THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY · TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ... because of years of flat...

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

1 2 5 92 W E S T E X P L OR E R D R I VE , S U IT E 2 0 0 • B OI S E , IDA H O 8 3 71 3 • ( 2 08 ) 3 76 - 2 28 8 • F A X ( 2 08 ) 37 6 - 2 2 5 1 H:\Cl ien t \Hai ley \Execut ive Summary\Execut ive_Summary .doc

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL February 2012

February 2012 ES-i H:\Client\Hailey\Executive Summary\Executive_Summary.doc

CITY OF HAILEY

WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. 1

FACILITY PLAN ORGANIZATION ......................................................................................... 2

SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION .................................................................................... 2 Flow Projections and Pollutant Loading .................................................................... 3 Water Quality Standards ........................................................................................... 3 Projected Effluent Discharge Requirements.............................................................. 3 Water Quality and TMDL Development ..................................................................... 4

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM .............................................................................. 5 Collection System Capacity & Expansions ................................................................ 5 Collection System Condition Assessment ................................................................. 9

EXISTING WOODSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ........................................... 9 WWTP Capacity Evaluation ...................................................................................... 9 WWTP Condition Assessment ................................................................................ 10 Woodside WWTP Optimization ............................................................................... 10

WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS AND EXPANSION ................................ 11

PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................... 18 Implementation, Financing and User Rates ............................................................ 18 Schedule and Phasing ............................................................................................ 19 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (TM 2) ............................................. 20 Wastewater Collection System Expansion (TM 2) .................................................. 20 Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation (TM 3) ................................................. 20 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion (TM 4) ................................ 21

ES-ii February 2012

LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 ALT 5 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Two-

Stage Tertiary Filtration .................................................................................. 16 Table ES.2 Alternative Life Cycle Costs ........................................................................... 17 Table ES.3 Priority Capital Improvements ........................................................................ 18 Table ES.4 Monthly User Charge and Connection Fee .................................................... 19 Table ES.5 Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Requirements ...................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 Wastewater Collection System Service Area ............................................... 7 Figure ES.2 ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration .......................................... 13 Figure ES.3 SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration ...................................................... 15 Figure ES.4 Capital Improvement Implementation Requirements TMDL Compliance ... 24

February 2012 ES-1

City of Hailey – Wastewater Facility Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PURPOSE

This Wastewater Facility Plan provides revised population projections for the City of Hailey, that consider the current service area and the surrounding area of impact. The available capacity in the wastewater collection and treatment system was evaluated against the revised population projections. Alternatives for system improvements were developed to provide reliable and appropriate collection and treatment facilities through the 20-year planning period.

The City of Hailey previously completed a Wastewater Facility Plan in 1997, recommending the upgrade and expansion of the Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which began operation in 2000.

The primary reason for this Wastewater Facility Plan update is to determine the best compliance strategy for the City to meet the water quality standards in the Big Wood River. The State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) completed the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan in 2001, which defined the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Big Wood River. The TMDL defines the allowable pollutants the City can discharge from the Woodside WWTP to the Big Wood River to maintain water quality standards.

The City was awarded a Wastewater Planning Grant from the State of Idaho DEQ to update the Facility Plan. The grant covers up to fifty percent of eligible planning costs, and the City provides a fifty-percent matching share. Grants are offered to the highest priority projects that will most significantly improve waters of the State and protect public health.

The objectives of the City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan are to:

Identify wastewater flow and pollutant loadings projected for the next 20 years.

Assess the condition of the wastewater collection system, and lift stations.

Evaluate the capacity in the collection system to accommodate growth projections for the next 20 years.

Assess the conditions of the Woodside WWTP and identify priority improvements

Establish Woodside WWTP operation and maintenance requirements through the next 20 years.

Evaluate the capacity of the existing Woodside WWTP facilities to accommodate the projected flows and loading to meet stringent discharge standards defined by the TMDL for the Big Wood River.

ES-2 February 2012

Evaluate treatment alternatives to meet the updated discharge standards defined by the TMDL and the ability accommodates growth projections.

Compare wastewater alternatives and recommend the preferred option.

Identify capital improvement needs with implementation and phasing options, based on regulatory requirements and growth projections.

Present financing options for completing the capital improvements identified.

Determine the financial impact of the capital improvements on the City’s user rates.

The economic recession that began in 2008 significantly altered the development and growth within the service area. In 2012, the Facility Plan was updated with revised population and flow projections, which also resulted in a revision of the recommended priority improvements because of years of flat growth and anticipated slower growth in the near future.

FACILITY PLAN ORGANIZATION

The Facility Plan is made up from a series of detailed Technical Memoranda (TM), compiled into this final report. The organization of the Facility Plan includes the following TMs:

Technical Memorandum No. 1 - Service Area

Technical Memorandum No. 2 - Wastewater Collection System

Technical Memorandum No. 3 - Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Technical Memorandum No. 4 - Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

Technical Memorandum No. 5 - Financial Plan

Technical Memorandum No. 6 - Environmental Information Document

SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION

The wastewater collection system in the City of Hailey is currently serving a population of approximately 7,960 people, or approximately 3,085 customer connections. Population projections were estimated using average annual growth rates between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent, based on historical records and trends from 1990 through 2005. Over the 20-year planning period, the wastewater service area is projected to have a population of approximately 13,411 from infill within the City limits.

Expansion outside of the current City limits might continue in the future, mainly in Quigley Canyon and Croy Canyon. Future population projections could reach approximately 31,000 people assuming the full development or “build-out” in the City area of impact. Development and service requirements for the build-out area are beyond the 20-year planning period and are not covered in this Facility Plan.

February 2012 ES-3

Flow Projections and Pollutant Loading

The WWTP currently treats an average daily flow of 630,000 gallons per day. Historical data indicate that residential customers generates approximately 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd) of wastewater, which was used for flow projections. The 20-year planning period growth projections predict the average daily flow for the wastewater collection and treatment system will reach 1.14 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition, the influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading is 0.19 pounds per capita day (ppcd) and total suspended solids (TSS) is 0.16 ppcd, which are typical values expected for domestic wastewater. The monthly average influent WWTP loadings are projected to be 2,548 pounds per day (lbs/day) of BOD, and 2,146 lbs/day of TSS by the end of the 20-year planning period.

Water Quality Standards

The Big Wood River was classified by IDEQ as an “impaired water body,” and named on the State 303 (d) list, as required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In response, Idaho DEQ completed the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, which was submitted and approved by the EPA in May 15, 2002. The Big Wood River Management Plan defined the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is the level of point source and non-point source pollutants that can be discharged in the Big Wood River without impacting water quality.

The Big Wood River is required to sustain the following beneficial uses:

Cold Water Aquatic Life (CW)

Salmonid Spawning (SS)

Primary Contact Recreation (PC)

Special Resource Water (SR)

Drinking Water Supply (DW)

The Big Wood River carries the designation as “Special Resource Waters” which identifies the unique ecologic and aesthetic value of the watershed.

Projected Effluent Discharge Requirements

The TMDL defined waste load allocations (WLA) for total phosphorus (TP) and TSS, as the most critical pollutants, defined in units of pounds per day (lbs/day). The TMDL limits the TP discharge to 5.20 lbs/day, which is a significant reduction from the 15.0 lbs/day TP limit in the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. Currently, the Woodside WWTP discharges an average of 5.60 lbs/day TP, which will not comply with the TMDL.

ES-4 February 2012

The TSS waste load allocation in the TMDL is defined as 3.3 tons per year, which is equivalent to an average of 18 lbs/day at a continuous discharge. The TMDL waste load allocation is a significant reduction from the current limit of 94 lbs/day TSS in the existing NPDES permit. The existing WWTP discharge averages 15 lbs/day TSS at the current effluent flow rate of 0.63 mgd.

At the projected maximum month average day flow of 1.25 mgd for the planning period, effluent TSS concentrations must be less than 1.9 mg/L to remain below the 18 lbs/day TSS waste load allocation, which will require very effective. The existing filters produce effluent with average TSS concentrations of 3 mg/L, which will not comply with the TMDL when future flows exceed 0.6 mgd.

IDEQ determined that the pollutant loadings in this segment of the Big Wood River were predominantly from point-source discharges, which are the municipal wastewater treatment plants. Additionally, IDEQ identified there is limited capacity for future growth in the waste load allocation. This means the defined mass discharge limit in ‘pounds per day’, would serve as the absolute limit. As growth occurs and effluent flow increases, higher treatment efficiency will be needed to reduce the effluent pollutants to remain below the defined mass loading limits.

Water Quality and TMDL Development

The City of Hailey must adopt an implementation strategy to comply with the water quality standards of the Big Wood River. The implementation plan is a coordinated agreement with IDEQ and the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) representing the stakeholders, along with EPA and the NPDES permit. As of this date, the City’s implementation strategy has not been finalized due to several variables and questions in the TMDL development and the possible NPDES permit limits.

The 2001 Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan recommended additional water quality monitoring to address “data gaps” in the TMDL analysis. IDEQ Twin Falls Regional Office, in cooperation with Hailey, Ketchum, and the Meadows, collected additional ambient water quality data and effluent data in 2002 and 2003. IDEQ compiled the data and returned the Draft - Preliminary to Public Comment Document, Post-TMDL Assessment of the Big Wood River (Segment 2) for the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, in October 2003.

The City met with IDEQ in January 2009 and requested the TMDL be re-opened to allow for addition of the Post-TMDL water quality data, and to review of the appropriate waste load allocation for Hailey. Re-opening the TMDL must be coordinated with the WAG, and the other municipal point-source dischargers in the Big Wood River.

Review of the TMDL and the corrective actions to meet water quality standards will be an on-going process for the City until all of the designated beneficial uses in the Big Wood River are met. When water quality is restored, the IDEQ will remove the Big Wood River from the State 303 (d) list of impaired waters.

February 2012 ES-5

The EPA will define the NPDES permit discharge limits from the TMDL. As of this date, the discharge requirements remain to be defined with EPA with the implementation schedule. The City anticipates negotiations with IDEQ and EPA to establish an acceptable implementation plan to meet water quality standards.

IDEQ stated that the purpose of the Post-TMDL report was to “secure wasteload allocations for the point source discharges that were reflective of economic growth, with appropriate discharge limits in the NPDES permits that will protect the Big Wood River”. If approved by EPA, the waste load allocations in the 2003 Post-TMDL define higher TSS and TP mass loading limits. In comparison, (draft) Post-TMDL recommended TSS limit as 240% and the TP limit as 160% of the approved TMDL limits. The capital improvement requirements depend on the developments of the TMDL with the Post-TMDL water quality monitoring data.

The priority capital improvements in this Facility Plan are based on meeting the waste load allocation in the approved (2001) TMDL. However, the needed improvements and the schedule to upgrade the existing Woodside WWTP change significantly with the revised waste load allocations proposed by the Post-TMDL. The City must establish the final implementation strategy using the accepted waste load allocations and compliance schedule as agreed with IDEQ, the WAG and the EPA NPDES permit.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

The wastewater collection system in the City of Hailey consists of approximately 44 miles of sewers, ranging in size from 8-inches up to 21-inches, and serves customers within the City limits. The collection system operates in two regions, which were established from the City’s original two separate treatment plants at Riverside and Woodside. Customers on the eastern side of the City are served by the gravity Woodside Trunk Sewer. The former Riverside treatment plant was converted into a pump station in 2000. Flows from the northern and western side of the City are collected by gravity and discharge to the Riverside Pump Station, where they are pumped through a pressure sewer under State Highway 75 to the Woodside WWTP. The wastewater collection system and the City service area are shown in Figure ES.1.

Collection System Capacity & Expansions

The updated operating records used in this study found the typical wastewater flow contribution in Hailey is 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd). The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller) reported the typical flow contribution ranged from 119 to 128 gpcd. The City’s collection system maintenance and repair program has removed the most significant infiltration and inflow (I/I) sources, which has effectively restored previously unavailable pipeline capacity.

The Woodside Trunk sewer, covering the eastern side of the City, has capacity for approximately 1.62 mgd at peak hour flow, which is equivalent to approximately 2,280 residential customers, based on 2.58 persons per residential connection. Review of the

ES-6 February 2012

City zoning maps and plot plans identified approximately 1,923 equivalent residential lots are tributary to the Woodside trunk, leaving a small margin of reserve capacity of not more than approximately 359 additional residential customers.

The 10-inch diameter section of the Woodside Trunk at Countryside Boulevard has the least available capacity. The customers in this part of the service area currently use approximately 72 percent of the available capacity at peak hour flow, allowing for approximately 196 additional residential customers before reaching the maximum capacity of this segment. Connection of more than approximately 200 additional customers in the northern segments of the Woodside trunk potentially can surcharge this 10-inch section of pipe.

An additional constraint in this reach of the collection system is a 6-inch service line to the Wood River High School. The City reports this line has limited capacity and is not accessible for maintenance. Construction costs are estimated as $183,700, to relocate and replace the High School service line with an 8-inch sewer on Fox Acres Road.

For long range planning, the 8-inch and 10-inch segments of the Woodside Trunk sewer will need to be enlarged to 12-inch and 15-inch diameters respectively, to provide additional capacity for high-density infill development of more than 200 additional customers. To bring in new customers from the area of impact outside of the current City limits new interceptor sewers along the bike path should e considered and evaluated.

All flows from the northern and western side of the City discharge to the Riverside Pump Station. The pumps discharge into a 10-inch diameter pressure sewer that conveys flows to the Woodside WWTP. The 10-inch forcemain is the capacity-limiting component for this basin. The Riverside Pump Station can accept approximately 800 new residential customers, within the practical limits of pump horsepower through this size forcemain.

The Airport Way Pump Station discharges into the Riverside forcemain. The Airport Way pumps do not have sufficient discharge pressure in the current configuration. Larger pumps must be installed with addition of a standby power generator, and control modifications. Construction costs to upgrade the Airport Way Pump Station are estimated as $229,900. The power supply to the pump station is currently 120 volt, single-phase service. The utility connection will likely require an upgrade to 480V, three-phase power for larger more efficient pumps, which is not included in the above conceptual costs.

The area of impact outside the current City limits and development of the Friedman Memorial Airport has potential to add 3,000 to 5,000 residential customers. The existing collection system does not have adequate capacity to extend the service area and accept these new customers. For long-range capacity and to service the area of impact the collection system will require new interceptor sewers and possible expansion of the Woodside Trunk to the Woodside WWTP. Upgrades of the Riverside and the Cedar Street Pump Stations are also necessary to accommodate future capacity outside the service area.

BIG WOOD RIVER

Woodside WWTP

Figure ES.1Wastewater Collection System Service Area

WASTEWATER FACILITY PLANCITY OF HAILEY

February 2012 ES-9

Collection system expansion to serve new customers outside the City limits or for long-range forecasts beyond the 20-year planning period is not included in the capital improvements.

The long-rang expansion of the collection system to serve future customers and cover the area of impact must be coordinated with potential future development around all sides of the City. The costs to expand the system outside of the City limits would also be the responsibility of the future customers.

Collection System Condition Assessment

In general, the wastewater collection system is in good structural condition. A total of 30 high-priority defects were found during the City’s closed circuit television (CCTV) inspections, which include cracks, holes, offset joints, and root intrusion. The defects can be corrected by spot repairs or replacing short sections of pipe. The total estimated project costs of repairs and rehabilitation are approximately $881,200, which can be phased over a five-year period.

EXISTING WOODSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

The existing Woodside WWTP for the City of Hailey is located in the southeastern area of the City, on Glenbrook Drive. The facility was initially constructed in 1974, with an expansion and upgrade in 2000.

The existing Woodside WWTP includes raw sewage pumping, screening, and grit removal for preliminary treatment. The secondary treatment process utilizes the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process, provided in two equal basins. Effluent from the SBR is retained in a common equalization tank, where it is pumped to cloth-disc filters. The effluent is disinfected by ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection, and flows by gravity to an outfall diffuser in the Big Wood River.

The original 1974 Woodside Treatment Plant is a fabricated steel package plant, which is currently used as an aerobic digester, sludge thickener, and an aerated sludge-holding tank. Liquid biosolids are transported by tanker truck to the Blaine County Landfill north of the City in Ohio Gulch. The biosolids are discharged to drying beds and allowed to air dry, and are finally disposed of in the landfill.

WWTP Capacity Evaluation

The effluent mass loading limits in the existing NPDES permit are based on WWTP reported design capacity of 1.6 mgd for the annual average flow. The SBR process is divided into two equal basins. If maintenance is required in one of the basins, treatment is restricted to one remaining basin and flows must be retained in the batch tank while the single SBR completes the treatment cycles. The inlet batch tank and the one SBR basin volume can only treat approximately 0.70 mgd, if one basin is out of service for maintenance.

ES-10 February 2012

The City would likely violate the NPDES limits with treatment in one SBR basin. Therefore, the “firm capacity” of the existing WWTP is considered to be 0.70 mgd, limited by the maintenance condition of the SBR.

A third SBR basin should be added as soon as practical to provide redundancy. After the expansion, normal operation will treat flows with all three basins in service. To facilitate inspection and maintenance, one SBR basin can be removed from service while the remaining two basins provide the required treatment cycles and retention time to meet the permit limits. The two existing basins have never been drained or taken out of service since the original date of operation in 2000. The manufacturer recommends annual inspection and cleaning of the submerged equipment.

Estimated project construction costs to expand the third SBR basin and enlarge the effluent equalization basin are estimated as $5,572,400. Total project costs including engineering design, construction inspection, and project administration fees are estimated as $6,966,000.

Wastewater flows are projected to reach an annual average flow of 1.14 mgd in the service area within the next 20-years with a low annual growth rate of 1.5% for the next five years followed by an average annual growth rate of 3.5% per year thereafter until 2028. With continued growth, the Woodside WWTP treatment capacity must also be expanded with a fourth SBR basin to accommodate future flows greater than 1.4 mgd and provide process redundancy.

WWTP Condition Assessment

The capital assets at the Woodside WWTP were reviewed to identify repair, rehabilitation and replacement requirements to sustain operations and comply with the NPDES permit over the 20-year planning period. The highest priority projects will cost approximately $450,500 and should be scheduled for completion within five years. The most significant issue identified is the replacement of the aerobic digester due to corrosion of the steel tank and structural cracks in the associated FRP cover. Priority rehabilitation and replacement costs for the WWTP will incur an estimated cost of $319,000 over the next 10 to 15 years.

Woodside WWTP Optimization

The existing Woodside WWTP will require improvements to comply with very stringent waste load allocations for TSS and TP in the TMDL for the Big Wood River. The WWTP currently discharges an average of 5.6 lbs/day TP, which exceeds the TMDL waste load allocation of 5.2 lbs/day. The current TSS discharge is 15.6 lbs/day, which is very close to the TSS waste load allocation of 18 lbs/day.

Effluent quality from the existing Woodside WWTP can be improved with addition of coagulating chemicals to increase both TP and TSS removal efficiency. The original WWTP construction included a Chemical Room with chemical storage and feed facilities. However, plant staff reported that installation of the equipment was not completed under the construction

February 2012 ES-11

contract and operator training was never provided. The City has maintained compliance with the existing permit limits without chemical addition, so the facilities have never been used.

The existing chemical feed equipment requires a more through investigation to assess if the components can be used to improve treatment. The conceptual costs for new chemical feed equipment are estimated as $115,000, assuming the existing facilities cannot be used. Annual costs for chemical feed at the current WWTP flow are estimated between $60,000 and $90,000 per year, to meet the TMDL waste load allocation.

Two basins for effluent filters were constructed in the existing Process Building, but the cloth disc filter equipment was only installed in one. The second bank of cloth disc filter equipment is needed to improve treatment efficiency, and to provide redundancy for maintenance. Conceptual construction costs to add the second module of cloth disc filters are $654,400.

With chemical addition and improved effluent filtration, treatment efficiency is projected to reduce effluent TSS and TP by approximately 30%. With improved operating efficiency, the existing Woodside WWTP will remain below the TMDL waste load allocation until approximately 2020 based on average growth.

The Post-TMDL reported possible waste load allocations of 44 lbs/day (8 tons/year) TSS and 8.6 lbs/days TP for the City of Hailey. The effluent quality from the existing Woodside WWTP will remain below the Post-TMDL limits until approximately year 2020 without the need for supplemental chemical addition.

Optimization of the existing Woodside WWTP with chemical addition and cloth disc filter improvements will reduce the pollutant loading to the Big Wood River. These minor improvements can be provided as interim compliance measures while the City, IDEQ, and EPA review the water quality data, and develop a long-range TMDL compliance plan.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS AND EXPANSION

The approved TMDL requires pollutant reduction measures to reduce effluent TSS and TP concentrations that cannot be achieved by the existing Woodside WWTP. In addition, the capacity of the current SBR facilities must be expanded to treat the projected flows for the growing population.

Five treatment alternatives were developed and reviewed to reach low discharge limits for TSS and TP and comply with the TMDL:

ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: This alternative includes: Raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, three-basin sequencing batch reactor (SBR), flow equalization, chemical conditioning and ballasted-flocculation solids contact clarifiers, ahead of (existing) cloth-disc filters and UV disinfection.

ES-12 February 2012

ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: This alternative includes: Raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, conventional flow-through aeration basins and secondary clarification, with the use of solids contact clarifiers ahead of (existing) cloth disc filters, and UV disinfection.

ALT 3 - Membrane Bio Reactor, (MBR): This alternative includes: Raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, fine screening, MBR (activated sludge with micro-filtration membrane separation), and UV disinfection.

ALT 4 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Tertiary Membrane Filtration: This alternative includes: Raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, fine screening, three-basin SBR, chemical addition, micro-filtration membranes, and UV disinfection.

ALT 5 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration: This alternative includes: Raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, three-basin SBR, flow equalization, chemical conditioning and two-stage upflow sand filters in series, and UV disinfection.

All of the alternatives were reviewed and screened to identify the most feasible options. ALT 2, conversion of the SBR to conventional flow-through activated sludge was the least feasible alternative due to high construction costs, and was eliminated through the initial screening process. TM 4 evaluated and compared the four remaining treatment alternatives using total life-cycle costs, as well as other non-monetary operational considerations.

The alternative that provides the greatest overall benefit is ALT 5, expansion of the SBR process with addition of two-stage tertiary filtration using continuously backwashing, upflow sand filters. This alternative utilizes proven conventional filtration technologies, and is readily adaptable into the existing treatment process. The process flow diagram is shown in Figure ES.2. Figure ES.3 shows the site improvements in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP. The chemical feed and filtration facilities in this alternative will be enclosed in a new building similar to the existing Process Building.

As noted, the existing two-basin SBR process should be expanded with a third basin for redundancy and added capacity. Adding the third SBR basin will permit any one basin to be taken out of service for inspection and repairs, with the remaining two operating basins able to comply with the discharge requirements.

New biosolids stabilization tank with a dewatering building is needed to replace the existing deteriorated package plant. Construction costs for the new biosolids facilities are estimated as $2,225,900.

Figure ES.2ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration


RiversidePump Station

WoodsidePump Station

MechanicalBar Screen

WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin

SBR1BatchTank SBR2 Ultraviolet

Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

Backwash Return to Headworks

(Future)

Equalization Basin 2

SBR3SBR4

(Future)

PolymerIn-LineMixer

Rapid Mix

Lamella GravityPlate Separator

Solids to Digester

UV (future)

Backwash Recovery

Two-StageSand Filters

Chem

ical F

eed

Figure ES.3SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration


SBR 3

SBR 4(future)

Equalization 2

BiosolidsStorage

Tank

Thickening orDewatering

Building

Two-StageFilter Building

(future)

(future)

New cloth filters andchemical storage and

feed equipment

Future

ES-16 February 2012

Future expansion to add the fourth SBR will be required when influent flows reach approximately 1.4 mgd. At that time, if one of the three basins is out of service, the two remaining basins cannot accommodate the influent flows and meet the permit. Three basins must be in service at all times to meet the permit. The fourth basin provides redundancy and flexibility to perform maintenance, and adds capacity sufficient to treat future flows.

The probable construction costs of the 20-year improvements to expand and modify the WWTP are listed in Table ES.1, with the projected annual operation and maintenance costs. The life-cycle costs of the four feasible treatment alternatives are presented in Table ES.2.

Table ES.1 ALT 5 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Item Estimated Construction Cost(1)

3rd SBR Basin & Equalization Tank $5,572,400 Biosolids Stabilization and Dewatering $2,225,900 4th SBR Basin (future) $1,696,500 Two-Stage Tertiary Sand Filters (future) $6,099,900

Total Construction Cost (2008 Dollars) $15,594,700

Annual O&M Annual Cost

Power $218,800 Maintenance $142,100 Chemicals - Tertiary Filtration $121,600 Biosolids $54,500

Total Annual O&M Costs $537,000 Note: 1. Construction Costs in 2008 dollars. Estimates do not include project costs for engineering, legal, administration, easements, taxes, or

escalation to mid-point of construction.

February 2012 ES-17

Table ES.2 Alternative Life Cycle Costs Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Item

ALT 1 SBR Expansion

Contacting Clarifiers Tertiary

Filtration

ALT 3 MBR

Membrane Bio-Reactor

ALT 4 SBR Expansion

Membrane Tertiary

Filtration

ALT 5 SBR

Expansion Two-stage

Tertiary Filtration

Construction Cost $12,704,200 $12,823,100 $15,375,900 $13,368,800

Total Project Cost1 $15,753,200 $16,028,900 $19,219,900 $16,711,000

Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost2

$1,250,700 $1,272,500 $1,525,900 $1,326,700

Annual O&M $491,300 $611,500 $501,000 $482,500

Total Uniform Annual Cost3

$1,742,000 $1,884,000 $2,026,900 $1,809,200

Notes: 1. 25% Project cost factor for engineering, construction administration, and legal. 2. Amortized Capital Costs 20 years, 4.875% interest. 3. Uniform equivalent annual cost for 20-year planning period, including capital, operation and

maintenance.

The recommended treatment alternative is ALT 5, Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration. The effluent quality from the existing cloth disc filters at the Woodside WWTP shows this type filter may not be able to consistently meet the strict effluent requirements for low TSS concentrations required by the TMDL. ALT 1 is therefore not technically feasible. ALT 5 provides more efficient two-stage upflow sand filters, which are capable of meeting the very low treatment limits for TP and TSS defined by the TMDL.

The differences in the total life-cycle cost between the four candidate alternatives is less than 10%, so there is not a significant cost justification for the recommended alternative. If desired, the City can visit and review operating treatment facilities with conventional filtration or membrane processes to develop a more thorough understanding of the technologies. The water quality benefits, operational needs, and long-term equipment replacement requirements can be reviewed to confirm the assumptions in the Wastewater Facility Plan. The City can also investigate and undertake pilot testing programs to develop more thorough hands-on and site-specific experience with the desired process technology.

The biosolids stabilization facilities are the same for all the alternatives so are not included in the life-cycle comparison.

ES-18 February 2012

The design criteria for the ultimate build-out of the service area were developed to determine if future WWTP components could fit on the existing City property. The current site appears to be large enough to accommodate the ultimate future development to treat an average flow of 2.65 mgd, with four SBR basins and two-stage effluent filtration.

PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Implementation, Financing and User Rates

Sewer defect repairs and the smaller short-term collection system improvements are anticipated to be funded with the current wastewater reserve funds. Repair of the high priority sewer defects should be scheduled within the next five years.

Expansion of the Woodside Trunk sewer is needed to serve new customers connecting from outside the City limits in the area of impact. The pipeline expansion alternatives should be evaluated under separate development and financing methods, supported by the future customers.

The highest priority WWTP capital improvements, which should be completed within the next three to four years are listed in Table ES.3. If interim chemical treatment and filtration upgrades successfully reduce effluent TP and TSS, the advanced filtration improvements could possibly be deferred for approximately 10 to 20 years, depending on growth. The third SBR Basin and Equalization Basin can probably be deferred for eight to ten years depending on actual growth rates.

Table ES.3 Priority Capital Improvements Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Item Estimated

Construction Cost 1,2

Woodside Treatment Plant equipment repair and replacement $450,000

Cloth Disc Filter Expansion and Chemical Feed Facilities (115,000) $769,000

Aerated Sludge Holding Tank and Thickening or Dewatering $2,226,000

Total $3,445,000 Notes: 1. All costs estimated in 2008 dollars. 2. Construction costs, do not include engineering, inspection, legal or administration.

February 2012 ES-19

Optimization of the Woodside WWTP is predicted to maintain water quality required by the TMDL until after 2020. It appears that the alternatives for two-stage effluent filtration can be deferred until that time. Development of the TMDL and the final waste load allocations will establish the final capital improvements and schedule for the City of Hailey.

The projected user fees and connection costs to finance the priority capital improvements are summarized in Table ES.4, estimated to be completed in 2020.

Table ES.4 Estimated Monthly User Charge and Connection Fee Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Component Monthly Cost1

Total Bond Retirement Cost (2000 WWTP + 2020 Improvements) $12.93

Operation and Maintenance $30.18

Total Monthly Cost $43.11

Estimated Connection Fee $3,407 Note: 1. Project costs amortized for 20 years at 3.25% interest.

The current wastewater user charges are approximately $38.00 per month for the average residential customer, which covers debt service on existing bonds and the monthly operation and maintenance. Estimated user costs are estimated to increase to $53.20 per month for the proposed priority upgrades.

User fee calculations are updated in further detail as the project scheduling and financing options develop. The City can apply to participate in the low interest loan program from the State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), State Revolving Loan Fund, which offered a 3.25% rate of interest in 2008. The interest rate is typically reviewed and updated annually. Participation in the SRLF with lower interest rates reduces the user monthly charges by approximately $2.50 (each month). Also, options may be available to refinance and reduce the current debt payments for the 2000 wastewater upgrades. The details of user rates and connection fees are presented in TM 5.

User charges will change again when additional upgrades are provided for the TMDL requirements. The user charge rates are estimated to reach approximately $60 per month to implement advanced filtration (ALT 5) that will meet the stringent TMDL.

Schedule and Phasing

The City’s current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit expired in June 2006. The City submitted the required application materials for renewal and EPA has

ES-20 February 2012

issued a Draft permit, which has not been finalized. EPA will use the TMDL load allocation to define the discharge standards in the next NPDES permit. If a change in treatment facilities is required, an implementation schedule is typically established in the permit, which is not known at this time. EPA has tentatively scheduled the updated NPDES permit for the City of Hailey to be drafted in the first quarter of 2012.

The existing Woodside WWTP is nearly at the discharge limits established by the TMDL. Optimization with chemical feed and addition of the second bank of cloth disc filters will reduce the pollutant discharges and allow the City to remain below the TMDL waste load allocations until after 2020. The interim compliance period allows the City time to work with IDEQ and EPA to re-open the TMDL and examine the appropriate waste load allocation.

The City should commence with the preliminary design phase for the recommended priority improvements. The capital improvements are based on the following assumptions and schedule milestones:

Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (TM 2)

The City should schedule sewer defect repairs with available resources as soon as practical, but not longer than over a 5-year period. If City staff are not available or capable of completing this work, they should be bid as a sewer rehabilitation project to be completed by a general contractor with appropriate experience.

The Airport Way pump station was identified as a priority project due to frequent maintenance requirements.

Wastewater Collection System Expansion (TM 2)

The existing 6-inch service line to the Wood River High School cannot be accessed for maintenance. The installation of a new 8-inch sewer on Fox Acres Road is needed for the current services, independent of future expansion considerations.

The Woodside Trunk Sewer is the capacity-limiting section of the collection system, but it currently does have capacity for approximately 200 new residential customers in the City limits.

There are many options to expand the Woodside Trunk Sewer and other collection system improvements for long-range future development, which is beyond the 20-year projections in this Facility Plan. Options to expand the collection system can be defined and reviewed in coordination with those future development proposals.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation (TM 3)

The City should review the WWTP rehabilitation and repair projects and identify the order of completion, the budget, and schedule for over the next 5 years (Category 2). The capital improvements plan lists all Category 2 repair projects in 2011.

February 2012 ES-21

Addition of the second bank of cloth disc filters is recommended as a priority to provide process redundancy and improve effluent quality, independent of the TMDL.

The chemical feed improvements will optimize the WWTP performance to maintain compliance with the TMDL and proposed NPDES permit limits.

If the TMDL is re-opened and the waste load allocation is revised, the chemical feed facilities and the associated annual operating costs can be deferred. For example, if the waste load allocation in the Post-TMDL is formally accepted, the existing WWTP will remain in compliance without chemical addition until after 2020.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion (TM 4)

The third redundant SBR basin is a priority project to provide process redundancy for permit compliance.

New biosolids stabilization tank and dewatering facilities are needed to replace the existing aerobic digester.

The schedule to complete filtration upgrades will ultimately be based on the final determination of waste load allocation from review of the TMDL, and the compliance schedule allowed by EPA to be defined in the updated NPDES permit.

The WWTP upgrades for advanced effluent filtration will not be needed until after 2020, assuming the chemical feed and cloth disc filter improvements successfully meet the NPDES permit limits. Without interim chemical feed facilities, design of the two-stage filtration upgrades will need to commence immediately to comply with the TMDL.

The projected capital improvements and costs over the 20-year planning period are shown in Table ES.5. The capital improvements scheduling may change depending on the population growth rate in the City and the final waste load allocation requirements of the TMDL. Table ES.5 is based on the average annual growth rate of approximately 2.5 percent and the approved TMDL. Different capital improvements scenarios can be developed with consideration of variable population growth and development of the TMDL waste load allocations. Capital improvement financing and scheduling is presented in TM 5.

A preliminary schedule of the priority capital improvements with the time to complete the design and construction phases is provided in Figure ES.4.

The ultimate the 20-year capital improvement plan in the Wastewater Facility Plan is contingent upon several concurrent factors that must be reviewed annually. The City should re-visit the wastewater utility needs based on periodic review of:

1. City population and wastewater flow.

2. Effluent pollutant loading to the Big Wood River.

ES-22 February 2012

3. TMDL water quality requirements and NPDES permit compliance.

4. Asset conditions, with anticipated rehabilitation and repairs.

Table 5.3.1 Summary of Wastewater Capital Improvement Requirements Wastewater Facility Plan City of HaileyCAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCENARIO 1 ASSUMPTIONS:

Average annual population growth rate in the service area by 2028 (See TM 1).Redundant cloth disc filters are added to optimize the Woodside WWTP in 2013Chemical feed facilities are added to optimize the Woodside WWTP in 2013New Biosolids stabilization and dewatering facilities included in priority improvements.Future WWTP tertiary filter upgrades to meet TMDL based on 2% average annual growth, to meet the approved (2001) TMDLWastewater collection system expansion costs are optional, to be coordinated and funded with development proposals outside the service area (TM2).

Item Present Worth 10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Big Wood Trunk Defect Repairs (Table 2.17A) $379,400 $470,456Misc Collection System Defect Repairs (2.17B) $386,900 $526,184Airport Pump Station Upgrades $229,900 $285,076High School Service Line $183,700 $227,788

Collection System Total Construction $1,179,900 $983,320 $526,184Engineering, Legal & Admin (15% to 25%) $199,975

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,379,900

Item Present Worth '10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Redundant Cloth Disc Filter Upgrade (TM 3) $654,000 $889,440Chemical Feed Facilities & Optimization (TM 3) $115,000 $156,400

Category 2 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.13) $470,500 $639,880Category 3 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.14) $144,000 $213,149Category 4 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.15) $175,000 $315,158

Existing Plant Capital Requirements $1,558,500 $1,685,720 $213,149 $315,158Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $389,625


Item Present Worth '10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 283rd SBR & Equalization Basin Expansion $5,572,400 $4,124,133 $4,460,706 4th SBR Basin Expansion $1,696,500 $4,512,690Tertiray Filter Addition for TMDL $6,099,900 $12,358,397Sludge Holding Tank and Dewatering $2,225,900 $1,647,389 $1,781,833

WWTP Upgrade & Expansion Costs $13,368,800 $4,124,133 $4,460,706 $12,358,397 $4,512,690Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $3,342,200


TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $16,107,200

Yearly Construction CostTotals $983,320 $2,211,904 $4,337,282 $4,460,706 $315,158 $12,358,397 $4,512,690

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $20,039,000 w/ Engineering, Legal, and AdministrationNotes:1. All costs estimated as 2008. Construction costs are inflated at 4 percent per year, to the year of construction.

