, and are applied out of,
Regulation 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations.
Page 13 of 17
PEL200410
Regulations for Effluent Limitations
Regulation No. 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations, includes effluent limitations that apply to
all discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agricultural return
flows. These regulations are applicable to the discharge from the proposed discharge.
Table A-7 contains a summary of the applicable limitations for pollutants of concern at this facility.
Table A-7
Regulation 62 Based Limitations
Parameter
BOD5
TSS, mechanical plant
TSS, aerated lagoon
TSS, non-aerated lagoon
BOD5 Percent Removal
TSS Percent Removal
pH
Oil and Grease
30-Day Average
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
75 mg/l
105 mg/l
85%
85%
NA
NA
NA
7-Day Average
45 mg/l
45 mg/l
110 mg/l
160 mg/l
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Instantaneous Maximum
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5 mg/l
6.0-9.0 s.u.
10 mg/l
Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations
WQCC Regulation No. 85, the new Nutrients Management Control Regulation, includes technology
based effluent limitations for total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus that currently, or will in the
future, apply to many domestic wastewater discharges to State surface waters. These effluent limits for
dischargers are to start being implemented in permitting actions as of July 1, 2013, and are shown in the
two tables below:
Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(a)(iii)
For all Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works not identified in subsections (a)(i) or (ii) above(in Reg.
85) and discharging prior to May 31, 2012 or for which a complete request for preliminary effluent
limits has been submitted to the Division prior to May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits shall
apply:
Parameter
Parameter Limitations
Annual Median 1
95th Percentile 2
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/l
2.5 mg/l
Total Inorganic Nitrogen3
15 mg/l
20 mg/l
1 Running Annual Median: The median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.
2 The 95th percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.
3 Determined as the sum of nitrate as N, nitrite as N, and ammonia as N.
Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(b)
For New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works which submit a complete request for preliminary
effluent limits to the Division on or after May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits shall apply:
Parameter
Total Phosphorus
Annual Median 1
95th Percentile 2
0.7 mg/l
1.75 mg/l
Page 14 of 17
PEL200410
7 mg/l
14 mg/l
Requirements in Reg. 85 also apply to non-domestic wastewater for industries in the Standard Industrial
Class ‘Major Group 20,’ and any other non-domestic wastewater where the facility is expected, without
treatment, to discharge total inorganic nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations in excess of the
numeric limits listed in 85.5 (1)(a)(iii). The facility must investigate, with the Division’s approval,
whether different considerations should apply.
All permit actions based on this PEL will occur after the July 1, 2013 permit implementation date of
Reg. 85. Therefore, total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus effluent limitations potentially
imposed because of Reg. 85 must be considered. However, also based on Reg. 85, there are direct
exemptions from these limitations for smaller domestic facilities that discharge less than 1 million
gallons per day (MGD), or are a domestic facility owned by a disadvantaged community.
Delayed implementation (until 5/31/2022) is also specified in Reg. 85 to occur for domestic WWTFs
that discharge 1 MGD or more, and less than 2.0 MGD, or have an existing watershed control
regulations (such as WQCC Reg.’s 71-74), or where the discharge is to waters in a low-priority 8-digit
HUC.
For all other larger domestic WWTFs, the nutrient effluent limitations from the two tables above will
apply, unless other considerations allowed by Reg. 85 at 85.5(3) are utilized to show compliance with
exceptions or variances to these limitations. Since the proposed design capacity of the Louisville
WWTF is 2.53 MGD, the facility is required to address the new technology based effluent limits as of
7/1/2013.
The Division will consider this proposed WWTF to be an existing WWTF, as the previous facility was
discharging and permitted prior to May 31, 2012. Also, since the proposed design capacity of the
Berthoud Estates WWTF is 0.063 MGD, the facility is not currently required to address the new
technology based effluent limits as of 7/1/2013.
However, the Division does not intend these results to discourage this new WWTF from working on
nutrient control with the other dischargers within the Big Thompson River watershed. These dischargers
downstream of the proposed Berthoud Estates WWTF have the potential to create future nutrient issues
in the Little Thompson River. The Division encourages these entities to all work together to create the
most efficient and cost effective solutions for nutrient control in the Little and Big Thompson
watersheds.
Supplemental Reg. 85 Nutrient Monitoring
Reg. 85 also requires that some monitoring for nutrients in wastewater effluent and streams take place,
independent of what nutrient effluent limits or monitoring requirements may be established in a
discharge permit. The requirements for the type and frequency of this monitoring are set forth in Reg.
85 at 85.6. This nutrient monitoring is not currently required by a permitting action, but is still required
Page 15 of 17
PEL200410
to be done by the Reg. 85 nutrient control regulation. Nutrient monitoring for the Reg. 85 control
regulation is currently required to be reported to the WQCD Environmental Data Unit.
IX. References
Regulations:
The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Regulation 31, Colorado Department Public
Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective January 31, 2013.
Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican
River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, Regulation No. 38, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective 6/30/2014
Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, July 30, 2012.
Nutrients Management Control Regulation, Regulation 85, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective September 30, 2012.
Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, Regulation 93,
Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective
March 30, 2012.
Policy and Guidance Documents:
Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural
Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division,
December 2001.
Memorandum Re: First Update to (Antidegradation) Guidance Version 1.0, Colorado Department
Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, April 23, 2002.
Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of Segments of the South Platte River,
Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective June,
2009.
Policy Concerning Escherichia coli versus Fecal Coliform, CDPHE, WQCD, July 20, 2005.
Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective April 2002.
Policy for Conducting Assessments for Implementation of Temperature Standards in Discharge Permits,
Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number
WQP-23, effective July 3, 2008.
Page 16 of 17
PEL200410
Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops, Colorado
Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-24,
effective March 10, 2008.
Based Effluent Limits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Division Policy Number WQP-19, effective May 2002.
Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COG589000
MINOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES THAT DISCHARGE
TO RECEIVING WATERS THAT ARE: UNCLASSIFIED; USE PROTECTED; REVIEWABLE; OR
ARE DESIGNATED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT
Certification Number: COG589097
This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes:
Berthoud Estates Community Assoc
to discharge from the facility identified as
Berthoud Estates WWTF
to: Dry Creek
Facility Type:
Facility Address:
Facility Latitude/Longitude:
Aerated Lagoon System,
¾ mi north of CR 4 on S CR 23E, Berthoud, 80513 Larimer County
Latitude : 40.285592°, Longitude: -105.160172°
Permitted Features:
Permitted Feature 001A
External Outfall
Permitted Feature 300I
Influent Structure
Latitude : 40.286599°, Longitude: -105.159328°; following disinfection and prior to entering
Dry Creek
Latitude : 40.285592°, Longitude: -105.160172°; at a representative location prior to chemical,
physical, or biological treatment
The hydraulic and organic capacities for this certification, are 0.052 MGD and 193 lbs BOD5/day, respectively.
Permit Limitations and Monitoring Requirements apply as outlined in the Permit Part I.B.3 for Classified Waters, that
are Use Protected; Reviewable; Or Are Designated Threatened And Endangered Species Habitat
Lagoon Facilities With Design Flows Of Less Than Or Equal To 0.5 MGD
Permitted Feature ID: 001A
Permitted Feature Type: External Outfall for Lagoon WWTF < or = 0.5 MGD
Limit Set: 7
ICIS
Code
50050
00310
81010
00530
50060
00400
84066
03582
51040
Lagoon Facilities with Design Flows Less Than or Equal to 0.5 MGD
Parameter
Limitation
Sampling
30-day Avg.
7-day Avg.
Daily Max
Frequency
Type
Flow, MGD
BOD5, mg/l
BOD5, percent removal 2
Total Suspended Solids, mg/l
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/l
pH, s.u.
Oil and Grease, mg/l
Oil and Grease, mg/l
E. coli, no/100 ml
0.052 1
30
85% (min)
75
0.011
Report
45
110
0.019
6.5-9.0
Report
10
126
252
3x/wk 3
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Contingent
Monthly
Instantaneous 3
Grab
Calculated 2
Grab
Grab
Grab
Visual
Grab
Grab
1 The 30-day average effluent limitation for flow as identified in this certification, is based on the hydraulic capacity of the facility and is
enforceable under this permit.
2 The % removal is based on the arithmetic mean of the BOD5 concentrations for effluent samples collected during the DMR reporting
period, and shall demonstrate a minimum of eighty-five percent (85%) removal of BOD5 as measured by dividing the difference between
the mean influent and effluent concentrations for the DMR monitoring period by the mean influent concentration for the DMR monitoring
period, and multiplying the quotient by 100.
3 The monitoring frequency and sample type for effluent flow as specified in this certification are fully enforceable under this permit.
This treatment facility is required to have an effluent flow measuring device and record instantaneous effluent flow measurements 3 times
per week.
Page 1
Site Specific Limitations
ICIS
Code
00610
Parameter
Total Ammonia, mg/l as N
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Discharge Limitation
30-day
7-day
Daily
Avg.
Avg.
Max
5.1
4.7
3.2
1.9
2.4
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.3
3.4
3.7
3.7
13
11
7.3
6.1
7.9
10
9.7
7.9
8.7
11
11
8.9
Sampling
Frequency
Type
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Permitted Feature ID: 300I
Permitted Feature Type: Influent Structure for Lagoon WWTF < or = 0.5 MGD
Limit Set: 3
ICIS
Code
50050G
00180P
00310G
00310G
00180Q
Lagoon Facilities With Design Flows Of Less Than Or Equal To 0.5 MGD
Influent Monitoring
Monitoring
30-Day
7-Day
Daily
Parameter
Frequency
Average
Avg.
Max.
Flow, MGD
Facility Capacity (% of Hydraulic Capacity)2
BOD5, mg/l
BOD5, lbs/day
Facility Capacity (% of Organic Capacity)2
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Continuous1
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Type
Recorder1
Calculated2
Composite
Calculated
Calculated2
1 This treatment facility is required to have an influent flow measuring device and continuous recording device.
2 The % capacity is to be reported against the listed capacities for the hydraulic capacity and for the organic capacities as noted above in this
certification. The percentage should be calculated using the 30-day average values divided by the corresponding capacity, times 100.
Certification issued 9/18/2013
Effective 10/1/2013
Certification Expires: 9/30/2018
This certification under the permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. The certification holder is
legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit.
Signed,
Eric Oppelt, P.E.
Permits Unit Workgroup Leader
Page 2
December 8, 2014
Mike Hart, Town Administrator
Berthoud Regional WWTF
328 Massachusetts Ave.
Berthoud, CO 80513
Re: PEL-200416, proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF
Dear Mr. Hart:
The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment has prepared, per your request, the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) for the
proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). These effluent
limits were developed as detailed in the attached document, for use as one of the submittals in
your application for Site Approval.
With a hydraulic design capacity of 0.099 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge into the
Little Thompson River, which is identified as stream segment COSPBT09, the proposed
Berthoud Regional WWTF will require an individual permit.
PELs developed for this facility are based on the water quality standards for the receiving stream
identified in the PEL application, and/or on technology based limitations established in the
Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62). The water quality standard based
limitations presented in this PEL may be incorporated into a CDPS permit contingent on
analyses conducted during permit development. The technology based limitations will also be
incorporated into the permit unless a more stringent limitation is applied.
As explained in the attached document, these limitations have been developed based on the water
quality standards for the receiving stream, the ambient water quality of the receiving stream, the
calculated low flows, the stated design flow of the facility, technology based limitations
1
established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62), applicable federal
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), and where necessary the antidegradation regulations,
mixing zone policies, and any designation of a receiving stream by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service as habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish. A determination of
which PELs ultimately apply in a permit will be dependent on decisions made by the permittee
regarding treatment facilities, discharge type, industrial contributions, receiving streams, design
flows, or other information presented to the Division at the time of application.
There was highly involved AMMTOX ammonia modeling that was needed to be done for this
PEL. This modeling revealed an urgent need for further modeling for the lower Big Thompson
River watershed. This modeling showed that the current ammonia toxicity from the effluent from
the eight current WWTFs in the lower watershed needs to be assessed more carefully in the future.