Capital Improvements for Wastewater Collection System Repair & Rehabilitation (TM 2)YEAR

Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion & Upgrade (TM 4)YEAR

Capital Improvements for Existing WWTP (TM 3)YEAR

Task Name Start FinishWASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN AND PROJECTS Sat 1/1/11 Wed 8/12/26

Complete Review DRAFT Wastewater Facility Plan Sat 1/1/11 Fri 3/2/12

Public Meeting Wed 2/1/12 Fri 3/30/12

Environmental Information Document Mon 3/5/12 Wed 6/6/12

FINAL Wastewater Facility Plan Tue 4/10/12 Tue 4/10/12

Submit request for State Revolving Loan Funds Mon 4/16/12 Mon 4/16/12

Draft NPDES Permit (estimated) Mon 1/3/11 Tue 2/14/12

Public Comment Period Mon 1/3/11 Wed 3/14/12

Issue Final NPDES Permit Wed 2/29/12 Tue 2/28/17

PD Chemical Treatment & Redundant Cloth Disc Mon 2/4/13 Tue 4/30/13

DD Chemical Feed & 2nd Cloth Disc Filter Wed 5/1/13 Wed 10/30/13

Review & Receive Approval on Plans & Specs Wed 11/20/13 Mon 4/21/14

Advertise, Bid & Award (Chem Treatment & Disc Filter) Wed 5/14/14 Tue 3/3/15

Construction Period Wed 3/4/15 Wed 9/30/15

PD 3rd SBR Tue 1/10/17 Thu 9/7/17

DD 3rd SBR Fri 9/8/17 Fri 12/8/17

Review & Receive Approval on Plans & Specs Mon 1/8/18 Thu 3/8/18

Advertise, Bid & Award (3rd SBR) Fri 3/9/18 Wed 5/9/18

Construction Period Thu 5/10/18 Mon 6/10/19

PD Advanced Effluent Filtration (future) Wed 1/8/25 Fri 8/8/25

DD Advanced Effluent Filtration (future) Mon 8/11/25 Tue 8/11/26

Construction (future) Wed 8/12/26 Wed 8/12/26

NPDES Permit Cycle

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Task Progress Milestone Summary

1 2 5 9 2 W E S T E X P L O R E R D R I V E • S U I T E 2 0 0 • B O I S E , I D A H O 8 3 7 1 3 • ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 8 8 • F A X ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 5 1 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Carollo Internal Projects\BOI\TM001.doc

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA FINAL February 2012

February 2012 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Carollo Internal Projects\BOI\TM001.doc

1-i

CITY OF HAILEY WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1

WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Technical Memorandum No. 1 .................................................................... 1-2

2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA ........................................................ 1-2 2.1 Service Area ............................................................................................... 1-2

3.0 SERVICE AREA UTILITIES ................................................................................... 1-9 3.1 Existing Wastewater Collection Service Area ............................................. 1-9 3.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................................. 1-10 3.3 Potable Water System .............................................................................. 1-10

4.0 HISTORIC WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOADING ............................................ 1-11 4.1 Historic Flow Data..................................................................................... 1-11 4.2 Historic Wastewater Organic Loading ...................................................... 1-14 4.3 Historic Wastewater Nutrient Loading ...................................................... 1-18 4.4 Peaking Factors ........................................................................................ 1-21

5.0 FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTIONS ............................................................ 1-23 5.1 Population Growth Rates .......................................................................... 1-25 5.2 Service Area Infill Population .................................................................... 1-28 5.3 Area of Impact Population ........................................................................ 1-30 5.4 Unsewered Areas ..................................................................................... 1-31 5.5 Basis of Planning and Design Population ................................................. 1-31

6.0 PROJECTED FUTURE FLOW AND LOADING ................................................... 1-33

7.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ......................................................................... 1-37 7.1 Existing Discharge Limitations .................................................................. 1-37 7.2 Future Discharge Limitations .................................................................... 1-38 7.3 Water Reuse Regulations ......................................................................... 1-40

8.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1-43

APPENDIX A: City of Hailey NPDES Permit

1-ii February 2012

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Land Use Distribution in the Comprehensive Plan ........................................ 1-7 Table 1.2 Historic Population Growth ............................................................................ 1-8 Table 1.3 Inventory of Wastewater Collection System .................................................. 1-9 Table 1.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow ....................................................................... 1-11 Table 1.5 WWTP Influent Flow and Loading 2001 through 2008 ............................... 1-15 Table 1.6 Per Capita Wastewater Loadings ................................................................ 1-18 Table 1.7 Influent Nutrient Concentrations and Loading ............................................. 1-21 Table 1.8 Peak Flow and Loading Criteria Definitions ................................................ 1-22 Table 1.9 Wastewater Peaking Factors ...................................................................... 1-22 Table 1.10 Population Projections ................................................................................ 1-27 Table 1.11 Service Area Development and Population Projections - Scenario 1 ......... 1-28 Table 1.12 Service Area Development and Population Projections - Scenario 2 ......... 1-29 Table 1.13 Service Area Development and Population Projections – Area of Impact .. 1-30 Table 1.14 Influent Flow and Loading Projections ........................................................ 1-32 Table 1.15 Projected 2028 Future Flow and Loading ................................................... 1-33 Table 1.16 Summary of Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements ................................... 1-41

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 City of Hailey Service Area ........................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1.2 Average Daily Influent Flow ........................................................................ 1-12 Figure 1.3 2007 Influent Flow ....................................................................................... 1-13 Figure 1.4 Influent Wastewater BOD Loading .............................................................. 1-16 Figure 1.5 Influent Wastewater TSS Loading ............................................................... 1-17 Figure 1.6 Influent Wastewater Nutrient Concentrations .............................................. 1-19 Figure 1.7 Influent Wastewater Nutrient Loading ......................................................... 1-20 Figure 1.8 Influent Flow Diurnal Peaks ........................................................................ 1-24 Figure 1.9 Population Trends and Projections ............................................................. 1-26 Figure 1.10 WWTP Average Daily Flow Projections ...................................................... 1-34 Figure 1.11 WWTP Average Daily Organic Loading Projections ................................... 1-35 Figure 1.12 WWTP Average Daily Nutrient Loading Projections ................................... 1-36


1-1

Technical Memorandum No. 1 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA

1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Hailey last completed a Wastewater Facility Plan in April 1997. At that time, the City was under a moratorium preventing new sewer connections due to limited capacity at the old Riverside and Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plants. New sewer connections were restricted until the wastewater treatment facilities in the City could be expanded. The 1997 Facility Plan evaluated wastewater management options, which ultimately resulted in the design and construction of the current Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant, placed into operation in 2000.

Wastewater facility plans must be updated periodically to adjust for changes in the growth and development in the service area. In addition, water quality standards and discharge regulations are continuously being updated to protect public health and the environment. These facility plans are being updated to identify the most cost-effective wastewater management alternatives for the next 20-year planning period, to 2028.

The Big Wood River is currently on the State of Idaho 303(d) list as an “impaired water body.” The City received a Wastewater Planning Grant from the State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to update the Wastewater Facility Plan and review options to comply with the Big Wood River, Watershed Management Plan and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits identified by DEQ (December 2001).

The Wastewater Facility Plan is organized in a series of Technical Memoranda (TM). The first TM defines the planning criteria for the service area. The following TMs are developed in the process of drafting the Facility Plan:

TM 1 - Wastewater Service Area and Planning Criteria

TM 2 - Wastewater Collection System

TM 3 - Wastewater Treatment Facilities

TM 4 - Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

TM 5 - Financial Plan

TM 6 - Environmental Information Document

The Final Wastewater Facility Plan is compiled from the Technical Memoranda, in accordance with the requirements of DEQ.

1-2 February 2012

1.1 Technical Memorandum No. 1

The purpose of Technical Memorandum No. 1 is to:

Summarize the historic growth in the service area;

Define the flows and the wastewater characteristics to be used as the basis for planning;

Project future population growth in the service area and the area of impact, with the associated wastewater flows and pollutant loadings;

Project future wastewater flows and pollutant loadings in the service area; and

Review the water quality standards and discharge requirements for the Big Wood River.

2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA This section describes the topography, climate, land use, and demographics of the existing wastewater service area, and the surrounding area of impact.

2.1 Service Area

The City of Hailey currently provides wastewater collection and treatment for customers in the incorporated City limits. The extents of the service area and the main physical features are shown in Figure 1.1.

2.1.1 Topography, Geology and Soils

The City is located entirely within the Wood River Valley, which extends in a general northwest-southeast direction. The Big Wood River defines the western edge of the service area. The City does not currently provide wastewater services on the west side of the River. The foothills on the eastern side of the valley delineate the extent of the service area. Steep slopes on the hillsides limit development.

The elevations of the Valley vary from a high of about 5,420 feet near the north end, to a low of about 5,230 at the south end of the City limits. Additionally, development is somewhat limited to the extent of the City’s potable water system, which does not have the pumping and storage facilities to extend service significantly above elevation 5,400 feet without additional measures.


1-5

The steep slopes in the foothills restrict the potential for new development to the east. Several smaller side-drainages currently outside of the City limits can potentially be developed. Quigley Canyon, to the east, and Croy Creek Canyon on the west side of the River are contiguous to the City’s service area and have topography more suitable for development. The service area could potentially develop to the south for approximately one-half mile until reaching the City of Bellevue boundary. However, wastewater collected south of the Woodside WWTP could not be serviced by conventional gravity sewers and requires pumping up-gradient back to the City of Hailey. Population projections in the service area are presented in Section 5 of this TM.

The geology of the Wood River Valley consists of mainly alluvial gravel deposits along the waterway and in the lower elevations. The surrounding Boulder, Pioneer, and Smokey Mountains establish the upper boundaries of the watershed. The geologic plates in the substrata of this region are described as the Idaho Seismic Belt.

2.1.2 Climate and Hydrology

The climate in Hailey is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Precipitation averages about 16 inches per year, the majority of which falls as snow in the winter. The City generally receives large accumulations of snowfall, averaging about 78 inches per year. The highest average temperature generally occurs in July (average daily temperature of 84.9°F), while January temperatures are the lowest (average daily temperature of 8.3°F). The limited precipitation received during the growing season (April through September) requires irrigation of landscaped areas.

The Big Wood River is the obvious surface wa ter feature along the western edge of the City. The watershed co vers more than 110 miles in lengt h, originating at Galena Summit, extending to the south where it joins many tributaries, ultimately discharging into the Mallad River and Snake River drainage. T he 100-year floodplain of the Big Wood River overlaps onto the lower western elevations of the service area.

The City of Hailey and the other communities in the Big Wood River Valley share a common groundwater resource for the supply of drinking water. The groundwater resource is characterized by a shallow aquifer with high travel velocity through the gravel deposits, meaning the aquifer is considered highly vulnerable to contamination. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) designated the Big Wood River Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) to address the connection between groundwater and surface water within the drainage. The groundwater hydrogeology and diversion patterns are being monitored to track uses between the regional demands for water resources. In addition, the City of Hailey has defined and implemented source water protection measures in the areas of the supply wells.

1-6 February 2012

2.1.3 Land Use

The City of Hailey Comprehensive Plan classifies the permissible land use within the City’s incorporated boundaries by the following major categories:

Limited Residential: Limited Residential (LR) districts are interspersed throughout the incorporated area, with LR-1 allowing lot size of 8,000 square feet and LR-2 allowing lot size of 12,000 square feet.

General Residential: General Residential (GR) districts allow development of 6,000 square foot lot size.

Business: Consists of limited business districts and business. The majority of business districts are located along Highway 75.

Industrial: Consists of light industrial and technological industry. The majority of these districts are located west of the airport and on the south end of the City.

Recreational: A recreational greenbelt district has been established for the Wood River Trail corridor, which extends through the City.

Airport: An airport district is established around Friedman Memorial Airport.

The City’s planning and zoning map shows the service area to cover approximately 2,267 acres within the City limits. The majority of the existing land use, approximately 1,436 acres, is developed as residential in three different categories of lot-size. The City Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances define the conditional use requirements for development. Table 1.1 summarizes the current land use in the City, and the proportion of the service area in each zoning classification.

Table 1.1 shows 2,267 acres in the total service area, which is slightly higher than the 2,110 acres listed in the City of Hailey Comprehensive Plan (2004 data). The increase was due to the residential development and addition of the Cutters Subdivision in 2006.

2.1.3.1 Environmental Justice Statement

It appears that no disadvantaged group will be adversely affected by a project to improve the existing wastewater facilities. In addition, it is not expected that any specific population segment will benefit from the recommended improvements. However, the community in general will reap some benefits by improvements to the wastewater facilities.


1-7

Table 1.1 Land Use Distribution in the Comprehensive Plan Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Code Zoning Classification Acres Percent of Total

Service Area

RG Recreational Greenbelt 301 13.3%

LR-1 Limited Residential 8,000 SF 640 28.2%

LR-2 Limited Residential 12,000 SF 135 6.0%

GR General Residential 6,000 SF 649 28.6%

LB Limited Business 65 2.9%

T Transitional 12 0.5%

B Business 126 5.6%

LI Light Industrial 50 2.2%

SCI-I Service Commercial Industrial 43 1.9%

SCI-SO Service Commercial Sales & Office 19 0.8%

T Technological 8 0.4%

A Airport 219 9.7%

TOTAL SERVICE AREA 2,267

2.1.4 Population Demographics

The City of Hailey has grown steadily over the past twenty years. The US Census data over the ten-year period from 1980 to 1990, reported a total population increase of approximately 70 percent. As shown in Table 1.2, population growth continued through the 1990’s, increasing by approximately 56 percent in ten years, at an average rate of 5.8 percent per year. Beginning in 2000, the population expanded at higher than average growth rates, partly due to the availability of low interest rates, but growth rates have since moderated after 2003 with recent data showing annual growth at approximately 1 percent. The Wood River Valley and the City of Hailey remain as an attractive location to live and work, so positive growth rates are anticipated to continue throughout the next 20-year planning period.

Table 1.2 summarizes the population in the City of Hailey beginning in 1990. Population estimates from 2000 through 2009 are estimated by the City of Hailey and data available from the Idaho Department of Labor.

1-8 February 2012

Table 1.2 Historic Population Growth Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Year Population(1)(2) Growth Rate (percent)

1990 3,575

1991 3,881 10.3

1992 4,203 6.6

1993 4,481 6.6

1994 4,816 7.5

1995 5,059 5.0

1996 5,394 6.6

1997 5,522 2.4

1998 5,526 0.1

1999 5,577 0.9

2000 (3) 6,323 11.2

2001 6,783 7.3

2002 7,067 4.2

2003 7,281 3.0

2004 7,451 2.3

2005 7,618 2.2

2006 7,755 1.8

2007 7,860 1.3

2008 7,993 1.7

2009 8,075 1.0

1990 to 1995 Average Annual Rate: 7.2



2005 to 2009 Average Annual Rate: 2.8 Notes: 1. Idaho Dept. of Commerce (IDOC) data per U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2. 1990 & 2000 data are U.S. census counts, 1991-1999 are projected data provided by IDOC. 3. 2000 to 2009 Estimates per Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL).

The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller & Assoc) projected an average growth rate of 6 percent per year, using data from 1990 through 1996. Population projections made in 1997 with a 6 percent average growth rate predicted the City to be 11,700 in 2007,


1-9

equivalent to 4,500 customers. The actual 2007 population reported by the Idaho Department of Labor was 7,860 with a corresponding 3,200 customers. This indicates that the growth rates in the 1997 Facility Plan were projected at a higher rate than what occurred.

3.0 SERVICE AREA UTILITIES

3.1 Existing Wastewater Collection Service Area

Conventional gravity sewers serve the majority of the incorporated boundaries in the City of Hailey. There are currently approximately 3,200 residential and commercial customers, with several light industrial areas.

3.1.1 Pipeline Inventory

The collection system consists of more than 44 miles of pipeline ranging in diameter from 8-inches up to 21-inches. Gravity sewers were installed in the central downtown area in the early 1970’s, in the area now referred to as “Old Hailey.” The original sewers were constructed using asbestos cement (AC) pipe with precast concrete manholes. Subsequent development throughout the service area used polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe for gravity and pressure sewers. The inventory of pipes in the collection system is summarized in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Inventory of Wastewater Collection System

Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Diameter Length (in) (ft) 8 192,970

10 12,700 101 18,600 12 8,100 18 2,100 21 500

Total 234,970 Notes: 1. Pressure Sewer, all other lines under gravity flow. 2. Collection system includes 981 manholes.

1-10 February 2012

3.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities

A basic summary of the existing Woodside WWTP is provided in this section. A more detailed review of the individual treatment processes and assessment of the firm WWTP capacity is provided in TM 3.

3.2.1 Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant

The existing Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was upgraded in 2000. Preliminary treatment includes influent pumping, screening and grit removal. Biological secondary treatment is provided in a Sequencing-Batch-Reactor (SBR) Process, consisting of an influent batch tank, two reactor basins, and a central effluent flow-equalization basin. Chemical feed equipment is included to enhance treatment for flexibility to meet Water Quality Standards. Cloth-disc filters are used to remove effluent suspended solids. Disinfection is provided by ultraviolet (UV) light prior to discharging into an 18-inch gravity outfall. A diffuser is embedded in the gravel riverbed under Big Wood River to dilute and blend the treated effluent with river flows.

3.2.1.1 NPDES Permit

The City was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Woodside WWTP, discharging to the Big Wood River. The permit became effective in 2001 and will remain effective for five years. The City submitted the application to renew the NPDES permit, which is currently in review with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USEPA is in the process of updating and reissuing many permits in the region in response to new TMDLs and updated water quality standards.

Appendix A includes a copy of the current NPDES permit, with the discharge limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and the other terms and conditions.

3.3 Potable Water System

Hailey provides potable water supply to the customers within the incorporated City limits. Water is supplied from four wells, along with an artesian spring. The groundwater quality does not require treatment. To ensure a safe water supply, chlorine is used for disinfection as it is pumped into the distribution system.

The water distribution system is a network of piping ranging in size from 6-inches through 12-inches diameter. There are two water storage reservoirs on the system. Due to the topography of the Valley, the distribution system is also divided into two pressure zones. The capacity and pressure of the water system are sufficient to meet the high demand required for fire protection, along with the normal domestic service. There is not a separate irrigation utility in the City, so the water system experiences high demand during the summer with irrigation and lawn watering using the potable water system.


1-11

4.0 HISTORIC WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOADING The historic wastewater flows and loadings are summarized in this section as the baseline conditions for the service area.

4.1 Historic Flow Data

The Woodside WWTP has two influent flow meters that measure influent from the Riverside Pump Station and flows pumped from the Woodside Blvd trunk sewer. The total WWTP influent flow is the summation of both flow meter readings. The City monitors both influent flow and effluent flows, and reports effluent flows on the NPDES permit.

Historical flow data was compiled for this study from 2001 through 2007 as flows prior to 2000 were not available when the City operated the former Riverside and the old Woodside WWTP.

The historical WWTP flow from 2001 through 2007 is shown in Figure 1.2. The flows increased by approximately 28 percent over the period reviewed. The 2007 average influent flow to the WWTP was 0.68 mgd. The most recent 2007 and 2008 annual flow summary is shown in Figure 1.3.

4.1.1 Population Equivalent Flow

Historic wastewater data is used in conjunction with the number of customers to estimate the sewage flow on a per capita or “population-equivalent” basis. The service area population and calculated per capita influent flows are shown in Table 1.4. Table 1.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Year Population Average Day Flow

(mgd) Avg Day Flow/Capita

(gal/d/person)

2001 6,479 0.51 79

2002 7,043 0.63 90

2003 7,244 0.67 93

2004 7,423 0.67 90

2005 7,589 0.66 86

2006 7,751 0.62 87

2007 7,860 0.62 79

2008 7,993 0.63 79

AVERAGE 85 gpcd

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

5/1/20

018/1

/2001

11/1/2

0012/1

/2002

5/1/20

028/1

/2002

11/1/2

0022/1

/2003

5/1/20

038/1

/2003

11/1/2

0032/1

/2004

5/1/20

048/1

/2004

11/1/2

0042/1

/2005

5/1/20

058/1

/2005

11/1/2

0052/1

/2006

5/1/20

068/1

/2006

11/1/2

006

Date

Influ

ent F

low

(mgd

)

Figure 1.2Average Daily Influent Flow


0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jun-07 Aug-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Jan-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Dec-08Month

Flow

(MG

D)

Avg Day Flow

Daily Min Flow

Daily Max Flow

Figure 1.32007 Influent Flow


1-14 February 2012

The average per capita flow from 2001 through 2009 is equivalent to 85 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Idaho DEQ considers that leakage into the wastewater collection system, or “infiltration and inflow” (I/I) is “non-excessive” when per capita flows are less than 120 gpcd. There are no apparent or significant sources of I/I entering the collection system. Infiltration and inflow will be reviewed in more detail in TM 2, with evaluation of the existing collection system.

The historical flow data examined in the 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan found the average per capita flow contribution to be 128 gallons per day, which is significantly higher than current values. Between 1996 and 2000, the City of Hailey investigated and eliminated several significant sources of infiltration in the collection system, mainly from the trunk sewer along the Big Wood River. The WWTP flow records in 2000 documented a reduction of 56,000 gallons per day, as a result of the City’s efforts to eliminate the infiltration sources.

The high flow of 128 gpcd used in 1997 was also the result of the citizens running water during the winter, to prevent the shallow water service lines from freezing in parts of Old Hailey. Between 2003 and 2006, the City installed water meters on each service, which has clearly been effective in reducing the per capita water usage and wastewater flows. The historical records prove the City’s efforts to reduce wastewater flows have been successful. Future projections in this Facility Plan will be based on the documented 85 gpcd, which amounts to a 34 percent reduction in per capita wastewater flows compared to the 1997 study.

4.2 Historic Wastewater Organic Loading

The City monitors the influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and nutrients to the WWTP. The mass loading of pollutants is a function of the influent flow and the wastewater concentrations. Historical mass loading is used to monitor the waste characteristics and to assess the available treatment capacity compared to the design criteria. Table 1.5 summarizes the WWTP flow data from 2001 to 2008. The maximum and minimum recorded daily flow, BOD5, and TSS loadings are summarized for each year. The average daily BOD loading and TSS loading are shown in Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5, respectively.

4.2.1 Population Equivalent Organic Loading

Similar to the per capita flow analysis, historic wastewater loading data is used in conjunction with the service population to determine the sewage loading on a per capita basis. The service area population per capita BOD and TSS loading are shown in Table 1.6.

February 2012

1-15 pw

:\\Carollo\D

ocuments\C

arollo Internal Projects\B

OI\TM

001.doc

Table 1.5 WWTP Influent Flow and Loading 2001 through 2008 Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Flow BOD TSS Max Day Min Day Avg Day Max Day Min Day Avg Day Max Day Min Day Avg Day

Year (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)

2001 0.60 0.30 0.56 1,400 922 1,272 1,700 767 1,312

2002 0.80 0.44 0.63 1,910 738 1,333 2,296 699 1,184

2003 0.80 0.36 0.67 1,633 1,165 1,458 1,760 558 1,166

2004 0.83 0.59 0.67 1,818 983 1,569 2,265 911 1,228

2005 0.97 0.60 0.66 1,922 1,235 1,620 2,486 1,055 1,366

2006 1.27 0.50 0.68 1,994 1,243 1,452 1,833 1,050 1,187

2007 0.70 0.55 0.62 1,499 1,100 1,470 1,270 1,000 1,090

2008 0.84 0.44 0.63 1,814 1,115 1,450 1,560 800 1,030

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

5/1/01

8/1/01

11/1/

01

2/1/02

5/1/02

8/1/02

11/1/

02

2/1/03

5/1/03

8/1/03

11/1/

03

2/1/04

5/1/04

8/1/04

11/1/

04

2/1/05

5/1/05

8/1/05

11/1/

05

2/1/06

5/1/06

8/1/06

11/1/

06

2/1/07

Time

Influ

ent B

OD (

lb/d

ay)

Figure 1.4Influent Wastewater BOD LoadingWASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

CITY OF HAILEY

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

5/1/01

8/1/01

11/1/

01

2/1/02

5/1/02

8/1/02

11/1/

02

2/1/03

5/1/03

8/1/03

11/1/

03

2/1/04

5/1/04

8/1/04

11/1/

04

2/1/05

5/1/05

8/1/05

11/1/

05

2/1/06

5/1/06

8/1/06

11/1/

06

2/1/07

Time

Influ

ent T

SS (l

b/da

y)

Figure 1.5Influent Wastewater TSS LoadingWASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

CITY OF HAILEY

1-18 February 2012

Table 1.6 Per Capita Wastewater Loadings


Year Population

Avg. Day BOD

(lb/day)

Avg. Day BOD/Capita (lb/cap/day)

Avg. Day TSS

(lb/day)

Avg. Day TSS/Capita (lb/cap/day)

2001 6,479 1,272 0.20 1,312 0.20

2002 7,043 1,333 0.19 1,184 0.17

2003 7,244 1,458 0.20 1,166 0.16

2004 7,423 1,458 0.20 1,166 0.16

2005 7,589 1,620 0.21 1,366 0.18

2006 7,751 1,452 0.19 1,187 0.15

2007 7,860 1,470 0.19 1,090 0.14

2008 7,993 1,450 0.18 1,030 0.13

Average 0.19 0.16

The historical data show that influent per capita BOD5 and TSS loadings are within typical ranges expected for domestic wastewater. The concentrations do not show seasonal fluctuations caused by dilution from infiltration or inflow into the collection system. Similarly, the records do not exhibit characteristics of higher strength commercial or industrial wastewater. Significant changes in the number of commercial or industrial customers are not expected, so the wastewater characteristics should remain the same through the next 20-year planning period.

4.3 Historic Wastewater Nutrient Loading

The City is not required to test the influent wastewater nutrient concentrations under the current NPDES permit. The City has a partial history for influent Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) and total Phosphorus (Total P) form 2001 to 2006. After finding consistent concentrations in the influent wastewater, the sampling and analysis for NH3-N and Total P was ended.

The influent nutrient loading is used to monitor the waste characteristics and the treatment capacity, similar to BOD and TSS. Table 1.7 summarizes the values applied for influent average daily and maximum daily nutrient loading to the WWTP. The influent nutrient concentration and loading data are shown graphically in Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7, respectively. Values for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in Table 1.7 are assumed from standard published data for domestic wastewater.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5/1/01

8/1/01

11/1/

01

2/1/02

5/1/02

8/1/02

11/1/

02

2/1/03

5/1/03

8/1/03

11/1/

03

2/1/04

5/1/04

8/1/04

11/1/

04

2/1/05

5/1/05

8/1/05

11/1/

05

2/1/06

5/1/06

8/1/06

11/1/

06

2/1/07

Time

Influ

ent N

utrie

nt C

once

ntra

tions

(mg/

L)

Influent AmmoniaInfluent Phosphorus

Figure 1.6Influent Wastewater Nutrient Concentrations


0

50

100

150

200

250

5/1/01

8/1/01

11/1/

01

2/1/02

5/1/02

8/1/02

11/1/

02

2/1/03

5/1/03

8/1/03

11/1/

03

2/1/04

5/1/04

8/1/04

11/1/

04

2/1/05

5/1/05

8/1/05

11/1/

05

2/1/06

5/1/06

8/1/06

11/1/

06

2/1/07

Time

Influ

ent N

utrie

nt L

oadi

ngs (

lbs/d

ay)

Influent Ammonia Loading

Influent Phosphorus Loading

Figure 1.7Influent Wastewater Nutrient Loading


February 2012 1-21 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Carollo Internal Projects\BOI\TM001.doc

Table 1.7 Influent Nutrient Concentrations and Loading Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Years 2001 to 2006

Ammonia Nitrogen TKN 1 Total P

Avg Day

Max Day

Avg Day

Max Day

Avg Day

Max Day

Concentration (mg/L) 29 37 47 61 6.9 10

Loading (lbs/day) 154 206 250 319 36.8 54

Average Per Capita Loading (lb/capita/day) 0.021 0.034 0.005

Peaking Factor (Avg Day/Max Day) 1.3 1.3 1.5

Note: 1. Influent TKN not required by NPDES permit. Assumed TKN values for typical domestic

wastewater. (Ref: Metcalf & Eddy, 2nd Ed, pg 64).

The average concentrations of the influent Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and total Phosphorus (TP) equal typical concentrations in normal domestic wastewater. The per capita nutrient loading values were also calculated using the service population over the period of record, as listed in Table 1.7.

A sampling and analysis program is recommended to also diagnose the nutrients (NH3-N and TP) contained in the return flows from the aerobic digester and waste sludge thickening stage. With the strict discharge requirements for effluent phosphorus and ammonia, the biological treatment process must be sized based on the total possible nutrient loading.

4.4 Peaking Factors

Wastewater collection and treatment systems must provide capacity and reserve to accommodate the expected range of minimum and maximum flows and loadings. In the City of Hailey, typical peak flows occur each day during the hours of maximum water use, which coincide with the morning and evening hour at the start and end of the workday. The importance of daily, weekly, and monthly flow variability is discussed in Table 1.8.

The peaking factors derived from the WWTP monitoring records from 2001 through 2008 are summarized in Table 1.9.

1-22 February 2012

Table 1.8 Peak Flow and Loading Criteria Definitions Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Term Definition Purpose AADF Average Annual Daily Flow

The recorded daily flow averaged over the entire year.

Apply baseline statistical median to future flow and loading projections for average design conditions.

MMADF Maximum Month Average Day Flow The average daily flow occurring during the peak month (highest 30-day consecutive) period of the year.

Sustained flow or loading applied in hydraulic assessment of the wastewater collection system and WWTP to comply with 30-day NPDES permit discharge requirements.

MWADF Maximum Week Average Day Flow The average daily flow occurring during the peak week (highest 7-day consecutive) period of the year.

The statistically highest flow and load applied to WWTP to comply with max-day or 7-day NPDES permit discharge requirements

PHF Peak Hour Flow The instantaneous highest peak hour flow of the year.

Size hydraulic components of the wastewater collection, pumping and treatment systems.

Table 1.9 Wastewater Peaking Factors Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Parameter Value Flow Max. Month /Avg. Flow 1.10 Max. Week / Avg. Flow 1.21 Peak Hour / Avg. Flow 3.2(1) BOD Max. Month / Avg. BOD5 1.15 Max. Week / Avg. BOD5 1.35 TSS Max. Month / Avg. TSS 1.18 Max. Week / Avg. TSS 1.48 Nutrients Max. Day NH3 / Avg. NH3 1.3 Max. Day TKN / Avg. TKN 1.3 Max. Day TP / Avg. TP 1.5 Note: 1. Per the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (“Ten State Standards”) (GLUMRB), 2004 Edition.


The influent pumps are constant speed pumps, which start and stop based on wastewater elevations in the wet well. Flow meter records only show the pump capacity. Consequently, flow meter data does not provide the instantaneous peak hourly flow to the plant. Therefore, the peak hour flow is estimated by the population-based formula in the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (“10 State Standards”), 2004 Edition.

The City installed a portable insert flow meter into the Woodside Trunk Sewer in a manhole close to WWTP. The typical diurnal flow pattern and daily peak flow periods are shown in Figure 1.8. The flow data from the Woodside Trunk is mainly residential with several schools, and may not represent the peaking factors of the entire collection system. For this Facility Plan, the peaking factor from 10 State Standards will be applied.

5.0 FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTIONS The City of Hailey is expected to grow at a moderate rate over the next 5 years with an increased rate from 5 to 20 years. While land use is fairly well defined in Old Hailey, population growth can continue in other portions of the service area. The following development perspectives are discussed in this section:

Population growth is defined in a confidence interval between low and high rate scenarios, to provide flexibility for future changes. The actual population growth is used to initiate implementation milestones for needed capital improvements.

The potential population increase due to infill development of the remaining open space in the City limits is identified, according to land use and allowable development in the Comprehensive Plan.

The potential expansion of the service area is reviewed, adding new customers from the surrounding area of impact that are currently outside the City limits.

The Facility Plan must review population projections for a 20-year life cycle required by DEQ. Longer range forecasts also should consider full development in the area of impact at the maximum density, referred to as “build-out.” System improvements should consider the requirements at build-out, to provide long-term value and adaptability to potential changes in the future.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hour of the Day (hours)

Perc

enta

ge o

f Avg

Flo

w

Figure 1.8Influent Flow Diurnal Peaks



5.1 Population Growth Rates

Population projections for the City of Hailey, and the surrounding area of impact in Blaine County referenced data from the following sources:

State of Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL)

US Bureau of the Census, 2000

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan, 1997 (Keller & Assoc.)

City of Hailey Water System Master Plan, 2002 (Carollo Engineers)

Capital Improvements and Development Impact Fee Report, 2007 (TischlerBise)

City of Hailey Comprehensive Plan

The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller & Assoc) used population data from the 1990 US Census, and projected growth rates to the year 2016. Based on population estimates at that time, an average growth rate of 6 percent per year was used, between a low growth rate of 5 percent and a high growth rate of 9 percent per year. The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan also assumed development of approximately 250 new residences each year, reaching the total population of 17,466 by the year 2017, which included development outside the City limits.

In comparison, the 2002 Water System Master Plan (Carollo Engineers) referenced population data from the 2000 US Census that included slower growth rates in the later half of the 1990s. An average growth rate of 4.5 percent was used to project future population of 14,953 by the year 2020, considered to be within the City limits. The City recently completed a study, Growth Related Capital Improvements Plan and Development Impact Fees, (TischlerBise,) March 2007, which used an average growth rate of 4.7 percent over a 15-year planning horizon, for a population of 10,561 by the year 2012.

Table 1.10 shows the baseline population and future projections for the 20-year planning period in this Facility Plan. The overall population data from 1990 to 2007 had an average growth rate of 5.3 percent. The four year moving average of annual growth rate has varied from a maximum of 7.7 percent to a minimum of 0.7 percent. Growth in recent years as decreased due to the national economic downturn, which justifies use of a 1.5% growth projection over the next 5 years of the 20-year planning period. Table 1.10 shows the future population projections expected to reach 13,411 in 2028, at an average growth rate of 3.5 percent. The average population projection is made independent of the City zoning criteria and does not consider physical, economic, or other land use constraints. As such, the population projections in Table 1.10 and Figure 1.9 include a high a low range of population projections for the last 15 years of the 20-year planning period with a low value of 2.5 percent per year to a high value of 4.5 percent per year.

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Popu

latio

n

Average Growth Rate 2.5% to 4.5%

Low Growth Rate 1.5% to 2.5%

High Growth Rate 6%

Maximum Density Development in the Service Area (19,241)

Infill of Undeveloped Land in City Limits (11,737)

Maximum Buildout Area of Impact (30,855)

2028 Pl i P i d

Aver

age

Flow

(MG

D)

2.65

1.65

1.01

Average Growth

01990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Figure 1.9Population Trends and Projections


Baseline Data 2028 Facility Plan Period

2028 Planning PeriodDesign Population17,150

JRichardson

Image


Table 1.10 Population Projections Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

(3.5%)3 (2.5%) 1 (4.5%) 2

Average Low HighYear Population Growth Rate Population Growth Rate Population Growth Rate1990 3,575 3,575 3,5751991 3,942 10.3% 3,942 10.3% 3,942 10.3%1992 4,203 6.6% 4,203 6.6% 4,203 6.6%1993 4,481 6.6% 4,481 6.6% 4,481 6.6%1994 4,816 7.5% 4,816 7.5% 4,816 7.5%1995 5,059 5.0% 5,059 5.0% 5,059 5.0%1996 5,394 6.6% 5,394 6.6% 5,394 6.6%1997 5,522 2.4% 5,522 2.4% 5,522 2.4%1998 5,526 0.1% 5,526 0.1% 5,526 0.1%1999 5,577 0.9% 5,577 0.9% 5,577 0.9%2000 6,200 11.2% 6,200 11.2% 6,200 11.2%2001 6,749 8.9% 6,479 4.5% 6,479 4.5%2002 7,043 4.4% 7,043 8.7% 7,043 8.7%2003 7,244 2.9% 7,244 2.9% 7,244 2.9%2004 7,423 2.5% 7,423 2.5% 7,423 2.5%2005 7,589 2.2% 7,589 2.2% 7,589 2.2%2006 7,751 2.1% 7,751 2.1% 7,751 2.1%2007 7,860 1.4% 7,860 1.4% 7,860 1.4%2008 7,993 1.7% 7,993 1.7% 7,993 1.7%2009 8,075 1.0% 8,075 1.0% 8,075 1.0%2010 7,960 -1.4% 7,960 -1.4% 7,960 -1.4%2011 8,079 1.5% 8,079 1.5% 8,079 1.5%2012 8,201 1.5% 8,201 1.5% 8,201 1.5%2013 8,324 1.5% 8,324 1.5% 8,324 1.5%2014 8,448 1.5% 8,448 1.5% 8,448 1.5%2015 8,575 1.5% 8,575 1.5% 8,575 1.5%2016 8,875 3.5% 8,790 2.5% 8,961 4.5%2017 9,186 3.5% 9,009 2.5% 9,364 4.5%2018 9,507 3.5% 9,235 2.5% 9,786 4.5%2019 9,840 3.5% 9,465 2.5% 10,226 4.5%2020 10,185 3.5% 9,702 2.5% 10,686 4.5%2021 10,541 3.5% 9,945 2.5% 11,167 4.5%2022 10,910 3.5% 10,193 2.5% 11,670 4.5%2023 11,292 3.5% 10,448 2.5% 12,195 4.5%2024 11,687 3.5% 10,709 2.5% 12,744 4.5%2025 12,096 3.5% 10,977 2.5% 13,317 4.5%2026 12,520 3.5% 11,251 2.5% 13,916 4.5%2027 12,958 3.5% 11,533 2.5% 14,542 4.5%2028 13,411 3.5% 11,821 2.5% 15,197 4.5%2029 13,881 3.5% 12,117 2.5% 15,881 4.5%2030 14,366 3.5% 12,419 2.5% 16,595 4.5%2031 14,869 3.5% 12,730 2.5% 17,342 4.5%2032 15,390 3.5% 13,048 2.5% 18,123 4.5%2033 15,928 3.5% 13,374 2.5% 18,938 4.5%2034 16,486 3.5% 13,709 2.5% 19,790 4.5%2035 17,063 3.5% 14,051 2.5% 20,681 4.5%2036 17,660 3.5% 14,403 2.5% 21,612 4.5%2037 18,278 3.5% 14,763 2.5% 22,584 4.5%2038 18,918 3.5% 15,132 2.5% 23,600 4.5%2039 19,580 3.5% 15,510 2.5% 24,662 4.5%2040 20,265 3.5% 15,898 2.5% 25,772 4.5%

1 Low grow th assumes 1.5% grow th from 2011 through 2015 follow ed by 2.5% grow th from 2016 through 2028.2 High grow th assumes 1.5% grow th from 2011 through 2015 follow ed by 4.5% grow th from 2016 through 2028.3 Average grow th assumes 1.5% grow th from 2011 through 2015 follow ed by 3.5% grow th from 2016 through 2028.

1-28 February 2012

5.2 Service Area Infill Population

Aerial images were used to review and estimate the available open space remaining in the City of Hailey, to determine the population increase that can occur from infill development within the City limits. The 2002 Water System Master Plan identified approximately 290 acres of open undeveloped residential ground in the City limits. Several recent infill projects in the City included Copper Ranch, Sweetwater, and annexation of the Old Cutters development. These projects provided a mixture of low and high-density residential development, resulting in a population increase of approximately 1,500 according to City records and IDOL population statistics. Aerial imaging shows that approximately 180 to 200 acres remain open for development.

Assuming development as General Residential (GR) with the greatest allowable density of 6,000 square foot lot size, the remaining open area can support approximately 1,230 new dwellings. The added infill population will add approximately 3,200 people to the existing population of 7,960, for a total of 11,750 within the City limits. Table 1.11 presents the population projection from infill of open areas in the City limits.

Table 1.11 Service Area Development and Population Projections - Scenario 1 Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Infill Population From Development of Existing Open Space in Service Area

Zoning Lot Size (sq. ft.)

Total Acres

Developed Acres 1

Developed No. Lots

Household Population

Residential Population

GR (Open) 6,000 200 170 1,234 2.58 3,184

2010 Population 7,960

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 11,144 PROJECT AVERAGE DAY FLOW 2 0.95 mgd

Notes: 1. Assume 85% of total land area to be developed into residential lots. 2. Average flow assumes 85 gal/cap/day.

The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan proposed a phased implementation strategy to accept growth from outside the service area. The maximum population expected in the City limits was estimated as 12,300 under the defined residential zoning and land use. The 1997 facility plan also estimated the potential build-out population as 17,466 people. In the phased approach, the wastewater treatment alternatives were designed for the service area population of 12,300 people. Development outside City limits was to be handled as a separate expansion project in the future.


The infill population in the City limits is generally estimated to range between 12,000 to 15,000 people, after the remaining open areas are developed. Using the average growth rate of 3.5 percent, infill of the open areas could be complete by the year 2020.

Considering the desirable features in Hailey and historic economic conditions, development is not likely to stop at the City limits. The Facility Plan must be based on a 20-year period, which extends to year 2028, beyond the time when the infill development is completed.

In the 20-year planning horizon, older buildings in Hailey could be redeveloped with higher residential density, thus adding population. Higher density development has been the recent trend in the Ketchum area. Table 1.12 lists the total residential acreage in the service area, and the potential population from the development density in the Comprehensive Plan. The total service area covers approximately 2,270 acres, of which 1,440 is residential. Redevelopment and infill of the service area at the maximum density can reach a population of 19,000, a total of approximately 7,500 residential customers. This projection is considered as the saturation development for residential land use within the City limits, and is independent of time or the growth rate.

Table 1.12 Service Area Development and Population Projections - Scenario 2 Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Service Area Development at Maximum Density

Zoning Lot Size (sq. ft.)

Total Acres

Developed Acres (1)

Developed No. Lots



GR 6,000 649 552 4,005 2.58 10,333

LR-1 8,000 640 544 2,962 2.58 7,642

LR-2 12,000 135 115 417 2.58 1,075

GR (Little Indio) 0 0 0 74 2.58 191

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 19,241 PROJECT AVERAGE DAY FLOW(2) 1.64 mgd

Note: 1. Assume 85% of total land area to be developed into residential lots. 2. Based on 85 gpcd average flow contribution.

The Comprehensive plan does not consider the potential future development in the space of the Friedman Memorial Airport. The average in Table 1.12 is the total residential zoning in the Comprehensive Plan, and does not include the airport.

1-30 February 2012

5.3 Area of Impact Population

The most significant population increases may occur if the City of Hailey annexes additional ground and/or provides wastewater services to surrounding Blaine County. The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan identified Broadford Road and Croy Creek with the potential for development on the western side of the service area. Quigley Canyon and Hangman Gulch are development areas on the eastern side of the City. Hailey recently received development proposals for Peregrine Ranch and the Old Cutters annexation in the northern extent of the service area. Development and expansion of the service area can potentially cover 800 additional acres. If a new regional airport facility is developed, the Friedman Memorial Airport property may potentially be converted into residential and mixed commercial properties.

Table 1.13 summarizes the additional population from build-out in the area of impact outside the current City limits. Depending on the residential density, build-out could expand the service to include approximately 4,000 new residences, adding 10,500 people. Development of the Friedman Memorial Airport as General Residential would add 1,300 new residences and increase the population by roughly 3,500. For long-range planning considerations, build-out of the service area and development of the airport ultimately could reach a population of approximately 31,000 in this region, which equates to approximately 12,000 residential customers.

Table 1.13 Service Area Development and Population Projections – Area of Impact Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Service Area Development at Maximum Density

Area Lot Size (sq. ft.)

Total Acres

Developed Acres (1)

Developed No. Lots



Quigley Canyon (LR-2) 12,000 400 2.58 1,032

Peregrine Ranch (LR-2) 12,000 73 2.58 188

Croy Creek Canyon (GR) 6,000 450 383 2,777 2.58 7,165

Airport (GR) 6,000 219 186 1,351 2.58 3,487

AREA OF IMPACT DEVELOPMENT WITH AIRPORT 11,872

(Scenario II) SERVICE AREA AT MAXIMUM DENSITY 19,241 TOTAL SERVICE AREA POPULATION 31,113

(INFILL + EXPANSION) PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY FLOW(2) 2.62 mgd

Notes: 1. Assume 85% of total land area to be developed into residential lots. 2. Based on 85 gpcd average flow contribution.


5.4 Unsewered Areas

The majority of the City of Hailey is served by the wastewater collection system with conventional gravity sewers. Along the western side of the service area, the Little Indio subdivision has onsite septic system with no central gravity sewer. The Little Indio development straddles the City boundary and continues outside into Blaine County, along the Big Wood River. Little Indio is not served by the City water system.

There is no documentation of failed onsite septic systems in the area. However, the lot size likely does not provide sufficient space for current design standards for onsite systems, and space is limited to repair or replace a failed septic system. Therefore, the residences in Little Indio and adjacent properties in Blaine County might request connection into the collection system to repair or improve the onsite systems. The residential customers in this area were included with infill of the service area in Table 1.13.

5.5 Basis of Planning and Design Population

Population projections and current economic indicators suggest that growth will be low to moderate over the next 5 years; however, growth after this period would likely occupy the remaining open land areas within the period of 2020 to 2028, as shown in Figure 1.9. With infill, the total population will reach approximately 12,300 people, which is consistent with the design population selected in the 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan.

When economic conditions improve and growth resumes at typical historic rates, the population will increase due to redevelopment in the service area, in combination with expansion outside the City limits into the area of impact. The most probable population for the 20-year planning period in this Facility Plan is approximately 13,411 by the year 2028.

Ultimate build-out of the entire service area at maximum density potentially will reach a population of 31,000, which is 50 percent greater than the Facility Plan population of 21,560. Development and evaluation of alternatives for wastewater collection and treatment in subsequent technical memos will be necessary to address expansion in the future to reach these build-out projections.

1-32 February 2012

Table 1.14 Influent Flow and Loading Projections Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Flow BOD TSS NH3N TKN Total P

Year Population (MGD) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)2000 6,200 0.53 1,178 992 130.2 210.8 31.02001 6,749 0.57 1,282 1,080 141.729 229.5 33.72002 7,043 0.60 1,338 1,127 147.903 239.5 35.22003 7,244 0.62 1,376 1,159 152.124 246.3 36.22004 7,423 0.63 1,410 1,188 155.883 252.4 37.12005 7,618 0.65 1,447 1,219 159.978 259.0 38.12006 7,755 0.66 1,473 1,241 162.855 263.7 38.82007 7,860 0.67 1,493 1,258 165.06 267.2 39.32008 7,993 0.68 1,519 1,279 167.853 271.8 40.02009 8,075 0.69 1,534 1,292 169.575 274.6 40.42010 7,960 0.68 1,512 1,274 167.16 270.6 39.82011 8,079 0.69 1,535 1,293 169.6674 274.7 40.42012 8,201 0.70 1,558 1,312 172.2124 278.8 41.02013 8,324 0.71 1,581 1,332 174.7956 283.0 41.62014 8,448 0.72 1,605 1,352 177.4175 287.2 42.22015 8,575 0.73 1,629 1,372 180.0788 291.6 42.92016 8,875 0.75 1,686 1,420 186.3816 301.8 44.42017 9,186 0.78 1,745 1,470 192.9049 312.3 45.92018 9,507 0.81 1,806 1,521 199.6566 323.3 47.52019 9,840 0.84 1,870 1,574 206.6446 334.6 49.22020 10,185 0.87 1,935 1,630 213.8771 346.3 50.92021 10,541 0.90 2,003 1,687 221.3628 358.4 52.72022 10,910 0.93 2,073 1,746 229.1105 370.9 54.62023 11,292 0.96 2,145 1,807 237.1294 383.9 56.52024 11,687 0.99 2,221 1,870 245.4289 397.4 58.42025 12,096 1.03 2,298 1,935 254.0189 411.3 60.52026 12,520 1.06 2,379 2,003 262.9096 425.7 62.62027 12,958 1.10 2,462 2,073 272.1114 440.6 64.82028 13,411 1.14 2,548 2,146 281.6353 456.0 67.1

(1) Average flow contribution 85 gal/capita/day(2) Average BOD Loading 0.19 lb/capita/day(3) Average TSS Loading 0.16 lb/capita/day(4) Average NH3 Loading 0.021 lb/capita/day(5) Average TKN Loading 0.034 lb/capita/day(6) Average TP Loading 0.0050 lb/capita/day


6.0 PROJECTED FUTURE FLOW AND LOADING The historic data for per capita flow and pollutant loadings are used in conjunction with future population projections as the basis to predict the future wastewater treatment requirements for the 20-year planning period. Table 1.14 lists the annual population projections, with the associated average daily flow, organic loading, and nutrient loading projections through the year 2028.

Figure 1.10 graphically shows the flow projections for the 20-year planning period to 2028. In addition, Figure 1.11 shows the projections for the average daily BOD and TSS loadings using the per capita loading values in Table 1.6. Figure 1.12 projects for the average daily nutrient (NH3-N, TKN, TP) loadings using the per capita loading values from Table 1.7. The projected future flow and loading at the end of the 20-year planning period using the peaking factors presented in Table 1.9 are summarized in Table 1.15.

The historic average of 85 gpcd is applied to the future wastewater flows in the service area, which is a normal and acceptable wastewater flow for municipal systems. Newer developments that provide watertight gasketed sewer construction or developments with water conservation plumbing fixtures may produce slightly lower flows in the range of 60 to 70 gpcd.

Table 1.15 Projected 2028 Future Flow and Loading

Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Parameter Population-Based Projections

Flow Avg Day (mgd) 1.14 Max Month Avg Day (mgd) 1.25 Max Week Avg Day (mgd) 1.38 Peak Hour (mgd) 3.65 BOD Average Day Loading (lbs/day) 2,548 Max Month Loading (lbs/day) 2,930 TSS Average Day Loading (lbs/day) 2,146 Max Month Loading (lbs/day) 2,532 Nutrients Average Day NH3-N Loading (lbs/day) 282 Average Day TKN Loading (lbs/day) 456 Average Day TP Loading (lbs/day) 67

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Load

ing

(lbs/d

ay)

BOD Loading

TSS Loading

0

500

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Figure 1.11WWTP Average Daily Organic Loading Projections


JRichardson

Image

0 20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

WW

TP Fl

ow (m

gd)

0.00

0.20

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Figure 1.10WWTP Flow Projections


JRichardson

Image

100

200

300

400

500

600

700Lo

adin

g (lb

s/day

)

NH3-N Projection

TKN Projection

TP Projection

0

Year

Figure 1.12Average Daily Nutrient Loading Projections


JRichardson

Image


The flow projections using 85 gpcd are reasonable and representative of the condition of the wastewater infrastructure in the City. The City conducts regular inspections on the wastewater collection system and repairs leaks observed to reduce extraneous infiltration, so the future wastewater flows should not increase.

7.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS This section provides an overview of the applicable water quality standards for the Big Wood River. The purpose of the Wastewater Facility Plan is to review alternatives and identify the most cost-effective compliance strategy such that the City will satisfy all State and Federal Regulations for wastewater treatment and discharge.

7.1 Existing Discharge Limitations

The City’s most recent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit became effective June 11, 2001. The permit was set to expire after 5-years on June 12, 2006. The City complied with the General Provisions of the permit and the Duty to Reapply, submitting the new application to US EPA, Region 10, in 2005, 180 days prior to expiration. A draft permit was sent in Sepember 2010, which was not finalized as of the end of 2011, so the current permit still applies.

The permit authorizes the City to discharge to the Big Wood River. The Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 001 are defined in the NPDES Permit. The discharge requirements are “technology based” limits, which generally require removal of 85 percent of the influent organic loading, as a minimum. The assigned numerical permit limits require the effluent BOD and TSS concentrations be less than 30 mg/L. Numerical discharge limits are also defined for Coliform Bacteria, Total Phosphorus, Ammonia Nitrogen, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. The other general water quality standards applied to Outfall 001 include:

No discharge of floating solids or visible foam, other than trace amounts.

85 percent removal required for BOD5 and TSS.

For any month, the monthly average effluent concentration shall not exceed 15 percent of the monthly average influent concentration.

The City is required to monitor the effluent pH, Temperature, Total Copper and Total Mercury in the effluent, with no numerical limits. A copy of the City’s current NPDES permit is provided in Appendix A.

The most restrictive limitation in the City’s NPDES permit is the discharge of less than 1.9 mg/L of Ammonia Nitrogen, for the 30-day average. The existing Sequencing-Batch-Reactor (SBR) wastewater treatment process was designed to provide the retention time and biological treatment to remove ammonia. The WWTP effluent monitoring data reports from 2001 to 2007 show the average effluent ammonia concentration as 0.39 mg/L, which is in compliance with the permit. The Woodside WWTP regularly achieves 98 percent removal of ammonia at the current flow and loadings.

1-38 February 2012

The Total Phosphorus limit in the current permit is defined as 15 pounds per day for the 30-day average. Review of the historic loading data shows that the average influent is 34 pounds per day, so approximately 56 percent removal of the influent phosphorus load is required. In terms of concentrations, the average influent phosphorus is approximately 7 mg/L. The monitoring results show the average WWTP effluent phosphorus concentration are 0.9 mg/L, which is equivalent to a mass basis discharge of approximately 5.6 pounds per day, which complies with the permit.

The Woodside WWTP average flow was 0.62 mgd in 2007, which is approximately 40 percent of the design capacity of 1.6 mgd. At the present flow and loading, there have been no major or minor violations of the discharge permit.

7.2 Future Discharge Limitations

The current effluent limits in the NPDES permit are technology-based limits. The NPDES permits requirements are consistent on a State-wide and national basis, and the 85 percent removal criteria is applied equally to all receiving waters. The technology-based effluent limits were initially imposed by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA established requirements for States to identify and prioritize water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards. In 1998, after review of in-stream conditions, the Big Wood River was listed on the Idaho 303 (d) list of impaired waters. Even though the City of Hailey is complying with the technology-based limits, the State of Idaho determined that the in-stream water quality standards on the Big Wood River were not being met. The 303(d) list found the Big Wood River to be impaired by Total Suspended Solids (TSS), E. coli bacteria, and Total phosphorus (TP).

7.2.1 Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan

In response to the 303(d) listing, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) prepared the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, which was approved by US EPA May 15, 2002. This plan is a specific assessment to determine the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of pollutants from all point and non-point sources that can be accommodated in the Big Wood River watershed without impacting the water quality standards. The beneficial uses listed on the main stream of the Big Wood River include:

Cold Water Aquatic Life (CW)

Salmonid Spawning (SS)

Primary Contact Recreation (PC)


Special Resource Water (SR)

Drinking Water Supply (DW)

The Big Wood River is designated as “Special Resource Waters” based on the ecologic and aesthetic value. USEPA will issue updates to the NPDES permits based on the load allocation (LA) and findings from the specific watershed-based TMDLs.

The most significant conclusion from the TMDL assessment was that in-stream Total Phosphorous (TP) concentrations not exceed 0.05 mg/L. The waste load allocation (WLA) for TP in the watershed identified that the Hailey WWTP must not discharge more than 5.20 lbs/day TP. In comparison, the existing WWTP permit limits effluent TP to 15 lbs/day. The TMDL requires reduction of an additional 65 percent of the effluent TP. The effluent monitoring data between 2004 and 2007 reports TP in the effluent averages 5.6 lbs/day, which exceeds the limit established by the TMDL. The WWTP is currently operating at 0.62 mgd, which is approximately 40 percent of the design capacity of 1.6 mgd. The phosphorus load allocation to the City of Hailey WWTP in the TMDL was based on the projected flow of 1.6 mgd. If Hailey continues to grow and reach the projected flows of 1.14 mgd by the year 2028, the corresponding effluent phosphorus concentration will need to be less than 0.54 mg/L to comply with the 5.20 lbs/day of TP per the TMDL. The effluent TP and the TMDL are reviewed in more detail in TM 3 for the existing wastewater treatment facilities.

The City of Hailey participates in the Municipal Committee of the Big Wood River Watershed along with the City of Ketchum, the Meadows, and the City of Bellevue. The municipalities and permit holders discharging to the Big Wood River have been collecting additional effluent and in-stream water quality data since the initial publication of the TMDL. DEQ is expected to periodically re-evaluate the TMDL using updated water quality and effluent data. The WLA for TP may be revised after evaluation of the supplemental data in the Post-TMDL assessment of the Big Wood River, also with more recent population and future flow projections of the municipal point-sources discharging into the Big Wood River.

The TMDL requires that in-stream TP concentrations not exceed 0.05 mg/L, with little margin of safety to allow for future growth. Water quality monitoring concluded that phosphorus contributions were mainly from municipal WWTP point-source discharges, as opposed to non-point sources. Therefore, as infill growth occurs in Hailey and in the surrounding Wood River Valley, the municipal facilities will be expected to operate at increasingly higher treatment efficiencies. Stricter discharge limits in the future may result in the need to provide advanced treatment to produce very low levels of total phosphorus. An evaluation of treatment alternatives to achieve phosphorus reduction is needed for the City’s long-term planning and growth management strategy, ensuring compliance with water quality standards. DEQ extended the Wastewater Planning Grant to the City of Hailey, in part, to complete an analysis of wastewater treatment alternatives for phosphorus control.

Future NPDES permits may also include stringent limits for nitrogen to maintain the beneficial uses of the Big Wood River. Future nitrogen limits could mass load or concentration limits for ammonia,

1-40 February 2012

nitrite, nitrate, and total nitrogen. Treatment alternatives are presented in TM 4 and include Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) for reduction of both effluent nitrogen and phosphorus.

7.2.2 Big Wood River Temperature TMDL

The Big Wood River is listed as habitat for Cold Water Aquatic Species (CW) and Salmonid Spawning (SS). A supplemental Big Wood River and Rock Creek Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report was published by DEQ as an amendment to the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan. The Temperature TMDL draft was issued in January 2007. Similar to the total phosphorus load allocation, the Big Wood River Watershed was examined to determine if the temperature conditions to maintain the cold water and salmonids habitat were being maintained. Municipal WWTP point-source discharges may be required to reduce, or to provide a compliance strategy, to maintain the required in-stream temperature limits. The draft of the Temperature TMDL Plan did not indicate that the City of Hailey would require WWTP changes to comply with the standards. DEQ will continue to review the draft plan, and will account for the future flows predicted in the Facility Plan update.

7.3 Water Reuse Regulations

An emerging trend in the water resources management is to utilize reclaimed effluent for beneficial uses such as irrigation. With the relatively arid climate in central Idaho and Hailey, there is potential to utilize reclaimed wastewater for irrigation or other uses in this region. Although the City does not currently have any wastewater reuse applications, it is a future possibility for effluent management. Reclaimed water may be a cost-effective option for effluent disposal, as the water quality standards develop more stringent discharge limits for the Big Wood River. Therefore, a general overview of reclaimed wastewater requirements is contained herein. Future evaluations will be needed to address viable treatment options that can provide beneficial reuse utilizing the City’s plant’s effluent.

A summary of current reclaimed wastewater classification uses and treatment criteria, as defined by Idaho DEQ, 2005, is provided in Table 1.16. Generally speaking, there are five levels of reclaimed wastewater classification, ranging from Class E to Class A. Class E has the lowest treatment requirements and potential for public exposure, while Class A has the most stringent treatment requirements.


Table 1.16 Summary of Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements WWTP Facility Plan City of Hailey

Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Treatment Oxidized, clarified, and coagulated, with

filtration approval requirements or treated by an equivalent process, plus nutrient removal requirements, turbidity limit requirements, adequately disinfected and tested.

Oxidized, coagulated, clarified, and filtered, or treated by an equivalent process, turbidity limit requirements, and adequately disinfected and tested.

Oxidized and adequately disinfected. Oxidized and adequately disinfected. At least primary effluent quality.

Disinfection Total coliform organisms does not exceed two and two-tenths (2.2) per one hundred (100) milliliters.

Total coliform organisms does not exceed two and two-tenths (2.2) per one hundred (100) milliliters.

Total coliform organisms does not exceed twenty three (23) per one hundred (100) milliliters.

Total coliform organisms does not exceed two hundred thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters

Total coliform organisms up to “too numerous to count”

Buffer Distances

No effluent is allowed to be applied to surface waters in those circumstances when an NPDES Permit is required.

Site Specific - No effluent is allowed to be applied to surface waters in those circumstances when an NPDES Permit is required.



1000 feet to inhabited dwellings and areas accessible to the public. No effluent is allowed to be applied to surface waters in those circumstances when an NPDES Permit is required.

Uses Residential irrigation at individual homes, groundwater recharge using surface spreading, seepage ponds, other unlined surface water features, or Class B, C, D, or E uses. Other requirements apply for groundwater uses.

May contact any edible portion of raw food crops, or is used to irrigate golf courses, parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, or Class C, D, or E uses.

Used to irrigate orchards and vineyards during the fruiting season, if no fruit harvested for raw use comes in contact with the irrigation water or ground, or will only contact the inedible portion of raw food crops, or is used to irrigate cemeteries, roadside vegetation or Class D or E uses.

Used to irrigate fodder, seed, or processed food crops or Class E uses.

Used to irrigate forested sites.

Access Restriction

Irrigated during periods of non-use. Irrigated during periods of non-use by the public.

Irrigated during periods of non-use by the public.

Public access restricted. Public access restricted.

Signing and Posting

Site Specific Site Specific Site Specific Site Specific Site Specific

Grazing Grazing allowed only with approved grazing management plan.

Grazing allowed only with approved grazing management plan.

Grazing allowed only with approved grazing management plan.

Grazing not allowed. Grazing not allowed.


8.0 SUMMARY The City’s wastewater collection and treatment facilities currently serve a population of approximately 7,960. The City’s population is expected to increase at a low rate of 1.5 percent per year through 2015 followed by an average growth rate of 3.5 percent each year from 2016 through 2028. The population growth and anticipated wastewater service area indicate that the future population will be 13,411 by 2028, which is the end of the 20-year planning period.

The WWTP currently treats an average daily flow of 630,000 gallons per day (0.63 mgd). Plant data and population records indicate that the typical residential customer generates 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd) of wastewater. The average daily flow for the wastewater collection and treatment system is projected to reach 1.14 million gallons per day (mgd) by the end of the 20-year planning period.

The population equivalent flow of 85 gpcd indicates that infiltration and inflow (I/I) is not a significant impact on the collection or treatment systems. Similarly, the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 0.19 pounds per capita day (ppcd) and total suspended solids (TSS) loading of 0.16 ppcd are within typical values expected for domestic wastewater.

The most restrictive requirements in the City of Hailey NPDES permit require removal of ammonia and total phosphorus to maintain Water Quality Standards in the Big Wood River. In addition to increasing capacity for future population growth, the treatment facilities require assessment of more advanced treatment methods for biological nutrient removal (BNR) or other applicable treatment technologies.

1-44 February 2012

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Appendix A NPDES PERMIT

Permit No.: ID-002030-3

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 10

1200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, Washington 98101

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THENATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq., asamended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4, the "Act",

City of HaileyWoodside Wastewater Treatment Facility

115 South Main StreetHailey, Idaho 83333

is authorized to discharge from the Woodside wastewater treatment facility located in Hailey,Idaho, at the following location(s):

Outfall Receiving Water Latitude Longitude001 Big Wood River 43° 28'42" 114° 16' 48"

in accordance with discharge point, effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and otherconditions set forth herein.

This permit shall become effective June 11, 2001

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, June 12, 2006

Signed this 9th day of May, 2001

/s/ Randall F. SmithDirectorOffice of Water, Region 10U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Permit No.: ID-002030-3Page 2 of 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Schedule of Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I. LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5B. Surface Water Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7C. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8D. Sludge Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9E. State Certification Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II. PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A. Control of Undesirable Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9B. Requirements for Industrial Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 11A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges) . . . . . . . . . . . 11B. Reporting of Monitoring Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11C. Monitoring Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11D. Additional Monitoring by Permittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12E. Records Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12F. Retention of Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12G. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12H. Other Noncompliance Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13I. Notice of New Introduction of Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

IV. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14A. Duty to Comply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16D. Duty to Mitigate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16E. Proper Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17G. Upset Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18H. Toxic Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18I. Planned Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18J. Anticipated Noncompliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

V. GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19A. Permit Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19B. Duty to Reapply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19C. Duty to Provide Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


D. Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19E. Signatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19F. Availability of Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21G. Inspection and Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21H. Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21I. Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21J. State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22K. Reopener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

VI. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


The following is a summary of some of the items the permittee must submit during the term ofthis permit.

Item Due Date1. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) DMRs are due monthly and must be

postmarked by the 10th day of the monthfollowing the monitoring month (see PartIII.B, page 11).

2. Effluent Monitoring for Copper and Mercury Results must be submitted on the monthly DMR, and also with the permittee’s permit application which is due 180 days prior to the expiration date of the permit (see I.A.1,page 6, footnote 4)

3. Surface Water Monitoring Results must be submitted with thepermittee’s monthly DMR, and with thepermit application which is due 180 daysprior to the expiration date of the permit (seeI.B.7., page 8)

4. Quality Assurance Plan The Plan must be submitted to EPA within60 days of the effective date of the permit(see I.C., page 8).

5. Sludge Application The application must be submitted one yearafter the effective date of the permit (seeI.D, page 9).

6. NPDES Application Renewal The application must be submitted 180 daysbefore the expiration date of the permit (seeV.B., page 19).


I. LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

During the effective period of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge pollutantsfrom the outfall specified herein to the Big Wood River, within the limits, and subject to theconditions set forth herein. This permit authorizes the discharge of only those pollutantsresulting from facility processes, waste streams, and operations that have been clearly identifiedin the permit application process.

A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring

1. The permittee must limit and monitor discharges from outfall 001 asspecified in Table 1, below. All values represent maximum effluent limitsunless otherwise indicated. The permittee must comply with the effluentlimits in the tables at all times unless otherwise indicated, regardless of thefrequency of monitoring or reporting required by other provisions of thispermit.

Table 1 - Outfall 001 Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

PARAMETER

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

AverageMonthlyLimit

AverageWeekly Limit

Maximum DailyLimit

InstantaneousMaximum Limit

SampleLocation

SampleFrequency

Sample Type

Flow, MGD --- --- --- --- Effluent Continuous Recording

Biological OxygenDemand (BOD5)

30 mg/l 45 mg/l --- --- Influent andEffluent

1/week 24-hour composite

94 lb/day 141 lb/day --- ---

Total SuspendedSolids (TSS)

30 mg/l 45 mg/l --- --- Influent andEffluent

1/week 24-hour composite

94 lb/day 141 lb/day --- ---

Fecal ColiformBacteria1

--- 200/100 ml --- --- Effluent 1/week grab

E. Coli Bacteria2,3

126/100ml

--- --- 406/100 ml Effluent 5/month grab

Total Phosphorusas P

15.0lbs/day

23.0 lbs/day --- --- Effluent 2/ month 24-hour composite

Total Ammonia asN3

1.9 mg/L 2.9 mg/L 3.3 mg/L --- Effluent 2/month 24-hour composite

9 lbs/day 14 lbs/day 15.6 lbs/day ---

Total KjeldahlNitrogen

55lbs/day

78 lbs/day --- Effluent 2/month 24-hour composite

...CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE...


PARAMETER

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

AverageMonthlyLimit

AverageWeekly Limit

Maximum DailyLimit

InstantaneousMaximum Limit

SampleLocation

SampleFrequency

Sample Type

pH, standard units --- --- --- see I.A.3. Effluent daily grab

Temperature, °C --- --- --- --- Effluent 1/month grab

Copper, totalrecoverable, :g/L4

--- --- --- --- Effluent 1/month 24-hour composite

Mercury, total,:g/L4

--- --- --- --- Effluent 1/month 24-hour composite

1. The average weekly fecal coliform count must not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml. See Part VI for definition of geometric mean.2. The average monthly E. coli count must not exceed a geometric mean of 126/100 ml based on a minimum of five samples taken, every three

to five days, over a thirty day period. See Part VI for definition of geometric mean.3. Reporting is required within 24 hours of a maximum daily limit or instantaneous maximum limit violation. See Part III.G.4. Monitoring for mercury and copper must start two years after the effective date of the permit and continue for two years. Results of the

monitoring must be submitted on the monthly DMR, and with the next NPDES permit application.

2. The permittee must not discharge any floating solids or visible foam inother than trace amounts, or oily wastes that produce a sheen on thesurface of the receiving water.

3. The pH of the effluent must not be less than 6.5 standard units (s.u.) norgreater than 9.0 standard units (s.u.).

4. For any month, the monthly average effluent concentration must notexceed 15 percent of the monthly average influent concentration.

For each parameter, the monthly average percent removal must becalculated from the arithmetic mean of the influent values and thearithmetic mean of the effluent values for that month. Influent andeffluent samples must be taken over approximately the same time period.

5. The permittee must collect effluent samples from the effluent stream afterthe last treatment unit prior to discharge into the receiving waters.

6. For all effluent monitoring, the permittee must use methods that canachieve a method detection limit (MDL) less than the effluent limitation. For mercury, and copper analysis the permittee must use test methods thatcan achieve an MDL less than or equal to the MDL specified in Table 2(Part I.B.5.).

7. For purposes of reporting on the DMR, if a value is greater than the MDL,the permittee must report the actual value. If a value is less than the MDL,the permittee must report “less than {numeric MDL}” on the DMR. Forpurposes of calculating monthly averages, zero may be used for values


less than the MDL.

B. Surface Water Monitoring. The permittee must conduct surface watermonitoring starting six months after the effective date of the permit, andcontinuing for four years. The program must meet the following requirements:

1. A monitoring station must be established in the Big Wood River above theinfluence of the facility’s discharge, and must be approved by IDEQ andEPA.

2. To the extent practicable, surface water sample collection must occur onthe same day as effluent sample collection.

3. Surface water samples must be composite samples. Composite samplesmust consist of 3 grab samples, one from each side of the river, and onefrom the middle of the river.

4. Copper must be analyzed as dissolved. Mercury must be analyzed as total.

5. Samples must be analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 2, and mustachieve MDLs that are equivalent to or less than those listed in Table 2. The permittee may request different MDLs. The request must submittedto EPA in writing and must be approved by EPA.

Table 2: Surface Water Monitoring Parameter, Locations, and Method Detection Limits

Parameter Units Upstream SamplingFrequency1

Method Detection Limit(MDL)

Temperature °C 1/quarter -----

pH standard units 1/quarter -----

Total Ammonia as N mg/L 1/quarter -----

Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L 1/quarter -----

Copper :g/L 1/quarter 5.0 :g/L

Mercury :g/L 1/quarter 0.005 :g/L

1. Quarterly monitoring must occur once per quarter during each of the following quarters: January - March, April - June, July - September, and October -December. This monitoringschedule must continue for four years.

6. Quality assurance/quality control plans for all the monitoring must bedocumented in the Quality Assurance Plan required under Part I.C.,“Quality Assurance Plan”.


7. Surface water monitoring results must be submitted to EPA and IDEQ onthe DMR, and with the next NPDES permit application, which is due 180days prior to the expiration date of the permit.

Monitoring results from the January - March quarter must be reported onthe March DMR, monitoring results from the April - June quarter mustreported on the June DMR, monitoring results from the July - SeptemberDMR must be reported on the September DMR, and monitoring resultsfrom the October - December DMR must be reported on the DecemberDMR.

a. Dates of sample collection and analyses.b. Results of sample analysis.c. Relevant quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information.

C. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). The permittee must develop a quality assuranceplan (QAP) for all monitoring required by this permit. The plan must besubmitted to EPA and IDEQ for review within 60 days of the effective date of thispermit and implemented within 120 days of the effective date of this permit. Anyexisting QAPs may be modified for submittal under this section.

1. The QAP must be designed to assist in planning for the collection andanalysis of effluent and receiving water samples in support of the permitand in explaining data anomalies when they occur.

2. Throughout all sample collection and analysis activities, the permitteemust use the EPA-approved QA/QC and chain-of-custody proceduresdescribed in:

• Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/QA/R-5), and • Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/QA/G-5).

The QAP must be prepared in the format which is specified in thesedocuments.

3. The following references may be helpful in preparing the Quality

Assurance Plan for metals sampling required by this permit:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Method 1669: Sampling AmbientWater for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels, 1995(EPA-821-R-95-034), and

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sampling Ambient and Effluent


Waters for Trace Metals (EPA-821-V-97-001).

4. At a minimum, the QAP must include the following:

a. Details on the number of samples, type of sample containers,preservation of samples, holding times, analytical methods,analytical detection and quantitation limits for each targetcompound, type and number of quality assurance field samples,precision and accuracy requirements, sample preparationrequirements, sample shipping methods, and laboratory datadelivery requirements.

b. Map(s) indicating the location of each sampling point.

c. Qualification and training of personnel.

d. Name(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the laboratories,used by or proposed to be used by the permittee.

5. The permittee must amend the QAP whenever there is a modification insample collection, sample analysis, or other procedure addressed by theQAP.

6. Copies of the QAP must be kept on site and made available to EPA and/orIDEQ upon request.

D. Sludge Requirements. The permittee must update its sludge application andsubmit it to EPA no later than one year from the effective date of the permit.

E. State Certification Requirement. When the Big Wood River WatershedManagement Plan (Management Plan) is finalized by IDEQ, and approved byEPA, the permittee must develop a plan and schedule for the wastewatertreatment facility. This plan must meet the Management Plan/wasteloadallocation target(s) to ensure compliance with the permit effluent limit(s) that willbe developed from the wasteload allocation target(s) when this permit is modifiedor reissued.

II. PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

A. Control of Undesirable Pollutants. The permittee must not allow introduction ofthe following pollutants into the publicly owned treatment works (POTW):

1. Pollutants which will create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW,


including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint ofless than 140° F or 60° C using the test methods specified in 40 CFR261.21;

2. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, butin no case, discharges with a pH lower than 5.0, unless the POTW isdesigned to accommodate such discharges;

3. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to theflow in the POTW (including sewers) resulting in interference;

4. Wastewater at a flow rate which is excessive over relatively short timeperiods so that there is a treatment process upset and subsequent loss oftreatment efficiency; and

5. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.)released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration whichwill cause interference with the POTW.

6. Heat in amounts which inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting ininterference, but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature atthe POTW treatment plant exceeds 40 oC (104o F) unless the RegionalAdministrator, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperaturelimits;

7. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oilorigin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through;

8. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumeswithin the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health andsafety problems; and

9. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated bythe POTW .

B. Requirements for Industrial Users. The permittee must require any industrialuser of its treatment works to comply with any applicable requirements in 40 CFR403 through 471.


III. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges). Samplesand measurements must be representative of the volume and nature of themonitored discharge.

In order to ensure that the effluent limits set forth in this permit are not violated attimes other than when routine samples are taken, the permittee must collectadditional samples at the appropriate outfall whenever any discharge occurs thatmay reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to a violation that is unlikely tobe detected by a routine sample. The permittee must analyze the additionalsamples for those parameters limited in Part I.A. of this permit that are likely to beaffected by the discharge.

The permittee must collect such additional samples as soon as the spill, discharge,or bypassed effluent reaches the outfall. The samples must be analyzed inaccordance with paragraph III.C (“Monitoring Procedures”). The permittee mustreport all additional monitoring in accordance with paragraph III.D (“AdditionalMonitoring by Permittee”).

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results. The permittee must summarize monitoringresults each month on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form (EPA No.3320-1) or equivalent or forms provided or specified by the Director for reportingresults of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices. The permittee mustsubmit reports monthly, postmarked by the 10th day of the following month. Thepermittee must sign and certify all DMRs, and all other reports, in accordancewith the requirements of Part V.E. of this permit ("Signatory Requirements"). The permittee must submit the legible originals of these documents to theDirector, Office of Water, with copies to IDEQ at the following addresses:

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 101200 Sixth Avenue, OW-133Seattle, Washington 98101

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Twin Falls Regional Office601 Pole Line Road, Suite 2Twin Falls, Idaho 83301

C. Monitoring Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to testprocedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or, in the case of sludge use or disposal,approved under 40 CFR 503, unless other test procedures have been specified in


this permit.

D. Additional Monitoring by Permittee. If the permittee monitors any pollutantmore frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures approvedunder 40 CFR 136 or, in the case of sludge use or disposal, approved under 40CFR 136 unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, or as specified in this permit,the permittee must include the results of this monitoring in the calculation andreporting of the data submitted in the DMR or sludge reporting forms specified bythe Director.

Upon request by the Director, the permittee must submit results of any othersampling, regardless of the test method used.

E. Records Contents. Records of monitoring information must include:

1. the date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;2. the name(s) of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or

measurements;3. the date(s) analyses were performed;4. the names of the individual(s) who performed the analyses;5. the analytical techniques or methods used; and6. the results of such analyses.

F. Retention of Records. Except for records of monitoring information required bythis permit related to the permittee’s sewage sludge use and disposal activities,which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as required by40 CFR 503), the permittee must retain records of all monitoring information,including, all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chartrecordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reportsrequired by this permit, copies of DMRs, a copy of the NPDES permit, andrecords of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period ofat least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director or IDEQ at any time.

G. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

1. The permittee must report the following occurrences of noncompliance bytelephone within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware ofthe circumstances:

a. any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment;

b. any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the


permit (See Part IV.F., "Bypass of Treatment Facilities");

c. any upset that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (SeePart IV.G., "Upset Conditions");

d. any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any ofthe pollutants in Table 1 of Part I.A.; or

e. any overflow prior to the treatment works, whether or not suchoverflow endangers health or the environment or exceeds anyeffluent limitation in the permit.

2. The permittee must also provide a written submission within five days ofthe time that the permittee becomes aware of any event required to bereported under subpart 1, above. The written submission must contain:

a. a description of the noncompliance and its cause;

b. the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;

c. the estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it hasnot been corrected;

d. steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrenceof the noncompliance; and

e. if the non compliance involves an overflow prior to the treatmentworks, an estimate of the quantity (in gallons) of untreatedoverflow.

3. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if theoral report has been received within 24 hours by the NPDES ComplianceHotline in Seattle, Washington, by telephone, (206) 553-1846.

4. Reports must be submitted to the addresses in Part III.B ("Reporting ofMonitoring Results").

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting. The permittee must report all instances ofnoncompliance, not required to be reported within 24 hours, at the time thatmonitoring reports for Part III.B ("Reporting of Monitoring Results") aresubmitted. The reports must contain the information listed in Part III.G.2 of thispermit (“Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting”).


I. Notice of New Introduction of Pollutants. The permittee must provide noticeto the Director and IDEQ of:

1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirectdischarger which would be subject to Sections 301 or 306 of the Act if itwere directly discharging those pollutants; and

2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants beingintroduced into the POTW by a source introducing pollutants into thePOTW at the time of issuance of the permit.

3. For the purposes of this section, adequate notice must include informationon:

a. The quality and quantity of effluent to be introduced into thePOTW, and

b. Any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality ofeffluent to be discharged from the POTW.

IV. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Duty to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds forenforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, ormodification, or for denial of a permit renewal application.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

1. Civil and Administrative Penalties. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and theAct, any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405of the Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any suchsections in a permit issued under section 402, or any requirement imposedin a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8)of the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the maximumamounts authorized by Section 309(d) of the Act and the Federal CivilPenalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended bythe Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently$27,500 per day for each violation).

2. Administrative Penalties. Any person may be assessed an administrativepenalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308,318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing


any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act.Pursuant to 40 CFR 19 and the Act, administrative penalties for Class Iviolations are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section309(g)(2)(A) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties InflationAdjustment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the DebtCollection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $11,000per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessednot to exceed $27,500). Pursuant to 40 CFR 19 and the Act, penalties forClass II violations are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized bySection 309(g)(2)(B) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties InflationAdjustment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the DebtCollection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $11,000per day for each day during which the violation continues, with themaximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $137,500).

3. Criminal Penalties:

a. Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person whonegligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405of the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of suchsections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, or anyrequirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved undersection 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminalpenalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of asecond or subsequent conviction for a negligent violation, a personshall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 perday of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 2 years, orboth.

b. Knowing Violations. Any person who knowingly violates suchsections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminalpenalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, orimprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the case of asecond or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a personshall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $100,000per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, orboth.

c. Knowing Endangerment. Any person who knowingly violatessection 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or anypermit condition or limitation implementing any of such sectionsin a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, and who knows at


that time that he thereby places another person in imminent dangerof death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subjectto a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not morethan 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequentconviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a person shall besubject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment ofnot more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as defined insection 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, shall, upon conviction ofviolating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of notmore than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to $2,000,000 forsecond or subsequent convictions.

d. False Statements. The Act provides that any person who falsifies,tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoringdevice or method required to be maintained under this permit shall,upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000,or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. If aconviction of a person is for a violation committed after a firstconviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is afine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or byimprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both. The Act furtherprovides that any person who knowingly makes any falsestatement, representation, or certification in any record or otherdocument submitted or required to be maintained under thispermit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance ornon-compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine ofnot more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for notmore than 6 months per violation, or by both.

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It shall not be a defense for thepermittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt orreduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with this permit.

D. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee must take all reasonable steps to minimize orprevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit that hasa reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee must at all times properlyoperate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (andrelated appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achievecompliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenancealso includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assuranceprocedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary


facilities or similar systems which are installed by the permittee only when theoperation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.

F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass tooccur that does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if italso is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. Thesebypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of thisPart.

2. Notice.

a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the needfor a bypass, it must submit prior notice, to the Director and IDEQif possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass.

b. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee must submit notice of anunanticipated bypass as required under Part III.G ("Twenty-fourHour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting").

3. Prohibition of bypass.

a. Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement actionagainst the permittee for a bypass, unless:

i) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe property damage;

ii) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such asthe use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention ofuntreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods ofequipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied ifadequate back-up equipment should have been installed inthe exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to preventa bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipmentdowntime or preventive maintenance; and

iii) The permittee submitted notices as required underparagraph 2 of this Part.

b. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after consideringits adverse effects, if the Director determines that it will meet the


three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a. of this Part.

G. Upset Conditions

1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to anaction brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permiteffluent limitations if the permittee meets the requirements of paragraph 2of this Part. No determination made during administrative review ofclaims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action fornoncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review.

2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. To establish theaffirmative defense of upset, the permittee must demonstrate, throughproperly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevantevidence that:

a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s)of the upset;

b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;

c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under PartIII.G, “Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting;”and

d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures requiredunder Part IV.D, “Duty to Mitigate.”

3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking toestablish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.

H. Toxic Pollutants. The permittee must comply with effluent standards orprohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants andwith standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under section 405(d)of the Act within the time provided in the regulations that establish thosestandards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified toincorporate the requirement.

I. Planned Changes. The permittee must give notice to the Director and IDEQ assoon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permittedfacility whenever:

1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the


criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as determined in40 CFR 122.29(b); or

2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increasethe quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies topollutants that are not subject to effluent limitations in this permit.

3. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee’ssludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or changemay justify the application of permit conditions that are different from orabsent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use ordisposal sites not reported during the permit application process or notreported pursuant to an approved land application site.

J. Anticipated Noncompliance. The permittee must give advance notice to theDirector and IDEQ of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activitythat may result in noncompliance with this permit.

V. GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, orterminated for cause as specified in 40 CFR 122.62, 122.64, or 124.5. The filingof 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.

B. Duty to Reapply. If the permittee intends to continue an activity regulated bythis permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply forand obtain a new permit. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d), and unlesspermission for the application to be submitted at a later date has been granted bythe Director, the permittee must submit a new application at least 180 days beforethe expiration date of this permit.

C. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee must furnish to the Director andIDEQ, within the time specified in the request, any information that the Directoror IDEQ may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revokingand reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with thispermit. The permittee must also furnish to the Director or IDEQ, upon request,copies of records required to be kept by this permit.

D. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submitany relevant facts in a permit application, or that it submitted incorrectinformation in a permit application or any report to the Director or IDEQ, it must


promptly submit such facts or information.

E. Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports or information submitted tothe Director and IDEQ must be signed and certified as follows.

1. All permit applications must be signed as follows:

a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.

b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner orthe proprietor, respectively.

c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by eithera principal executive officer or ranking elected official.

2. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by theDirector or IDEQ must be signed by a person described above or by a dulyauthorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorizedrepresentative only if:

a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;

b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a positionhaving responsibility for the overall operation of the regulatedfacility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operatorof a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalentresponsibility, or an individual or position having overallresponsibility for environmental matters for the company; and

c. The written authorization is submitted to the Director and IDEQ.

3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part V.E.2 is nolonger accurate because a different individual or position hasresponsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorizationsatisfying the requirements of Part V.E.2. must be submitted to theDirector and IDEQ prior to or together with any reports, information, orapplications to be signed by an authorized representative.

4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Part must makethe following certification:

"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments wereprepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system


designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluatethe information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or personswho manage the system, or those persons directly responsible forgathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of myknowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that thereare significant penalties for submitting false information, including thepossibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

F. Availability of Reports. In accordance with 40 CFR 2, information submitted toEPA pursuant to this permit may be claimed as confidential by the permittee. Inaccordance with the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data are notconsidered confidential. Any confidentiality claim must be asserted at the time ofsubmission by stamping the words “confidential business information” on eachpage containing such information. If no claim is made at the time of submission,EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice tothe permittee. If a claim is asserted, the information will be treated in accordancewith the procedures in 40 CFR 2, Subpart B (Public Information) and 41 Fed.Reg. 36902 through 36924 (September 1, 1976), as amended.

G. Inspection and Entry. The permittee must allow the Director, IDEQ, or anauthorized representative (including an authorized contractor acting as arepresentative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of credentials andother documents as may be required by law, to:

1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity islocated or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditionsof this permit;

2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must bekept under the conditions of this permit;

3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoringand control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or requiredunder this permit; and

4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permitcompliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances orparameters at any location.

H. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not convey any propertyrights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury topersons or property or invasion of other private rights, nor any infringement ofstate or local laws or regulations.


I. Transfers. This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to theDirector. The Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance ofthe permit to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such otherrequirements as may be necessary under the Act. (See 40 CFR 122.61; in somecases, modification or revocation and reissuance is mandatory).

J. State Laws. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institutionof any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, orpenalties established pursuant to any applicable state law or regulation underauthority preserved by Section 510 of the Act.

K. Reopener. This permit may be reopened to include any applicable standard forsewage sludge use or disposal promulgated under section 405(d) of the Act. TheDirector may modify or revoke and reissue the permit if the standard for sewagesludge use or disposal is more stringent than any requirements for sludge use ordisposal in the permit, or controls a pollutant or practice not limited in the permit.

VI. DEFINITIONS

1. “Act” means the Clean Water Act.

2. “Administrator” means the Administrator of the EPA, or an authorizedrepresentative.

3. “Average monthly discharge limitation” means the highest allowable average of“daily discharges” over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all “dailydischarges” measured during a calendar month divided by the number of “dailydischarges” measured during that month.

4. “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) means schedules of activities, prohibitionsof practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to preventor reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also includetreatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant siterunoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materialstorage areas.

5. “Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of atreatment facility.

6. “Daily discharge” means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar

day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day forpurposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations expressed in units of mass,the "daily discharge" is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged


over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units ofmeasurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement ofthe pollutant over the day.

7. “Director” means the Director of the Office of Water, EPA, or an authorizedrepresentative.

8. “DMR” means discharge monitoring report.

9. “EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

10. “Geometric mean” of “n” quantities is the “nth” root of the product of thequantities. For example the geometric mean of 100, 200 and 300 is (100 X 200 X300)1/3 = 181.7

11. “Grab" sample is an individual sample collected over a period of time notexceeding 15 minutes.

12. “IDEQ” means the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

13. “Instantaneous Maximum Limit” means the maximum allowable concentration ofa pollutant determined from the analysis of any discrete sample collected,independent of the flow rate and the duration of the sampling event.

14. "Maximum daily discharge limitation" means the highest allowable "dailydischarge."

15. “Method Detection Limit (MDL)” means the minimum concentration of asubstance (analyte) that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidencethat the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysisof a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.

16. “NOEC” means no observed effect concentration. The NOEC is the highestconcentration of toxicant (e.g., effluent) to which organisms are exposed in achronic toxicity test [full life-cycle or partial life-cycle (short term) test], thatcauses no observable adverse effects on the test organisms (i.e., the highestconcentration of effluent in which the values for the observed responses are notstatistically significantly different from the controls).

17. “POTW” means publicly owned treatment works.

18. “QA/QC” means quality assurance/quality control.


19. “Regional Administrator” means the Regional Administrator of Region 10 of theEPA, or the authorized representative of the Regional Administrator.

20. “Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property,damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, orsubstantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably beexpected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does notmean economic loss caused by delays in production.

21. “Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional andtemporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitationsbecause of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset doesnot include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperlydesigned treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventivemaintenance, or careless or improper operation.

22. “24-hour composite” sample means a combination of at least 3 discrete samplescollected at equal time intervals from the same location, over a 24 hour period. The sample aliquots must be collected and stored in accordance in accordancewith procedures prescribed in the most recent edition of Standard Methods for theExamination of Water and Wastewater.

FACT SHEETThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Plans To Reissue A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To:

The City of HaileyWoodside Wastewater Treatment Plant

115 South Main StreetHailey, Idaho 83333

Permit Number: ID-002030-3Public Notice starts: February 7, 2001Public Notice ends: March 9, 2001

EPA Proposes NPDES Permit Reissuance.EPA proposes to reissue an NPDES permit to the City of Hailey. The draft permit placesconditions on the discharge of pollutants from the city’s Woodside wastewater treatment plant tothe Big Wood River. In order to ensure protection of water quality and human health, the permitplaces limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged.

This Fact Sheet includes:- information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures- a description of the current discharge and current sewage sludge (biosolids) practices- a listing of proposed effluent limitations, schedules of compliance, and other conditions - a map and description of the discharge location - technical material supporting the conditions in the permit

State Certification.EPA is requesting that the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality certify the NPDESpermit for the City of Hailey, under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Public Comment. Persons wishing to comment on, or request a Public Hearing for, the draft permit may do so inwriting by the expiration date of the Public Notice. A request for a Public Hearing must state thenature of the issues to be raised as well as the requester’s name, address and telephone number.All comments and requests for Public Hearings must be in writing and should be submitted toEPA as described in the Public Comments Section of the attached Public Notice.

After the Public Notice expires, and all comments have been considered, EPA’s regionalDirector for the Office of Water will make a final decision regarding permit reissuance. If nosubstantive comments are received, the tentative conditions in the draft permit will become final,and the permit will become effective upon issuance. If comments are received, EPA willaddress the comments and issue the permit. The permit will become effective 30 days after the

issuance date, unless the permit is appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days.

Documents are Available for Review.The draft NPDES permit and related documents can be reviewed or obtained by visiting orcontacting EPA’s Regional Office in Seattle between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday (See address below). Draft permits, Fact Sheets, and other information can also be foundby visiting the Region 10 website at “www.epa.gov/r10earth/water.htm.”

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 101200 Sixth Avenue, OW-130Seattle, Washington 98101(206) 553-2108 or 1-800-424-4372 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)

The Fact Sheet and draft permit are also available at:

EPA Idaho Operations Office 1435 North Orchard Street Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 378-5746

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. FACILITY ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4A. Treatment Plant Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4B. Permit Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4C. Compliance Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. RECEIVING WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A. Outfall Location/Receiving Water Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5B. Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C. Water Quality Limited Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

V. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A. Basis for Monitoring/Monitoring Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7B. Method Detection Limits for Mercury and Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

VI. SLUDGE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

VII. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A. Quality Assurance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9B. Pretreatment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10C. Additional Permit Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

VIII. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11A. Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11B. State Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11C. Permit Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX A Wastewater Treatment Plant LocationAPPENDIX B Water Quality StandardsAPPENDIX C Basis for Effluent Limitations

-4-

I. APPLICANT

City of Hailey Woodside Wastewater Treatment PlantNPDES Permit No.: ID-002030-3

Facility Mailing Address:115 South Main Street, Suite H Hailey, Idaho 83333

II. FACILITY INFORMATION

A. Treatment Plant Description

The City of Hailey owns, operates, and has maintenance responsibility for a facilitywhich treats domestic sewage from local residents and commercial establishments. TheCity recently completed construction of the Woodside Wastewater Treatment Facility(hereafter referred to as the Woodside facility), which replaces the old RiversideWastewater Treatment Facility.

The Woodside facility consists of screening and grit removal followed by an anaerobicbatching tank, sequencing batch reactor complete mix activated sludge process andequalization basin, followed by membrane drum filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. Sludge from the facility is treated by aerobic digestion and is disposed of at the BlaineCounty sludge disposal site.

The facility serves a population of 5,000 and has the following design characteristics:

Design Flow: 1.6 mgd Design Removal, 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand > 90 %Design Removal, Total Suspended Solids > 90 %Design Removal, Nitrogen 90 %Design Removal, Phosphorus 80 %

A map has been included in Appendix A which shows the location of the treatment plant,and the outfall.

B. Permit Information

The NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment plant expires on May 7, 2001. The Citysubmitted an application for the facility on May 31, 2000. If a new permit is not issued tothe facility by May 7, 2000 then the existing permit will be administratively extended(i.e., continue in force and effect) until a new permit is issued.

1 Discharge monitoring reports are forms used by the permittee to report the results of monitoringthat is conducted to verify that they are adhering to the effluent limitations and conditions in theirNPDES permit.

-5-

C. Compliance Information

A review of the facility’s Discharge Monitoring Reports1 for the past five years indicatesthat the facility has generally been in compliance with the terms of its existing permit.

III. RECEIVING WATER

A. Outfall location/ Receiving Water Flows

The treated effluent from the Woodside wastewater treatment facility is discharged fromoutfall 001 to the Big Wood River, in the Upper Snake Basin, at approximately river mile84. The outfall has an 18 inch diffuser and is located at latitude 43° 28' 42" andlongitude 114° 16' 48" .

This reach of the Big Wood River has a 1Q10 low flow of 75 cfs (48.5 mgd), and a 7Q10low flow of 88 cfs (56.9mgd). The 1Q10 flow is the lowest recorded one day flow witha return period of 10 years, and the 7Q10 is the average low flow over seven days with areturn period of 10 years.

B. Water Quality Standards

A State’s water quality standards are composed of use classifications, numeric and/ornarrative water quality criteria, and an anti-degradation policy. The use classificationsystem designates the beneficial uses that each water body is expected to achieve (such ascold water biota, contact recreation, etc.). The numeric and/or narrative water qualitycriteria are the criteria deemed necessary, by the State, to support the beneficial useclassification of each water body. The anti-degradation policy represents a three tiered approach to maintain and protect various levels of water quality and uses.

The Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements (IDAPA16.01.02.150.21.) protect this segment of the river for domestic water supply, agriculturalwater supply, cold water biota, salmonid spawning, and primary contact recreation. Thisreach is also designated as a special resource water.

The criteria that the State of Idaho has deemed necessary to protect the beneficial uses forthis portion of the Big Wood River, and the State’s anti-degradation policy aresummarized in Appendix B.

C. Water Quality Limited Segment

-6-

A water quality limited segment is any waterbody, or definable portion of a water body,where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards,and/or is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards. The section of the BigWood River where the facility is located has been listed as a water quality limitedsegment for flow.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to develop a plan, known as aTotal Maximum Daily Load management plan (TMDL), for water bodies listed as waterquality limited. The TMDL documents the amount of a pollutant a waterbody canassimilate without violating a state’s water quality standards and allocates that load toknown point sources and nonpoint sources. The Idaho Division of EnvironmentalQuality (IDEQ) plans to complete a TMDL for the Big Wood River by December 2001.

IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

In general, the Clean Water Act requires that the effluent limits for a particular pollutantbe the more stringent of either technology-based effluent limits or water quality-basedeffluent limits. A technology based effluent limit requires a minimum level of treatmentfor municipal point sources based on currently available treatment technologies. A waterquality based effluent limit is designed to ensure that the water quality standards of awaterbody are being met and it may be more stringent then technology-based effluentlimits. For more information on deriving technology-based effluent limits and waterquality-based effluent limits see Appendix C.

The following summarizes the proposed effluent limitations that are in the draft permit.

1. The pH range must not be less than 6.5 standard units nor greater than 9.0standard units.

2. For any month, the monthly average effluent concentration for BOD5 and TSSmust not exceed 15 percent of the monthly average influent concentration forBOD5 and TSS.

3. The permittee must not discharge any floating solids, visible foam in other thantrace amounts, or oily wastes that produce a sheen on the surface of the receivingwater.

4. Table 1, below, presents the proposed average monthly, average weekly, andinstantaneous maximum effluent limits for BOD5, TSS, escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, total phosphorus, total ammonia, and totalkjeldahl nitrogen.

-7-

TABLE 1: Monthly, Weekly and Instantaneous Maximum Effluent Limitations

Parameters Average Monthly Limit Average Weekly Limit Instantaneous MaximumLimit

BOD5 30 mg/L(94 lbs/day)

45 mg/L(141 lbs/day)

---

TSS 30 mg/L(94 lbs/day)

45 mg/L(141 lbs/day)

—

E. coli Bacteria

126 /100 ml --- 406 /100 ml

Fecal ColiformBacteria

--- 200 colonies/100 ml ---

Total Ammonia as N 1.9 mg/L(9 lbs/day)

2.9 mg/L(14 lb/day)

3.3 mg/L(15.6 lbs/day)

Total Phosphorus 15.0 lbs/day 23.0 lbs/day —

Total KjeldahlNitrogen

55 lbs/day 78 lbs/day —

V. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

A. Basis for Monitoring/Monitoring Requirements

Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and the federal regulation 40 CFR 122.44(i) requiremonitoring in permits to determine compliance with effluent limitations. Monitoring mayalso be required to gather effluent and ambient data to determine if additional effluentlimitations are required and/or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality. The permittee is responsible for conducting the monitoring and for reporting the results to EPA.

Table 2 presents the proposed effluent monitoring requirements, and table 3 presents theproposed ambient monitoring requirements.

-8-

TABLE 2: Woodside Facility Monitoring Requirements

Parameter Sample Location Sample Frequency Sample Type

Flow, mgd Effluent Continuous ---

BOD5, mg/L Influent and Effluent 1/week 24-hour composite

TSS, mg/L Influent and Effluent 1/week 24-hour composite

pH, standard units Effluent daily grab

Temperature, °C Effluent 1/month grab

Fecal Coliform Bacteria,colonies/100 ml

Effluent 1/week grab

E. Coli Bacteria, colonies/100 ml

Effluent 5/month grab

Total Ammonia as N, mg/L Effluent 2/month 24-hour composite

Total Phosphorus as P, mg/L Effluent 2/month 24-hour composite

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/L Effluent 2/month 24-hour composite

Copper, total recoverable1, :g/L Effluent 1/month 24-hour composite

Mercury, total1, :g/L Effluent 1/month 24-hour composite

1. Effluent monitoring for mercury and copper shall start 2 years after the effective date of the permit andcontinue for 2 years.

TABLE 3: Big Wood River Monitoring Requirements

Parameter Sample Location Sample Frequency Sample Type

Temperature, °C upstream of outfall 2/month composite

pH, standard units upstream of outfall 2/month composite

Hardness as CaCO3 upstream of outfall 1/month composite

Total Ammonia as N,mg/L

upstream of outfall 2/month composite

Copper, dissolved, upstream of outfall 1/month composite

Mercury, total, :g/L upstream of outfall 1/month composite

Note: Ambient monitoring for copper, mercury, and hardness must start 2 years after the effective date of the permitand continue for 2 years.

B. Method Detection Limits for Mercury and Copper Monitoring.

The aquatic life criteria for mercury include an acute criterion of 2.04 :g/L, and achronic criterion of 0.012 :g/L. The human health criterion for mercury is 0.15

-9-

:g/L. The aquatic life criteria for copper include an acute criterion of 17.2 :g/L,and a chronic criterion of 11.5 :g/L. In order to determine if the effluentdischarged from the facility has the potential to cause or contribute to a violation ofthese criteria, the facility must use analytical test methods with method detectionlevels below the aquatic life and human health criteria. The draft permit requiresthe permittee to use a test method that achieves a method detection limit of 0.005:g/L for mercury, and a method that achieves 5.0 :g/L for copper.

VI. SLUDGE (BIOSOLIDS) REQUIREMENTS

The publication of 40 CFR 503 in the Federal Register on February 19, 1993 served asnotice to the regulated community of its duty to comply with the requirements of thebiosolids regulations, except for those requirements that indicate that the permittingauthority shall specify what has to be done.

Biosolids requirements contained in 40 CFR 503 include: acceptable biosolids pollutantlevels; reduction requirements for pathogens; reduction requirements of the characteristicsin biosolids that attract vectors; the quality of the exit gas from a biosolids incineratorstack; the quality of biosolids that are placed in a municipal solid waste landfill unit;requirements for sites where biosolids are either land applied or placed for final disposal;and requirements for biosolid incinerators.

Even though Part 503 is self-implementing, Section 405(f) of the CWA requires theinclusion of biosolids use or disposal requirements in any NPDES permit issued to aTreatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage. The permitting regulations in 40 CFR 122and 124 have been revised to expand its authority to issue NPDES permits with biosolidsrequirements. EPA Region 10 plans to issue a separate NPDES general permit whichdeals only with the use and disposal of biosolids. When the general permit is issuedfacilities that generate biosolids, including the City of Hailey, will be required to becovered under this general permit.

Presently, the permittee disposes biosolids at the Blaine County Landfill. The draft permitrequires the permittee to submit its updated sludge application within one year of theeffective date of the permit.

VIII. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. Quality Assurance Plan

The federal regulation at 40 CFR 122.41(e) requires the permittee to submit aQuality Assurance Plan (Plan) to ensure that the monitoring data submitted isaccurate and to explain data anomalies if they occur. The permittee currently has aPlan, therefore, the permittee only needs to update its Plan to reflect any new ormodified requirements in the permit. The Plan must consist of standard operatingprocedures the permittee must follow for collecting, handling, storing and shipping

-10-

samples, laboratory analysis, and data reporting. The Plan must be updated within60 days of the effective date of the final permit.

B. Pretreatment Requirements

The pretreatment conditions in the draft permit are based on the federal regulationsat 40 CFR 403 through 471.

C. Additional Permit Provisions

Sections III, IV, and V of the draft permit contain standard regulatory language thatmust be included in all NPDES permits. Because they are regulations, they cannotbe challenged in the context of an NPDES permit action. The standard regulatorylanguage covers requirements such as monitoring, recording, reportingrequirements, compliance responsibilities, and other general requirements.

VIII. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

A. Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the NationalMarine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if their actionscould adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. EPA has determinedthat there are no endangered species in the vicinity of the discharge.

B. State Certification

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to seek state certification beforeissuing a final permit. As a result of the certification, the state may require morestringent permit conditions or additional monitoring requirements to ensure that thepermit complies with water quality standards.

C. Permit Expiration

This permit will expire five years from the effective date of the permit.

B-1

APPENDIX BWATER QUALITY STANDARDS

(A) Water Quality Criteria

For the City of Hailey discharge, the following water quality criteria are necessary for theprotection of the beneficial uses of the Big Wood River:

1. IDAPA 16.01.02.200.02 - Surface waters of the State shall be free from toxic substances inconcentrations that impair designated beneficial uses. These substances do not includesuspended sediment produces as a result of nonpoint source activities.

2. IDAPA 16.01.02.200.05 - Surface waters of the State shall be free from floating,suspended, or submerged matter of any kind in concentrations causing nuisance orobjectionable conditions or that may impair designated beneficial uses.

3. IDAPA 16.01.02.200.06 - Excess Nutrient. Surface waters of the State shall be free fromexcess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or other nuisance aquatic growthsimpairing designated beneficial uses.

4. IDAPA 16.01.02.210.01 - Numeric Criteria for Toxic Substances. Toxic substance criteriaset forth in 40 CFR 131.36(b)(1), as of July 1, 1993, is hereby incorporated by reference inthe manner provided in subsection 210.02, however, the standard for arsenic shall be 50:g/L.

5. IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.a. - Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) values within the range of6.5 to 9.5 standard units.

6. IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.c. - The one hour average concentration (acute criterion) shall notexceed 19 :g/L, and the four day average concentration (chronic criterion) shall not exceed11 :g/L.

8 IDAPA 16.01.02.250.04.a - Dissolved oxygen concentrations shall exceed 6mg/L at alltimes.

9. IDAPA 16.01.02.250.04.b. - Water temperature shall be 22° C or less with a maximumdaily average of no greater than 19° C .

10. IDAPA 16.01.02.250.04.c. - The one hour average concentration of un-ionized ammonia(as N) is not to exceed (0.43/A/B/2) mg/L, where:

A = 1 if the water temperature (T) is $ 20° C, orA = 10(0.03(20-T)) if T < 20°C, andB = 1 if the pH is $ 8.0, orB = (1+ 10(7.4-pH)) ÷ 1.25 if pH is < 8.0

B-2

11. IDAPA 16.01.02.250.02.c.iii - The four day average concentration of un-ionized ammonia(as N) is not to exceed (0.66A/B/C) mg/L, where:

A = 1.4 if T is $ 15° C, orA = 10(0.03(20-T)) if T < 15°C, and

B = 1 if the pH is $ 8.0, orB = (1+ 10(7.4-pH)) ÷ 1.25 if pH is < 8.0

C = 13.5 if pH is $ 7.7, orC = 20(10(7.7-pH)) ÷ (1+ 10(7.4-pH)) if the pH is < 7.7

12. IDAPA 16.01.02.251.01. - Waters designated for primary contact recreation are not tocontain E. coli bacteria significant to the public health in concentrations exceeding:

a. A single sample of four hundred and six E. coli organisms per one hundred ml; orb. A geometric mean of one hundred and twenty six E. coli organisms per one hundred

ml based on a minimum of five samples taken, every three to five days, over a thirtyday period.

B-3

(B) Anti-Degradation Policy

The State of Idaho has adopted an anti-degradation policy as part of their water quality standards. The anti-degradation policy represents a three tiered approach to maintain and protect variouslevels of water quality and uses. The three tiers of protection are as follows:

• Tier 1 - Protects existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses.

• Tier 2 - Protects the level of water quality necessary to support propagation of fish,shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water in waters that are currently ofhigher quality than required to support these uses. Before water quality in Tier 2 waterscan be lowered, there must be an anti-degradation review consisting of: (1) a finding that itis necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area wherethe waters are located (2) full satisfaction of all intergovernmental coordination and publicparticipation provisions; and (3) assurance that the highest statutory and regulatoryrequirements for point sources and best management practices for nonpoint sources areachieved. Furthermore, water quality may not be lowered to less than the level necessaryto fully protect the “fishable/swimmable” uses and other existing uses.

• Tier 3 - Protects the quality of outstanding national resources, such as waters of nationaland State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecologicalsignificance. There may be no new or increased discharges to these waters and no new orincreased discharges to tributaries of these waters that would result in lower water quality.

The Big Wood River is a tier 2 waterbody, and the water quality is of higher quality then requiredto support its beneficial uses. Water quality in Tier 2 waters cannot be lowered without an anti-degradation review. The draft permit contains effluent limitations that ensure water quality willnot be lowered.