The modeling in this PEL analysis could not take into account all the dischargers in the Big
Thompson River watershed at this time. However, it will need to be done when all the dischargers
have their permits renewed in the near future. All the dischargers in the lower Big Thompson
River watershed need to come together to work on total ammonia allocations that are fair for the
dischargers and protective of the aquatic life use. See the text of the PEL assessment for more
information on this.
While in the near future new more stringent total ammonia effluent limits will probably become
required for the other facilities in the Big Thompson River Watershed, it should not be necessary
to remodel the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. This is because the Division anticipates that
the nutrient treatment required for the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF will require full
nitrification of ammonia (e.g. very low total ammonia in the effluent), and that is also why the
proposed ADBAC total ammonia effluent limits are expected to be met without further treatment.
The same issue will probably apply for total nitrogen and total phosphorus when standards for
these parameters are adopted in the Big Thompson River sub-basin in the future. As with
ammonia, which is one fraction of nutrients, it behooves the dischargers in the lower Big
Thompson River watershed to start working together on how exceedances of these standards will
be prevented in the future.
proposed treatment facility will be evaluated against, under the Site Approval Process. This
evaluation will include a determination of whether the proposed treatment facility as designed, can
meet these limitations. A new wastewater treatment facility will be expected to meet the limitations
for these parameters upon commencement of discharge.
proposed treatment facility may or may not be evaluated against, under the Site Approval Process.
The limitations contained in this table may be able to be met by the development of a pretreatment
program, the refinement of local limits under an existing pretreatment program, or other methods
of source water control. In these instances, the ability of the facility to meet these limitations will
not be reviewed under the Site Approval process and are the responsibility of the permittee. If
treatment or other operational control method is to be used specific to a parameter(s) in this table,
the ability of the facility to meet the limitation(s) will be reviewed under the Site Approval process.
2
A new wastewater treatment facility will be expected to meet the limitations for these parameters
upon commencement of discharge.
Table 1
Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation under the Site Approval Process
Discharge to the Little Thompson River
at a Design Flow of 0.099 MGD
BOD5 (mg/l)
BOD5 (% removal)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l)
TSS, mechanical plant (% removal)
pH (s.u.)
85 (30-day average)
85 (30-day average)
10 (maximum)
6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
Other Pollutants
ADBACs
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)1
Total Phosphorus (mg/l)2
Total Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/l)2
Total Ammonia
0.27 (daily maximum)
0.7 (Median), 1.75 (95th %)
7 (Median), 14 (95th %)
WQBELs
19 (daily maximum), 10 (30-day average)
NA
0.024 (2-yr average)
NA
NA
ADBACs
2.4 (2-yr average)
2.4 (2-yr average)
2.1 (2-yr average)
1.4 (2-yr average)
1.5 (2-yr average))
1.5 (2-yr average)
1.4 (2-yr average)
1.6 (2-yr average)
1.5 (2-yr average)
1.6 (2-yr average)
1.9 (2-yr average)
2.2 (2-yr average)
1When
TRC is used as a backup system.
as a running annual median, which is the median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.
2Reported
3
Table 2
Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation by the Permittee
Discharge to the Little Thompson River
at a Design Flow of 0.099 MGD
Metals and Cyanide
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
WQBELs
50 (daily maximum) 29, (30-day average)
ADBACs
NA
NA
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-6398.
Sincerely,
Tristan Acob
Assessment Based Permits Unit
PEL Approved By:
Eric T. Oppelt, P.E.
Assessment Based Permits Work Group Leader
cc:
Douglas Camrud, WQCD – Engineering Section
PEL-200416 file
4
Berthoud Regional WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits
PEL-200416
Preliminary Effluent Limitations
Little Thompson River
Town of Berthoud
Table of Contents
I. PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 2
II. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. 2
II. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Narrative Standards .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides .............................................................................................. 4
Nutrients ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Segment Specific Numeric Standard ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations .................................................................................................... 7
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and
Monitoring and Evaluation List .................................................................................................................................. 8
IV. RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 9
Low Flow Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Mixing Zones ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Ambient Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 12
V. FACILITY INFORMATION AND POLLUTANTS EVALUATED .......................................................................................... 12
Facility Information .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Pollutants of Concern ............................................................................................................................................... 14
VI. DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (WQBELS) ............................................... 14
Technical Information ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Calculation of WQBELs ............................................................................................................................................ 15
VII. ANTIDEGRADATION EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 18
Introduction to the Antidegradation Process ............................................................................................................ 18
Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution ........................................................................................... 19
New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs) ................................................................................. 19
Determination of Baseline Water Quality (BWQ) ..................................................................................................... 20
Bioaccumulative Significance Test............................................................................................................................ 21
Significant Concentration Threshold ........................................................................................................................ 21
Determination of the Antidegradation Based Average Concentrations .................................................................... 22
Concentration Significance Tests .............................................................................................................................. 23
Antidegradation Based Effluent Limitations (ADBELs) ............................................................................................ 24
Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 24
VIII. TECHNOLOGY BASED LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 25
Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines..................................................................................................................... 25
Regulations for Effluent Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 25
Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations ............................................................................................................. 25
IX. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Page 1 of 28
Last Revised December 4, 2014 | EO
PEL-200416
I. Preliminary Effluent Limitations Summary
Table A-1 includes summary information related to this PEL. This summary table includes key
regulatory starting points used in development of the PEL such as: receiving stream information;
threatened and endangered species; 303(d) and Monitoring and Evaluation listings; low flow and
facility flow summaries; and a list of parameters evaluated.
Table A-1
PEL Summary
Design Flow
Permit Number
(max 30-day ave,
MGD)
Facility Name
PEL200416
Design Flow
(max 30-day ave,
CFS)
0.099
0.15
Receiving Stream Information
Receiving Stream
Name
Segment ID
Designation
Classification(s)
COSPBT09
Undesignated
Aquatic Life Warm 2, Recreation
Class E, Agriculture
Low Flows (cfs)
Receiving Stream
Name
1E3
(1-day)
7E3
(7-day)
30E3
(30-day)
Ratio of 30E3 to
the Design Flow
(cfs)
2
2
2
13:1
T&E
Species
303(d)
(Reg 93)
No
Cu, Se, E. coli,
Aquatic Life Use
Regulatory Information
Monitor and
Existing
Temporary
Eval (Reg 93)
TMDL
Modification(s)
None
Se(ch)=13.1 µg/l
(dis). (Type iii).
Expiration date of
12/31/2015.
None
Control
Regulation
Regulation 85
Pollutants Evaluated
Ammonia, E. coli, TRC, Nutrients
II. Introduction
The Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PEL) of the Little Thompson River near the proposed Berthoud
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), located in Weld County, is intended to determine
the assimilative capacities available for pollutants found to be of concern. This PEL describes how the
water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) are developed. These parameters may or may not appear
in the permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as
Page 2 of 28
PEL-200416
reasonable potential analysis, evaluation of federal effluent limitation guidelines, implementation of
state-based technology based limits, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered
species listing, or other requirements as discussed in the permit rationale. Figure A-1 contains a map
of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL.
FIGURE A-1
The proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF discharges to the Little Thompson River, which is stream
segment COSPBT09. This means the South Platte River Basin, Big Thompson River Sub-basin,
Stream Segment 09. This segment is composed of the “Mainstem of the Little Thompson River from
the Culver Ditch diversion to the confluence with the Big Thompson River”. Stream segment
COSPBT09 is classified for Aquatic Life Warm 2, Recreation Class E, and Agriculture.
Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the proposed Berthoud Regional
WWTF, the Division, Colorado Division of Water Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey,
Riverwatch, and communications with the local water commissioner. The data used in the assessment
consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of this PEL analysis.
Page 3 of 28
PEL-200416
II. Water Quality Standards
Narrative Standards
Narrative Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(1) of the regulations, and
apply to any pollutant of concern, even where there is no numeric standard for that pollutant. Waters
of the state shall be free from substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source
discharges in amounts, concentrations or combinations which:
for all surface waters except wetlands;
(i) can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses. Depositions are stream
bottom buildup of materials which include but are not limited to anaerobic sludge, mine slurry or
tailings, silt, or mud; or (ii) form floating debris, scum, or other surface materials sufficient to harm
existing beneficial uses; or (iii) produce color, odor, or other conditions in such a degree as to create
a nuisance or harm existing beneficial uses or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible
aquatic species or to the water; or (iv) are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals,
plants, or aquatic life; or (v) produce a predominance of undesirable aquatic life; or (vi) cause a film
on the surface or produce a deposit on shorelines; and
for surface waters in wetlands;
(i) produce color, odor, changes in pH, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or
harm water quality dependent functions or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic
species of the wetland; or (ii) are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life of the wetland.
requirements for any parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits.
Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides
Radionuclides: Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(2) and (3) of The
Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water to protect the waters of the state from
radionuclides and organic chemicals.
In no case shall radioactive materials in surface waters be increased by any cause attributable to
municipal, industrial, or agricultural practices or discharges to as to exceed the following levels,
unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. Standards for radionuclides are shown
in Table A-2.
Page 4 of 28
PEL-200416
Table A-2
Radionuclide Standards
Parameter
Americium 241*
Cesium 134
Plutonium 239, and 240*
Radium 226 and 228*
Strontium 90*
Thorium 230 and 232*
Tritium
Picocuries per Liter
0.15
80
0.15
5
8
60
20,000
*Radionuclide samples for these materials should be analyzed using unfiltered (total)
samples. These Human Health based standards are 30-day average values for both plutonium
and americium.
Organics: The organic pollutant standards contained in the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals
Table are applicable to all surface waters of the state for the corresponding use classifications, unless
alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. These standards have been adopted as “interim
standards” and will remain in effect until alternative permanent standards are adopted by the
Commission. These interim standards shall not be considered final or permanent standards subject to
antibacksliding or downgrading restrictions. Although not reproduced in this PEL, the specific
standards for organic chemicals can be found in Regulation 31.11(3).
requirements for radionuclides, organics, or any other parameter of concern could be put in CDPS
discharge permits.
The aquatic life standards for organics apply to all stream segments that are classified for aquatic life.
The water supply standards apply only to those segments that are classified for water supply. The
water + fish standards apply to those segments that have a Class 1 aquatic life and a water supply
classification. The fish ingestion standards apply to Class 1 aquatic life segments that do not have a
water supply designation. The water + fish and the fish ingestion standards may also apply to Class 2
aquatic life segments, where the Water Quality Control Commission has made such determination.
Because the the Little Thompson River is classified for Aquatic Life Warm 2, without a water supply
designation, the aquatic life standards apply to this discharge.
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus and Total Inorganic Nitrogen: Regulation 85, the Nutrients Management Control
Regulation has been adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission and became effective
September 30, 2012. This regulation contains requirements for total phosphorus and Total Inorganic
Nitrogen (TIN) concentrations for some point source dischargers. Limitations for phosphorus and TIN
may be applied in accordance with this regulation.
Page 5 of 28
PEL-200416
Salinity
In addition, the Division’s policy, Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the
Protection of Irrigated Crops, may be applied to discharges where an agricultural water intake exists
downstream of a discharge point. Limitations for electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio
may be applied in accordance with this policy.
Temperature
Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt
changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deemed
deleterious to the resident aquatic life. This standard shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner
inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S.
Segment Specific Numeric Standards
Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream
segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. The standards in Table A-3 have been assigned
to stream segment COSPBT09 in accordance with the Classifications and Numeric Standards for
South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin.
Page 6 of 28
PEL-200416
Table A-3
In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COSPBT09
Physical and Biological
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) = 5 mg/l, minimum
pH = 6.5 - 9 su
E. coli chronic = 126 colonies/100 ml
Temperature March-Nov = 27.5° C MWAT and 28.6° C DM
Temperature Dec-Feb = 13.8° C MWAT and 14.3° C DM
Inorganic
Total Ammonia acute and chronic = TVS
Chlorine acute = 0.019 mg/l
Chlorine chronic = 0.011 mg/l
Free Cyanide acute = 0.005 mg/l
Sulfide chronic = 0.002 mg/l
Boron chronic = 0.75 mg/l
Nitrite acute = 0.5 mg/l
Nitrate acute = 100 mg/l
Metals
Dissolved Arsenic acute = 340 µg/l
Total Recoverable Arsenic chronic = 100 µg/l
Dissolved Cadmium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Trivalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Copper acute and chronic = TVS
Total Recoverable Iron chronic = 1000 µg/l
Dissolved Lead acute and chronic = TVS
Total Mercury chronic = 0.01 µg/l
Dissolved Nickel acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Selenium acute and chronic = TVS
Temporary Modification Dissolved Selenium chronic = 13.1 µg/l (Exp. Date 12/31/15)
Dissolved Silver acute and chronic = TVS
Dissolved Zinc acute and chronic = TVS
Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations
As most metals with standards specified as TVS are not included as parameters of concern for this
facility, the hardness value of the receiving water and the subsequent calculation of the TVS equations
for all metals except copper and selenium is inconsequential and is therefore omitted from this PEL.