C-1

APPENDIX CBasis for Effluent Limitations

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) to meet certaineffluent limits based on available wastewater treatment technology. These types of effluent limitsare called technology based effluent limits. EPA may find, by analyzing the effect of an effluentdischarge on the receiving water, that technology based effluent limits are not sufficiently stringentto meet water quality standards. In such cases, EPA is required to develop more stringent waterquality-based effluent limits which are designed to ensure that the water quality standards of thereceiving water are met.

Technology based effluent limits don’t always limit every parameter that is in an effluent. Forexample, technology based effluent limits for POTWs only limit five-day biochemical oxygendemand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH. Yet effluent from a POTW may containother pollutants such as chlorine, ammonia, or metals depending on the type of treatment systemused and the service area of the POTW (i.e., industrial facilities as well as residential areasdischarge into the POTW). When technology based effluent limits do not exist for a particularpollutant, EPA must still determine if the pollutants expected to be in the effluent will cause orcontribute to a violation of the water quality standards for the water body. If they do, EPA isrequired to develop water quality-based effluent limits. The effluent limits in the draft permitreflect whichever limits (technology-based or water quality-based) are more stringent.

The following explains in more detail the derivation of technology based effluent limits, and waterquality based effluent limits. Part A discusses technology based effluent limits, Part B discusseswater quality based effluent limits, and Part C compares the numeric technology based effluentlimits with the numeric water quality based effluent limits, and shows the effluent limits that areproposed in the draft permit.

A. Technology-based Effluent Limitations

Section 301 of the CWA established a required performance level, referred to as“secondary treatment,” that all POTWs were required to meet by July 1, 1977. As a result,EPA developed “secondary treatment” regulations which are specified in the 40 CFR 133. These technology-based effluent limits apply to all municipal wastewater treatment plantsand identify the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment interms of five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), andpH. The technology based effluent limits applicable to the Hailey facility are as follows:

1. BOD5 and TSS, concentration based limits:

Average Monthly Limit = 30 mg/L Average Weekly Limit = 45 mg/L Percent Removal Requirements = 85 %

2. BOD5 and TSS, mass based limits: Federal regulations at (40 CFR § 122.45 (f)) require

C-2

BOD5 and TSS limitations to be expressed as mass based limits using the design flow ofthe facility. The loading is calculated as follows: concentration X design flow X 8.34.

BOD5 and TSS loading, monthly average = 30 mg/L X 1.6 mgd X 8.34 = 400.3 lbs/dayBOD5 and TSS loading, weekly average = 45 mg/L X 1.6 mgd X 8.34 = 600.5 lbs/day

3. pH: The pH range must be between 6.0 - 9.0 standard units.

4. Fecal Coliform Bacteria: In addition to the above, the Idaho Water Quality Standards andWastewater Treatment Requirements (IDAPA16.01.02.420.02.b) require that fecalcoliform concentrations in treated effluent not exceed a geometric mean of 200colonies/100 ml based on no more than one week’s data and a minimum of five samples. IDEQ has determined that monitoring once per week will satisfy the Idaho water qualitystandards. IDEQ will include this monitoring frequency in their certification of the finalpermit.

B. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

1. Statutory Basis for Water Quality-Based Limits

Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires the development of limitations inpermits necessary to meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. Discharges tostate waters must also comply with limitations imposed by the state as part of itscertification of NPDES permits under section 401 of the CWA.

The NPDES regulation (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)) implementing section 301 (b)(1)(C)of the CWA requires that permits include limits for all pollutants which are or maybe discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, orcontribute to an excursion above any state water quality standard, including statenarrative criteria for water quality.

The regulations require that this evaluation be made using procedures whichaccount for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, thevariability of the pollutant in the effluent, species sensitivity (for toxicity), andwhere appropriate, dilution in the receiving water. The limits must be stringentenough to ensure that water quality standards are met, and must be consistent withany available wasteload allocation.

2. Determining Reasonable Potential to Cause of Contribute to a Water QualityStandards Violation

When evaluating the effluent to determine if water quality-based effluent limits areneeded based on chemical specific numeric criteria, a projection of the receivingwater concentration (downstream of where the effluent enters the receiving water)for each pollutant of concern is made. The chemical specific concentration of the

C-3

effluent and ambient water and, if appropriate, the dilution available from theambient water are factors used to project the receiving water concentration. If theprojected concentration of the receiving water exceeds the numeric criterion for aspecific chemical, then there is a reasonable potential that the discharge may causeor contribute to an excursion above the applicable water quality standard, and awater quality-based effluent limit is required (see Appendix B for the applicable water quality criteria).

As mentioned above, sometimes it is appropriate to allow a small area of ambientwater to dilute the effluent. These areas are called mixing zones. Mixing zoneallowances will increase the mass loadings of the pollutant to the water body, anddecrease treatment requirements. Mixing zones can be used only when there isadequate ambient flow volume and the ambient water is below the criterianecessary to protect designated uses. Mixing zones can only be authorized by theIdaho Department of Environmental Quality.

For this particular discharge the pollutants that need to be evaluated to ensure thatwater quality standards are protected include BOD5, TSS, pH, total ammonia, totalkjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total residual chlorine, metals, dissolvedoxygen, temperature, and bacteria.

3. Procedure for Deriving Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

Once it has been determined that an effluent has the reasonable potential to cause orcontribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard a water quality basedeffluent limit must be developed.

The first step in developing a water quality based permit limit is to develop awasteload allocation for the pollutant which can then be converted into a permitlimitation. A wasteload allocation is the effluent concentration or loading of apollutant that a permittee may discharge without causing or contributing to anexceedance of water quality standards in the receiving water. For this permitwasteload allocations have been developed using a simple mass balancing equation. The equation takes into account the available dilution provided by the mixing zone,if one is authorized by the state, the background concentrations of the pollutant inthe receiving water, and the design flow of the facility.

Once the wasteload allocation has been developed, the EPA applies the statisticalpermit limit derivation approach described in Chapter 5 of the Technical SupportDocument for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001, March1991, hereafter referred to as the TSD) to obtain monthly average, and weeklyaverage or daily maximum permit limits. This approach takes into account effluentvariability, sampling frequency, and water quality standards.

4. Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

C-4

(a) Toxic Substances

The Idaho state water quality standards require surface waters of the state tobe free from toxic substances in concentration that impair designated uses. There are no significant industrial discharges to the facility, andconcentrations of priority pollutants from cities without a significantindustrial component are low. Therefore, it is not anticipated that toxicitywill be a problem in the effluent, and a water quality based effluent limit hasnot been proposed.

(b) Floating, Suspended or Submerged Matter/Oil and Grease

The Idaho state water quality standards require surface waters of the state tobe free from floating, suspended, or submerged matter of any kind inconcentrations causing nuisance or objectionable conditions that may impairdesignated beneficial uses. Therefore, a narrative condition is proposed forthe draft permit that states there must be no discharge of floating solids orvisible foam in other than trace amounts, or oily wastes that produce a sheenon the surface of the receiving water.

(c) Excess Nutrients (Total phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen)

The Idaho state water quality standards require surface waters of the state befree from excess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or othernuisance aquatic growths impairing designated beneficial uses.

In a 1975 IDEQ staff evaluation, effluent limits for total phosphorus andtotal kjeldahl nitrogen were established which are protective of the waterquality of the Big Wood River. Additionally, a 1996 anti-degradationanalysis performed by IDEQ staffed reaffirmed the total phosphorus limit. Section 403(o) of the CWA prohibits the relaxation of effluent limitationsthat are in the existing permit, except in very limited cases as outlined inSections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA. These pollutants do notqualify for any of the listed exceptions, therefore, the limits will be retainedin the proposed permit.

(d) Sediment/Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

In 1996 IDEQ performed an anti-degradation analysis which established thatan average monthly limit of 94 lbs/day and an average weekly limit of 141lbs/day for TSS would be protective of water quality standards. These limitsare more stringent than the technology based effluent limits for TSS. Asstated above, section 403(o) of the CWA prohibits the relaxation of effluentlimitations that are in the existing permit, except in very limited casesoutlined in Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA. Since this

C-5

discharge does not qualify for any of the listed exceptions the limits in theexisting permit will be retained in the proposed permit.

(e) Metals

The City has monitored its effluent for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc for the past five years. A reasonablepotential analysis was performed using the data collected by the city todetermine if the effluent had the potential to cause or contribute to anexceedance of the allowable metals criteria in the Big Wood River. Theanalysis showed that the levels of copper and mercury in the effluent maycontribute to a violation of the allowable criteria in the Big Wood River. However, the data used to make this determination was collected from thenow defunct Riverside facility rather than the recently completed Woodsidefacility. Therefore, the draft permit will require the permittee to monitor theeffluent from the new facility for copper and mercury to determine if thelevels of these pollutants will cause or contribute to a violation of theallowable instream criteria. Additionally, because the criteria for copperand mercury are so low, the proposed permit requires the permittee to usetest methods that have very low method detection limits.

(f) pH

The Idaho state water quality standards require surface waters of the state tohave a pH value within the range of 6.5 - 9.5 standard units. It is anticipatedthat a mixing zone will not be authorized for pH, therefore, this criterionmust be met before the effluent is discharged to the receiving water.

The technology based effluent limit range for pH is 6.0 - 9.0 standard units,and also must be met before the effluent is discharged to the receiving water(i.e, mixing zones are not allowed for technology based effluent limits).

To ensure that both water quality based requirements and technology basedrequirements are met the draft permit incorporates the lower range of thewater quality standards (6.5 standard units) and the upper range of thetechnology based limits (9.0 standard units).

(g) Total Residual Chlorine

The previous permit had effluent limitations for total residual chlorine. However, the new wastewater treatment facility constructed by the city usesultraviolet radiation to disinfect the wastewater rather than chlorine. Because chlorine is no longer used at the facility, the total residual chlorinelimits will be removed from the proposed permit.

C-6

(h) Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)/BOD5

The state water quality standards require the level of D.O. in a receivingwater to exceed 6 mg/L at all times when the water body is protected foraquatic life use. In 1996 IDEQ performed an anti-degradation analysiswhich included an analysis of the dissolved oxygen in the Big Wood River. The analysis showed that D.O. in the Big Wood River would not beadversely affected if the Hailey discharge met an average monthly BOD5

effluent limit of 94 lbs/day and an average weekly BOD5 effluent limit of141 lbs/day. Since these limits are more stringent than the technology basedeffluent limits for BOD5, and because section 403(o) of the CWA prohibitsthe relaxation of effluent limitations that are in existing permits, except invery limited cases as outlined in Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of theCWA, these limits will be retained in the proposed permit.

(i) Temperature

The state water quality standards require ambient water temperatures of 22 degrees C or less with a maximum daily average of no greater than 19 degrees C.

Ambient and effluent monitoring for temperature have been incorporatedinto the draft permit, to determine if effluent limits for temperature maynecessary in the future.

(j) Ammonia

The Idaho Water Quality Standards contain water quality criteria to protectaquatic life against short term and long term adverse impacts from ammonia. The existing permit contains limits for ammonia that were based on a 1975IDEQ staff evaluation and a 1996 anti-degradation analysis. Section 403(o)of the CWA prohibits the relaxation of effluent limitations in the existingpermit, except in very limited cases as outlined in Sections 402(o)(2) and303(d)(4) of the CWA. Since this pollutant does not qualify for any of thelisted exceptions these limits will be retained in the proposed permit.

The existing permit includes an average monthly limit, and an averageweekly limit. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(d) require permitlimits for publicly owned treatment works be expressed as average monthlylimits (AMLs) and average weekly limits (AWLs) unless impracticable.

Region 10 considers it impracticable to incorporate weekly limits for toxicpollutants into permits without including a maximum daily limit becausefederal regulations do not prohibit a permittee from increasing theirsampling events above what is required in an NPDES permit. This is

C-7

significant because a permittee may collect as many samples as necessaryduring a week to bring the average of the data set below the average weeklyeffluent limit. In such cases, spikes of a pollutant, which could be harmfulto aquatic life, could be masked by the increased sampling.

While this is not a concern with pollutants that are not toxic, such as totalsuspended solids or phosphorus, it is a significant concern when toxicpollutants, such as chlorine or ammonia, are being discharged. Using amaximum daily limit will ensure that spikes do not occur, and will ensurethat aquatic life is protected.

Therefore, a maximum daily limit of 3.3 mg/L (15.6 lbs/day) will also beincluded in the proposed permit. These limits were developed using thefollowing equation as recommended in chapter 5 of EPA’s TechnicalSupport Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991 hereafter referred to as the TSD):

Maximum Daily Limit = exp[2.326 (sigma) - (0.5 X (sigma)2] Avg. Monthly Limit exp[1.645(sigma(n)) - (0.5 X (sigma(n))2]

sigma(n) = ln CV 2/n + 1sigma2 = ln CV 2 + 1CV = effluent coefficient of variation (use 0.6 as recommended by the TSDsince the facility is new and no data has been collected) n = number of samples per month = 2

(k) Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) Bacteria

According to the Idaho Water Quality Standards, waters designated forprimary contact recreation, such as the Big Wood River, are not to containE. coli bacteria significant to the public health in concentrations exceeding:

a. A single sample of four hundred and six E. coli organisms per onehundred ml; or

b. A geometric mean of one hundred and twenty six E. coli organismsper one hundred ml based on a minimum of five samples taken,every three to five days, over a thirty day period.

It is anticipated that a mixing zone will not be authorized for bacteria,therefore, the criteria must be met before the effluent is discharged to thereceiving water. The proposed water quality based effluent limits in thepermit include an instantaneous maximum limit of 406 organisms/100 ml,and an average monthly limit of 126 organisms/100 ml.

1 2 5 92 W E S T E X P L OR E R D R I VE , S U IT E 2 0 0 • B OI S E , IDA H O 8 3 71 3 • ( 2 08 ) 3 76 - 2 28 8 • F A X ( 2 08 ) 37 6 - 2 2 5 1 C:\pw_work ing\pro jec twise\bdav ies\d0105398\TM002.doc

City of Hailey Wastewater Master Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FINAL February 2012

February 2012 2-i

CITY OF HAILEY WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Geographical Information System .............................................................. 2-2

3.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 2-2

4.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZATION ............................................................ 2-3 4.1 Collection System Sub-Basins .................................................................... 2-3 4.2 Service Area Customer Distribution ............................................................ 2-7

5.0 CAPACITY EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................... 2-8

6.0 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 2-9 6.1 Objective ..................................................................................................... 2-9 6.2 Assumed Minimum Slope ........................................................................... 2-9 6.3 Flow Contribution ...................................................................................... 2-11 6.4 Woodside Basin Assessment ................................................................... 2-12 6.5 Riverside Basin Assessment .................................................................... 2-13 6.6 Summary - Collection System Preliminary Capacity Assessment ............ 2-18

7.0 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ASSESSMENT .................................................... 2-19 7.1 Potential Infiltration and Inflow Sources .................................................... 2-19 7.2 Historic Data Analysis for Infiltration and Inflow ........................................ 2-20

8.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM FLOW MONITORING ................................................... 2-20 8.1 Basin Monitoring ....................................................................................... 2-20 8.2 Peak Flows ............................................................................................... 2-22 8.3 Flow Monitoring Capacity Assessment ..................................................... 2-22

9.0 SANITARY SEWER CONDITION ASSESSMENT ............................................... 2-24 9.1 Sanitary Sewer Inspection History ............................................................ 2-24 9.2 Inspection Planning and Scheduling ......................................................... 2-25 9.3 Collection System Cleaning and Inspection Procedures .......................... 2-26 9.4 Inspection Records ................................................................................... 2-27 9.5 Collection System Condition Rating System ............................................ 2-27 9.6 Rating System and Repair Priorities ......................................................... 2-31 9.7 Condition Assessment Findings ............................................................... 2-32

10.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND REPAIRS ............................... 2-39

2-ii February 2012

10.1 Pipeline Repairs ........................................................................................ 2-39 10.2 Manholes ................................................................................................... 2-39 10.3 Repair and Rehabilitation Cost Estimates ................................................. 2-39 10.4 Cost Summary .......................................................................................... 2-40

11.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................. 2-42 11.1 Purpose and Background .......................................................................... 2-42 11.2 Pipeline and Manhole Integrity .................................................................. 2-42 11.3 Flooding Hazards ...................................................................................... 2-43 11.4 Pump Station Vulnerability ........................................................................ 2-44 11.5 Collection System Overflow Response ..................................................... 2-46

12.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 2-47 12.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 2-47 12.2 Capacity Requirements ............................................................................. 2-47 12.3 Collection System Expansion Alternatives ................................................ 2-48 12.4 Collection Alternative III – Woodside Expansion Interceptor .................... 2-53 12.5 Collection System Expansion Costs ......................................................... 2-56 12.6 Collection System Expansion Options ...................................................... 2-56 12.7 Collection System Expansion Schedule and Phasing ............................... 2-57

13.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 2-57 13.1 Collection System Capacity ...................................................................... 2-57 13.2 Condition Assessment .............................................................................. 2-58

APPENDIX A: Woodside Trunk Sewer, Invert Elevations and Pipe Slope APPENDIX B: Collection System Repairs and Expansion Cost Assumptions

February 2012 2-iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Inventory of Wastewater Collection System ................................................. 2-2 Table 2.2 Collection System Basins Customer Inventory ............................................. 2-7 Table 2.3 Collection System Critical Trunk Lines ......................................................... 2-8 Table 2.4 Sewer Capacity Criteria ................................................................................ 2-9 Table 2.5 Recommended Minimum Slope for Gravity Sewers1 .................................. 2-10 Table 2.6 Collection System Basin Flow Distribution ................................................. 2-11 Table 2.7 Woodside Trunk Sewer Gradient - vs - Minimum Slopes ........................... 2-12 Table 2.8 Collection System Preliminary Hydraulic Capacity Assessment ................ 2-14 Table 2.9 Flow Monitoring Summary .......................................................................... 2-21 Table 2.10 Sewer Defect Conditions ............................................................................ 2-28 Table 2.11 Manhole Defect Conditions ........................................................................ 2-30 Table 2.12 Sewer and Manhole Rating System and Repair Priorities .......................... 2-31 Table 2.13 Collection System - High Priority Defects ................................................... 2-33 Table 2.14 Non-Uniform Sections in the Woodside Blvd Trunk Sewer ........................ 2-37 Table 2.15 Estimated Sewer Rehabilitation Unit Costs ................................................ 2-40 Table 2.16 Estimated Manhole Repair Costs ............................................................... 2-40 Table 2.17A Estimated Collection System Repair / Rehabilitation Costs - Priority 1 ...... 2-41 Table 2.17B Estimated Collection System Repair / Rehabilitation Costs - Priority 2 ...... 2-41 Table 2.18 Service Area Potential Development and Flow Projections ........................ 2-47 Table 2.19 Hailey Wastewater Collection System Alternatives .................................... 2-53 Table 2.20 Collection System Expansion Costs ........................................................... 2-56

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Trunk and Main Line ..................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2.2 Collection System Hydraulic Capacity Assessment ................................... 2-15 Figure 2.3 CCTV Inspection Defects ........................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2.4.1 Collection System Expansion Alternative I ................................................. 2-50 Figure 2.4.2 Collection System Alternative II .................................................................. 2-54

2-iv February 2012

-This Page Left Blank Intentionally-

February 2012 2-1

Technical Memorandum No. 2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of Technical Memorandum 2 is to summarize and document the existing conditions in the Hailey Wastewater Collection System.

Identify the critical trunk sewers in the collection system.

Investigate the sewer capacity utilized by the present customers considering the average and peak hour flow conditions.

Evaluate the available sewer capacity to handle growth in the service area and future flows.

Assess the level of infiltration and inflow (I/I) in the collection system.

Document the physical conditions of the sewers and manholes, from the City’s closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection program.

Summarize the collection system deficiencies, with the rehabilitation requirements, priorities and costs.

Assess the reliability or vulnerability of the collection system, and identify the most critical components in terms of customer service and compliance with water quality standards.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The City of Hailey sanitary sewer system was originally constructed in the early 1970s covering the central old town area. Subsequent sections were added with development projects and outlying subdivisions as the population and service area grew.

The collection system now consists of more than 44 miles of pipeline, ranging in diameter from 8-inches up to 21-inches. The original sewers in Old Hailey were constructed using asbestos cement (AC) pipe with precast concrete manholes. Subsequent development throughout the service area used polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe for gravity and pressure sewers. The approximate inventory of pipes in the collection system is shown in Table 2.1.

The City maintains basic maps of the sanitary sewers and manholes throughout the service area. However, the detailed plan and profile drawings from the original construction are not available for many parts of the collection system. Even with design drawings, the as-built conditions of the sewer invert elevations require verification. In summary, the slopes of the sanitary sewers and the capacities are unknown for many parts of the collection system.

2-2 February 2012

Table 2.1 Inventory of Wastewater Collection System

Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Diameter Length

(in) (ft) 8 192,970

10 12,700

101 18,600

12 8,100

18 2,100

21 500

Total 234,970 Notes: 1. Pressure Sewer, all other lines under gravity flow. 2. Collection system includes 981 manholes.

2.1 Geographical Information System

The City has compiled a Geographical Information System (GIS) database of the wastewater collection system. The GIS model provides physical and spatial system data, interfaced with a graphical map. Data collected during the City’s routine sewer inspections are incorporated into the GIS model. The details of the collection system are continuously being updated to support operation, maintenance and asset management.

3.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Elimination of overflows from sanitary sewers is a national priority to preserve water quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed regulations to specifically control and eliminate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). These EPA guidelines are known as the Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program, which are expected for adoption in the near future. The approach proposed in CMOM is to reduce SSOs by proactive maintenance and management of the collection system. The main elements required in the CMOM program include:

Prepare written inspection guidelines and procedures for capacity management.

Ensure that a sewer overflow response and reporting plan is in place.

Complete annual audits to review the collection system and CMOM procedures.

Prescribe collection system design and construction standards.

February 2012 2-3

The sewer capacity and condition assessment procedures described in this TM demonstrate the City’s proactive compliance with the principals of managed maintenance in the draft CMOM regulations. The CMOM program must initially be published as draft in the Federal Register for a Public Comment Period. The public comments must be reviewed and addressed before CMOM can be adopted in the final form. As of the date of this TM, the CMOM regulations remain in draft form to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems, EPA 305-B-05-002, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 2005, can be downloaded from www.epa.gov , or www.cmom.net, for the City to reference for general program overview or preliminary auditing.

4.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZATION

4.1 Collection System Sub-Basins

The collection system service area was divided into sub-basins to investigate the distribution of customers and the flows in each of the main lines and trunk sewers. Figure 2.1 shows the collection system service area and eight major sub-basins.

The City of Hailey originally had two wastewater treatment plants. Following the recommendations in the 1996 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller and Associates), the Woodside Treatment Plant was expanded and upgraded to treat flows from the entire service area. The Riverside Treatment Plant was then converted into the Riverside Pump Station. The collection system is divided into two main sub-basins according to the original treatment plant locations. The general flow proportions between each of the Woodside and Riverside basins are known from the flow meter readings recorded at the WWTP.

4.1.1 Woodside Sub-Basins

Approximately 40 percent of the total flow comes from the eastern side of the service area, Basins 1, 2, and 3, which is all gravity service to the Woodside Boulevard trunk sewer. The gravity line begins at the northern end on Eastridge Drive as an 8-inch diameter, increasing from 10-inch to 12-inch diameter as additional flows are collected along Woodside Blvd. The trunk sewer then increases to a 21-inch diameter line on the southern end at the plant entrance, where it discharges into a submersible pump station ahead of the treatment facilities.

The City’s records from the original design and construction of the Woodside trunk were incomplete, because the line was installed in different segments under separate subdivision development projects. Additionally, the Woodside trunk is the logical connection to serve future development in this side of in the service area, so the line was identified as a high priority.

2-4 February 2012

The slope of the pipe and the physical conditions were unknown, so the capacity of the Woodside trunk was uncertain. In 2003, the City started an internal inspection program and compiled pipe invert elevations to investigate this critical trunk sewer. The slope of the pipeline and the initial capacity assessment are discussed in this section. The physical conditions from the internal inspection are presented in Section 8 of this TM.

4.1.2 Riverside Sub-Basins

The western side of the service area has gravity collectors tributary to the Riverside Pump Station on War Eagle Drive, southwest of the City center. Approximately 60 percent of the total service area is pumped from the Riverside Pump Station to the Woodside WWTP, through 18,600 feet of 10-inch diameter forcemain.

Basins 4, 6, and 8 convey through 8-inch collector lines into a 12-inch diameter line on Main Street, increasing to 18-inch diameter near Cedar Street, and into a 21-inch line connected into the Riverside Pump Station.

Basin 7 has 8-inch diameter collector sewers connecting into the 12-inch Riverside trunk that is constructed along the eastern side of the Big Wood River. The 12-inch Riverside trunk sewer connects with the 21-inch line to the Riverside Pump Station.

Basin 6 covering the Old Hailey area, mainly has 8-inch diameter gravity lines combining into 10-inch and 12-inch trunk lines. Prior to the expansion of the Woodside WWTP, a pump station located near the corner of Cedar Street was used to divide flow between the former Riverside WWTP and the Woodside WWTP. Currently, the pump station is plugged off and all flows are diverted by gravity to the Riverside Pump Station. If there should be a major problem at the Riverside Pump Station, the City can reactivate the old Cedar Street Pump Station as a backup, but the capacity is only adequate to handle 140 gallons per minute (gpm), which is approximately 14 percent of the basin flows.

The “Cedar Street” pump station, as standby, consists of a 6-foot diameter wet well, with two self-priming pumps, each 10 horsepower (HP) rated for 300 gpm and 43 feet total dynamic head (TDH). The 6-inch diameter forcemain follows Fox Acres Road and discharges to an 8-inch gravity line on Creekside Drive. The gravity line continues on Baldy View Drive, eventually connecting to the 8-inch diameter Woodside trunk.

4.1.3 Riverside Pump Station

The existing Riverside Pump Station is equipped with two constant-speed submersible pumps in a 12-foot diameter wet well. The pumps are 50 HP designed for 1,000 gpm at 100 ft TDH. The pump station provides a rated, peak pumping capacity of 1.44 million gallons per day (mgd), assuming one pump in operation while the other serves as redundant standby.

BIG WOOD RIVER

Woodside WWTP

Figure 2.1Collection System Basins


February 2012 2-7

4.1.4 Airport West Sub-Basin and Pump Station

Basin 5 is a mixed-use area of light industrial and commercial customers in the Airport West Development. The services in Basin 5 are collected by 8-inch gravity lines to a 6-foot diameter submersible pump station that discharges through a 4-inch diameter pressure line connecting into the Riverside Force main. The Airport Way Pump Station has two 5-horsepower constant speed submersible pumps, each with a design capacity of 250 gpm at 35-feet TDH. The pump station is rated for a peak pumping capacity of 0.36 mgd, with one pump as standby.

4.2 Service Area Customer Distribution

The residential and commercial customers were estimated from the sewer map, counting the plotted lots in each basin. The lot counts included both the existing customers and potential future services on undeveloped space, summarized in Table 2.2. The service connections in each basin are used to estimate the flow contribution from each basin in the collection system.

Table 2.2 Collection System Basins Customer Inventory Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Basin Number

Residential Lots

Commercial Lots

Percentage of Total Service Area (%)

1 470 100 14 2 781 6 20 3 561 5 14

41 475 11 11 5 0 63 2 6 350 93 11 7 518 38 14

81 547 68 14 Total 3,730 384 100

Note: 1. Development in the northeast service area (Cutters subdivision, 2006)

added 62 additional residential customers in Basin 4 and 61 into Basin 8.

2-8 February 2012

The larger diameter main and trunk lines in the service area are listed Table 2.3. The general flow proportions are used to assess the capacity or possible constraints or “bottlenecks” in areas of the collection system.

Table 2.3 Collection System Critical Trunk Lines Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation City of Hailey

Trunk or Main Line Collection

BasinsPipe Dia.

(in)

Estimated Percentage of Total Customers

(%) Woodside Blvd trunk 1, 2, 3 8 to 12 40

Riverside trunk 7 12 14

Cedar Street 4, 6, 8 12 to 18 36

Northridge main 8 8 14

5.0 CAPACITY EVALUATION CRITERIA

A gravity sewer is considered “flowing full” when the depth of flow reaches 80 percent of the internal diameter. Open headspace is essential in gravity lines to permit free-flow and ventilation. Capacity is expressed as a ratio of the depth of flow to the pipe diameter, stated as d/D, or the fraction of the pipe cross-section. If the depth of flow (d/D) exceeds 0.8, the free-flow capacity of the sewer decreases from the maximum capacity due to increased internal friction.

Gravity sewers must allow a margin of reserve capacity to account for variability and uncertainties under normal operating conditions in the collection system. Sewer flows vary over a wide range during peak periods and may increase due to fresh water sources referred to “Infiltration and Inflow” (I/I). Free capacity must be available to provide flexibility to handle small backups from tree roots, sediment or solids that may build-up in the system.

A margin of open capacity is also recommended for future conditions as pipes age. Older sewers typically have more cracks, deflected joints, root intrusion, grease and grit accumulation, and other minor defects that can restrict the flow and reduce the original capacity.

Table 2.4 lists d/D ranges for gravity sewers with a general discussion of available capacity. The depth of flow is reviewed under the average and peak operating conductions in various parts of the collection system to assess the current level of service, and determine if additional customers can be connected.

February 2012 2-9

Table 2.4 Sewer Capacity Criteria Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Average d/D Capacity Comments

d/D < 0.3 Adequate Capacity available for peak flow Capacity available for minor backups from

sediments Capacity available for future connections

0.3 < d/D < 0.6 Marginal Reserve Capacity

Peak flows approach maximum pipe capacity Small margin of safety for maintenance cleaning Rapid response to backups required Limited capacity for future connections

0.6 < d/D Full Limited capacity, peak flows may surcharge No margin for backups Service connections begin to backup No capacity for future connections No margin to account for aging pipes

As a general guideline, when the average flow in a gravity sewer is greater than half-full, the sewer will reach the maximum capacity during peak flow periods. If additional customers are added, peak flows might surcharge and back-up the sewer. When surcharged, sewage flow can backup into customer drains, or potentially could overflow the collection system.

6.0 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

6.1 Objective

A simplified analysis of the collection system is presented in this section, to assess the system capacity and identify potential constraints. The tributary flows from each basin are estimated, and the hydraulic conditions in the pipeline are examined as the flows accumulate into the trunk lines. The general capacity of the collection system is reviewed to identify the current level of service and the ability to accommodate future customers.

6.2 Assumed Minimum Slope

The design capacity is not available for many of the sewers in the collection system, and there are no drawings with the sewer profiles. Therefore, in the absence of detailed

2-10 February 2012

information the minimum slope is used as the baseline assumption for the initial capacity assessment.

Design standards for gravity sewers require slopes to maintain velocities greater than two feet per second (fps), in order to keep raw sewage solids in suspension. The Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers, 2004 Edition, referred to as “Ten States Standards” have been adopted by the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as the design guidelines for wastewater systems. The minimum slopes defined in Ten States Standards for construction of gravity sewers are listed in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Recommended Minimum Slope for Gravity Sewers1


Sewer Diameter

(inch)

Min Pipe Slope 1

(ft/100 ft) 8 0.400

10 0.280

12 0.220

18 0.120

21 0.100

24 0.080

30 0.058

36 0.046 Note: 1. Per the recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities Ten State Standards (CLUMRB), 2004 Edition.

When sewer velocities are less than 2 fps, the raw wastewater solids settle and accumulate. At a minimum, frequent cleaning must be done to prevent backups and maintain service to the customers. Raw sewage overflows are strictly prohibited and subject to enforcement action from the DEQ and EPA.

Gravity sewers are commonly designed and constructed at the minimum slope due to construction costs for excavation, backfill, and manholes, which can be reduced if maintained as shallow as allowable. Therefore, the minimum slope is a common and valid assumption to evaluate the collection system. Minor adjustments can be made to the estimated capacity if actual pipe slopes are found to be greater than the minimum.

February 2012 2-11

6.3 Flow Contribution

As reported in TM 1, historical records show the City’s residential development averages 2.58 people per household, with the typical wastewater flow contribution of 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd). Therefore, the typical residential customer discharges an average daily flow of 222 gpd. For the simplified analysis in this section, commercial customers are assumed to produce the same flow as a single residential customer.

6.3.1 Peak Flow Factor

Ten States Standards provides guidelines for the sewage peaking factors for periods of high use. In Hailey, peak flows are related to residential domestic use. An initial peak occurs as morning activities start, and an evening peak occurs from cooking and cleaning at the end of the day. Peak factors for domestic sewage are also a function of the service area population. Using the methods in Ten States Standards1, the peak hourly flow factor for Hailey is estimated as 3.2 times the average daily flow.

6.3.2 Basin Flows

The average daily flow and the peak hourly flow are calculated for each basin, using the above historical flow data applied with the estimated number of customers as shown in Table 2.6. The estimated flows are used as a basic assessment of the capacity and level of use for areas of the collection system.

Table 2.6 Collection System Basin Flow Distribution Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey

Basin Number Total Residential

Lots1 Flow Avg. Day2

(mgd) Flow Peak Hour

(mgd) 1 570 0.125 0.400 2 787 0.173 0.554 3 566 0.124 0.397 4 486 0.107 0.342 5 63 0.014 0.045 6 443 0.097 0.310 7 556 0.122 0.390 8 615 0.135 0.432

Total 4,086 0.897 2.87 Note: 1. Commercial customer counted to be equal to one equivalent residential customer. 2. Average flow based on 2.58 people per residential lot and 85 gpcd.

1 Ten State Standards, 2004 Edition, Figure 1, Ratio of Peak Hourly Flow to Design Average Flow.

2-12 February 2012

6.3.3 Pipeline Calculations

Given the number of customers in each basin, the depth of flow and the velocity in the gravity sewers was calculated using the Manning Equation. Where pipe slope information was not available in the Riverside sub-basins, the minimum recommended pipe slope was used. A typical pipe roughness coefficient (n = 0.013) was applied. The equation determined the depth and velocity for gravity sewers under free-flow, steady state, conditions, either full or partially full.

6.4 Woodside Basin Assessment

The Woodside Blvd gravity trunk line extends approximately 3.5 miles collecting flows from Basin 1, 2, and 3, which is estimated to serve approximately 40 percent of the service area. The pipeline was installed in different segments consisting of 10,800 feet of 8-inch diameter, increasing to 1,800 feet of 10-inch and 6,200 feet of 12-inch diameter at the southern section. The services are mainly residential, but also include the Blaine County High School, Woodside Elementary School, and recent infill development of residential and light industrial customers along the route. The utilization and capacity of the Woodside Blvd trunk line is critical, as it is the main gravity sewer to the WWTP. Additionally, the line may be expected to support future expansion of the service area to the north or the east, with continued infill and higher density development.

6.4.1 Woodside Pipe Slope

The slope of the Woodside trunk was unknown, because it was constructed as a series of individual subdivisions. As a critical line, the pipe invert elevations were surveyed in 2003 to determine the pipe slope. The average slope of the Woodside trunk sewer is listed in Table 2.7 for each diameter of pipe, and compared to the minimum recommended slope.

Table 2.7 Woodside Trunk Sewer Gradient - vs - Minimum Slopes Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Woodside Blvd Trunk Line Segment Pipe Dia.

(in)

Average Slope Measured

(%)

Recommended Minimum Slope

(%) Start End East Ridge Shenandoah 8 0.65 0.40

Shenandoah Winterhaven 10 0.60 0.28

Winterhaven WWTP 12 0.49 0.22

February 2012 2-13

The average slope of the Woodside trunk is greater than the recommended minimum slope. The topography of the Wood River Valley also slopes from north to south, which appears to contribute to the gradient of the trunk sewer. The hydraulic capacity of the Woodside trunk sewer was calculated using the actual field measurements. The list of manhole elevations, sewer segment lengths and the calculated slopes on the Woodside Blvd trunk sewer is included in Appendix A.

6.4.2 Woodside Basin Capacity

The preliminary hydraulic capacity of the Woodside trunk sewer is reported in this section. The flows were estimated from the number of lots counted in each basin along the trunk line. The full flowing sewer capacity was estimated at the measured slope, with d/D values reported for the average daily flow (ADF) and the peak hourly flow (PHF) as shown in Table 2.8. Figure 2.2 shows the collection system and the key nodes at the end of each basin where the capacity was evaluated. The approximate open or unused capacity in each line is estimated.

6.5 Riverside Basin Assessment

Basin 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all collected by gravity into the Riverside Pump Station. The Airport Basin 5 also discharges into the Riverside forcemain, and is combined in the flows pumped to the Woodside WWTP, which is equivalent to approximately 60 percent of the total flow.

6.5.1 Riverside Basin Pipe Slopes

As stated previously, the gravity sewers in the Riverside sub-basins were assumed to be installed at the minimum recommended pipe slopes. The influence of the natural gradient in the Wood River Valley is not known on these lines. Sewers are oriented in both the north-south and the east-west directions. The north-south alignment of the Woodside trunk had a gradient steeper than the minimum slope. The slopes in the Riverside basin can be verified in areas where capacity is a concern.

6.5.2 Riverside Gravity Basin Capacity

The preliminary hydraulic capacity of the Riverside sub-basins is reported in this section. The flows were estimated at the end of each basin and as flows combine along the trunk lines. The full flowing sewer capacity was estimated assuming the minimum slope, and the d/D was reported for average and peak conditions. Table 2.8 lists the key nodes of the Riverside basin, the pipe diameters, and the approximate line capacities. Figure 2.2 shows the collection system, the key nodes at the end of each basin, and the approximate capacity on each pipeline.

2-14

February 2012

Table 2.8 Collection System Preliminary Hydraulic Capacity Assessment Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Estimated Basin Flows Available Line Capacity

Node Pipe Dia (inches)

Pipe Slope

(%) Basins

Equiv. Res Cust

Avg Day (mgd)

Depth (d/D) Avg2

Peak Hour (mgd)

Depth (d/D) Peak Hour2

Q full (mgd)

Q available (mgd)3

Avail. Customers4

Woodside Sub-basins

W1 8 0.65 3 566 0.13 0.30 .040 .058 0.63 0.23 321

W2 10 0.60 2+3 1,353 0.30 0.36 0.96 0.72 1.10 0.14 196

W3 12 0.49 1+2+3 1,923 0.43 0.35 1.37 0.71 1.62 0.25 359

Riverside Sub-basins

R1 10 0.28 8 615 0.14 0.36 0.44 0.56 0.74 0.30 427

R2 12 0.22 6+8 1,058 0.23 0.31 0.75 0.60 1.08 0.33 463

R3 12 0.22 4 486 0.11 0.21 0.35 0.39 1.08 0.73 1,035

R4 18 0.12 4+6+8 1,544 0.34 0.26 1.10 0.48 2.36 1.26 1,780

R5 12 0.22 7 556 0.12 0.23 0.39 0.42 1.08 0.69 965 Notes 1. Total residential and commercial lots counted in each basin. 2. d/D calculated from Manning Equation. 3. Available flow capacity in sewer at Peak Hour Flow, d/D = 0.82. 4. Equivalent residential customers, using Peak Hour Factor = 3.2. 2.58 cap/house, 86 gpcd.

BIG WOOD RIVER

Figure 2.2Collection System Hydraulic Capacity Assessment


February 2012 2-17

6.5.3 Riverside Pump Station and Forcemain Capacity

The Riverside Pump Station discharges through a 10-inch diameter forcemain, which flows completely full. The capacity is a function of the pumping energy required to move flow through the line, overcoming changes in elevation and energy losses from internal friction.

The ground elevation of the Riverside Pump Station is shown1 to be 26 feet above the Headworks Building at the Woodside WWTP. Therefore, the pumping energy supplied is strictly to overcome the friction losses to pass flows through the pipeline over 18,600 feet (3.5 miles), crossing under Highway 75 to the WWTP.

1RECORD DRAWINGS Wastewater Pipelines Phase 1 and 2, Keller & Assoc, 8/17/01: Riverside Pump Station Fin. Grade = 5277 ft Headworks Building at the Woodside WWTP Fin. Floor = 5251 ft

The existing pumps have 50 HP motors, designed for 100 feet total dynamic head (TDH). In the design of forcemains, consideration must be given to both the low and the high velocities. Velocities must be kept high enough to keep solids in suspension, similar to gravity sewers. However, the internal pipe velocity should generally be kept below 8 fps as a general rule. At higher velocities, the pipe friction loss and energy requirements increase exponentially for a pumped system. In other words, at higher flows and velocities, it is necessary to significantly increase the pump horsepower to gain small increments of flow through the forcemain. The pumps currently operate between 1,050 and 1,150 gpm, so the velocities in the 10-inch diameter forcemain are in the range of 4 to 5 fps.

In the Riverside Pump Station, one pump is in operation and the second pump serves as a standby pump. The wet well has open space to install a third pump for redundancy, so two pumps can operate simultaneously (in parallel). However, installing the third pump will not double the flow, due to the friction loss of the 10-inch diameter forcemain. The pumps must be increased to 60 HP to increase the flows by approximately 200 gpm, reaching a total pumped capacity of 1,200 gpm. The system-head curve from the friction loss calculations for the Riverside Pump Station is included in Appendix B.

6.5.4 Airport Pump Station and Forcemain Capacity

Since the Airport Pump Station discharges into the Riverside forcemain, this pumping system must overcome the same energy requirements. Expansion of customers and flows in the Airport West area, Basin 8, will require addition of high horsepower pumps to increase the capacity through the existing pipelines. If pump flows and discharge pressures are increased in the Riverside Pump Station, the Airport Pump Station horsepower must be increased at the same time.

2-18 February 2012

6.6 Summary - Collection System Preliminary Capacity Assessment

The general capacity of the collection system was reviewed for the current service area within the City limits. The findings from the preliminary capacity assessment include:

The Woodside trunk sewer currently has adequate capacity for customers in the service area. However, the center 10-inch diameter pipe near Countryside Blvd. in Basin 2 reaches 72 percent full during peak hour flows, which is nearly at the full capacity. If capacity is reached in the center 10-inch diameter pipe, it will restrict capacity in the 8-inch diameter segments upstream of Baldy View Drive in Basin 3. Therefore, the existing 8 and 10-inch diameter pipe in the center of the Woodside trunk sewer appear to be the capacity-limiting segments. The existing sewer can accommodate infill development, but cannot accept expansion of the service area by more than approximately 200 homes without surcharging.

The gravity sewers in the Riverside sub-basins all appear to have sufficient capacity for the average and peak conditions from the customers in the City limits, with open capacity for infill and some expansion. However, the Riverside Pump Station appears to be the critical capacity-limiting segment in this portion of the collection system. The existing pumps can accommodate the anticipated number of customers in the City limits, with peak hour capacity of 1.4 mgd. However, the existing 10-inch diameter forcemain will limit the capacity for expansion, and cannot accommodate flows of more than approximately 1,400 gpm (2.0 mgd) at peak hour within practical horsepower considerations.

The available capacity in the collection system generally appears to be adequate to support infill development in the service area, but proposals for higher-density infill should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for the specific sewers. Expansion of the collection system to large developments outside the service area should be also reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Extension of the sewers to new customers outside the current service area takes capacity expected for infill development, which ultimately may impact existing customers. Alternatives for expansion of the wastewater collection system are Section 12 of this TM.

February 2012 2-19

7.0 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ASSESSMENT

Clean water entering the wastewater collection system is referred to as Infiltration and Inflow (I/I). Infiltration is a result of groundwater entering through pipe joints, manholes, or private sewer laterals. Inflow occurs when storm drains, such as roof downspouts, foundation drains or catch basins are tied directly into the sanitary sewer. Inflow occurs in high peak flows following rainstorms or snowmelt events. I/I takes up capacity in the sanitary sewer and the treatment plant. Extreme I/I can result in sewer backups or overflows, which are prohibited by EPA and DEQ, and must be eliminated.

I/I must be regularly assessed to monitor the aging conditions in the sewers, and to safeguard against sewage backups and overflows. The 1992 Wastewater Facility Plan was the last reported general I/I assessment in the collection system, which dates back to when the City operated both the Riverside WWTP and the Woodside WWTP.

The City conducted an internal inspection of the Riverside trunk sewer in 1996. Critical repairs were completed on broken AC pipe sections and several manholes were grouted in the China Garden area to stop several obvious sources of I/I. These repairs significantly reduced the system infiltration, and flows at the WWTP decreased by 56,000 gpd.

7.1 Potential Infiltration and Inflow Sources

In general, the groundwater table in the City of Hailey is below the depth of the gravity sewers. However, the region is subject to seasonal high water table during spring runoff periods. The most susceptible line is the Riverside gravity trunk sewer, which is adjacent to the Big Wood River. Portions of the line are in the flood overlay district in the City Comprehensive Plan and the FEMA 100-year flood plain. The City routinely monitors the pipes and manholes in this segment to look for I/I sources. There are 15 manholes in this reach of the sewer that can surcharge during flood conditions. The City installed plastic insert “dust covers” below the manhole lid to reduce leakage as a temporary measure.

Typical inflow sources may include connection from downspouts and drains, especially in older sections of the City. However, the WWTP flow records do not show high peak flows associated with rain events, so inflow from drainage cross connections does not appear as a consistent problem.

Older gravity sewers may contribute to infiltration from pipe cracks, open or offset pipe joints, and open manhole joints. Improperly tapped or installed pipe saddles for service connections, and other quality issues on the private laterals may also contribute to I/I. Pipe conditions are monitored under the City sewer inspection program, as preventative measures to keep I/I sources out of the system.

2-20 February 2012

7.2 Historic Data Analysis for Infiltration and Inflow

The historic WWTP flow data were summarized in TM 1. There does not appear to be seasonal variability in the flows or the concentrations of influent BOD and TSS, in the period reviewed from 2001 through 2007 due to groundwater infiltration or storm water inflow. BOD and TSS concentrations remain within normal ranges expected for domestic sewage, with no evidence of dilution.

The average wastewater flow contribution was estimated as 85 gpcd. The DEQ considers I/I to be “excessive” if flow rates are greater than 120 gpcd. Influent wastewater BOD loading is consistently 0.19 lbs/capita/day and TSS loading is 0.16 lbs/capita/day, which are consistent for domestic wastewater. In conclusion, the City of Hailey collection system does not appear to be adversely impacted by I/I.

7.2.1 WWTP Max Day Flow

Spring 2006 had a significant snowmelt event with high flows in the Big Wood River. The highest daily flow ever recorded reached 1.2 mgd at the WWTP. The City investigated the lines along the River during the high flow conditions to locate the inflow sources. Floor drains in the City park restroom building were found to be one open source. These floor drains are now plugged and opened only during building maintenance. The most significant inflow sources were found to be open pipe clean-outs on private property along Snowfly Drive. The City has notified the property owner, and the inflow sources are believed to be corrected and eliminated. The City will continue to monitor the flows from this area.

8.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM FLOW MONITORING

The City owns a portable insertion flow meter (Hach Instruments) to investigate flows at key manholes. The flow meter package includes elements capable of measuring the flow, velocity and depth in 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch diameter gravity sewers, with a continuous data logger to record conditions over extended periods. The insertion flow meter enables the City to evaluate line capacity in any area of interest. The continuous data logger generally records values on five-minute intervals, but the interval is adjustable. The meter can remain in place with sufficient data storage for one week or longer, if desired. The City also has the ability to collect flow-paced samples from the sewers.

8.1 Basin Monitoring

Flow monitoring was used to assess the current flow conditions in the sewers, to compare the assumptions made for the preliminary capacity assessment in Section 5. The flow monitoring manhole locations are indicated in Figure 2.2, and the monitoring data are summarized in Table 2.9.

February 2012

2-21

Table 2.9 Flow Monitoring Summary Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Manhole Street Location Diameter (inches)

Flow (gpm) Depth (d/D) Velocity (fps) Capacity

Constraint Avg Peak Hour Max1 Avg

Peak Hour Max1 Avg

Peak Hour Max1

Woodside Basin

07108AM Baldy View East Green Valley 8 27 61 141 024 0.43 0.54 1.0 1.8 2.5 N

06608GT Woodside Blvd at

Fox Acres (upstream)

8 21 51 71 0.19 0.29 0.34 0.9 1.4 1.6 N

06608GT

Woodside Blvd at Fox Acres

(downstream from High School

8 5 30 70 0.09 0.16 0.25 1.0 2.0 4.8 N

02608NT Woodside Blvd at Laurelwood 8 71 131 310 0.38 0.55 0.82 1.2 1.6 2.3 M

02610DT Woodside Blvd at Countryside Blvd 10 128 210 304 0.43 0.53 0.66 1.2 1.6 1.8 M

00112FT Woodside Blvd at Glenbrook 12 132 238 370 0.15 0.22 0.28 3.6 4.4 4.8 N

00208BM Glenbrook 8 7 18 42 0.10 0.16 0.26 0.9 1.2 2.1 N

Riverside Basin N

24308AB Bullion Street East of Park 8 3 10 21 .09 0.15 0.25 0.4 0.7 2.4 N

20212QT Riverside trunk at Bullion Street 12 19 37 58 0.1 0.13 0.18 1.0 1.3 2.0 N

28810HM East Spruce 2nd & 3rd 10 16 44 414 0.13 0.18 0.4 1.0 1.7 -- N

27015BT Cedar Street 15 84 143 222 0.19 0.25 0.28 1.1 1.4 1.7 Note: 1. Highest instantaneous reading. Legend: N - No Constraints M - Marginal Reserve Capacity Y - Capacity Restricted

2-22 February 2012

8.1.1 Woodside Basin Monitoring

The capacity of the Woodside Blvd trunk sewer was measured at seven representative locations along the line, covering the 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch diameter segments. Also, flows were recorded in the segment adjacent to the Wood River High School to Baldy View Drive, to specifically evaluate the flows and impact on the Woodside trunk. The data are summarized in Table 2.9, listing the flow, depth in the pipe, and the velocity at average day, and peak hour, as well as the instantaneous maximum values.

8.1.2 Riverside Basin Monitoring

Four key manholes were selected to check flows in the Riverside basin. Main lines tributary to the Riverside trunk sewer was checked in Basin 7 and Basin 8 to evaluate the available capacity in the northwestern side of the service area, covering 8-inch, 12-inch, and 15-inch diameter segments.

8.2 Peak Flows

The flow and the depth in the sewer were measured and combined over a 24-hour period to show the diurnal variation. The peak to average ratio ranged from 1.9 to 3.3 in all of the collected monitoring data. Therefore, the estimated peaking factor of 3.2, according to “10 State Standards”, is a valid assumption for planning and conceptual design purposes for the City of Hailey collection system.

8.2.1 Wood River High School Peak Flow

Sewer flows were checked up-gradient and down-gradient of the connection from Wood River High School. (Manhole 06608GT, May 2004) Instantaneous peaks six times greater than average were recorded down-gradient from the High School, but the line appears to have adequate open capacity. The peak flow did not surcharge or exceed the full-flow capacity of the sewer with the existing customers in this part of the system.

8.3 Flow Monitoring Capacity Assessment

Monitoring data provides direct measurement of the current flows and operating conditions in the sewers. The capacity range is assessed using the d/D guidelines from Section 4.

8.3.1 Woodside Basin Flow Monitoring Capacity Assessment

Monitoring data collected with the insertion flow meter detected two sections in the middle of the Woodside Blvd trunk sewer that appear to be reaching the full-flow capacity during peak hour conditions. The line capacity appears adequate for the current customers, but might not support a significant number of new service connections.

MH 06608GT - Woodside Blvd at Fox Acres Rd: Flows were monitored at the manhole where Wood River High School connects to the Woodside trunk sewer. Peak flows in this

February 2012 2-23

section of the trunk line were less than half-full, so there did not appear to be capacity constraints in this location. Although there were no apparent backups, the service from the High School is a 6-inch public sewer between MH 07806CM and 07806DM. The City cannot service the line because property development has encroached into the easement, which restricts access. The City identified a rerouting alternative to collect the flows and replace the 6-inch section with a new 8-inch diameter line. The sewer rerouting will be implemented in the future as schedules and budgets permit.

This section of the Woodside trunk would also be the nearest connection point to extend service to new development in Quigley Canyon. The Woodside trunk is an 8-inch diameter line, so capacity for future growth is limited by the pipe size. Also, the subsequent down-gradient 10-inch sewer was shown to be flowing near the full capacity.

MH 07108AM - Baldy View East and Green Valley area: The 8-inch sewer was monitored to investigate available capacity, to extend service to a proposed school bus maintenance and parking facility, and to reroute the current High School service line. The line was found to be flowing at less than half-full at peak hour flow. The line currently has open capacity, but it is limited by the available capacity in the 8-inch Woodside trunk.

MH 2608OT to 04608 AM - Green Valley Area: The 8-inch sewer was monitored to assess flow conditions due to a sag in the pipe, which backs-up flow. The line segment is included in the repairs listed later in this TM.

MH 02608 NT - Woodside Blvd at Laurelwood Drive: The 8-inch sewer was flowing at 35 percent full at average flow, and the peak hour flow was generally 62-percent full. In addition, several instantaneous values reached the full capacity at 80 percent. This 8-inch diameter section appears to be a capacity-limiting segment for the up-gradient services in Basin 3.

MH 02610DT - Woodside Blvd at Countryside: This manhole monitored flows in the 10-inch diameter section of the Woodside trunk. At this location, peak hour flows reached half-full in the pipeline. There appears to be open capacity for infill development, but not sufficient to add customers from outside the service area. This middle 10-inch diameter section of pipe also limits the up-gradient services in Basin 3. The flow monitoring results in this area were in general agreement with the preliminary capacity assessment in Section 5, showing this as one of the capacity-limited segments in the collection system.

MH 00208BM - Glenbrook Drive: The flows were measured in the 8-inch gravity sewer serving the Glenbrook area. There were no apparent capacity constraints in this small tributary collector.

2-24 February 2012

MH 00112FT - Woodside Blvd at Glenbrook: This monitoring location investigated the flows in the 12-inch diameter section of the Woodside trunk ahead of the WWTP. The larger diameter sewer was flowing at less than half-capacity during peak hour. The increased line size and the pipe slope in this segment had no apparent capacity constraints for the current flows combined from the tributary Basins 1, 2, and 3. The preliminary capacity assessment predicted this line may reach three-quarters full with infill development, but there appears to be adequate capacity available.

8.3.2 Riverside Basin Flow Monitoring Capacity Assessment

Monitoring data collected with the insertion flow meter in the Riverside basins did not find significant capacity issues in the gravity sewers. All pipelines were flowing at less than half-full during the peak hour flows, so capacity appears adequate for the current customers. However, these gravity sewers require the Riverside Pump Station to keep the wet well level pumped down to not submerge the inlet line. If the pumps cannot keep up with influent flows, the lines will surcharge and restrict flows throughout the entire basin.

9.0 SANITARY SEWER CONDITION ASSESSMENT

This section covers the City collection system inspection and maintenance program. Scheduled inspections and repairs in the collection system ultimately provide better service at a lower life-cycle cost, compared to unplanned emergency repairs. Collection system maintenance also significantly reduces the risk of sewer overflows.

This section summarizes the City’s procedures and findings from the sanitary sewer inspection and maintenance program, and the following topics:

Collection system inspection planning, management and reporting.

Closed circuit television (CCTV) equipment inspection procedures.

Collection system deficiency categories and priorities.

Rehabilitation measures and costs.

9.1 Sanitary Sewer Inspection History

The oldest sanitary sewers were constructed in 1970’s in Old Hailey, mainly with AC pipe. Construction of sewers in other parts of the service area mainly used PVC pipe.

From 1970 to 2000, the City used contract services to inspect or clean sewers. Cleaning was only conducted in areas with known problems, or if customers reported a blocked line. A comprehensive system-wide inspection or cleaning program was not followed at the time.

In 2000 the City purchased a sewer cleaning truck and initiated a regularly scheduled cleaning program. The sewer cleaning equipment utilizes a high-pressure hose and nozzle

February 2012 2-25

to flush accumulated solids from sewer lines with water. A vacuum tank mounted on the truck pulls the accumulated grit and grease from an end manhole, as lines are cleaned.

The City also purchased a CCTV package in 2003 to inspect the lines. The CCTV equipment includes camera equipment, video recording equipment, and computer supported data management system contained in a mobile step-van, capable of moving around the collection system.

9.2 Inspection Planning and Scheduling

The inspection program in any given year should identify collection system priorities and areas of interest. The necessary manpower and equipment to cover the planned inspections must be reserved, scheduled, and budgeted.

Inspections are prioritized and planned evaluating the following site-specific conditions:

Older AC pipe areas of the collection system.

Sewer main along the Big Wood River.

Re-inspect known defects from previous inspections.

Trunk sewers from each collection sub-basin.

Main sewers in collection system sub-basins.

Older PVC pipe areas of the collection system.

Branch lines with commercial services.

Remaining branch lines according to age and level of service.

Inspection work must include traffic control plans for public and worker safety. Public notice of the planned inspection routes may be helpful to minimize disturbances. Each area should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Based on CCTV inspection progress to date, it is assumed that three or four years are required to inspect the entire service area. This assumes that the same level of staffing and resources utilized in previous years will continue to be available. Generally, two to four people from the wastewater staff are dedicated to cleaning and inspection of the collection system. Re-inspection of each line is recommended every three to four years, but the frequencies can be adjusted as experience and knowledge of the system are developed.

9.2.1 New Sewer Inspection

The City wastewater staff is also responsible for inspection of new sewers and manholes added to the collection system. The inspections require new sewer construction to adhere to the City of Hailey Standard Specifications. The CCTV camera is used to inspect pipelines for uniform slope, before acceptance from the contractor.

2-26 February 2012

9.3 Collection System Cleaning and Inspection Procedures

9.3.1 Sewer Cleaning

The standard procedure is to clean the sewer lines 24 hours ahead of the scheduled CCTV inspection. Cleaning the lines improves the ability to view and record the internal pipe conditions.

Independent of the CCTV inspections, sewer cleaning occurs on a general schedule to maintain free capacity. Cleaning is regularly done at least every three years. Lines known to accumulate grease or debris are cleaned more frequently.

Areas with grease or solids accumulation are recorded and scheduled for follow-up cleaning. In the most recent inspections, the accumulation of debris in the lines has decreased considerably from the initial levels.

9.3.2 Closed Circuit Television Inspections

The City owns CCTV inspection equipment from CUES Inc., Orlando, Florida. The system includes camera equipment, computer hardware and software to facilitate data storage, retrieval, and reporting. The camera and the supporting computer equipment are integrated into a mobile operation in a panel van.

The CCTV camera and lights are mounted on a track device that pulls a cable through the sewer from manhole to manhole. The video display is transmitted on the closed circuit cable up to the control truck. The operator controls the progress and direction of the camera, with the capability to stop, back-up, zoom, and pan with the camera to observe pipe and joint details. The camera also records the distance along the pipe, so the location of defects can be accurately recorded.

The truck sets up the camera at a specific manhole to start the inspection. Each inspection proceeds from manhole to manhole, limited to approximately 400 feet. The truck is then moved to the next manhole along the line to cover the intended length of sewer. This procedure is repeated for the entire collection system in all parts of the City.

The CCTV truck is also equipped with a wireless Internet connection to allow direct communication between the crew location in the collection system and the WWTP office. CCTV video or photographs can be shared to discuss specific findings and conditions in real time. The data link reduces the need to re-inspect lines by immediately addressing questions.

9.3.3 Manhole Inspections

Manhole conditions are observed concurrently with the sewer CCTV inspections. The City developed a database to record manhole conditions, similar to the sewer records.

February 2012 2-27

The City uses the following numbering system for manhole identification:

Example Manhole Number 00112DT

001 Section number

12 Sewer line diameter (inches)

D Manhole order (Alphabetical order with “A” down gradient)

T Line Type (T = Trunk, M = Main, B = Branch)

9.4 Inspection Records

The City of Hailey wastewater staff conducts all system cleaning and inspections. Outside contractors can be considered to help City staff, if there is an increase in requested inspections such as those required for final acceptance of new subdivisions. Contract inspection services should be trained to follow City standards to ensure consistency.

As the inspections are completed, the inspection data and videos are initially stored electronically as digital images and in the inspection database. Line segments and manholes are assigned priority ratings, based on the number and the severity of defects.

Inspection results in the database can be queried according to the defect priority, or other fields of interest. The inspection progress and findings are also entered into the GIS system. The inspection findings are analyzed and ranked according to the extent of the maintenance or repairs needed, and the urgency to maintain service. The database is able to print summary reports of the findings from any desired collection area.

9.5 Collection System Condition Rating System

A numerical system is used to rank the findings and the priorities for condition and rehabilitation needs of the sewer mains and manholes. This section describes the rating system used by the City of Hailey.

9.5.1 Sewer Defects

The internal conditions in pipeline are monitored and recorded over time. As sewers age, defects may develop in the pipe structure, or conditions may develop that restrict capacity. Inspections generally observe the pipe structure, joint integrity, internal corrosion, root intrusion, and solids deposition. Defects in the collection system can be addressed with physical repairs to the pipe, or with increased cleaning or maintenance. Typical sewer defects and the severity levels are summarized in Table 2.10, with general remedial actions.

2-28 February 2012

Table 2.10 Sewer Defect Conditions Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Category Defect Severity Level Remedial Action

Pipe Structure None Re-inspect

Cracked Circumferential Point repair

Longitudinal Point repair

Fractured Circumferential Point repair

Longitudinal Point repair

Broken Replace pipe

Hole < 1-inch dia. (small)

Re-inspect

> 1-inch dia. (large)

Point repair

Collapsed Replace pipe

Defective Repair < 1-inch Re-inspect

> 1-inch Point repair

Deformation 0 – 10% Re-inspect

> 10% Replace pipe section

Sag < 1-inch New pipe acceptance criteria

1-inch to 3-inches Re-inspect and clean bi-annually (min.)

> 3-inches Replace pipe section

Joint Integrity None Re-inspect

Longitudinally Displaced Joint/Open Joint

< 1.5 times pipe thickness

Point repair

> 1.5 times pipe thickness

Point repair

Radial Joint Displacement < 1.5 times pipe thickness

Point repair

> 1.5 times pipe thickness

Point repair

> 10% diameter & soil visible

Replace pipe

February 2012 2-29

Table 2.10 Sewer Defect Conditions Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Category Defect Severity Level Remedial Action

Intruding Sealing Ring Hanging loop above center

Re-inspect

Hanging loop below center

Point repair

Broken Point repair

Corrosion None Re-inspect

Spalling Slight Re-inspect

Large Re-line pipe

Wear Slight Re-inspect

Large Re-line pipe

Intrusion None Re-inspect

Roots Fine 0 – 50% Clean pipe

Mass > 50% Point repair

Intruding Lateral > 50% Point repair

Deposition None Re-inspect

Encrustation/Scale Light <20% Re-inspect

Heavy >20% Clean pipe

Debris < 50% Clean pipe

> 50% Clean pipe

Grease < 50% Clean pipe

> 50% Clean pipe Control sources

Obstruction Clean pipe Identify cause

The City’s CCTV software package supplied by CUES Inc., includes a database with pre-defined fields to record sewer defects and the severity. Inspection reports list defects and the specific locations, with links to recorded video or photograph files if desired.

2-30 February 2012

9.5.2 Manhole Defects

Typical defects in manholes can be found in the concrete structure, or the cast-iron rim and cover. Defects consider both structural and hydraulic conditions. Table 2.11 lists general defects and remedial action considerations for manholes.

Table 2.11 Manhole Defect Conditions Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Category Defect Severity Level Remedial Action

Manhole Rim None Re-inspect

Deteriorated Cover or Frame

Replace rim

Offset Riser or Cone Replace rim

Manhole Structure None Re-inspect

Cracks Minor Repair manhole

Moderate Repair manhole

Major Replace manhole

Missing Grout/Mortar Repair manhole

Broken/Missing/ Deteriorated Steps

Repair manhole

Riser Hole (soil exposed) Small Repair manhole

Medium Repair manhole

Large Replace manhole

Collapsed Replace manhole

Deteriorated Base/ Incorrectly Formed Invert

Slight Repair manhole

Moderate Repair manhole

Excessive Replace manhole

Corrosion None Re-inspect

Spalling Slight < ¼” Re-inspect

Medium ¼” – ½” Re-line manhole

Large > ½” Re-line manhole

Exposed Rebar Moderate Re-line manhole

Extensive Re-line manhole

February 2012 2-31

Table 2.11 Manhole Defect Conditions Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Category Defect Severity Level Remedial Action

Hydraulic None Re-inspect

Excessive Lateral Drop (w/o Drop Connection)

Slight < 2.5’ Re-inspect

Medium 2.5’ – 5’ Repair manhole

Large > 5’ Repair manhole

Debris or Silt Moderate Clean

Extensive Clean

Surcharge Conditions Present

Occasional Clean

Continuous Clean

Leaking Joints Repair manhole

The City uses a manhole inspection database and report form supplementing information stored in the CCTV software. The City’s manhole inspection record includes data input for the sewer invert elevations, which are measured from the manhole frame at the time of inspection. The manhole ”measure-down” data is used in combination with topographic survey data of the manhole frames, to establish sewer inverts and slopes to calculate the hydraulic capacity.

9.6 Rating System and Repair Priorities

The condition of the line or manhole is rated by the City staff during the CCTV inspection, based on the combined number of defects and the severity. The ratings can be reviewed and revised at any time, referencing the noted defects and video records. The rating system and priorities are summarized in Table 2.12.

Table 2.12 Sewer and Manhole Rating System and Repair Priorities Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Priority Rating 1 High priority repair, schedule rehabilitation immediately 2 Priority cleaning and inspection, schedule rehabilitation, lower priority 3 Re-inspect, 2 to 3 years 4 Good condition, re-inspect 3 to 5 years 0 Not rated - CCTV inspection to be scheduled

2-32 February 2012

Each line segment or manhole is given a priority ranking from 1 to 4, to indicate the urgency for repairs or maintenance. As shown in Table 2.12, rating of 1 is “High Priority”, where the observed defects in the sewer or manhole significantly impede service. Rating of 1 should schedule repairs preferably within one year, or two years at a maximum if there are budget constraints. Priorities are summarized below:

Priority 1: Defects risk structural collapse of the line, which must be addressed as quickly as possible to avoid interruption of service, extensive sewage back-ups, or overflows.

Priority 2: Conditions are of concern, but service interruptions are not as critical. Lines in this category should be cleaned and re-inspected at least annually to ensure that flow is not impeded further.

Priority 3: Lines and manholes have little deterioration from aging and operate as designed, provided there is routine maintenance and cleaning.

Priority 4: Lines are new or are in nearly new condition. Regular cleaning and inspection will be scheduled to keep these areas in good condition.

Priority 0: Areas of the collection system have not been inspected and rated. At this time, all lines in the system have been inspected.

9.7 Condition Assessment Findings

9.7.1 Sewer Defects - Priority 1 (High)

The CCTV inspections documented the internal conditions in the main and trunk lines serving Old Hailey the Woodside trunk, as well as the Riverside trunk line adjacent to the Big Wood River.

Approximately forty (40) Priority 1 defects were identified in the collection system. Some lines have several defects within the same segment between manholes, which are all counted individually.

Priority 1 defects are listed in Table 2.13. The defects are organized according to the collection system sub-basin number. The locations of the Priority 1 defects are also shown in Figure 2.3.

The majority of Priority 1 defects in Table 2.13 are in the older AC pipe. These defects have likely existed for a long time, some may potentially date back to the original construction. While the defects are not known to have interrupted service or caused overflows to date, the repairs should be planned and scheduled. If structural defects are left unattended, major problems such as sink holes or collapsed lines can occur.

February 2012

2-33

Table 2.13 Collection System - High Priority Defects Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Number

Basin

Manhole Location

Street

Pipe Size

Pipe Material

Description

Remedial Action

1 3 10608EM-10608DM 1110 Buckskin Drive

8 PVC Hole in pipe (5” dia) Point repair

2 4 07808EM-07808DM Swimming Pool 6 AC Hole (3” dia) Point repair 3 5 31308AB-31110GM 610 Elm Street 8 AC Broken pipe / open joint Excavate and repair

section 4 6 52008AB-50008RM 1160 Airport Way 8 AC Broken pipe Point repair 5 6 28708DB-28708CB 12 West Carbonate 8 AC Broken pipe Point Repair 6 4 29908CB-29908BB 403 East

Carbonate 8 AC Broken pipe Point repair

7 6 27058BB-27508AB 410 2nd Ave & Pine

12 AC Broken pipe (with root intrusion)

Point repair

8 6 20118HT-2018GT 120 West Cedar Ave.

18 AC Hole in pipe, H2S corrosion Point repair hole, assess corrosion

9 6 21008FM-21008EM 1141 Broadford Drive

8 AC Sag & Service w/ root intrusion

Excavate and repair section

10 6 20308FB-20308EB 1310 Silver Star 8 PVC Hole w/ root intrusion Point repair 11 7 24208CM-24208BM Carbonate Drive 8 AC Pipe sag, submerged

camera Excavate and repair section

12 7 253208EB-23208DB West Croy 8 AC Hole in pipe, 3 places Point repair 13 7 24112AT-20212QT West Croy 12 AC Circular crack Point repair 14 7 2021OT Big Wood Trunk

West Croy 12 AC Root intrusion at MH Repair section

15 7 20212LT Big Wood Trunk War Eagle Drive

12 AC MH barrel leak at trunk line Excavate and repair section

16 7 20212LT-20212KT Big Wood Trunk War Eagle Drive

12 AC Radial crack w/ infiltration Excavate and repair section

2-34

February 2012

Table 2.13 Collection System - High Priority Defects Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Number

Basin

Manhole Location

Street

Pipe Size

Pipe Material

Description

Remedial Action

17 7 20212CT-20212BT 1020 & 1030 War Eagle Drive

12 AC Protruding service tap w/ infiltration

Excavate and repair section

18 7 20212BT-20212AT War Eagle 8 AC Cracked pipe, 2 places Point repair 19 7 27708BB-27708AB 231Elm Street 8 AC Hole in pipe Point repair 20 7 23108AB-22308GM 321 West Elm

Street & Almond 8 AC Hole in pipe Point repair

21 7 22308CM W. Walnut & Aspen 8 AC Hole in pipe Point repair 22 7 22608AB-22408CB Aspen Drive 8 AC Tree & root intrusion at MH Excavate and repair 23 7 22408EB-22408DB Ivy Street 8 AC Open joint & exposed

gasket Point repair

24 7 20212FT-20212ET Cedar Bend & War Eagle Drive

8 AC 2 holes from utility crossing Point repair, monitor

25 20212ET-20212DT Cedar Bend & War Eagle

12 AC Infiltration Point repair

26 7 20212DT-20212CT War Eagle & Della Vista

12 AC Radial crack w/ roots & infiltration

Point repair

27 7 20212AT-20212BT War Eagle Drive at Heagle Park

12 AC Broken pipe w/ roots & infiltration

Excavate and repair 60 foot section

28 8 29008EB-29008EB Myrtle/1st & 2nd 8 AC Broken and offset joint, pipe sag

Point repair

29 8 24308FB-24308EB N. River Street/Galena & Silver

8 AC Broken pipe with root intrusion

Point repair

8 Silver 10 AC Broken pipe with root intrusion

Point repair

PVC – polyvinylchloride pipe AC – asbestos cement pipe

BIG WOOD RIVER

Figure 2.3Collection System Defects


1

2

3

48

5

6

7

910

2928

12

1120 13

21

14

19

1522

16

26

18

24

17

27

25

February 2012 2-37

Lines with significant root intrusion should be physically cleaned. If follow-up inspections find root growth returning in the same location through open joints, holes or cracks, the pipe section should be repaired. Follow-up inspections should be made more frequently, at least every two years, on the AC pipe to observe if there is a noticeable deterioration rate as the pipe ages.