Because this stream segment is on the 303(d) list for exceedances of copper and selenium, hardness
was calculated for the Cu TVS calculations.
Page 7 of 28
PEL-200416
Standards for metals are generally shown in the regulations as Table Value Standards (TVS), and these
often must be derived from equations that depend on the receiving stream hardness or species of fish
present; for ammonia, standards are discussed further in Section IV of this PEL. The Classification
and Numeric Standards documents for each basin include a specification for appropriate hardness
values to be used. Specifically, the regulations state that:
The hardness values used in calculating the appropriate metal standard should be based
on the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean hardness value at the periodic low flow
criteria as determined from a regression analysis of site-specific data. Where insufficient
site-specific data exists to define the mean hardness value at the periodic low flow
criteria, representative regional data shall be used to perform the regression analysis.
Where a regression analysis is not appropriate, a site-specific method should be used.
The mean hardness of the Little Thompson River was computed to be 711 mg/l based on sampling
data from Riverwatch Station 4093 (I-25 above bridge) located on the Little Thompson River less than
one mile upstream of the proposed WWTF and Riverwatch Station 5156 (At Wilson Property) located
on the Little Thompson River about 0.7 miles downstream of the proposed facility. The Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water indicates that hardness must be capped at 400 mg/l
when determining in-stream metal water quality standards using the equations in the TVS. This
maximum hardness value and the formulas contained in the TVS were used to calculate the in-stream
water quality standards for metals, with the results shown in Table A-4.
Table A-4
TVS-Based Metals Water Quality Standards for PEL-200416
Based on the Table Value Standards Contained in the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 38
In-Stream Water
TVS Formula:
Parameter
Quality Standard
Hardness (mg/l) as CaCO3 =
400
Copper, Dissolved
Selenium, Dissolved
Acute 50 µg/l
e(0.9422(ln(hardness))-1.7408)
Chronic 29 µg/l
e(0.8545(ln(hardness))-1.7428)
Acute 18.4 µg/l
Chronic* 4.6 µg/l
Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
*Underlying numeric standard is 4.6 µg/l.
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List
This stream segment is on the 303(d) list of water quality impacted streams for dissolved copper,
dissolved selenium, E. coli, and aquatic life use parameters.
For a receiving water placed on this list, the Restoration and Protection Unit is tasked with developing
the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the Waste Load Allocation (WLAs) to be distributed
to the affected facilities. WLAs for copper, selenium, E. coli, and protection of the aquatic life use
Page 8 of 28
PEL-200416
parameters have not yet been established for this segment, and the allowable concentrations calculated
in the following sections may change upon further evaluation by the Division.
IV. Receiving Stream Information
Low Flow Analysis
The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality
based effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute low flow, referred
to as 1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing
limitations based on an acute standard. The 7-day average low flow, 7E3, represents the seven-day
average low flow recurring in a 3 year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a
Maximum Weekly Average Temperature standard (MWAT). The chronic low flow, 30E3, represents
the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations
based on a chronic standard.
Because no gages were located just upstream of the facility, the Division searched for other historical
values of flow measurement to represent low flows for the Little Thompson River at the proposed
Berthoud Regional WWTF. The Riverwatch sampling station 4093 (I-25 above bridge), which is
located about one mile upstream of the proposed point of discharge, reported a measurement of 0.69
cfs in July 2006. This flow measurement is below a large diversion on the Little Thompson River.
However, communications with the local water commissioner revealed that the flows near the
proposed point of discharge are commonly about 4-5 cfs, with 2 cfs being the minimum flow.
Therefore, the Division has set the acute, 7E3 chronic, and 30E3 chronic flows to 2 cfs, until sufficient
daily average flow data is provided to the Division to justify otherwise. The Division may reanalyze
the low flows in the future if more representative data is provided.
Based on the low flow analysis described previously, the upstream low flows available to the proposed
Berthoud Regional WWTF were calculated and are presented in Table A-5a.
Table A-5a
Low Flows for the Little Thompson River at the Berthoud Regional WWTF
Low Flow
(cfs)
1E3
Acute
7E3
Chronic
30E3
Chronic
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
The ratio of the low flow of the Little Thompson River to the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF
design flow is 13:1.
Page 9 of 28
PEL-200416
Due to the proximity of nearby facilities, the AMMTOX model is used to model these facilities
together to determine assimilative capacity for ammonia. Therefore, it was also necessary to determine
stream low flows available to the Johnstown Central WWTF and the Town of Milliken WWTF.
In the PEL written in 2012 (PEL-200263), low flows of at the Johnstown Central WWTF were also
obtained by communications with the local water commissioner because there is no representative
measured flow data immediately upstream of the WWTF and there is the known presence of
significant diversions and return flow. The upstream low flows used in the AMMTOX modeling for
the Johnstown Central WWTF are presented in Table A-5b.
Table A-5b
Low Flows for the Little Thompson River at the Johnstown Central WWTF
Low Flow
(cfs)
1E3
Acute
30E3
Chronic
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
To estimate the low flows for AMMTOX modeling at the Town of Milliken WWTF discharge point
measured flow records from USGS Gage 06744000 (DWR BIGLASCO, Big Thompson River at
mouth, near La Salle), four diversions from the Beeline, Big Thompson-Platte, Evanstown, and MinerLongan ditches, and the facility effluent flows had to be evaluated
The Evanstown Ditch diverts flow from the Big Thompson River just downstream from the Town of
Milliken WWTF, signifying that the diverted flow from this ditch should be added to the measured
flows from the USGS gage station. Daily diversion flow data for Evanston ditch were obtained from
the DWR Colorado Decision Support Systems and were added to the daily flows obtained from the
USGS Gage Station 06744000
The Beeline, Big Thompson-Platte, and Miner-Longan ditches divert flow upstream of the Town of
Milliken but return flow to the Big Thompson River before the USGS gage station. Therefore, it is
possible that the sum of the three diversions’ could need to be subtracted from measured flows from
the USGS gage station. However, based on discussions with the local water commissioner in 2010,
only about half of the flow diverted from these three ditches resulted in return flows downstream from
the Town of Milliken WWTF but upstream of the USGS Station 06744000. Daily diversion flow data
for the Beeline, Big Thompson-Platte, and Miner-Longan ditches were obtained from the DWR
Colorado Decision Support Systems and half of these diversions were deducted from the daily flows
obtained from the USGS Gage Station 06744000.
Therefore, the equation below was used to determine low flows upstream of the Town of Milliken
WWTF is shown below:
(USGS Gage 06744000 + Evanstown Ditch) – ((Beeline + Big Thompson - Platte + Miner Longan Ditches)/2)
Page 10 of 28
PEL-200416
Flow data from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2013 were used to determine low flows. The
gage station, diversions, and time frames were deemed the most accurate and representative of current
flows and were therefore used in this analysis. The upstream low flows used in the AMMTOX
modeling for the Town of Milliken WWTF are presented in Table A-5c.
Table A-5c
Low Flows for the Big Thompson River at the Town of Milliken WWTF
Low Flow
(cfs)
1E3
Acute
30E3
Chronic
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2
31
13
3
2
2
2
13
22
20
20
37
31
13
34
13
13
13
13
13
14
26
31
31
37
34
During the months of February and November, the acute low flow calculated by DFLOW exceeded
the chronic low flow. In accordance with Division standard procedures, the acute low flow was thus
set equal to the chronic low flow for these months.
Mixing Zones
The amount of the available assimilative capacity (dilution) that may be used by the permittee for the
purposes of calculating the WQBELs may be limited in a permitting action based upon a mixing zone
analysis or other factor. These other factors that may reduce the amount of assimilative capacity
available in a permit are: presence of other dischargers in the vicinity; the presence of a water
diversion downstream of the discharge (in the mixing zone); the need to provide a zone of passage for
aquatic life; the likelihood of bioaccumulation of toxins in fish or wildlife; habitat considerations such
as fish spawning or nursery areas; the presence of threatened and endangered species; potential for
human exposure through drinking water or recreation; the possibility that aquatic life will be attracted
to the effluent plume; the potential for adverse effects on groundwater; and the toxicity or persistence
of the substance discharged.
Unless a facility has performed a mixing zone study during the course of the previous permit, and a
decision has been made regarding the amount of the assimilative capacity that can be used by the
facility, the Division assumes that the full assimilative capacity can be allocated. Note that the review
of mixing study considerations, exemptions and perhaps performing a new mixing study (due to
changes in low flow, change in facility design flow, channel geomorphology or other reason) is
evaluated in every permit and permit renewal.
If a mixing zone study has been performed and a decision regarding the amount of available
assimilative capacity has been made, the Division may calculate the water quality based effluent
limitations (WQBELs) based on this available capacity. In addition, the amount of assimilative
capacity may be reduced by T&E implications.
For this facility, 100% of the available assimilative capacity may be used as the facility has not had to
perform a mixing zone study, and the discharge is not to a T&E stream segment, and is not expected
to have an influence on any of the other factors listed above.
Page 11 of 28
PEL-200416
Ambient Water Quality
The Division evaluates ambient water quality based on a variety of statistical methods as prescribed
in Section 31.8(2)(a)(i) and 31.8(2)(b)(i)(B) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 31, and as outlined in the Division’s
Based Effluent Limits (WQP-19). Ambient water quality is evaluated in this PEL analysis for use in
determining assimilative capacities and in completing antidegradation reviews for pollutants of
concern, where applicable.
To conduct an assessment of the ambient water quality upstream of the proposed Berthoud Regional
WWTF, data were gathered primarily from Riverwatch Station 4093 (I-25 above bridge), located
approximately 1 mile upstream from the proposed facility. Data were available for a period of record
from July 2006 through May. Data from this sources were used to reflect upstream water quality.
Riverwatch Station 5156 (At Wilson Property), located approximately 0.7 miles downstream of the
proposed facility, was also used. Data were available for a period of record from August 2009 to
September 2010. Although data at this station are located at a downstream location, they are
representative of upstream water quality because there are no point discharges between the upstream
and downstream Riverwatch stations. These data are summarized in Table A-6.
Table A-6
Ambient Water Quality for the Little Thompson River
Parameter
Number of
Samples
15th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
Mean
Max.
Chronic
Stream
Standard
Notes
NH3 as N, Tot (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
8
8
8
0
0
0
0.007
0
8.9
0.078
1.2
21
0.064
0.36
10
0.39
1.6
24
TVS
29
4.6
1
1
1, 2
Note 1: When sample results were below detection levels, the value of zero was used in accordance with the Division's standard approach for
summarization and averaging purposes.
Note 2: The ambient water quality exceeds the water quality standards for these parameters.
V. Facility Information and Pollutants Evaluated
The proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF is located at the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of S14 T4N R68W; six
miles east of Berthoud at Interstate 25 and Highway 56. in Weld County. The proposed design capacity
of the facility is 0.099 MGD (0.15 cfs). Wastewater treatment is proposed to be accomplished using a
mechanical wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses that follow include assessments of
the assimilative capacity based on this design capacity.
An assessment of Division records indicate that there are 5 facilities discharging to the same stream
segment or other stream segments immediately upstream or downstream from this facility. One of
these facilities is covered by a general permit and has limitations set at the water quality standards.
Page 12 of 28
PEL-200416
This facility was not modeled in this PEL as it has a minimal impact on the ambient water quality. The
other dischargers were:








Serenity Ridge WWTF, 0.022 MGD (CO0047007), which discharges to an unnamed tributary
to the Little Thompson River, which flows into the Little Thompson River at a confluence
approximately 1 mile upstream of the facility.
Berthoud Estates WWTF, 0.063 MGD (COG589097), which discharges to an unnamed
tributary to Dry Creek, which flows into the Little Thompson River at a confluence
approximately 4 miles upstream of the proposed facility.
River Glen HOA WWTF, 0.029 MGD (CO0029742), which discharges to the Little Thompson
River approximately 8.5 miles upstream from the proposed outfall of the proposed Berthoud
Regional WWTF.
Town of Berthoud WWTF, 2.0 MGD (CO0046663), which discharges to the Little Thompson
River approximately 5.5 miles upstream from the proposed outfall of the proposed Berthoud
Regional WWTF.
Johnstown Central WWTF, 0.99 MGD (CO0021156), which discharges to the Little
Thompson River approximately 6.5 miles downstream from the proposed outfall of the
Berthoud Regional WWTF. Due to its proximity downstream, this facility was modeled in
conjunction with the Berthoud Regional WWTF (and the Town of Milliken WWTF) when
determining available assimilative capacities for ammonia.
Johnstown Lowpoint WWTF, 0.5 MGD (CO0047058), which discharges to the Big Thompson
River approximately 8 miles upstream from the confluence of the Big Thompson River with
the Little Thompson River. This facility was not modeled together at this time with the other
facilities because this would require a basin wide modeling effort beyond the scope of this
PEL. The need for a basin wide model in the future is especially true for potential allocations
of nutrients in the watershed.
Town of Milliken WWTF, 0.7 MGD (CO0042528), which discharges to the Big Thompson
River approximately 9 miles downstream from the proposed outfall of the Berthoud Regional
WWTF (and approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the confluence of the Little Thompson
and Big Thompson Rivers). Due to its proximity downstream, this facility was modeled in
conjunction with the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF (and the Johnstown Central WWTF)
when determining available assimilative capacities for ammonia.
Town of Loveland WWTF, 10 MGD (CO0026701), which discharges to the Big Thompson
River approximately 16 miles upstream from the confluence of the Big Thompson River with
the Little Thompson River. This facility was not modeled together at this time with the other
facilities because this would require a basin wide modeling effort beyond the scope of this
PEL. The need for a basin wide model in the future is especially true for potential allocations
of nutrients in the watershed.
Due to their size and close downstream proximity, the Johnston Central and Town of Milliken WWTFs
were the only other WWTFs modeled at this time in conjunction with the proposed Berthoud Regional
WWTF when determining available assimilative capacities for ammonia.
Due to the distance between and number of other facilities, extensive diversions and associated dry up
points, extensive irrigation return flows, and limited water quality data it was not possible at this time
to model other dischargers on the Big Thompson or Little Thompson Rivers together with the proposed
Berthoud Regional WWTF when determining the available assimilative capacities in the Little
Page 13 of 28
PEL-200416
Thompson and Big Thompson River’s. However, this modeling for potential future nutrient
allocations and other parameters of interest will need to take place in the future.
Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants of concern may be determined by one or more of the following: facility type; effluent
characteristics and chemistry; effluent water quality data; receiving water quality; presence of federal
effluent limitation guidelines; or other information. Parameters evaluated in this PEL may or may not
appear in a permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such
as a reasonable potential analysis, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered
species listings or other requirement as discussed in a permit rationale.
There are no site-specific in-stream water quality standards for BOD5 or CBOD5, TSS, percent
removal, and oil and grease for this receiving stream. Thus, assimilative capacities were not
determined for these parameters. The applicable limitations for these pollutants can be found in
Regulation No. 62 and will be applied in the permit for the WWTF.
The following parameters were identified by the Division as pollutants to be evaluated for this facility:







E. coli
Ammonia
Temperature
Copper
Selenium
Nutrients
Based upon the size of the discharge, the lack of industrial contributors, dilution provided by the
receiving stream and the fact that no unusually high metals concentrations are expected to be found in
normal domestic wastewater effluent, metals except for dissolved copper and dissolved selenium are
not evaluated further in these Preliminary Effluent Limitations.
During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional
parameters were identified as pollutants of concern.
VI. Determination of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Technical Information
Note that the WQBELs developed in the following paragraphs, are calculations of what an effluent
limitation may be in a permit. The WQBELs for any given parameter, will be compared to other
potential limitations (federal Effluent Limitations Guidelines, State Effluent Limitations, or other
applicable limitation) and typically the more stringent limit is incorporated into a permit. If the
WQBEL is the more stringent limitation, incorporation into a permit is dependent upon a reasonable
potential analysis.
In-stream background data and low flows evaluated in Sections II and III are used to determine the
assimilative capacity of the Little Thompson River near the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF for
Page 14 of 28
PEL-200416
pollutants of concern, and to calculate the WQBELs. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the
Division’s approach to calculate the WQBELs using the lowest of the monthly low flows (referred to
as the annual low flow) as determined in the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is the standard
procedure of the Division to determine monthly WQBELs using the monthly low flows, as the
regulations allow the use of seasonal flows.
The Division’s standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most
pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the
Division to calculate the WQBELs, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a pollutant at the
existing quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water quality standard. The
mass-balance equation is expressed as:
M2 
M 3Q3  M 1Q1
Q2
Where,
Q1 = Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3)
Q2 = Average daily effluent flow (design capacity)
Q3 = Downstream flow (Q1 + Q2)
M1 = In-stream background pollutant concentrations at the existing quality
M2 = Calculated WQBEL
M3 = Water Quality Standard, or other maximum allowable pollutant concentration
The upstream background pollutant concentrations used in the mass-balance equation will vary based
on the regulatory definition of existing ambient water quality. For most pollutants, existing quality is
determined to be the 85th percentile. For metals in the total or total recoverable form, existing quality
is determined to be the 50th percentile. For pathogens such as fecal coliform and E. coli, existing
quality is determined to be the geometric mean.
For temperature, the highest 7-day mean (for the chronic standard) of daily average stream
temperature, over a seven consecutive day period will be used in calculations of the chronic
temperature assimilative capacity, where the daily average temperature should be calculated from a
minimum of three measurements spaced equally through the day. The highest 2-hour mean (for the
acute standard) of stream temperature will be used in calculations of the acute temperature assimilative
capacity. The highest 2-hour mean should be calculated from a minimum of 12 measurements spaced
equally through the day.
Calculation of WQBELs
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section VI, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section IV, ambient water quality as discussed in Section IV, and the in-stream
standards shown in Section III, the WQBELs for were calculated. The data used and the resulting
WQBELs, M2, are set forth in Table A-7a for the chronic WQBELs and A-7b for the acute WQBELs.
Where a WQBEL is calculated to be a negative number and interpreted to be zero, or when the ambient
water quality exceeds the in-stream standard, the Division standard procedure is to allocate the water
quality standard to prevent further degradation of the receiving waters.
Page 15 of 28
PEL-200416
Chlorine: There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile of the
proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels of residual
chlorine are detected only for a short distance below a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed
to be zero.
E. coli: There are no point sources discharging E. coli within one mile of the proposed Berthoud
Regional WWTF. Thus, WQBELs were evaluated separately. For E. coli, the Division establishes the
7-day geometric mean limit as two times the 30-day geometric mean limit and also includes maximum
limits of 2,000 colonies per 100 ml (30-day geometric mean) and 4,000 colonies per 100 ml (7-day
geometric mean). This 2000 colony limitation also applies to discharges to ditches.
Temperature: The 7E3 low flow is 2 cfs, resulting in a dilution ratio (7E3 low flow to effluent) of
13:1. As the discharge is from a Domestic WWTF where the available dilution ratio is > 10:1, in
accordance with the Division’s Temperature Policy, no temperature limitations are required.
Table A-7a
Chronic WQBELs
Parameter
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
Q1 (cfs)
2
2
2
2
Q2 (cfs)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Q3 (cfs)
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
M1
1
0
1.2
21
M3
126
0.011
29
4.6
M2
126
0.16
29
4.6
Notes
2
2
1
Note 1: The existing water quality for this parameter exceeds the water quality standard; therefore, this parameter will receive end-of-the-pipe
limits.
Note 2: Segment is currently 303(d) listed for this parameter, so limit is set to end-of-pipe concentrations.
Table A-7b
Acute WQBELs
Parameter
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
Q1 (cfs)
2
2
2
Q2 (cfs)
Q3 (cfs)
M1
Acute limit set to 2 X chronic limit.
0.15
2.15
0
0.15
2.15
1.2
0.15
2.15
21
M3
0.019
50
18.4
M2
252
0.27
701
18.4
Notes
1, 3
3
2
Note 1: The acute WQBEL for E.coli is twice the chronic WQBEL.
Note 2: The existing water quality for this parameter exceeds the water quality standard; therefore, this parameter will receive end-of-the-pipe
limits
Note 2: Segment is currently 303(d) listed for this parameter, so limit is set to end-of-pipe concentrations.
Ammonia: The Ammonia Toxicity Model (AMMTOX) is a software program designed to project the
downstream effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities available to each discharger
based on upstream water quality and effluent discharges. To develop data for the AMMTOX model,
an in-stream water quality study should be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions,
particularly the pH and corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year.
As mentioned above, the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF was modeled in conjunction with
Johnstown Central WWTF and Town of Milliken WWTF. Because the Town of Milliken WWTF is
Page 16 of 28
PEL-200416
in a different segment downstream from the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF (and the Johnstown
Central WWTF), low flows were evaluated and ambient water quality data were collected at the
confluence of the Little Thompson and Big Thompson Rivers.
Temperature and corresponding pH data sets reflecting upstream ambient receiving water conditions
were available for the Little Thompson River from Riverwatch station 947 (below WWTP), located
approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF. The data, reflecting a
period of record from January 2010 through November 2013, were used to establish the setpoint and
average headwater conditions in the AMMTOX model. Upstream ambient ammonia data were also
available from this station from May 2011 through May 2013. Because data were sparsely collected,
the Division used an average monthly concentration of the data throughout the year.
Temperature and corresponding pH data sets reflecting ambient water quality at the confluence of the
Little Thompson and Big Thompson Rivers were available from Big Thompson Watershed Forum
monitoring location VM10 (Big Thompson River at Highway 257), located approximately one mile
above the confluence. The data, reflecting a period of record from January 2002 through May 2006,
were used to establish the setpoint and average conditions of the confluence in the AMMTOX model.
Ambient ammonia data were also obtained from this monitoring location.
There were no pH or temperature data available for the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF that could
be used as adequate input data for the AMMTOX model. Therefore, the Division standard procedure
is to rely on statistically-based, regionalized data for pH and temperature compiled from similar
facilities.
The AMMTOX model may be calibrated for a number of variables in addition to the data discussed
above. The values used for the other variables in the model are listed below:
 Stream velocity = 0.3Q0.4d
 Default ammonia loss rate = 6/day
 pH amplitude was assumed to be medium
 Default times for pH maximum, temperature maximum, and time of day of occurrence
 pH rebound was set at the default value of 0.2 su per mile
 Temperature rebound was set at the default value of 0.7 degrees C per mile.
The results of the ammonia analyses for the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF are presented in
Table A-8.
Table A-8
AMMTOX Results for the Little Thompson River
at the Berthoud Regional WWTF
Month
January
February
March
Total Ammonia Chronic (mg/l)
Total Ammonia Acute (mg/l)
10
8.6
10
19
13
14
Page 17 of 28
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
9.3
9.5
9.7
8.9
10
9.8
10
12
14
PEL-200416
15
33
35
35
45
40
35
24
35
VII. Antidegradation Evaluation
As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Section 31.8(2)(b), an
antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving water is designated as “Use
Protected.” Note that “Use Protected” waters are waters “that the Commission has determined do not
warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation
review process” as set out in Section 31.8(2)(b). The antidegradation section of the regulation became
effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are applicable to this PEL
analysis.
According to the Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River
Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, stream segment COSPBT09 is Undesignated.
Thus, an antidegradation review is required for this segment if new or increased impacts are found to
occur.
Introduction to the Antidegradation Process
The antidegradation process conducted as part of this Preliminary Effluent Limitations is designed to
determine if an antidegradation review is necessary and if necessary, to complete the required
calculations to determine the limits that can be selected as the antidegradation-based effluent limit
(ADBEL), absent further analyses that must be conducted by the facility.
As outlined in the Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality
Impacts, Procedural Guidance (AD Guidance), the first consideration of an antidegradation evaluation
is to determine if new or increased impacts are expected to occur. This is determined by a comparison
of the newly calculated WQBELs verses the existing permit limitations in place as of September 30,
2000, and is described in more detail in the analysis. Note that the AD Guidance refers to the permit
limitations as of September 30, 2000 as the existing limits.
If a new or increased impact is found to occur, then the next step of the antidegradation process is to
go through the significance determination tests. These tests include: 1) bioaccumulative toxic pollutant
test; 2) temporary impacts test; 3) dilution test (100:1 dilution at low flow) and; 4) a concentration
test.
As the determination of new or increased impacts, and the bioaccumulative and concentration
significance determination tests require more extensive calculations, the Division will begin the
Page 18 of 28
PEL-200416
antidegradation evaluation with the dilution and temporary impact significance determination tests.
These two significance tests may exempt a facility from further AD review without the additional
calculations.
Note that the antidegradation requirements outlined in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for
Surface Water specify that chronic numeric standards should be used in the antidegradation review;
however, where there is only an acute standard, the acute standard should be used. The appropriate
standards are used in the following antidegradation analysis.
Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution
The ratio of the chronic (30E3) low flow to the design flow is 13:1, and is less than the 100:1
significance criteria. Therefore this facility is not exempt from an AD evaluation based on the dilution
significance determination test, and the AD evaluation must continue.
For the determination of a new or increased impact and for the remaining significance determination
tests, additional calculations are necessary. Therefore, at this point in the antidegradation evaluation,
the Division will go back to the new or increased impacts test. If there is a new or increased impact,
the last two significance tests will be evaluated.
New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs)
To determine if there is a new or increased impact to the receiving water, a comparison of the new
WQBEL concentrations and loadings verses the concentrations and loadings as of September 30, 2000,
needs to occur. If either the new concentration or loading is greater than the September 2000
concentration or loading, then a new or increased impact is determined. If this is a new facility
(commencement of discharge after September 30, 2000) it is automatically considered a new or
increased impact.
Note that the AD Guidance document includes a step in the New or Increased Impact Test that
calculates the Non-Impact Limit (NIL). The permittee may choose to retain a NIL if certain conditions
are met, and therefore the AD evaluation for that parameter would be complete. As the NIL is typically
greater than the ADBAC, and is therefore the chosen limit, the Division will typically conclude the
AD evaluation after determining the NIL. Where the NILs are very stringent, or upon request of a
permittee, the Division will calculate both the NIL and the AD limitation so that the limitations can
be compared and the permittee can determine which of the two limits they would prefer, one which
does not allow any increased impact (NIL), or the other which allows an insignificant impact (AD
limit).
This facility was not in place as a discharger as of September 30, 2000, and therefore this is
automatically considered a new or increased impact. The antidegradation review must continue to the
next two significance tests (bioaccumulative and concentration). To evaluate these significance tests
the antidegradation limitations need to be calculated. As this is a new facility, there are no NILs and
implicit limitations do not apply, therefore the ADBAC limitations must be calculated.
The final two significance determination tests (bioaccumulative and concentration) need to be applied,
to determine if AD limits are applicable. For the bioaccumulative test, the determination of the baseline
water quality (BWQ), the baseline water quality loading (BWQload), the threshold load (TL) and the
threshold load concentration (TL conc) needs to occur. For the concentration test, the BWQ,
Page 19 of 28
PEL-200416
significant concentration thresholds (SCT) and antidegradation based average concentrations
(ADBACs) need to be calculated. These calculations are explained in the following sections, and each
significance determination test will be performed as the necessary calculations are complete. The AD
low flow may also need to be calculated when determining the BWQ for an existing discharger (as of
Sept 2000) when upstream water quality data are used.
Determination of Baseline Water Quality (BWQ)
The BWQ is the ambient condition of the water quality as of September 30, 2000. The BWQ defines
the baseline low flow pollutant concentration, and for bioaccumulative toxic pollutants, the baseline
load. The BWQ is to take into account the influence of the discharger if the discharge was in place
prior to September 30, 2000. In such a case, data from a downstream location should be used to
determine the BWQ. If only upstream data is available, then a mass balance equation may be applied,
using the facilities effluent data to determine the BWQ. If the discharge was not present prior to
September 30, 2000, then the influence of that discharge would not be taken into account in
determining the BWQ. If the BWQ has already been determined in a previous PEL AD evaluation, it
may not need to be recalculated as the BWQ is the water quality as of September 30, 2000, and
therefore should not change unless additional data is obtained or the calculations were in error.
Because the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF was not in existence as a discharger to the Little
Thompson River as of September 30, 2000, the influence of this discharger is not considered when
determining the BWQ. Data collected at Riverwatch Station 162 (Johnstown E), located
approximately six miles downstream from the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF, were available
for a period of record of October 1995 through July 1999 for the following pollutants: copper and
selenium.
The ambient water quality data are summarized in Table A-9a. The BWQ concentrations based on
these data, represented by the 50th percentile for total recoverable metals and total metals, the
geometric mean for coliforms, and the 85th percentile for dissolved metals, and other pollutants, are
summarized in Table A-9b.
Table A-9a
Ambient Water Quality Data Summary for AD Period
Parameter
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
Number of
Samples
15th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
85th
Percentile
Mean
Location
100
17
0.96
5.9
6.4
7.7
15
11
8.5
8.3
Downstream
Downstream
Table A-9b
BWQ Concentrations for Potential Pollutants of Concern
For a Facility Not Existing Prior to September 30, 2000
Pollutant
BWQ
WQS
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
126*
0
15
11*
126
0.011
29
4.6
Page 20 of 28
PEL-200416
* Set to stream standard because of past and present 303(d) listings.
In cases where the BWQ concentration exceeds the water quality standard, the calculated BWQ
concentration must then be set equal to the water quality standard. This occurred for Selenium.
Bioaccumulative Significance Test
Parameters associated with the bioaccumulative significance test are not parameters of concern for
this facility. This section is therefore omitted.
Significant Concentration Threshold
The SCT is defined as the BWQ plus 15% of the baseline available increment (BAI), and is calculated
by the following equation:
SCT = (0.15 × BAI) + BWQ
The BAI is the concentration increment between the baseline water quality and the water quality
standard, expressed by the term (WQS – BWQ). Substituting this into the SCT equation results in:
SCT = 0.15 × (WQS-BWQ) + BWQ
Where,
WQS = Chronic standard or, in the absence of a chronic standard, the acute standard
BWQ = Value from Table A-9b
The AMMTOX model is used to determine the SCTs for ammonia. Because the new ammonia
standard is based on a function of the pH and temperature of the receiving stream, the WQS changes
moving downstream from a discharge point. The BWQ and the SCT also change moving downstream.
The AMMTOX model calculates these values for every tenth of a mile, for up to 20 miles. Therefore,
it is impractical to show the SCTs for every part of the stream for all 12 months. These values are
available in the AMMTOX model, if requested.
Page 21 of 28
PEL-200416
Determination of the Antidegradation Based Average Concentrations
Antidegradation based average concentrations (ADBACs) are determined for all parameters except
ammonia, by using the mass-balance equation, and substituting the SCT in place of the water quality
standard, as shown in the following equation:
ADBAC 
SCT  Q3  M 1  Q1
Q2
Where,
Q1
Q2
Q3
M1
SCT
= Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3 based on either the chronic or acute standard)
= Current design capacity of the facility
= Downstream flow (Q1 + Q2)
= Current ambient water quality concentration (From Section III)
= Significant concentration threshold
The ADBACs were calculated using the SCTs, and are set forth in Table A-10a.
Table A-10a
SCTs and ADBACs
Pollutant
Q1(cfs)
Q2 (cfs)
Q3 (cfs)
M1
SCT
ADBAC
2
2
2
2
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
126
0
1.2
21
126
0.0017
17
4.6
126
0.024
228
4.6
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
ADBACs for total ammonia are calculated by substituting the SCT in place of the chronic standard in
the AMMTOX model, which generates monthly ADBACs as shown in Table A-10b.
Table A-10b
ADBACs for Ammonia
Pollutant
Monthly ADBAC
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jan
NH3, Total (mg/l) Feb
NH3, Total (mg/l) Mar
NH3, Total (mg/l) Apr
NH3, Total (mg/l) May
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jun
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jul
NH3, Total (mg/l) Aug
NH3, Total (mg/l) Sep
NH3, Total (mg/l) Oct
NH3, Total (mg/l) Nov
NH3, Total (mg/l) Dec
Page 22 of 28
2.4
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.2
PEL-200416
Concentration Significance Tests
The concentration significance determination test considers the cumulative impact of the discharges
over the baseline condition. In order to be insignificant, the new or increased discharge may not
increase the actual instream concentration by more than 15% of the available increment over the
baseline condition. The insignificant level is the ADBAC calculated in Tables A-10a and A-10b above.
If the new WQBEL concentration (or potentially the TL Conc for bioaccumulatives) is greater than
the ADBAC, an AD limit would be applied. This comparison is shown in Tables A-11a and A-11b
(for ammonia).
Table A-11a
Concentration Significance Test
Pollutant
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
New WQBEL
ADBAC
Concentration Test Result
126
0.16
29
4.6
126
0.024
228
4.6
Insignificant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Table A-11b
Concentration Significance Test for Ammonia
Pollutant
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jan
NH3, Total (mg/l) Feb
NH3, Total (mg/l) Mar
NH3, Total (mg/l) Apr
NH3, Total (mg/l) May
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jun
NH3, Total (mg/l) Jul
NH3, Total (mg/l) Aug
NH3, Total (mg/l) Sep
NH3, Total (mg/l) Oct
NH3, Total (mg/l) Nov
NH3, Total (mg/l) Dec
New WQBEL
ADBAC
Concentration Test Result
10
8.6
10
9.3
9.5
9.7
8.9
10
9.8
10
12
14
2.4
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.2
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
For Selenium, the WQBELs are less than or equal to the ADBAC and therefore, the concentration test
results in an insignificant determination. The WQBELs are the final result of this PEL for these
parameters and AD limitations are not necessary.
For Copper, E. coli, total residual chlorine, and ammonia the WQBELs are greater than the ADBACs
and therefore, the concentration test results in a significance determination, and the antidegradation
based effluent limitations (ADBELs) must be determined.
Page 23 of 28
PEL-200416
Antidegradation Based Effluent Limitations (ADBELs)
The ADBEL is defined as the potential limitation resulting from the AD evaluation, and may be either
the ADBAC, the NIL, or may be based on the concentration associated with the threshold load
concentration (for the bioaccumulative toxic pollutants). ADBACs, NILs and TLs have already been
determined in the AD evaluation, and therefore to complete the evaluation, a final comparison of
limitations needs to be completed.
Note that ADBACs and NILs are not applicable when the new WQBEL concentration (and loading as
evaluated in the New and Increased Impacts Test) is less than the NIL concentration (and loading), or
when the new WQBEL is less than the ADBAC.
Where an ADBAC or NIL applies, the permittee has the final choice between the two limitations. A
NIL is applied as a 30-day average (and the acute WQBEL would also apply where applicable) while
the ADBAC would be applied as a 2 year rolling average concentration. For the purposes of this PEL,
the Division has made an attempt to determine whether the NIL or ADBAC will apply. The end results
of this AD evaluation are in Table A-12, including any parameter that was previously exempted from
further AD evaluation, with the final potential limitation identified (NIL, WQBEL or ADBAC).
Table A-12
Final Selection of WQBELs, NILs, and ADBACs
Pollutant
E. coli (#/100 ml)
TRC (mg/l)
Cu, Dis (µg/l)
Se, Dis (µg/l)
New WQBEL
126
0.16
10
8.6
10
9.3
9.5
9.7
8.9
10
9.8
10
12
14
29
4.6
ADBAC
259
0.024
2.4
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.2
228
NA
Chosen Limit
WQBEL
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
ADBAC
WQBEL
WQBEL
For E. coli, TRC, ammonia, and copper; the ADBACs have been established for this facility. The
ADBACs were selected as they are less stringent than the WQBELs and the NILs, or perhaps due to
the application as a two-year rolling average. However, the facility has the final choice between the
NILs and ADBACs, and if the ADBAC is preferred, the permit writer should be contacted.
Alternatives Analysis
If the permittee does not want to accept an effluent limitation that results in no increased impact (NIL)
or in insignificant degradation (ADBAC), the applicant may conduct an alternatives analysis (AA).
Page 24 of 28
PEL-200416
The AA examines alternatives that may result in no degradation or less degradation, and are
economically, environmentally, and technologically reasonable. If the proposed activity is determined
to be important economic or social development, a determination shall be made whether the
degradation that would result from such regulated activity is necessary to accommodate that
development. The result of an AA may be an alternate limitation between the ADBEL and the
WQBEL, and therefore the ADBEL would not being applied. This option can be further explored with
the Division. See Regulation 31.8 (3)(d), and the Antidegradation Guidance for more information
regarding an alternatives analysis.
For a PEL, an AA must already be completed in conjunction with the facility’s site application. Where
the facility makes a reasonable effort to identify and assess less-degrading alternatives and can
demonstrate that these alternatives are not economically feasible, the alternatives analysis that
currently must be completed as part of the site application should be sufficient to satisfy the
antidegradation review requirements set forth in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water, Regulation 31, Section 31.8(3)(d).
VIII. Technology Based Limitations
Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines
The Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines for domestic wastewater treatment facilities are the
secondary treatment standards. These standards have been adopted into, and are applied out of,
Regulation 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations.
Regulations for Effluent Limitations
Regulation No. 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations, includes effluent limitations that apply
to all discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agricultural
return flows. These regulations are applicable to the discharge from the proposed discharge.
Table A-13 contains a summary of the applicable limitations for pollutants of concern at this facility.
Table A-13
Regulation 62 Based Limitations
Parameter
BOD5
TSS, mechanical plant
BOD5 Percent Removal
TSS Percent Removal
pH
Oil and Grease
30-Day Average
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
85%
85%
NA
NA
NA
7-Day Average
45 mg/l
45 mg/l
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Instantaneous Maximum
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5 mg/l
6.0-9.0 s.u.
10 mg/l
Nutrient Effluent Limitation Considerations
WQCC Regulation No. 85, the new Nutrients Management Control Regulation, includes technology
based effluent limitations for total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus that currently, or will in
Page 25 of 28
PEL-200416
the future, apply to many domestic wastewater discharges to State surface waters. These effluent limits
for dischargers are to start being implemented in permitting actions as of July 1, 2013, and are shown
in the two tables below:
Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(a)(iii)
For all Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works not identified in subsections (a)(i) or (ii) above(in
Reg. 85) and discharging prior to May 31, 2012 or for which a complete request for preliminary
effluent limits has been submitted to the Division prior to May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits
shall apply:
Parameter
Annual Median 1
95th Percentile 2
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/l
2.5 mg/l
15 mg/l
20 mg/l
Effluent Limitations Table at 85.5(1)(b)
For New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works which submit a complete request for preliminary
effluent limits to the Division on or after May 31, 2012, the following numeric limits shall apply:
Parameter
Annual Median 1
95th Percentile 2
Total Phosphorus
0.7 mg/l
1.75 mg/l
7 mg/l
14 mg/l
Requirements in Reg. 85 also apply to non-domestic wastewater for industries in the Standard
Industrial Class ‘Major Group 20,’ and any other non-domestic wastewater where the facility is
expected, without treatment, to discharge total inorganic nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations
in excess of the numeric limits listed in 85.5 (1)(a)(iii). The facility must investigate, with the
Division’s approval, whether different considerations should apply.
All permit actions based on this PEL will occur after the July 1, 2013 permit implementation date of
Reg. 85. Therefore, total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus effluent limitations potentially
imposed because of Reg. 85 must be considered. However, also based on Reg. 85, there are direct
exemptions from these limitations for smaller existing domestic facilities that discharge less than 1
million gallons per day (MGD), or are a domestic facility owned by a disadvantaged community.
Delayed implementation (until 5/31/2022) is also specified in Reg. 85 to occur for domestic WWTFs
that discharge 1 MGD or more, and less than 2.0 MGD, or have an existing watershed control
regulations (such as WQCC Reg.’s 71-74), or where the discharge is to waters in a low-priority 8-digit
HUC.
For all other larger domestic WWTFs, the nutrient effluent limitations from the two tables above will
apply, unless other considerations allowed by Reg. 85 at 85.5(3) are utilized to show compliance with
exceptions or variances to these limitations.
Page 26 of 28
PEL-200416
Even though the proposed design capacity of the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF is <1.0 MGD
(0.099 MGD), the facility is required to address the new technology based effluent limits at 85.5(1)(b).
This is because the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF is a new facility and the Regulation 85
technology based limits applied as of 7/1/2013. Because there is such limited stream data for this
segment, it is not currently known what if any assimilative capacity for TN of TP exists. It was not
possible to calculate WQBELs for the proposed discharge at this time.
The Division wishes to encourage the proposed Berthoud Regional WWTF to start working on nutrient
control with the other dischargers along the Little Thompson River. These dischargers along the Little
Thompson River have the potential to create future nutrient issues in the Big Thompson watershed.
The Division encourages these entities to all work together to create the most efficient and cost
effective solutions for nutrient control in the Upper Thompson watershed.
Supplemental Reg. 85 Nutrient Monitoring
Reg. 85 also requires that some monitoring for nutrients in wastewater effluent and streams take place,
independent of what nutrient effluent limits or monitoring requirements may be established in a
discharge permit. The requirements for the type and frequency of this monitoring are set forth in Reg.
85 at 85.6. This nutrient monitoring is not currently required by a permitting action, but is still required
to be done by the Reg. 85 nutrient control regulation. Nutrient monitoring for the Reg. 85 control
regulation is currently required to be reported to the WQCD Environmental Data Unit.
IX. References
Regulations:
The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Regulation 31, Colorado Department
Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective January 31, 2013.
Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican
River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, Regulation No. 38, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective June 30, 2014.
Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, July 30, 2012.
Nutrients Management Control Regulation, Regulation 85, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective September 30, 2012.
Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, Regulation
93, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission,
effective March 30, 2012.
Policy and Guidance Documents:
Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural
Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division,
December 2001.
Page 27 of 28
PEL-200416
Memorandum Re: First Update to (Antidegradation) Guidance Version 1.0, Colorado Department
Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, April 23, 2002.
Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of Segments of the South Platte River,
Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective
October 29, 2002.
Policy Concerning Escherichia coli versus Fecal Coliform, CDPHE, WQCD, July 20, 2005.
Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective April 2002.
Policy for Conducting Assessments for Implementation of Temperature Standards in Discharge
Permits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy
Number WQP-23, effective July 3, 2008.
Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops,
Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number
WQP-24, effective March 10, 2008.
Based Effluent Limits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Division Policy Number WQP-19, effective May 2002.
Page 28 of 28
APPENDIX F: PLANNING AND ZONING
INFORMATION
Town of Berthoud
PADD
Y
COUNTY ROAD 5
TN
09
10
9T
PUD
E
G ER
GA L
BUR
28
27
PUD
MICHIGAN
M2
RICKER
BRUS H
FOSSIL
INTERSTATE 25
WELD COUNTY ROAD 7
AG
21
T
m
ho
T
tle
t
i
L
WELD COUNTY ROAD 42
30
on
ps
23
22
§
¦
¨
25
WELD COUNT Y ROAD 42
M EG
N
Town of
Johnstown
r
ve
i
R
OC
OT
IL
24
LO
SAGE
WELD COUNTY ROAD 42
PUD
SERENITY RIDGE
AN
BALL AEROSPAC E
29
28
WELD COUNTY ROAD 40.5
27
PUD
Baxter Lake
MEINING
T
25
26
Town of Mead
PHEASANT
WILFRED
MAJ
Ber thoud Growth Management Boundary
ES T
34
C
ER
Ish Reservoir
35
LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 15
CABALLERO
GLENVIEW
ZU
CALLADO
RIVERVIEW
H
ER
WAGON WHEEL
RIVER GLEN
33
RAPID
IC
CHAPARRO
R
SINGING WATERS
RO
TO
WELD COUNTY ROAD 44
HIGHWAY 56
WELD COUNTY ROAD 42.25
LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 6C
AG
PUD
20
19
M2
24
26
S TO N E
AG
T
4TH
COLORADO
13
OR
PUD
2ND
R1
T
M2
WELD COUNTY ROAD 5
1ST
VICTORIA
1ST
KEEP
C1
25
LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 4E
SWEETWATER PARK
R5 R1
Æ
ÿ
56
TY ROAD 15A
TIN
MAR
R3
R1
R3
R2
PUD
R2
17
18
T
REDCLOUD
H
R1 KANSAS
Newell Lake
MEMORY
R2
16
T
14
15
ALPINE SKY
AG
23
287
COTTONWOOD
4TH
5TH
IOWA
Larimer County
Weld County
MAPLE
OAK
ED
AR
6TH
7TH
INDIANA
TURNER
WELD COUNTY ROAD 40
Rockwell
Reservoir
36
ALDER
12
AG
WELD COUNTY ROAD 3
LUCIA
ITA
EV
NAVAJO
CHEYENNE
£
¤
R3
R3
R2 NEBRASKA
AG
SPARTAN
HUPPE
WELCH
C1
M1
GEMSTONE
11
WELD COUNTY ROAD 13
08
Hummel
Reservoir
PUD
MOUNTAIN
R1
REDWOOD
21
LAKE
C1
R1
R3
LONG VIEW
E
FRAN KLIN
Bacon Lake
PUD
M1
R3 M2
R3
MAS SACHUSETTS
8TH
BEIN
SIO
UX
ARA
PAH
OE
eek
Dry Cr
TI A
8TH
9TH
ALPIN E
10TH
WALES
MEADOWLARK
LAKE
22
RAMONA
T
C2
E
YC
JO
M
GLACIER
R3
R2
R1
R1
WINDRIFT
SUNDOWN
OL
MOUNT MEEKER
CAPITOL
BR U
CE
T
VERSAW
LARIMER COUN
CH
I SH
R2
HUBBELL
BOTHUN
G
TE
YO
CO
13
BUNYAN
Coleman
Reservoir
G
RID
R1
14
EXET ER
WIL SHIRE
PEAK
ERV IN
C
15
PUD
MIDDLE
AS
R3
N
PE
ELM
PUD
BER THOUD
16
Y
WOOD
NT
PARAMO
U
SERENE
FAGAN
Loveland
Reservoir
R2
MOSS ROCK
WOODBIND
NORTHMOOR
07
M2
TAMARAC
Traditional Neighborhood District
2ND
PRESERVE
PUD
52
Transition District
SILVERBELL
SMITH
AG
WATER
CARLSON
Planned Unit Development District
HIGH PLAINS
SANDSTONE
EXIT 2
52
T
HIGHWAY 60
EXIT 2
Manufactured Home District
GATEWAY
BASHER
R5
PUD
SCHULT Z
AG
COUNTY ROAD 1
COUNTY ROAD 7
COUNTRY MOUNTAIN
SUZIE
Mixed Use District
Industrial District
LIMESTONE
ST
AG
H
TAVNER
R4
M2
SL
OA
N
DE
N
BECKER
BALLEN TINE
CATCLAW
12
DeFrance Reservoir
Multi-Family
District
Light Industrial
District
Johnstown
Reservoir
DUNBA
R
HO
L
BARNARD
CACTUS
M1
R3
M1
CHOLLA
11
MOORINGS
E
OMNI
Sunnyslope
Reservoir
Limited Multi-Family District
COMMERCE
HAWG WILD
UN TY ROAD 15
LARIMER CO
CLAYTON
M2
R2
General Commercial District
WELD COUNTY ROAD 11
Welch Reservoir
C2
C2
INTERSTATE 25
10
09
08
AG
T
T04NR69W
T04NR68W
PUD
E
CE L E S T
HANKINS
RABBIT RUN
PINE HILL
ROSEWOOD
SUNSHINE
MAGGIE
LUCILLE
ELMWOOD
GARNET
BURBAN K
LUVESTA
ID
WELD COUNTY ROAD 48
Single Family District
BRUNNER
CARL SON
S
RI
ARGYLL
BRUNNER
DILLEY
E
ONYX
I PE R
JUN
CL ARK
R
T
06
WELD COUNT
Neighborhood Commercial District
WYSS
287
C1
KIT S
H
O
Berthoud
Reservoir
£
¤
McNeil Reservoir
ABRAMS
36
COUNTY ROAD 14
2 52
M2
Agriculture District
ENT ER
C2
35
34
HIGHWAY 60
BOULDER
HIGHWAY 287
LEBSACK
GYPSUM
K
Lonetree Reservoir
33
36
C
RIVE R RO
PUD
Town of Berthoud, Colorado
Zoning Map
33
MARB LE
IOWA
PUD
35
34
Districts
AG
01
ET
49TH
MARKETPLACE
1
02
SUN S
ROLLING VIEW
BIANCA
IDG E
G
NTY ROAD
RANCHO
IN
WELD COU
E
CR E S T R
RO
SS
32 Chapman Reservoir
T05NR68W
T04NR68W
42ND
G
PA
LONETREE
T05NR69W
T04NR69W
C
03
04
CANDLE
JONI
VIEW
City of
Loveland
FREEL
AG
CANDY
R
HAMMANS
EE
LISSA
P
N
IO
VALLE
Y
31
VIA REAL
ROBIN
36
35TH
LEANNE
S
CREST
LINCOLN
TAFT
36TH
BOMAR
FOX
35
35T H
GARFIELD
OVERLOOK
34
EL C A
MIN ITO
33
DEL SOL
31
CROWN POINT
32
Revisions:
33
Project
Ordinance
Date
3/31/11 Annual Update
3/27/12 Rezone C2 to C1
1121, 1160, 1165
1167, 1169
Thomas Reservoir
34
This m ap pro duct and all underlying data are develo ped for use by the
Town of Bertho ud for its internal purposes and for general use by
members of the public. The To wn makes no representatio n o r warranty
as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its
accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, pro perty bou ndaries, or
placement of location of any map features thereon. The Town of
Berthoud m akes no warranty of merchantability o r warranty for fitness
of use for particular purpose, expressed or implied, with respect to this
map product. Any users of this map pro duct accepts sam e as is, w ith all
faults, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further
covenants and agrees to hold the Town harm less from and against all
damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in
consideration o f the Tow n having made this information available.
Davis Reservoir
35
0
750 1,500
F
36
3,000
Feet
1 inch = 1,575 feet
Map prepared by Barkeen Landscape Design
Data provided by Larimer County, Weld County
and the Town of Berthoud.
E COUNTY ROAD 10
N CO UN
OAK DR
MAPLE DR
17
TY RO AD
EVERGREEN AVE
WILLOW DR
W COUN TY ROAD 10
CEDAR DR
ASPEN DR
ELM DR
Loveland Reservoir
LONGS PEAK AVE
PL
7TH STR EET
SUNNYWOOD PL
VERSAW CT
3RD ST
CAPITAL AVE
ED
R
9TH ST
BRU
C
2ND ST
10TH ST
BUNYAN CT
BUNYAN AVE
6TH STR EET CT
Berthoud Ele m
FRA
NK LI
N AV
E
10T H ST
N HIGHWAY 287
LITTLE BEAR AVE
FRANKLIN AVE
MOUNT MASSIVE ST
LAKE AVE
LAKE AVE
5TH ST
TURNER AVE
9TH ST
8TH ST
Turne r MS
TURNER AVE
QUANDRY AVE
E TURNER AVE
MASSACHUS ETTS AVE
VICTORIA ST
INDIANA AVE
BLUE SPRUCE AVE
1ST ST
COMMON DR
10TH ST
Location Map
INDIANA AVE
Wellington
E INDIANA AVE
Ivy Stockwel l El em
T
MA
YO
EA
VE
Berthoud HS
M
CT
SO
N
CT
E MICHIGAN AVE
Fort Collins
BLUE SPRUCE AVE
IOWA AVE
NEBRASKA AVE
Windsor
KEEP CIR
Loveland
SPARTAN AVE
For more Information Contact
Enterprise Zone Admin (970)498-6605
UN
COLORADO AVE
S 1ST ST
CHEYENNE DR
Created by Larimer County
GIS & Mapping Services
using data from multiple sources.
NAVAJO PL
Larimer County makes no warranty
as to the accuracy. This product
may not reflect recent updates prior
to the date of printing.
Copyright 2006 by Larimer County, Co.
S 2ND ST
S
S 3RD ST
H
S 5TH ST
AR
AP
AH
O
8T
R
REDWOOD CIR
DOUGLAS PL
S 8TH ST
Feet
2006
XD
S 9TH ST
250
SIO
U
S 10TH ST
.
S
BLUE SPRUCE AVE
MICHIGAN AVE
ITD/ GIS
500
BIMSON AVE
JEFFERSON
DR
S COUNTY ROAD 17
Parcel
E WELCH AVE
7TH ST
Berthoud Area
GENTLEWIND WAY
COLUMBINE CIR
Enterprise Zones
BEIN ST
WELCH AVE
MADISON AVE
E HIGHWAY 56
MOUNTAIN AVE
4TH ST
W COUN TY ROAD 8
HUBBELL ST
6TH ST
REDCLOUD AVE
Berthoud
E IOWA AVE
E NEBRASKA AVE
APPENDIX 4 – I-25 SUB-AREA LAND USE PLAN
52
APPENDIX G: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
Town of Berthoud
APPENDIX H: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Town of Berthoud
Job Name: Berthoud Estates Utility Plan Job Number: 1733.21c Date: 10/20/2014
By: MMR
2014 WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET
Wastewater Line Fee, per month
Number of Customers
Usage Fee, per 1000 gallons of water (avg. in Jan & Feb)
Average number of gallons per day
Net Annual Wastewater Charges
Lift Station Fee
Number of Lift Station Customers
Net Annual Lift Station Charges
Annual Revenue
$27.06
2224
$6.53
513,094
$722,177
$1,222,934
$1,945,111
$4.10
246
$12,103
$12,103.20
Additional Revenue
(including funds from flood recovery Insurance)
$301,411
TOTAL REVENUES
$2,258,625
WASTEWATER FUND
BEGINNING WASTEWATER OPERATIONS FUND BALANCE
Estimated User Revenues
(5% annual increase starting 2019)
Estimated Town of Berthoud O&M Expenses
(3% annual increase starting 2019)
Estimated Regional WWTF O&M Expenses
(3% annual increase)
Bond Payments
Net User Revenue
Existing Infrastructure Capital Projects
(3% increase starting 2020)
ENDING WASTEWATER OPERATING FUND BALANCE
2014
2,019,620
2015
1,331,390
2016
1,465,047
2017
1,216,756
2018
1,153,956
2019
1,333,831
2020
1,167,892
2021
1,069,301
2022
1,043,904
2023
871,340
2024
779,160
2025
766,996
2026
836,566
2,258,625
1,975,875
1,970,103
1,977,983
1,995,003
2,094,753
2,199,491
2,309,465
2,424,939
2,546,186
2,673,495
2,807,170
2,947,528
(857,436)
(891,915)
(912,388)
(939,760)
(967,952)
(996,991)
(1,026,901)
(1,057,708)
(1,089,439)
(1,122,122)
(1,155,786)
(1,172,003)
0
(847,458)
(125,000)
(128,750)
(132,613)
(136,591)
(140,689)
(144,909)
(149,257)
(153,734)
(158,346)
(163,097)
(167,990)
(711,813)
2,394,429
(712,760)
1,747,047
0
(703,958)
1,748,756
(720,118)
1,453,956
(720,128)
1,383,831
(884,341)
1,467,892
(880,441)
1,378,301
(874,692)
1,362,174
(1,093,527)
1,199,159
(1,089,271)
1,116,813
(1,090,091)
1,114,778
(1,094,165)
1,194,782
(933,710)
1,526,609
(1,063,039)
(282,000)
(532,000)
(300,000)
(50,000)
(300,000)
(309,000)
(318,270)
(327,818)
(337,653)
(347,782)
(358,216)
(368,962)
1,331,390
1,465,047
1,216,756
1,153,956
1,333,831
1,167,892
1,069,301
1,043,904
871,340
779,160
766,996
836,566
1,157,647
2014
$1,423,068
2015
$1,521,075
2016
$160,475
2017
$661,050
2018
$988,400
2019
$1,941,350
2020
$2,423,198
2021
$2,919,500
2022
$3,430,692
2023
$3,957,220
2024
$4,499,544
2025
$5,058,137
2026
$5,633,488
$701,050
$889,700
$795,875
$827,650
$953,250
$981,848
$1,011,303
$1,041,642
$1,072,891
$1,105,078
$1,138,230
$1,172,377
$1,207,549
($546,364)
$3,957,220
($562,754)
$4,499,544
($579,637)
$5,058,137
($597,026)
$5,633,488
($614,937)
$6,226,100
WASTEWATER PLANT & COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL FACILITY FUND
BEGINNING WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND BALANCE
Estimated System Investment Fees (5% annual increase starting 2019)
Estimated Growth Related Capital Improvements
ENDING WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND BALANCE
20 year cash flow ‐ Sheet1
($603,043)
$1,521,075
($2,250,300)
$160,475
($295,300)
$661,050
($500,300)
$988,400
($300)
$1,941,350
($500,000)
$2,423,198
($515,000)
$2,919,500
($530,450)
$3,430,692
2027
1,157,647
3,094,904
(1,190,459)
(173,029)
(935,550)
1,953,513
2028
1,573,482
3,249,650
(1,226,173)
(178,220)
(930,640)
2,488,098
2029
2,096,666
3,412,132
(1,262,958)
(183,567)
(931,380)
3,130,893
2030
2,727,718
3,582,739
(1,300,847)
(189,074)
(930,920)
3,889,616
2031
3,474,346
3,761,876
(1,339,873)
(194,746)
(929,260)
4,772,343
2032
4,344,615
3,949,969
(1,380,069)
(200,588)
(1,896,400)
4,817,527
2033
4,376,967
4,147,468
(1,421,471)
(206,606)
(23,520)
6,872,839
2034
6,419,062
4,354,841
(1,464,115)
(212,804)
(22,640)
9,074,344
(380,031)
1,573,482
(391,432)
2,096,666
(403,175)
2,727,718
(415,270)
3,474,346
(427,728)
4,344,615
(440,560)
4,376,967
(453,777)
6,419,062
(467,390)
8,606,954
2027
$6,226,100
$1,243,775
($633,385)
$6,836,490
2028
$6,836,490
$1,281,088
($652,387)
$7,465,192
2029
$7,465,192
$1,319,521
($671,958)
$8,112,754
2030
$8,112,754
$1,359,107
($692,117)
$8,779,744
2031
$8,779,744
$1,399,880
($712,880)
$9,466,743
2032
$9,466,743
$1,441,876
($734,267)
$10,174,353
2033
$10,174,353
$1,485,132
($756,295)
$10,903,190
2034
$10,903,190
$1,529,686
($778,984)
$11,653,893
Page 1 of 1
**Expenditures restricted to purchase and delivery of raw water to treatment plant per Resolution 7-94.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
BUDGET YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014
23-00
WASTEWATER FUND
4999
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE
4410
4410
4410
4415
4432
4433
4433
4299
4440
4601
2
3
1
4
PROPOSED COST CENTER
BUDGET
2014
ESTIMATED REVENUES
566,226
751,160
ACTUAL
2012
1,824,084
8,290
2,843
0
9
3,692
3,211
BUDGET
2013
1,820,000
8,194
2,832
800
0
3,431
3,200
3,229
0
1,900
TOTAL REVENUES
1,845,358
1,840,357
3,240,180
2,258,625
1,975,875
1,970,103
1,977,983
1,995,003
TOTAL REVENUES
2,258,625
SUBTOTAL REVENUE
2,411,584
2,591,517
3,991,340
4,278,245
3,307,265
3,435,149
3,319,739
3,402,709
SUBTOTAL REVENUE
4,278,245
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Wastewater Charges
Hillsdale Lift Station Fees
Mary's Farm Lift Station Fees
Development Review
Bomar Debt Service
Bomar Lift Station Maint.
Campion Lift Station Maint
Flood recovery from Insurance
Transfer from WWCI
Interest
751,160
2,019,620
1,331,389
1,465,046
1,341,755
1,407,706
ESTIMATE BUDGET
BUDGET
BUDGET
BUDGET
BUDGET
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
1,830,000
1,928,360
1,955,640
1,952,000
1,959,880
1,976,400
8,290
12,398
0
0
0
0
2,843
5,264
2,632
0
0
0
500
500
500
500
500
500
0
0
0
3,600
2,116
2,116
2,116
2,116
2,116
3,200
9,988
9,988
9,988
9,988
9,988
295,000
1,385,589
0
6,158
5,000
5,000
5,500
5,500
6,000
4410
4410
4410
4415
4432
4433
4433
4299
4440
4601
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
Wastewater Charges
Hillsdale Lift Station Fees
Mary's Farm Lift Station Fees
Development Review
Bomar Debt Service
Bomar Lift Station Maint.
Campion Lift Station Maint
Flood recovery from Insurance
Transfer from WWCI
Interest
2,019,620
1,928,360
12,398
5,264
500
2,116
9,988
295,000
5,000
===========================================================================================================================================================================
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
MAIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
5001
Salaries
160,574
159,683
165,528
170,295
193,230
198,827
205,062
211,251
5001
1 Salaries
120,059
5002
Employer Contributions
56,494
58,543
61,227
70,926
77,056
81,737
86,858
92,403
5002
1 Employer Contributions
50,911
5003
Pension
7,567
7,981
8,276
8,211
9,662
9,941
10,253
10,563
5003
1 Pension
6,003
5008
Physicals
0
100
150
150
5011
1 Telephone/pager
5,190
5009
Travel, Trans. & Education
701
2,000
1,500
2,300
2,300
2,500
2,500
2,700
5012
1 Utilities
180,000
5010
Office Supplies
15,509
15,000
16,500
17,500
17,500
18,000
18,000
18,000
5013
1 Vehicle Maintenance
2,000
5011
Telephone/pager
7,787
8,187
8,190
8,190
8,380
8,380
8,380
8,400
5014
1 Gas & Oil
4,700
5012
Utilities
166,266
166,147
177,445
180,000
185,000
190,000
195,000
200,000
5041
1 Equipment Rental
1,000
5013
Vehicle Maintenance
2,881
3,000
3,000
3,300
3,500
3,500
3,700
3,900
5057
1 Repair, Maint. & Supplies
7,800
8,000
8,200
5060
1 Chemicals
5014
Gas & Oil
6,290
7,250
6,500
7,400
7,500
5015
Insurance
33,965
40,000
38,140
40,000
40,000
41,000
41,000
42,000
5084
1 Skid Steer (w,ww,sts,d)
5016
Refund
0
0
5108
1 Lab Tests
9,531
5018
Publications
45
0
100
150
150
170
180
190
5109
1 Generator Maintenance
5020
Professional Fees
18,494
14,000
20,000
20,000
22,000
22,000
24,000
24,000
5114
1 Sludge Hauling
20,000
5039
Dues
1,387
2,450
2,450
2,450
2,450
2,450
2,450
2,450
5116
1 Lab Equipment
5040
Attorney
30,598
5,000
6,000
5,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
5130
1 Electric Maintenance
5041
Equipment Rental
0
1,500
1,000
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
5182
1 Repair & Calibration-Lab Equip.
5046
Uniforms
613
1,000
300
600
300
600
300
600
5214
1 Computer Maint/replacement
5048
Safety
0
500
500
800
600
600
600
600
5283
1 Replace UV Bulb Bank
5057
Repair, Maint. & Supplies
35,804
41,000
37,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
44,000
28,000
28,000
30,000
31,000
30,000
33,000
34,000 SERENITY RIDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
5060
Chemicals
12,950
5084
Skid Steer (w,ww,sts,d)
2,622
2,623
2,623
0
5001
2 Salaries
1,886
5090
Audit
5,143
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
5002
811
5099
Capital Outlay
0
5003
2 Pension
94
5107
Transfer to General Fund
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
5011
2 Telephone
5108
Lab Tests
5,686
5,000
9,531
9,531
9,531
9,531
9,531
9,531
5012
2 Utilities
5109
Generator Maintenance
0
5,000
5,000
0
6,000
0
6,500
0
5014
2 Gas & Oil
5110
Plant Permit
7,499
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
5057
2 Repair, Maint. & Supplies
5111
Sewer Incidents
209
5,000
8,460
8,000
8,000
8,000
10,000
10,000
5060
2 Chemicals
30,000
5114
Sludge Hauling
26,226
25,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
25,000
25,000
27,000
5108
2 Lab Tests
5115
Operating Reserve Account
0
0
5109
2 Generator Maintenance
5116
Lab Equipment
2,833
2,500
2,000
0
5116
2 Lab Equipment
5129
Lift Station Maint
1,899
30,000
33,533
20,000
20,000
20,000
25,000
25,000
5130
2 Electric Maintenance
5130
5138
5182
5189
5214
5233
5269
5271
5274
5283
5299
5231
5300
4
Electric Maintenance
T.V. Lines/Line Cleaning
Repair & Calibration-Lab Equip.
Development Review
Computer Maint/replacement
Transfer Bond Payments
Rate Study
Manhole & Line Repair
Bond Payment
Replace UV Bulb Bank
Flood Recovery
Software (Caselle)
Bank Fees
347
6,122
487
791
16,883
0
51,606
671,189
5,012
2,000
10,000
1,200
800
7,500
0
0
15,000
711,503
5,000
150
544
0
955
6,000
800
700
6,000
1,064
0
711,503
1,000
75,000
900
0
10,000
0
0
0
15,000
0
711,813
0
364,000
0
1,200
10,000
1,200
900
10,000
1,200
1,000
8,000
10,000
1,400
1,000
10,000
1,400
1,000
8,000
712,760
6,000
703,958
720,118
7,000
720,128
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
ask Mike
TOTAL O&M EXPENDITURES
NET REVENUE
COLLECTION
5001
3
5002
3
5003
3
5011
3
5012
3
5013
3
5014
3
5041
3
5057
3
5060
3
5108
3
5109
3
5111
3
5129
3
5130
3
5138
3
5271
3
SYSTEM
Salaries
Employer Contributions
Pension
Telephone/pager
Utilities
Vehicle Maintenance
Gas & Oil
Equipment Rental
Repair, Maint. & Supplies
Chemicals
Lab Tests
Generator Maintenance
Sewer Incidents
Lift Station Maint
Electric Maintenance
T.V. Lines/Line Cleaning
Manhole & Line Repair
GENERAL
5001
5002
5003
5008
5009
5010
5015
5016
5018
5020
5038
5039
5040
5046
5048
5090
5107
5110
5189
5231
5232
5262
5269
5273
5274
5284
5299
5300
ADMINISTRATION
4 Salaries
4 Pension
4 Physicals
4 Travel, Trans. & Education
4 Office Supplies
4 Insurance
4 Refunds
4 Publications
4 Professional Fees
4 Miscellaneous Expense
4 Dues
4 Attorney
4 Uniforms
4 Safety
4 Audit
4 Transfer to General Fund
4 Plant Permit
4 Development Review
4 Software (Caselle): maintenance
4 2006 Bond Refinance (97)
4 State Revolv. Loan ('02 & '04)
4 Rate Study
4 Bond Payment (2007)
4 Bond Payment (2012)
4 Transfer to WWCI
4 Flood Recovery
4 Bank Fees
UTILITY
5001
5002
5003
5010
5214
BILLING
5 Salaries
5 Pension
5 Computer Maintenance
5 Office
22,226
9,368
1,111
3,000
1,300
2,700
500
40,000
8,000
20,000
10,000
12,154
5,282
304
150
2,300
17,500
40,000
150
20,000
2,450
5,000
600
800
7,500
100,000
8,000
176,583
15,000
24,080
511,150
364,000
1,200
13,970
4,555
699
1,463,175
1,505,922
1,581,420
1,883,816
1,560,218
1,561,394
1,612,033
1,632,516
TOTAL O&M EXPENDITURES
1,883,816
948,409
1,085,595
2,409,920
2,394,429
1,747,046
1,873,755
1,707,706
1,770,193
NET REVENUE
2,394,429
CAPTIAL PROJECTS
Vac Truck Dumping Station
Line Rehab and Manhole
Bruce & Capitol Drine Line replacement
New Headworks Building
Plant Improvements
197,249
Hillsdale Lift station decommissioning
10th Street & Franklin replacement
New Centrifuge Scroll
Cedar, Elm Buyan replacement & rehab
0
65,000
200,000
47,000
55,000
55,000
50,000
50,000
CAPTIAL PROJECTS
Vac Truck Dumping Station
lIne Rehab and Man hole
Bruce & Capitol Drine Line replacement
65,000
200,000
250,000
390,300
798,039
Plant Improvements
798,039
150,000
180,000
77,000
250,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
197,249
0
390,300
1,063,039
282,000
532,000
300,000
50,000
ENDING FUND BALANCE
751,160
1,085,595
2,019,620
1,331,389
1,465,046
1,341,755
1,407,706
1,720,193
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
1,063,039
ENDING FUND BALANCE
1,331,389
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
BUDGET YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014
PROPOSED COST CENTER
BUDGET
2014
WASTEWATER PLANT & COLLECTION SYSTEM
CAPITAL FACILITY FUND (Cash Basis)
24-00
4999
106,171
2,411,457
ACTUAL
2012
BUDGET
2013
System Investment Fees
Bond Revenue 2012
Transfer from WW
Biosolids study grant
Interest
244,346
2,178,000
625,500
2,000
11,557
352,699
0
0
0
2,000
TOTAL REVENUE
2,435,903
354,699
ESTIMATED REVENUES
4412
4426
4427
4601
2,411,457
1,423,068
ESTIMATE BUDGET
2013
2014
1,521,075
BUDGET
2015
2,160,475
BUDGET
2016
875,700
12,000
688,050
0
0
0
13,000
781,875
14,000
14,000
637,500
701,050
889,700
795,875
2,661,050
BUDGET
2017
813,150
2,988,400
BUDGET
2018
4999
1,423,068
ESTIMATED REVENUES
938,250
4412
0
14,500
15,000
4426
4427
4601
0
0
0
827,650
953,250
System Investment Fees
Bond Revenue 2012
Transfer from WW
Biosolids study grant
Interest
TOTAL REVENUE
688,050
13,000
701,050
SUBTOTAL REVENUE
2,542,074 2,766,156
3,048,957
2,124,118
2,410,775
2,956,350
3,488,700
3,941,650 SUBTOTAL REVENUE
2,124,118
===========================================================================================================================================================================
5133
5138
5273
5278
5300
4
Line replacement (CIPP)
0
Line replacement: 4& 5th
3,562
WW Master Plan Update
WW Impact Fee improve WW System
New Centrifuge
SUPPLEMENTAL Impact Fee Study
Transfer bond proceeds to O&M
Campion Line upgrad
Plant Improvements
126,839
Bank Fees
216
100,000
156,000
0
56,000
180,000
0
0
5133
1,828,000
350
0
300
602,693
350
300
300
300
300
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
130,617
2,088,350
1,625,889
603,043
250,300
295,300
500,300
300
ENDING FUND BALANCE
2,411,457
677,806
1,423,068
1,521,075
2,160,475
2,661,050
2,988,400
3,941,350
ENDING FUND BALANCE
1,521,075
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND FU
2,542,074
2,766,156
3,048,957
2,124,118
2,410,775
2,956,350
3,488,700
3,941,650
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
2,124,118
45,000
5138
250,000
5273
0
Line replacement (cipp)
New Centrifuge
Line Replacement: 4th & 5th St
250,000
0
4,000
WW Master Plan
4,000
1,385,589
500,000
5274
5278
5300
4
0
Biosolids Study
Plant Improvements
Bank Fees
602,693
350
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
603,043

Berthoud Utility Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Poly-Trace™ Capabilities

[Press Kit]Anna Farrow 2016-ANNA.EN

seasonal impacts on small community wastewater treatment systems

Berthoud High School - Thompson School District

June 2016 web_alt

Ayder Hospital at Mekelle University, Ethiopia

Quilt show trifold 2015.indd - Berthoud Area Chamber of Commerce

SelectTN -Technology Park II at Holston Army Ammunition Plant

Presentation – USCG TRACEN Wastewater Facilities

US Highway 40 - Clear Creek County