9.7.2 Defects in Woodside Boulevard Trunk

As a high priority line, the Woodside trunk was inspected in 2003 after the acquisition of the CCTV equipment, and several follow-up inspections have since been completed. The CCTV camera observed seven areas with non-uniform slope, or sags in the Woodside trunk. These locations are listed in Table 2.14.

Table 2.14 Non-Uniform Sections in the Woodside Blvd Trunk Sewer Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey

Index Manhole Pipe Size (inches)

Depth of sag

(inches)

Length of sag (feet)

S1 06608DT 8 3-inch 30

S2 06608FT 8 3-inch 3701

S3 02608LT 8 3-inch 280

S4 8 3-inch 25

S5 8 8-inch 60

S6 12 5-inch

S7 12 7.5-inch Note: 1. Multiple sags observed along this entire sewer section.

The extent of the sag was estimated from the water depth against CCTV camera lens. The sags may either be from the original construction, or they may have developed from differential settlement over time. Future CCTV inspections should monitor internal cracks or deformation of the pipe cross-section to determine if the sags in the line are progressing. Cracks above the line in the street pavement might also indicate settlement of the sewer.

2-38 February 2012

The sags have not caused backups or significant impacts in service as of this date. However, sags in the line present the following risks:

The sewer capacity is reduced because the pipe sag impedes flow.

Velocities fall below 2 fps and solids accumulate, so frequent cleaning is required to avoid backups and interruption of service.

The pipe sags in the Woodside Blvd trunk are considered Priority 2 until there is further maintenance experience with the severity of the sag. Cleaning should be conducted at least twice annually to prevent solids from accumulating. If biannual cleaning and inspection does not detect significant solids accumulation, the cleaning can be adjusted to an appropriate interval. If cleaning is required more frequently than twice per year, the City should evaluate the costs to repair the sagging sections of pipe, compared to the required maintenance costs.

The Woodside trunk was shown in the capacity assessment to have limited available capacity. The sags in the pipe further reduce the capacity, which complicates the ability to add future connections without surcharging. The degree of solids deposition and accumulation in the pipe sags is uncertain and the exact capacity impact is unknown.

9.7.3 Lower Priority Findings

Approximately 24 other miscellaneous Priority 2 defects were identified from the CCTV inspections. These defects are not considered to be as immediate of a concern, but justify repairs in the near future. The City will monitor and schedule repairs for the other Priority 2 defects

9.7.4 Corrosion Assessment

The AC pipe used in Old Hailey, and the precast concrete manholes throughout the collection system are susceptible to corrosion from hydrogen sulfide. The CCTV inspections noted a few areas in Old Hailey with slight deterioration of the internal pipe wall and exposed concrete aggregates, but none appearing higher than Priority 3. Corrosion is discussed later in this TM, and will be monitored in subsequent inspections. Routine sewer cleaning in areas susceptible to corrosion is an effective practice to reduce formation of hydrogen sulfide and mitigate deterioration.

February 2012 2-39

10.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND REPAIRS

This section summarizes the alternatives and budgetary costs to repair the high priority defects in the collection system. Conditions from the sewer main and manhole inspections are compiled for the City’s scheduling and budgeting process.

10.1 Pipeline Repairs

Defects are typically excavated to expose the pipe for repair or replacement, as the conventional approach. The defects identified in this TM can be addressed with spot-repairs or replacement of a single pipe section.

In some cases, open excavations are not practical, or are very costly due to physical constraints. “Trench-less technologies” using inserted pipe linings, directional-drilling techniques or pipe bursting can also be considered, if open excavation is not practical. Severe defects throughout the length of a pipeline may be rehabilitated more efficiently with a lining alternative, rather than excavating and replacing a long section of pipe. A variety of linings are available, some of which can restore structural integrity of the pipe if needed. Trench-less alternatives are typically completed by specialty subcontractors, making them costly options. If conventional open excavation methods are not practical, trench-less technologies can be estimated and evaluated for comparison.

10.2 Manholes

The simplest method to repair manholes is to apply grout products, sealant, or coatings on the inside. In extreme cases of structural deterioration, manhole must be excavated and replaced. The manhole defects identified by the City can all be completed with internal point repairs.

10.3 Repair and Rehabilitation Cost Estimates

General unit costs are presented in this section to budget and schedule the high priority repairs in the collection system.

10.3.1 Unit Costs

Estimated costs for sewer and manhole repairs are listed in Table 2.15 and 2.16, respectively. The unit construction costs were estimated based on costs for an outside commercial contractor to complete the work, for budgeting purposes. Unit costs include construction staging, temporary facilities, labor, equipment, excavation, piping materials, bedding, backfill, and pavement replacement. Construction cost factors include general contractor overhead and profit. Project costs are estimated with an allowance for allied costs for engineering, administration, legal and inspection costs. The costs are intended as

2-40 February 2012

budgetary estimates to support planning and scheduling of the collection system repairs. Details of the unit costs and the assumptions are included in Appendix B.

Table 2.15 Estimated Sewer Rehabilitation Unit Costs Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Rehabilitation Alternative Cost Unit of Measurement

Point Repair $9,600 each

Replace Pipe Section (12-inch dia, 20-feet)

$24,000 each

ENR January 2008 = 8090 (20-City Average)

Table 2.16 Estimated Manhole Repair Costs Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey Remedial Action Cost Unit of Measurement

Replace Rim and Cover $1,500 each

Replace Manhole $1,500 linear foot depth

Grout or Coat Manhole $750 each ENR January 2008 = 8090 (20-City Average)

10.4 Cost Summary

Table 2.17A and 2.17B presents the estimated construction and project costs to complete the Priority 1 and Priority 2 repairs on the defects previously identified in Table 2.13. The larger 12-inch diameter pipes are considered to be more critical, and therefore have higher priority. Total construction costs and project costs are listed, assuming the repairs are combined into a single construction project.

The high priority defects can be addressed as a single project defined in one set of construction documents and issued for bids. The repairs can also be scheduled according to the urgency of the structural defect and the priority of the line. The City staff has been able to complete the spot repairs on several defects to date, and anticipates being able to compete the majority of the repairs found to date. Overall project costs are presented for the City’s budget if internal resources are not available to complete the work.

February 2012 2-41

Table 2.17A Estimated Collection System Repair / Rehabilitation Costs - Priority 1 Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Basin & Description

Number of

Defects Pipe

Material Rehabilitation

or Repair Cost 12-inch Big Wood Trunk 7 AC Section Repair $168,000

12-inch Big Wood Trunk Point Repairs 8 AC Point Repairs $76,800

Repair / Rehabilitation Subtotal $244,800

Construction Contingency (30%) Contractor Mobilization, Bonds and General Conditions (25%)

Subtotal Construction Costs

$73,400 $61,200

$379,400

Engineering, Legal and Administration (15%) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

$56,900 $436,400

Repair Unit Costs in Table 2.15

Table 2.17B Estimated Collection System Repair / Rehabilitation Costs - Priority 2 Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Basin & Description

Number of

Defects Pipe

Material Rehabilitation

or Repair Cost1

8-inch diameter - AC Pipe 4 AC Repair Sections

$96,000

8-inch diameter - AC Pipe 14 AC Point Repairs $134,400

8-inch diameter - PVC Pipe 1 PVC Point Repairs $9,600

10-inch diameter - AC Pipe 1 AC Point Repairs $9,600

Repair / Rehabilitation Subtotal $249,600

Construction Contingency (30%)Contractor Mobilization, Bonds and General Conditions (25%)

Subtotal Construction Costs

$74,900 $62,400

$386,900

Engineering, Legal and Administration (15%)TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

$58,000 $444,900

Note: 1. Repair Unit Costs from Table 2.15

2-42 February 2012

11.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

11.1 Purpose and Background

This section reviews the vulnerability of the collection system, from the following perspectives:

Identify components or areas of the collection system that may be susceptible to interruption or loss of service.

Define any required special inspections, maintenance or operating procedures necessary to improve the reliability of the collection system.

Establish routine maintenance procedures that will help to avoid costly and unplanned emergency repairs.

Sanitary sewers are expected to remain in use for forty years and longer. Regardless of the age or condition of the system, customers expect consistent and uninterrupted service. Collection systems present various levels of risk in terms of customer satisfaction; public health and safety; and environmental impacts, with potential costs associated with each. Overall, the sewer utility must provide a high-degree of reliability, despite many different components with a wide variety of conditions and complexities. The functional vulnerabilities in the collection system and the associated risks are reviewed in this section to support long-term management and budgeting. Proactive measures are the most effective means to protect health, safety, and the environment.

11.2 Pipeline and Manhole Integrity

Structural collapse of buried sewers or manholes is not a common occurrence, mainly due to established construction materials and design standards. The CMOM guidelines recommend use of standard construction specifications to establish and maintain the quality and integrity of the collection system.

The City of Hailey publishes and adheres to Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings (2006), which are required under the Subdivision Ordinance, and Chapter 13 and 15 of the Hailey Municipal Code. New sewers are inspected and tested before acceptance from contractors. Proper design and construction of the sanitary sewer is critical to keep out I/I and realize long-term value. In combination with the City’s sewer cleaning and inspection program, the pipelines and manholes can be expected to reach the full expected service life of 40-years or longer.

11.2.1 Asbestos Cement Pipelines

As previously shown in the condition assessment, the majority of defects in the collection system were found in the AC pipe. Since the pipes in Old Hailey are nearing 40-years old,

February 2012 2-43

the physical conditions of these lines should be monitored. The rehabilitation costs, or potential replacement costs for the older AC pipelines should be forecasted in long-range capital needs.

This TM provides repair costs for the minor defects found during the City’s inspection program. The older AC lines will continue to provide reliable service as long as maintenance repairs are completed in a timely manner. Replacement costs for the AC pipe in Old Hailey were not estimated because the lines are expected to remain in service for significantly longer than the next 20-year planning period. The City also includes replacement costs in the current rate structure.

11.2.2 Pipeline and Manhole Corrosion

Internal corrosion from sewage gasses is the most likely condition causing premature deterioration or failure in pipelines. Concrete in manholes and the AC pipe in Old Hailey would be affected. PVC sewers are not susceptible to corrosion. The City’s current cleaning and inspection program should minimize deterioration, and will prevent corrosion from going unmitigated. Current inspection records show very little evidence of pipe deterioration. Hailey does not sustain the warm sewage temperatures that generate high concentrations of corrosive gasses (hydrogen sulfide). Routine cleaning and inspection should be adequate to protect pipelines and manholes throughout the planned service life.

Concrete manholes with exposed aggregates from corrosion should be repaired with a coating or lining material. As of this date, no significant manhole corrosion has been noted in the inspection records. Unit costs for manhole lining were listed in Table 2.16 if repair work is needed in the future.

11.3 Flooding Hazards

The 12-inch diameter Riverside gravity trunk, from the end of Bullion Street to Cedar Street, is installed 50 to 100 feet from the edge of the Big Wood River. City staff reports areas with bank erosion, which potentially could displace the pipeline. If erosion continues to encroach towards the pipeline and stream bank stabilization is not possible, the City should investigate alternative locations for this segment of the Riverside trunk sewer. Since relocation does not appear to be critical at this time, capital costs are not included in this TM.

Leaking manhole lids are not believed to be a regular source of inflow, as shown in the historical flow records. However, there are 16 manholes on the Riverside trunk sewer, and 23 other manholes on the 8-inch collector lines within the defined FEMA 100-year flood elevation. If persistent spring flooding causes inflow into these manholes, they should be replaced with sealed manhole lids. Manhole repair unit costs were listed in Table 2.16. The total replacement costs for the manholes adjacent to the Big Wood River would be approximately $58,500. This repair can be budgeted and scheduled if inflow becomes problematic.

2-44 February 2012

11.4 Pump Station Vulnerability

An interruption at the Riverside Pump Station could potentially disrupt service to 60 percent of the customers in the City, approximately 2,100 customers. The pump station is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and the Big Wood River, making it highly visible with potential impacts on human health or the environment. This section reviews the potential vulnerabilities in the pump station operations.

11.4.1 Pump Station Standby Power

The most common concern with pump stations is the loss of primary power. The City added a new 130 kilowatt (kW) standby generator dedicated to the Riverside Pump Station in 2004. The generator is exercised weekly, and includes all necessary switchgear for continuous operation. No additional capital improvements appear to be needed at this time. Routine inspection and testing of the generator will support continuous operation when needed in a power outage.

11.4.2 Pump Station Controls

The Riverside Pump Station includes programmable logic controller (PLC) based controls that allow the operation to be monitored from the WWTP. The controls show wet well levels and pump operations so staff can observe conditions in the collection system, and respond to any alarms. Run-time hours are logged for each pump to track the operating and maintenance history.

The staff should be familiar with all automatic and manual pump station control functions. Response plans and procedures should be in place for pump station alarms. Operators should be able to changing from automatic operation to manual control, keeping pumps in service. The City should assess the repair requirements and delivery times for replacement PLC components, keeping an inventory of critical spare parts to avoid interruption of service.

11.4.3 Pump Station Emergency Response Plan

In 2004, a contractor digging underground utilities inadvertently broke the forcemain from Riverside Pumps Station, which stopped service to that entire half of the collection system. The City had emergency response measures in place and was able to respond and prevent sewage from backing up. The City activated the old Cedar Street Pump Station, which was capable of diverting a portion of the flows from Riverside, pumping up to 280 gpm for short periods directly to the WWTP. The City then used the biosolids tanker truck to collect and transport the remaining flows from the Riverside wet well to the WWTP. The short travel distance and the 6,000-gallon tanker volume was sufficient to keep up with flows, at the time.

Utility locate, dig-line resources should be advised of the underground pipeline, which should be carefully marked prior to any planned excavation or construction activities in the

February 2012 2-45

area. The forcemain was built with regular access manholes for cleaning and inspection along the route, identifying the pipe location. The City can add specific signage at each manhole warning of the underground pipe. If the pressure sewer is broken during utility excavation work, any raw sewage spills must be reported to DEQ.

11.4.4 Pump Station Structures

The concrete wet well is susceptible to corrosion, similar to concrete manholes. Longer sewage retention time in the wet well might form more corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas. Grease buildup on the sides of the wet well can also contribute to concrete corrosion.

The maintenance schedule for the pump station should conduct at least weekly inspection and cleaning, if necessary. The conditions of the concrete top slab and the equipment access hatches should also be monitored for corrosion. Staff must be trained and equipped to work in the confined space and hazardous conditions in the pump station.

Concrete showing exposed aggregate should be investigated in detail to determine the extent of the surface deterioration. Spalled concrete surfaces should be rehabilitated to protect the structural integrity of the wet well, before corrosion penetrates too deeply into the concrete reinforcing. The Riverside Pump Station and the Airport Pump Station were placed in operation in 2001, so the structures are relatively new. Proactive inspection and maintenance will preserve the conditions of the concrete and prolong the useful life of the wet well structures. No additional costs are required at this time.

11.4.5 Airport Pump Station

The collection system in Airport West sub-basin is pumped into the Riverside Forcemain. If the two pump stations operate concurrently, the larger and higher pressure Riverside Pumps will “overpower” the smaller Airport Way Pump Station, effectively stopping the discharge from the airport pumps, which can surcharge the entire sub-basin.

The existing Airport Way pumps are rated for discharge pressure of 35 feet. The pumps must be upgraded with higher horsepower pumps to match the discharge pressure of approximately 100 feet from the Riverside Pumps. The Airport Way pumps wear out quickly due to the operating condition of “dead-heading” against the Riverside Pumps. When the two pump stations operate concurrently, no flow passes through the Airport Way pumps due to the inadequate discharge pressure. The pumps vibrate, heat-up, and quickly wear out. With the common discharge into the Riverside forcemain, any future expansion of the Riverside Pumps will also require an equal expansion in the Airport Way pumps.

With the Airport Pump Station discharging into a pressurized pipeline, there is a potential for backflow into the wet well if the check-valve in the Airport Way pump station plugs and fails to close. To prevent backflow from overflowing the wet well, an automatic control valve is recommended. At a high-high water level in the wet well, an alarm will close the automatic valve to stop backflow into the Airport Pump Station and shut off the pumps.

2-46 February 2012

Response to the high-high water alarm must verify that the discharge line and valves are clear, before restarting the pumps.

A standby generator is recommended for the Airport Way pump station. The generator must continue to pump flow from these industrial and commercial customers during a power outage. The probable project costs for upgraded pumps, automatic backflow/overflow protection, and standby generator are $229,900, which are included in Appendix B.

The airport pump station is supplied by 120VAC, single-phase, 60Hz power. The higher horsepower requirements for the pump motors will most likely require 480VAC, three-phase, 60Hz power. The City should contact Idaho Power to coordinate the pump station upgrades. Costs for extension of three-phase power are unknown, and not included in this report.

11.5 Collection System Overflow Response

The CMOM guide for wastewater collection systems includes emergency preparedness and response measures. While the City is proactive with maintenance procedures to avoid overflows, this section provides an outline of general procedures to respond to unforeseen overflows. The following general steps should be included in emergency response plans:

Receive and record notification of spill or overflow

Dispatch and coordinate crews

Contain and clean area

Investigate the cause

Report the overflow

Perform immediate repair work

Plan and implement follow-up repairs

Maintain reports, records, and provide public response

The City should include training for overflow response with the other operator training. Written procedures and reference documents should be included with the collection system maintenance documents. Any specific conditions required in the NPDES discharge permit for monitoring and reporting overflows must be followed.

February 2012 2-47

12.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES

12.1 Purpose

This section examines alternatives to extend the wastewater collection system outside the City limits and the current service area, to include new customers from the surrounding area of impact.

12.2 Capacity Requirements

TM 1 summarized the service area and future growth projections for the City of Hailey. Development may occur in areas not currently covered by the wastewater collection system. Table 2.18 summarizes potential development areas and projected flows that might be added to the collection system. Table 2.18 Service Area Potential Development and Flow Projections Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Area Lot Size (sq ft)

Total Acres

Developed Acres1

Developed No. Lots

Avg Flow (mgd)

PH Flow (mgd)

Quigley Canyon (LR-2) 12,000 400 0.09 0.29

Peregrine Ranch (LR-2) 12,000 73 0.02 0.05

North East Harley (GR) 6,000 100 85 617 0.13 0.44

Croy Creek Canyon (GR) 6,000 450 383 2,777 0.62 1.97

Airport (GR) 6,000 219 186 1,351 0.30 0.96

Total Added to Service Area 5,198 1.16 3.71 Note: 1. Assume 85% of total land area is developed into residential lots. Reference TM 1, Wastewater Service Area, Table 1.13.

The capacity assessment Section 5 determined that the collection system is adequate for the existing customers, and can accommodate some infill development in the service area. However, new connections to the system from outside the City limits may exceed the capacities of the existing sewers. The majority of the lines in Hailey are the minimum size, 8-inch diameter, which does not provide significant capacity for expansion.

The system service area has potential to expand in all directions, on the north, east and west sides of the City. Addition of flows from outlying areas has a significant impact when combined in the trunk sewers in the central part of the system. Therefore, additional capacity is needed in the central trunk sewers to convey flows to the WWTP.

2-48 February 2012

12.3 Collection System Expansion Alternatives

Expansion options for the collection system are presented in this section to add potential developments and service to the area of impact. The capacity of the existing collection system must be expanded throughout the system to accommodate the collective potential developments and build-out from any direction in the service area. The projected population in the area of impact may reach a total of approximately 31,000 people, for the ultimate growth beyond the 20-year planning horizon used in the Facility Plan. This equates to approximately 12,000 total customers.

12.3.1 Collection Alternative I - Woodside Capacity Expansion

The Wood River High School is currently served by a long 6-inch diameter line, which is not accessible by the City for maintenance. The 6-inch service will be replaced with an 8-inch sewer to allow access for inspection, cleaning, and maintenance. The 8-inch line can also serve as the connection point for new gravity sewers extended to Quigley Canyon development.

The existing 8-inch and 10-inch diameter sewers on Woodside Boulevard between Fox Acres and Winterhaven were found to be the capacity-limiting segments in the Woodside Trunk. A maximum of approximately 200 additional customers can be added to the system before reaching the maximum capacity of the line. Potential developments up Quigley Canyon and in other areas of Northeast Hailey may potentially add 400 to 500 new residential customers to the Woodside Trunk service area, which will exceed the capacity of the pipeline and backup flows to existing customers. The Woodside trunk must also provide capacity for infill development in the Sweetwater area and southern segments of the line. The existing 12-inch diameter sewer at the southern end of Woodside has open capacity for connection of 359 new customers.

In this Alternative I, the existing 8 to 12-inch diameter Woodside trunk sewer will be replaced with larger diameter piping of 15 to 24-inch diameter to accommodate future capacity along the northern and eastern segments of the service area. It was assumed that the existing lines would be excavated and replaced with the larger lines in the current sewer location and alignment.

The 10-inch diameter forcemain from the Riverside pump station has limited capacity. To add capacity for new customers on the western side of the service area into the Riverside basin, the old Cedar Street Pump Station and forcemain can be returned to service. Flows in the Riverside basin would be divided between two pumps stations, and the Riverside pumps must be upgraded. In addition, the existing but unused Cedar Street Pump Station must be upgraded and returned to service, adding new submersible pumps that can accommodate flows from approximately 800 additional customers. The existing 6-inch diameter forcemain can be utilized, but it must be extended up Fox Acres Road to connect directly to the larger Woodside trunk sewer. Figure 2.4.1 shows the Woodside Trunk Sewer

February 2012 2-49

expansion Alternative I. The alternative is divided into phases according to the diameter of the sewers. The project could be implemented under a single bid, or divided into phases. For budgeting and implementation options, the costs for each phase are provided in Appendix B.

BIG WOOD RIVER

8"

15"

6"

18"

24"

Figure 2.4.1Collection System Expansion Alternative I


2-52 February 2012

12.3.2 Collection Alternative II - Gravity Interceptor Sewer

The collection system in Hailey is divided into two sub-basins from the original treatment plants. Alternative II, provides a new gravity interceptor sewer in a central alignment to collect flows from both the Woodside and the Riverside basins, conveying to the Woodside WWTP. The Riverside pump station is still required in this alternative to serve the Riverside Drive area and service on the west side of the River. The Cedar Street Pump Station is used to redirect flows from the central area away from Riverside to the new trunk sewer.

The new central gravity trunk sewer, 12-inch to 24-inch diameter, would be installed in the open corridor on 3rd Avenue beginning on Walnut Street to Highway 75. The sewer is then routed adjacent to Fox Acres to the edge of the easement for the greenbelt and then ultimately down to the Woodside Treatment Plant. The new interceptor provides capacity for new services added outside the existing City limits, and can divert flow out of the existing Woodside trunk or other main lines, providing additional capacity and reducing flows to the Riverside Pump Station. Figure 2.4.2 shows the Gravity Interceptor Sewer expansion Collection Alternative II. Similar to the collection system expansion Alternative I, the project could be implemented all at once, or divided into phases. The costs for each phase according to pipe size are provided in Appendix B.

12.3.3 Pump Station Upgrades

Upgrading the Riverside Pump Station with three larger (75 HP) pumps will add capacity for approximately 800 new customers, which is the maximum practical capacity of the forcemain. Converting the constant speed pumps to variable speed drives (VFD) will also improve electrical efficiency and reduce power consumption. In combination with the Cedar Street Pump Station, a total of approximately 1,600 new customers can be added to the western side of the service area.

In each of the collection system alternatives, the upgrades to the Riverside and the Cedar Street Pump Stations must be included. The area of impact from Croy canyon, and other potential developments in the northwest may add over 2,000 new customers at ultimate build-out. To accommodate the expansion of over 2,000 customers at the ultimate development, the existing 6-inch pressure sewers from the Cedar Street and existing 10-inch pressure sewer from the Riverside Pump Station must also be expanded. Expansion of the pressure sewers can be done with many options such as parallel pipelines, or replacing the existing pipe with a larger diameter. Since expansion of the forcemains is not expected to be required well beyond the 20-year planning period, they are not included in this study.

12.3.4 Airport Service Area

The long-range land use of the Friedman Memorial Airport potentially may change, with development as mixed use or residential if the airport is relocated. Collection system capacity can be provided by a variety of gravity or pressure sewer options, to convey

February 2012 2-53

additional flows directly to the Woodside WWTP. The two collection system expansion alternatives previously discussed each provide line capacity to include flows from the entire Airport West service area in the future. The implementation schedule for development of the airport is believed to be beyond the planning horizon of this study.

12.4 Collection Alternative III – Woodside Expansion Interceptor

This sewer alternative is intended to serve new customers in the area of Quigley Canyon and other potential development along the eastern side of the Hailey wastewater collection system. The existing Woodside Trunk Sewer has sufficient available capacity for the existing service area, but cannot accommodate new customers from surrounding development.

Collection Alternatives I and III investigated replacement of the existing Woodside Trunk Sewer, which is costly and complex from disturbance of the existing water and sewer utilities and roadway resurfacing. A gravity sewer alternative along the bike path can be constructed without the same level of impact on utilities or roadways.

This gravity sewer follows Fox Acres Avenue down to the bike path then to the Woodside WWTP.

A new gravity relief sewer along the bike path used the following assumptions:

Sewer installed at minimum grade (to maintain 2 feet/second velocity).

Capacity determination based on wastewater flows of 86 gpcd, 2.58 people per household and peak hour factor of 3.2, from the Wastewater Facility Plan.

Lineal feet of pipe from Wood River HS to WWTP.

Various gravity sewer line size alternatives are summarized in Table 2.19.

Table 2.19 Hailey Wastewater Collection System Alternatives Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Utility Service Diameter (inches) Customer Capacity 1

Total Probable Construction Cost

Gravity Sewer 8 704 $2,222,900 Gravity Sewer 10 1,056 $2,368,700 Gravity Sewer 12 1,521 $2,514,600 Gravity Sewer 18 3,324 $2,959,700

Notes: 1. Equivalent Residential Unit: 86 gpcd, 2.58 people per household, 3.2 peak hour factor.

8"

15"

12"

6"

18"24"

BIG WOOD RIVER

Figure 2.4.2Collection System Expansion Alternative II


2-56 February 2012

Various gravity sewer sizes are presented in the bike path alternative. Costs for interconnecting trunk lines to convey other parts of the collection system were not included in the cost estimate for the bike path alternative.

The bike path alternative estimates used the same diameter pipe over the full length of the sewer. The estimates show the slight difference in pipe material costs compared to the complete project cost. The alternative can also be estimated using stepped pipe diameters to accept additional capacity along the length of the sewer, but costs will be incrementally between the estimates shown for each diameter.

12.5 Collection System Expansion Costs

The conceptual costs for the collection system alternatives are listed in Table 2.20. Construction costs include materials, labor, and equipment, with associated administration, general conditions, overhead, and profit for the contractor. The planning-level estimate includes a contingency for unidentified conditions. Total project costs include factors for engineering design, construction inspection, and administration.

Table 2.20 Collection System Expansion Costs Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey

Alternative Total Construction

Cost ($) Total Project

Cost ($)

Alt I - TOTAL $5,370,400 $6,713,000

Alt II - TOTAL $5,038,700 $6,298,400

Alt III - TOTAL $2,514,600 $3,143,300 Notes: Construction costs January 2008, ENR = 8090 Project costs include contingency, engineering, legal, and administration (25%).

12.6 Collection System Expansion Options

The project costs for each expansion alternative are essentially equal for planning level conceptual estimates. The collection system expansion addresses growth outside the service area, and covers a build-out scenario longer than the 20-year Facility Plan period. Implementation of new interceptors requires phasing, scheduling, and financing in coordination with growth and development in the service area, which is beyond the scope and the schedule for this Facility Plan.

The two expansion alternatives presented are supportive of one another, so selection of a preferred alternative is not necessary. If future customers exceed the capacity of the

February 2012 2-57

expanded Woodside trunk, the gravity interceptor in Alternative II can also be added to convey additional flows to the WWTP site.

12.7 Collection System Expansion Schedule and Phasing

The Woodside trunk sewer was found to be approaching the maximum capacity. Recent proposals to develop Quigley Canyon and add new customers from outside the service area will exceed the capacity. The Woodside expansion Alternative I can be implemented in phases, initially replacing the smaller 8-inch and 10-inch diameter sections with 12-inch, 15-inch, and 18-inch sewers. The next expansion projects to increase the diameter of the existing 12-inch sewer to a 24-inch line can be implemented as needed for subsequent future development. It should be noted, the existing 12-inch line can only accommodate 359 additional customers, so the time period between phases may be brief if development continues.

13.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Collection System Capacity

The Woodside Boulevard trunk sewer serves 40 to 60 percent of the total service area. The sewer begins as an 8-inch diameter, increasing to 10-inch diameter, then 12-inch diameter as services combine to the Woodside WWTP. To determine the hydraulic capacity, the invert elevations and the pipe slope were measured between Fox Acres and the WWTP. The Woodside trunk sewer has capacity for approximately 1.62 million gallons per day at peak hour flow, which is equivalent to approximately 2,280 residential customers. Review of the City zoning and plot plans identified approximately 1,923 equivalent residential lots tributary to the Woodside trunk, leaving a small margin of reserve capacity of not more than 359 additional residential customers along the entire length of the sewer.

The 10-inch diameter section of the Woodside trunk at Countrywide Blvd has the least available capacity. The customers in this part of the service area currently occupy 72 percent of the available capacity at peak hour flow, allowing for approximately 196 additional residential customers before reaching the full capacity of this segment. Connection of more than 200 additional customers in the northern 8-inch diameter segments of the Woodside trunk potentially can surcharge the middle 10-inch section of pipe.

The Riverside sub-basin covers the western part of the service area with gravity collector sewers ranging from 8 to 12-inch in diameter lines. The sewer slopes were unknown, so the capacity was estimated assuming the minimum grade. All segments were found to have adequate capacity for the existing customers with capacity for infill development.

The gravity collectors in this basin are tributary to the Riverside Pump Station, which discharges through 18,600 feet of 10-inch diameter forcemain to the Woodside treatment

2-58 February 2012

plant. The 10-inch diameter pressure sewer is the capacity-limiting component in the Riverside basin. The pump station must be modified with larger pumps, and a third pump is needed to increase capacity. Future expansion of the collection area to the Riverside Pump Station cannot accept more than approximately 800 new residential customers, within the practical limits of the pump station.

The wastewater collection system has capacity available for infill development within the City limits and some small-scale expansion. The area of impact around the service area shows the potential for development of 3,000 to 5,000 additional residential customers at ultimate build-out. The existing collection system does not have adequate capacity to extend the service area and accept new customers from large developments outside the City limits. The collection system will require new larger interceptor sewers to expand the service area.

13.2 Condition Assessment

The City completed CCTV inspections covering the entire collection system between 2003 and 2007, which was the first comprehensive inspection ever conducted on the lines. In general, the system was in good structural condition with no large-scale defects. Approximately 30 necessary repairs were identified, which included cracks, holes, offset joints, and root instrusion (Table 2.13). The collection system defects can be corrected by excavating the pipe and completing spot repairs or replacing sections of pipe. The estimated construction costs to repair the higher priority collection system defects is $766,300, which includes contractor indirect costs, assuming the work would be completed by a general contractor (Table 2.17 A&B). Project costs for sewer repairs, including engineering, legal, and administration factors total $881,300.

Historical flow records do not show seasonal fluctuations or changes in wastewater characteristics from infiltration and inflow (I/I). There were no additional rehabilitation projects or costs to remove I/I from the system.

The Woodside trunk sewer has approximately seven (7) sections in the line with non-uniform slopes, or sags, ranging from 2-inches to 7.5-inches deep. The pipe sections with sags should be re-cleaned and inspected semi-annually to remove accumulated solids. The frequency of re-cleaning and inspection can be adjusted with experience from the observed solids deposits in the line. The sags reduce the capacity of the Woodside Blvd. trunk. The capital costs to replace the sagging sections can be compared to the on-going maintenance costs to identify the best approach to optimize capacity of the trunk. Ultimately, the sags can be replaced if the Woodside trunk sewer is expanded in the future.

Appendix A

WOODSIDE TRUNK SEWER INVERT ELEVATIONS AND PIPE SLOPE

Appendix B

COLLECTION SYSTEM REPAIRS AND EXPANSION COST ASSUMPTIONS

SPOT REPAIRS

PROJECT : Hailey - Wastewater Facility Plan

ALT Spot Repair DATE : 2/25/2008

JOB # : 6813B 00

LOCATION : Hailey, Idaho BY : WJB

SPOT REPAIR - Unit Cost Development REVIEWED:

ELEMENT # ELEMENT COST

Spot Repair Direct Cost $8,442TOTAL DIRECT COST $8,442

CONTINGENCY 5.00% $422SUBTOTAL $8,900

01 GENERAL CONDITIONS 5.00% $445

SUBTOTAL $9,345

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $9,345SALES TAX 6.50% $289

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ SALES TAX $9,600

Exclusions: All costs associated with the identification/mitigation of hazardous materials. All costs associated with historical/cultural discoveries on site.

NOTE:The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of currentconditions in the Santa Ana area. The estimate reflects ourprofessional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject tochange as the project design matures.

Carollo Engineers has no control over variances in the cost of labor,materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methodsof determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions,practices or bidding strategies. Carollo Engineers cannot and does notwarrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual constructioncosts will not vary from the costs presented herein.

SECTION REPAIR

PROJECT : Hailey - Wastewater Facility Plan

ALT Replace Pipe Section DATE : 2/25/2008

JOB # : 6813B 00

LOCATION : Hailey, Idaho BY : WJB

SECTION REPAIR - Unit Cost Developmen REVIEWED:


Section Repair Direct Cost $20,649TOTAL DIRECT COST $20,649

CONTINGENCY 5.00% $1,032SUBTOTAL $21,682

01 GENERAL CONDITIONS 5.00% $1,084SUBTOTAL $22,766

ESCALATION TO MID-POINT 0.00% $0TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $22,766SALES TAX 6.50% $705TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ SALES TAX $23,470

Exclusions: All costs associated with the identification/mitigation of hazardous materials. All costs associated with historical/cultural discoveries on site.

NOTE:The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of currentconditions in the Santa Ana area. The estimate reflects ourprofessional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject tochange as the project design matures.


COMBINED TOTALPHASES I & II

PROJECT : HAILEY WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

JOB # : 6813B00 DATE : 3/25/2008

LOCATION : HAILEY, IDAHO BY : WJB

COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION ALTERNATIVE I WOODSIDE TRUNK CAPACITY EXPANSION - TOTAL PROJECT COST


1 HIGH SCHOOL SERVICE CONNECTION $183,7008" Line on Fox Acres

2 WOODSIDE BOULEVARD TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION - PH I $1,473,600Fox Acres to Winterhaven - Increase 8" and 10" dia. to 15" dia.

3 WOODSIDE BOULEVARD TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION - PH II $2,767,100 18" and 24" Pipe from Winterhaven to Woodside WWTP

4 CEDAR STREET & RIVERSIDE PUMP STATION UPGRADES $946,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $5,370,400

ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN. FEES 25.00% $1,342,600

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $6,713,000


ALTERNATIVE I PH I - SUMMARY


JOB # : 6813B00 DATE : 3/25/2008


PHASE I - WOODSIDE TRUNK CAPACITY EXPANSION


1 HIGH SCHOOL SERVICE CONNECTION $183,7008" Line on Fox Acres

2 WOODSIDE BOULEVARD TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION PH I $1,473,600Fox Acres to Winterhaven - Increase 8" and 10" dia. to 15" dia.


ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN. FEES 25.00% $414,325



ALTERNATIVE I PH II - SUMMARY


JOB # : 6813B00 DATE : 3/25/2008


PHASE II - WOODSIDE TRUNK CAPACITY EXPANSION


1 WOODSIDE BOULEVARD TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION PH II $2,767,100 18" and 24" Pipe from Winterhaven to Woodside WWTP



ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN. FEES 25.00% $928,275



ALTERNATIVE II SUMMARY


JOB # : 6813B00 DATE : 3/25/2008


ALT II - GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR EXPANSION


1 NEW 12" & 15" TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION $536,400

2 NEW 18" TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION $1,945,000

3 NEW 24" TRUNK SEWER EXPANSION $1,674,500



ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN. FEES 25.00% $1,259,675



1 2 5 9 2 W E S T E X P L O R E R D R I V E • S U I T E 2 0 0 • B O I S E , I D A H O 8 3 7 1 3 • ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 8 8 • F A X ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 5 1 C:\pw_working\projectwise\bdavies\d0105398\TM003.doc

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FINAL February 2012

February 2012 3-i



EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3-1

2.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ........................................................................... 3-2

4.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ......................................... 3-3 4.1 Influent Wastewater Pumping Station ......................................................... 3-7 4.2 Preliminary Treatment ................................................................................ 3-7 4.3 Secondary Treatment ................................................................................. 3-8 4.4 Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection .......................................................... 3-13 4.5 River Outfall .............................................................................................. 3-16 4.6 Biosolids Handling .................................................................................... 3-16

5.0 SUPPORT FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 3-21 5.1 Headworks Building .................................................................................. 3-21 5.2 Process Building ....................................................................................... 3-22 5.3 Administration and Laboratory Building .................................................... 3-22 5.4 Maintenance Building and Shop ............................................................... 3-23 5.5 Standby Generators.................................................................................. 3-23

6.0 FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 3-23 6.1 Big Wood River TMDL Requirements ....................................................... 3-24 6.2 TMDL Implementation Plan ...................................................................... 3-26

7.0 TMDL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................. 3-27 7.1 Design Criteria Flow and Loading Projections .......................................... 3-27 7.2 Existing WWTP Effluent Quality ............................................................... 3-29 7.3 Woodside Treatment Plant Reliability and Redundancy ........................... 3-32

8.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 3-40 8.1 Asset Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-40 8.2 Asset Rehabilitation and Repair Schedule ............................................... 3-44

9.0 WOODSIDE WWTP OPTMIZATION .................................................................... 3-44 9.1 Background............................................................................................... 3-44 9.2 Chemical Feed Process Theory ............................................................... 3-45 9.3 Chemical Treatment Capital Improvements ............................................. 3-47 9.4 Chemical Feed Operating Costs ............................................................... 3-49 9.5 Chemical Feed Controls ........................................................................... 3-49

3-ii February 2012

9.6 SBR Optimization ...................................................................................... 3-50 9.7 Effluent Filtration Improvements ............................................................... 3-51

10.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 3-51 APPENDIX A: Chemical Feed Dosing and Operating Cost Estimate APPENDIX B: Cloth Disc Filter Upgrades

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Big Wood River Water Quality Standards ..................................................... 3-2 Table 3.2 Existing NPDES Permit Requirements (ID-002030-3) .................................. 3-4 Table 3.3 Design Basis - SBR Treatment Cycles and Times ...................................... 3-10 Table 3.4 Existing WWTP Flow SBR Treatment Cycles and Times ........................... 3-12 Table 3.5 Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria ............................. 3-19 Table 3.6 Projected 2028 Future Flow and Loading ................................................... 3-23 Table 3.7 Numeric Water Quality Target Concentrations in the Big Wood River ........ 3-24 Table 3.8 Hailey WWTP Existing NPDES Permit and TMDL Load Allocation ............ 3-25 Table 3.9 TMDL and Post-TMDL Waste Load Allocations .......................................... 3-26 Table 3.10 Comparison of Existing WWTP to Projected 2028 Flow and Loading ........ 3-28 Table 3.11 Condition of Unit Processes and Major Equipment ..................................... 3-41 Table 3.12 Conceptual Cost Estimate- Chemical Feed System Upgrades ................... 3-48 Table 3.13 Marginal Condition (Priority 2) - WWTP Repair and

Replacement Projects ................................................................................. 3-52 Table 3.14 Adequate Condition (Priority 3) - WWTP Repair and

Replacement Projects ................................................................................. 3-54 Table 3.15 Good Condition (Priority 4) - WWTP Repair and Replacement Projects .... 3-55

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Woodside WWTP Process Flow Diagram ..................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.2 WWTP Outfall ............................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3.3 Effluent Suspended Solids .......................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3.4 Effluent Total Phosphorus ........................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3.5 Effluent Ammonia - N .................................................................................. 3-33

February 2012 3-1

Technical Memorandum No. 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of Technical Memorandum No. 3 is to review the existing Woodside Treatment Plant in the City of Hailey. The TM includes the following sections:

Summary of the current discharge permit requirements and water quality in the Big Wood River.

Review of the original WWTP design criteria for each treatment process.

Evaluation of the existing WWTP to comply with future permit requirements, under the flows and pollutant loading for the 20-year planning projections.

Assessment of the operational reliability and the redundancy of each treatment process to allow for maintenance, while meeting the permit requirements.

Accounting of the age and condition of the major equipment, with recommended capital improvements to continue service for the 20-year planning period.

An optimization strategy to improve the effluent quality of the existing facilities with supplemental chemical coagulation.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The City of Hailey Woodside Treatment Plant is located at the southeastern end of the City, in an area zoned as Light Industrial District. The total site covers approximately 6 acres.

The original Woodside Treatment Plant was constructed in 1974, a fabricated steel package plant that included a contact-stabilization aeration basin, secondary clarifier, sludge storage, gravity sand filter, and effluent disinfection enclosed under a fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) dome. The original treatment capacity was 0.7 mgd, and the treated effluent was discharged to a 4-acre subsurface soil percolation field.

Following the 1996 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller and Associates), the Woodside Treatment Plant was expanded and upgraded to treat all of the flows from the entire wastewater collection area. The former Riverside Treatment Plant was converted into the Riverside Pump Station, as reviewed in TM 2. The Woodside Treatment Plant was constructed with the State Revolving Loan Funds (SRF), and started the initial operation in 2000.

The City of Hailey received a Wastewater Planning Grant from Idaho DEQ to update the Wastewater Facility Plan. This TM, as part of the Facility Plan, reviews the capacity and

3-2 February 2012

condition of the existing treatment facilities, and their application to the service area and water quality requirements for the next 20-year planning period.

3.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The City of Hailey Woodside Wastewater Treatment Facility is authorized to discharge to the Big Wood River under the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, number ID-002030-3. The permit became effective June 11, 2001, and was effective for five years, expiring June 12, 2006. The City submitted the permit renewal application to US EPA in December 2005. The facility can continue to discharge under the current permit until the new permit from EPA becomes effective.

The Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements, (IDAPA 16.01.02.150.21) designated uses for this segment of the Big Wood River are listed in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Big Wood River Water Quality Standards Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Beneficial Use State-Designated Use Description

Domestic Water Supply (DWS) Water quality appropriate for drinking water supplies.

Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) Water quality appropriate for the irrigation of crops or as drinking water for livestock. This use applies to all surface waters of the state.

Cold Water Aquatic Life (CWAL) Water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance of a viable aquatic life community for cold water species.

Salmonid Spawning (SAL) Waters which provide or could provide a habitat for active self-propagating populations of salmonid fishes

Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) Water quality appropriate for prolonged and intimate contact by humans or for recreational activities when the ingestion of small quantities of water is likely to occur. Such activities include, but are not restricted to, those used for swimming, water skiing, or skin diving.

Special Resource Water

Waters designated for outstanding high quality waters; unique ecological significance; outstanding recreational quality where intensive protection is needed.

February 2012 3-3

The State’s water quality standards mandate that effluent limits comply with the most stringent of either technology-based effluent limits or water-quality based limits. Technology-based limits are considered the minimum level of treatment, defining numerical effluent concentrations based on conventional wastewater treatment technologies. However, technology-based limits may not meet water quality standards, so permits may define water-quality based limits to preserve the designated beneficial uses of the receiving stream.

The effluent limits in the current NPDES permit are listed in Table 3.2. The effluent mass-loading limits, defined as pounds per day, are water-quality based requirements, calculated from the effluent concentration and the design flow of 1.60 mgd. EPA calculations for the effluent limits in the permit are contained in the City’s NPDES Permit Fact Sheet, 2001.

The State Water Quality Standards observe an anti-degradation policy. In the Hailey NPDES permit, EPA identifies the Big Wood River is a Tier 2 waterbody, which are also referred to as High Quality Waters by DEQ. The NPDES permit limits for a point-source discharge cannot impact the beneficial uses of High Quality Waters (Tier 2) listed in Table 3.1.

Water quality in the Big Wood River continues to be monitored and reviewed by EPA and DEQ. The State of Idaho listing of Impaired Waters (“303(d) List”) reports the City of Hailey is in a water-quality limited segment of the Big Wood River. In other words, even though the Woodside WWTP is in compliance with the current NPDES permit limits, the in-stream water quality criteria are not being met.

DEQ completed the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) investigation of the Big Wood River in 2000, that determined the allowable pollutant loads that will not impact water quality. The future NPDES permits will be based on the TMDL findings, which are expected to be more stringent and require additional levels of treatment, compared to the current NPDES limits. The projected changes for the future NPDES permits are listed and discussed later in this TM in Section 6.

4.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

This section describes the existing treatment components. The process flow diagram for the existing Woodside Treatment Plant is shown in Figure 3.1.

3-4

February 2012

Table 3.2 Existing NPDES Permit Requirements (ID-002030-3) Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Big Wood River Outfall 001 Effluent Limitations Monitoring Requirements

Parameter Average Monthly

Average Weekly

Daily Maximum Sample Location

Sample Type & Frequency

BOD5

1/week 24-hr composite

(mg/L) 30 45 - Influent and Effluent

(lbs/day) 94 141 - TSS

1/week 24-hr composite

(mg/L) 30 45 - Influent and Effluent

(lbs/day) 94 141 -

Fecal Coliform Bacteria 1 -- 200/100 mL Effluent 1/week grab

E. Coli Bacteria 2, 3 126/100 mL -- 406/100 mL Effluent 5/month grab

Total Phosphorus as P (lbs/day) 15.0 23.0 Effluent 2/month 24-hr composite

Total Ammonia as N

2/month 24-hr composite

(mg/L) 3 1.9 2.9 3.3 Effluent

(lbs/day) 9 14 15.6

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (lbs/day) 55 78 - Effluent 2/month 24-hr composite

pH 6.5 - 9.0 Effluent Daily grab Notes: 1. Average weekly fecal coliform count must not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 mL. 2. The average monthly E. Coli count must not exceed a geometric mean of 126/100 mL based on a minimum of 5 samples taken every 3 to 5 days over a 30-day period. 3. Reporting is required within 24 hours of a maximum daily limit or violation.

From Riverside

BatchTank

Aerobic Digester

GravityThickener

TransferPump

To Tanker Truckto Ohio Gulch Drying Beds

Waste Activated Sludge

Discharge toBig Wood River

Aerobic Digester

SludgeStorage Tank

SBR No. 1

ChemicalRoom

EqualizationBasin

SBR Effluent Pumps

To FilterInlet

Channel

Waste Activated Sludge

SBRPumpNo. 2

SBRPump No. 1

SBR No. 2

Process AerationBlowers

Process Building

Effluent Weir

UV Channel

UV Bank 1

Bank 2

Bank 3

FutureFilter

Cloth Disc Filter

From SBR Effluent Pumps

SBR Equipment Room

(Futu

re)

From Woodside

Screen Building

Manual Bar Rack

Mech. Bar Screen

Screenings andGrit to Landfill

Grit Basin

GritClassifier

MMM

M

M

M

MM

MixerNo. 1

MixerNo. 2 Motive Jet Aeration

Decanter Decanter

Air

MM

PARSHALL FLUME(NOT USED)

LEGEND

Automatic Motorized Valve

Magetic FlowMeter

Figure 3.1Woodside WWTP Process Flow Diagram


February 2012 3-7

4.1 Influent Wastewater Pumping Station

The 21-inch diameter Woodside gravity trunk sewer enters the northwest corner of the site into a 12-foot diameter influent pumping wet well. The pump station is equipped with two constant speed submersible pumps, each rated for 1,400 gallons per minute (gpm), and 45 feet total dynamic head (TDH), with 25 horsepower (HP) motors. One pump is in service with the second as redundant standby. The wet well and the 14-inch discharge header have open space to add a third pump in the future.

The western portion of the collection system is tributary to the Riverside Pump Station, which conveys flows through a forcemain to the Woodside Treatment Plant, as reviewed in TM 2. The 14-inch pressure sewer from the Riverside Pump Station enters the site parallel to the Woodside gravity sewer, and then discharges to the Headworks Building.

The Woodside pumps operate at constant speed. An ultrasonic level element controls the pumps in the wet well, pumping approximately 6,500 gallons per cycle. After each pumping cycle, the controls alternate the lead pump. If the lead pump fails, the lag pump will start and an alarm is sounded. The pump operation is controlled by the SCADA system in the Operations Building. Currently, under average flow conditions, the pumps complete approximately three cycles per hour. The existing pump capacity is 1,400 gpm.

The City installed a 14-inch diameter magnetic flow meter in a metering vault to record influent flows from the Woodside Trunk. A similar meter was also added on the discharge line from the Riverside Pump Station. The two flow meters separately record influent flows from each of the main sub-basins in the collection system. The two flows are then combined to record the total WWTP influent flow records.

4.2 Preliminary Treatment

The preliminary treatment stages remove inert material from the raw sewage that increases maintenance and wear in the WWTP.

4.2.1 Influent Screening

Influent screening removes the rags and stringy material that would otherwise plug pumps and equipment. The screens are enclosed in a framed metal Headworks Building.

The raw sewage pumps discharge to open channels in the Headworks Building. One channel is equipped with an automatic mechanical screen, Lakeside Rotomat, 42-inch diameter screen with ¼-inch slotted openings, which has a rated peak hour capacity of 3,300 gpm (4.75 mgd) with a differential head of 19-inches. The rake mechanism automatically rotates and removes the rags retained on the screening basket. A single drive motor, 2 HP operates the rake mechanism and the integral screw conveyor. Screenings are

3-8 February 2012

washed, conveyed out of the channel and compacted by the unit, discharging into a dumpster and disposed of at the landfill.

A second parallel channel is equipped with a manual bypass bar rack, with 1-1/4-inch clear openings. If the mechanical screen is out of service for maintenance or repairs, the bypass channel is opened for service. An operator must continuously attend the manual bar rack to remove the rags to prevent a backup or overflow from the influent channel. The bypass channel is 2-feet wide, by 4-feet deep. When in service, the 1-1/4-inch clear openings will remove the largest solids and permit significantly more material to pass compared to the ¼-inch slotted openings in the automatic mechanical screen.

4.2.2 Grit Removal

A single vortex grit basin, 8’-6” diameter, removes the inert sand and gravel from the wastewater, to reduce abrasion and wear on succeeding treatment equipment. A 1/2 HP center mechanical mixer rotates the flow to keep light organic material in suspension, allowing heavier grit to settle into a lower bottom hopper. An air-lift pump operated on a timer, transfers the grit into a grit washer and classifier inside the Headworks Building. The washed and dewatered grit is discharged to the dumpster with the screenings and hauled to the landfill. The grit washer has a 1 HP drive motor on the screw conveyor used to dewater and transfer the grit to the dumpster.

The grit basin manufacturer, John Meunier, has a catalog rating for the, 8’-6” diameter vortex grit basin as 4.3 mgd for the peak hour flow capacity.

4.2.3 Parshall Flume Influent Flow Meter

The grit basins discharge into a Parshall Flume with a 9-inch throat. The City found the flume to be inaccurate for influent flow measurement, and subsequently installed the magnetic flow meters on the influent force mains.

4.3 Secondary Treatment

Required by EPA as part of the Clean Water Act, secondary treatment is the stage where microorganisms consume the organic wastes, typically removing floating and settleable solids and about 90 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances and suspended solids.

4.3.1 Batch Tank

After screening and grit removal, flow passes by gravity into the Batch Tank, which has approximately 154,000 gallons to equalize flow to the biological process. Two submersible propeller mixers equipped with 4 HP motors keep solids in suspension. Approximately 2-hours of hydraulic retention time can be achieved in the batch tank, at the average design flow of 1.6 mgd, and 40-minutes at the peak hour flow of 4.8 mgd. The batch tank provides temporary storage for the influent flow between the SBR basins, to coordinate the treatment cycles. The anaerobic (without oxygen) retention time also produces volatile fatty acids

February 2012 3-9

(VFA) in the influent wastewater which supports the growth of phosphorous accumulating organisms (PAO), in the biological treatment process.

4.3.1.1 Chemical Feed Equipment

A Chemical Feed Room was constructed as part of the Process Building. A dry chemical feeder was included for bicarbonate addition as a pH buffer to sustain the nitrification process. Bags of dry chemical can be added and proportionately fed into a slurry, which is then pumped by liquid metering pumps to the Batch Tank. The dry feeder has not been tested or used since the original construction.

A 6,000-gallon alum storage tank and two liquid metering pumps were provided, for use as a settling aid and for phosphorous removal. The metering pumps discharge to the motive pump discharge piping in each SBR basin. The alum feed system has also never been used. The staff is concerned that the PVC chemical feed piping does not have an isolation valve. If the line breaks, the SBR basin will flood the Equipment Room in the Process Building. This pipe issue and potential changes are addressed in the condition assessment section.

The City has been in compliance with the NPDES permit under the current flow and loading conditions without adding chemicals, so the equipment has never been used. The dry bicarbonate feeder and the bulk chemical tank are not in service. The chemical metering pumps supplied for alum addition have been used with liquid sodium hypochlorite from barrels, added to control filamentous organisms in the activated sludge.

4.3.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor

Biological treatment is provided in a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process. In this configuration, aeration and settling are accomplished in the same basin, sequentially in a fill-and-draw batch operation. The process typically requires fewer tanks and occupies less area, i.e., “smaller footprint,” than conventional flow-through activated sludge with separate aeration basins and clarifiers. SBRs typically have lower construction costs compared to conventional treatment.

Two reactor basins are provided, each with dimensions of 81-ft long by 81-ft wide and 21-foot maximum water depth, and a volume of 1.03 million gallons per basin. The general operating cycle and durations recommended by the SBR manufacturer for each process stage are listed in Table 3.3 for the average design flow of 1.60 mgd.

At the design flow, each SBR basin will complete five cycles per day, for a total of ten treatment cycles. The cycle frequency is adjusted according to the influent flows.

3-10 February 2012

Table 3.3 Design Basis - SBR Treatment Cycles and Times


Treatment Cycle Duration (hours) Treatment Process Reactions

Total Fill Time

2.40 Organic pollutants are introduced to the biological treatment process (food)

Anoxic Fill 1.08 Accumulate BOD Denitrify Nitrate in Mixed LiquorMixed liquor selector to reduce

filamentous organisms. Aerated Fill 1.32 Initiate carbonaceous

BOD removal Total React Time 1.08 Aerated 0.54 Reduce carbonaceous BOD

Convert Ammonia to Nitrate Assimilate soluble Phosphorus

Mixed, unaerated (50%)

0.54 Aeration air cycled on/off every 10 minutes.

Reduce carbonaceous BOD Denitrify Nitrate to Nitrogen

Settle Time 0.75 Mixed liquor (microorganisms) allowed to settle and compact

Decant Time

0.55 Clarified effluent discharged to EQ Basins

Idle Time 0.02 Transition to next cycle Waste excess biomass.

TOTAL CYCLE TIME 4.8 hours per basin

The SBR was designed to operate with mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration of 3,200 mg/L, which is the active population of microorganisms for biological treatment. As new microorganisms grow, excess mixed liquor or waste activated sludge (WAS), is pumped or “wasted” from the SBR to the aerobic digester during the idle phase, maintaining the design MLSS concentration and a healthy population of microorganisms.

4.3.2.1 SBR Mechanical Equipment

The SBR equipment is the JetTech Omniflow, manufactured and supplied by Siemens Corporation and includes a motive pump, jet aeration headers, as well as a floating decanter mechanism for each basin. Three positive displacement aeration blowers are provided to satisfy the process oxygen demand. The SBR package uses a programmable

February 2012 3-11

logic controller (PLC) microprocessor with a touch-screen operator interface in the Process Building, to control the treatment cycles.

Raw sewage is pumped by the motive pump from the Batch Tank to the SBR basin at the start of the anoxic fill cycle. When one basin is filled and starts the react cycle, influent flow is stopped, and retained in the batch tank until it is automatically diverted to the other basin.

The motive pumps, manufactured by Fairbanks Morse, are centrifugal, vertical close-coupled pumps with 100 HP motors, on a 24-inch diameter pipe header in the Process Building. The original design capacity for the motive pumps was 8,780 gpm and 23 ft TDH, at 890 rpm. During the initial WWTP startup, the motive pumps were operated against a partially closed discharge valve to reduce pump cavitation or vibration, changing the pump operation to 5,700 gpm at 42 ft TDH. The City added variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the pumps in 2004 and reduced the operating speed to 660 rpm, pumping 5,700 gpm at 23 ft TDH. With the VFDs, the SBR motive pumps require less electrical power and have more process flexibility.

In the react cycle, air from the blowers is mixed with the discharge flow from the motive pump in the air header, imparting a “jet” of oxygenated solution into the basin for high oxygen transfer efficiency. Three positive displacement blowers in the Blower Room, each deliver 1,156 scfm, at 9.5-psig maximum discharge pressure, with 100 HP motors. One or two blower are operated for predetermined times to satisfy the oxygen demand, with one remaining as redundant standby. Blowers can be controlled in the SBR cycle either by the level of dissolved oxygen in the basins or by timer intervals. The blowers are stopped during the treatment cycle to promote the denitrification reaction, and recover some process oxygen.

In the settle cycle, no flow enters or leaves the tank, creating ideal quiescent settling conditions. After the settling time, the automatic controller opens the decant mechanism to allow clarified effluent to pass into the equalization basin.

The decant mechanism is a floating pipe header with submerged orifices, mounted to the basin with a flexible pipe. Solids-excluding plugs keep the mixed liquor out of the decanter during the treatment cycles, which open at the end of the settling period to discharge flow from the basin. The float maintains constant water submergence so the decanter discharges at a constant rate of 4,840 gpm (maximum).

4.3.2.2 SBR Operating Modes and Control Options

The PLC program for the SBR can be operated by either one of the following control strategies.

Level and Time Mode: Pressure transducers in the SBR monitor the depth in the basins. The react cycles starts when the tank reaches the defined level set-point, and the SBR proceeds through the programmed react, settle, and decant cycles.

3-12 February 2012

Flow Proportion Mode: The PLC also monitors the level via the pressure transducer in the basins and evaluates the rate that the tanks fill. The PLC automatically adjusts the SBR cycle times and varies the proportion of the fill and react cycle with the blower operation to accommodate the peak influent flows. The settle and decant time are typically not adjusted.

4.3.2.3 Current SBR Operating Cycles

The 2007 influent flow to the WWTP was approximately 0.62 mgd. Since the WWTP initial operation in 2001, the SBR has been operated in the Level and Time Mode because the flows are well below the average design capacity of 1.60 mgd. The current operating set points and typical cycle times are listed in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Existing WWTP Flow SBR Treatment Cycles and Times


Treatment Cycle Duration (hours) Basin Level and Operation

Maximum Fill Time 2.67 Motive Pumps transfer from Batch Tank to SBR (10 min fill time typical) Low level float in Batch Tank stops transfer

Anoxic Fill 0.75 Start SBR treatment cycles at 16.5 ft depth Aerated Fill 1.92 Typical SBR fill depth to 18.2 ft at current flows Total React Time 2.33 Aerated 1.73 Aeration Cycles Blowers On 24 minutes

2nd Blower On 7 minutes after 17 minutes Air Off 12 minutes

Settle Time 1.50 Min Settle Time 1 hour Max Settle Time 2 hours

Decant Time 0.58 Idle Time

TOTAL CYCLE TIME 5.3 hours per Basin (Total Cycle = 2x Max Fill Time)

The current cycle times require a longer settling period than initially recommended by the manufacturer. The City’s experience indicates that the activated sludge is characterized by slow settling that requires a longer settle time. With the extended settling time, the WWTP peak flow capacity is reduced. Plant staff continues to make adjustments in the process and controls, but the settling characteristics and settling time have not changed significantly. Additionally, the SBR basins do not have equipment or facilities too effectively remove scum, so the surface tends to accumulate filamentous organisms. Under certain temperature and loading conditions, the undesirable organisms grow at accelerated rates, which hinder the settling cycle and upset the treatment process. Operations staff has been

February 2012 3-13

injecting liquid hypochlorite and making process adjustments to eliminate the undesirable microbes, which can deteriorate effluent quality.

The 2007 plant data reports the basins are operated at an overall F/M of 0.08 lbs BOD/lb MLSS. The plant records also show the diurnal peak causes an imbalance in the loading to each basin. The loading and operations of SBR 1 resulted in MLSS concentrations of 2,300 mg/L, and SBR 2 resulted in MLSS concentrations of 3,000 mg/L. Staff has been making process modifications to equalize loading and balance sludge wasting, to achieve equal conditions in each basin.

4.3.3 Effluent Equalization Basin

The decant mechanisms from each SBR discharges into a common flow equalization basin, which has a maximum storage volume of a 177,000 gallons volume between the minimum and maximum operating levels. At the current flows, the decant volume is approximately 98,000 gallons per cycle so the equalization volume is sufficient to allow for some degree of overlap between two decant cycles. The maximum treatment volume of one SBR basin is 230,000 gallons, which is greater than the available equalization volume.

Three equalization pumps transfer secondary effluent to the filters in the Process Building. In the spring of 2007, two of the three original extended shaft equalization pumps required major repairs. The extended shaft pumps were extremely difficult to remove for maintenance, so, they were replaced with three new submersible pumps and VFDs, matching the original design capacity of 1,500 gpm each. The pumps generally operate in the range of 400 to 1,000 gpm, up to 15 ft TDH, and are 7.5 HP. One or two pumps is sufficient for the current flow rates, the third pump provides redundancy.

The flow rate for the equalization pumps is calculated from the SCADA program. The SBR fill volume cycle is evaluated to determine the rate that the equalization basin must be emptied ahead of the next decant cycle. Magnetic flow meters on the discharge piping measure the flow and adjust the equalization pump speed to the desired flow rate.

4.4 Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection

After biological treatment, the effluent is filtered to remove additional suspended solids to comply with the NPDES permit. Effluent is also disinfected to destroy pathogens before discharging to the Big Wood River.

4.4.1 Cloth-Disc Filters

The equalization pumps discharge to tertiary filters in the Process Building to remove suspended solids from the effluent. Two concrete filter basins were constructed. One basin was equipped with six (6) cloth-disc filters manufactured by Aqua Aerobics. The second open basin is sized and configured to add a second parallel bank of filters, for future

3-14 February 2012

capacity and redundancy. Effluent passes by gravity through the disc filters, which operate fully submerged.

The filter discs are covered with a pile cloth media on a woven backing, which provides nominal filter opening of 10 microns. The manufacturer reports the filters effectively remove particles down to 6 microns, due to the buildup of solids on the surface. In 2004, the City installed new pile cloth media developed by Aqua Aerobics, replacing the original felt media. The newer media does not require high-pressure surface backwash and used less energy with the same removal efficiency.

The water surface levels are measured at the inlet and outlet of the basin, monitoring flow through the filters. When the water surfaces reach a defined differential head, the cleaning cycle starts. The disc assembly rotates, and the surface is vacuumed over one revolution. Valving in the basin cleans two discs at a time. Five minutes is required to clean all six discs. Submersible pumps in the filter basin create the suction to clean the filter media. The filter reject water is pumped back to the headworks, which is estimated as three percent of the total filtered flow, or approximately 18,000 gallons per day at the current WWTP flows.

The design manufacturer recommends a hydraulic loading rate of 3.25 gpm/ft2 average, which equates to 1,049 gpm with the six installed filter discs. The design peak hydraulic loading rate is 6 gpm/ft2, or 1,936 gpm. At the current WWTP influent flows of 0.62 mgd, the equalization basin pumps operate between 400 gpm and 1,000 gpm, which is within the recommended hydraulic lading rate to the filters, between 1.3 gpm/ft2 and 3.1 gpm/ft2.

The equalization basin pumps were provided with a peak hour capacity of approximately 3,000 gpm (2 pumps in operation at 1,500 gpm), which would hydraulically load the six installed filter discs at a rate of 9.3 gpm/ft2, exceeding the maximum rate. Therefore, the second bank of six disc filters is needed to provide filter capacity for the design peak hour flow of 4.0 mgd. With a total of 12 disc filters, the maximum equalization pump discharge of 3,000 gpm will result in a peak filters hydraulic loading of 4.65 gpm/ft2, which is below the maximum loading rate of 6 gpm/ft2.

The maximum solids loading rate to the filter should not exceed 3.25 lbs TSS/ ft2/day. Assuming 20 mg/L TSS from the SBR, at the design flow of 1.6 mgd, the solids loading rate on the filters is 0.83 lbs/ft2/day. Therefore, the filters appear to be hydraulically limited, assuming the SBR effluent remains less than 20 mg/L TSS.

The Aqua Aerobics cloth disc filter system was supplied as a complete package with the associated controls for the filter operation and vacuum cleaning.

4.4.2 Ultraviolet Light Disinfection

Pathogens in the filtered effluent are disinfected by exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, prior to discharge to the Big Wood River. Two open channels were constructed in the Process Building, each channel is 30-inches wide and 4-feet deep, and approximately 30-feet long.

February 2012 3-15

Three UV banks are installed in one channel, with low-pressure, high-intensity UV lamps, by Trojan Technologies Inc., Model UV 3000 lamps. The second channel is available for future expansion of the UV disinfection system.

The three UV banks are made up of modules with 8 horizontal lamps, 64-inches long, retained in a stainless steel frame. There are 10 parallel modules in each bank to fill the UV channel and provide the required UV wavelength and contact time, which is the “UV dosage” for disinfection. In total, the UV disinfection system contains 240 lamps.

The design criteria from the manufacturer reports an effective UV dose of 30,000 micro-watts per square centimeter (mw.sec/cm2), and a peak hour flow rating for 4.0 mgd. Assuming one bank remains as standby for redundancy, each UV bank can provide disinfection for 2.0 mgd.

The end of the UV channel is equipped with a level control gate supplied by Trojan, to maintain a constant water level 1-inch above the lamps.

The UV system was supplied with lamp ballasts, power distribution and controls to operate the system. The UV banks in service are cycled to equalize the run time on the lamps. The lamps have an expected operating life of 13,000 hours before replacement is needed. There is no flow-pacing function in the lamp control panel, which would change the number and intensity of the UV lamps in operation with the flow, to reduce the electrical power consumption during average and peak flow conditions. The City will manually turn on a second bank of UV lamps during peak flow periods if the effluent appears turbid, to ensure disinfection.

A separate stainless steel cleaning tank was provided. Periodically, the modules must be placed in the cleaning tank to remove water scale off of the quarts sleeves on the UV lamps.

The original design of the system included a City water line connection. If the operating cycles from the SBR did not keep flow to the UV channel, the water line would add City water to cool the UV lamps. The modifications to the equalization pump programming keeps flow through the system, so City water is not used.

4.4.3 Effluent Flow Metering

Disinfected effluent discharges over a rectangular weir, and down an outlet box at the connection to the River Outfall, which is the point of compliance. An ultrasonic level element measures the flow over the weir and records the effluent flow, as required by the NPDES permit.

3-16 February 2012

4.5 River Outfall

The NPDES permit defines the point of compliance as the River Outfall in the Big Wood River. The outfall is a free-flowing 21-inch gravity sewer from the Process Building. After approximately 1,600 feet, at the crossing under the greenbelt, the line is reduced to an 18-inch pipe and flows completely full. The outfall crosses under Highway 75, and extends approximately 8,000 feet to the Big Wood River. The outfall ends with a 400-foot long diffuser of perforated pipe, that was buried 6-feet below the bottom of the Big Wood River so there would be no obvious mixing zone. At the outfall, the River divides into two main channels, and the length of the diffuser covers both channels. The outfall location is shown in Figure 3.2. The invert of the diffuser section under the Big Wood River is elevation 5,182 ft. The approximate elevation of the River bottom is 5,188 ft.

The effluent control gate in the UV channel is set at elevation 5,230.79. Under normal water surface elevations in the Big Wood River, there is a free discharge with approximately 42 ft of available head. During the 100-year flood when the River reaches elevation of approximately 5,194 ft the outfall has 36 feet of available head.

4.6 Biosolids Handling

Residual solids from the WWTP must be treated and managed according to rules defined by EPA under 40 CFR, Part 503 Standards for Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge. The City’s NPDES permit also defines the general biosolids management provisions for the facility.

4.6.1 Aerobic Digester

The excess biomass, or Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) from the SBR is pumped to the aerobic digester for additional stabilization and to produce a less odorous end product. After construction of the SBR in 2000, the City modified the original Woodside package plant to provide aerobic digestion. The original contact stabilization tanks provide a contact chamber of 72,800 gallons, a re-aeration chamber of 151,000 gallons, and an aerobic digester of 139,900 gallons. If all aerated tanks are filled, a total aerobic digester volume of 363,700 gallons is provided.

WAS is pumped to the aerobic digester basin on the eastern side, and aerated for approximately 24 hours, then it is pumped to center clarifier section and allowed to thicken by gravity. The thickened sludge is then transferred with an air-lift pump to the second (northern) aeration basin for additional aerobic digestion.

The center 35-foot diameter clarifier has a volume of 89,000 gallons, which thickens the WAS concentration from 4,000 mg/L suspended solids up to 15,000 mg/L (1.5% solids). Flow decanted after sludge thickening is pumped to the Inlet Batch Tank.

400' - 18"Buried Diffuser 18" Outfall

Woodside Drive

State Highway 75

Woodside WWTP

Big Wood River

Figure 3.2WWTP Outfall


3-18 February 2012

Operating records show the average WAS flow pumped to the digesters is approximately 30,000 gpd in 2007. A nominal retention time of 13 days is provided in the total digester volume, which is increased to approximately 30 to 40 days after thickening.

WAS production at the current WWTP flow rates of 0.63 mgd is approximately 1,000 lbs/day total suspended solids. For the 20-year average annual flow projection of 1.14 mgd, the average day WAS production would increase to 1,800 lbs/day. The projected maximum month average daily flow of 1.25 mgd will yield WAS production at 2,000 lbs/day.

The two original blowers supplied with the package plant provide air to the digesters. One blower is in service with the second as standby. Each blower is 125 HP and more than adequate for aeration needs. Air from the digester blowers is also piped to the grit basin to operate the air-lift pump to transfer grit from the hopper to the grit classifier in the Headworks Building.

After digestion, a 6,000-gallon tank truck is used to haul liquid sludge to the Blaine County Landfill, at Ohio Gulch. The current City records show on average, approximately 5,000 gallons per day is hauled to the landfill, or an annual total of 1.8 million gallons.

The original fiberglass reinforced plastic dome cover constructed with the original Woodside package treatment plant is still in place and covers the aerobic digester, blower, electrical room, and MCC for the digester equipment.

4.6.2 Ohio Gulch Landfill

Digested liquid biosolids are taken to Ohio Gulch and discharged onto shallow evaporation ponds and allowed to dry. Blaine County leases the landfill area to the Cities of Ketchum, Hailey and the Meadows, at no cost, for a 20-year term that will end in April 2019. The lease at Ohio Gulch must be renegotiated in the future to continue biosolids disposal.

There are currently 6 ponds, referred to as “drying fields,” that provide a total surface area of 10 acres. At the current sludge loading, two fields typically receive liquid biosolids, while two are drying with two as standby fields. The City of Hailey provides the labor and equipment to manage the dried biosolids, which are transferred and mixed with the municipal solid waste in the landfill.

Detailed drawings were not available on the embankments around the drying fields. If liquid biosolids are filled to 3 feet deep, two fields in service provide storage volume between 9 and 11 acre-feet, or 2.9 to 3.6 million gallons, which is adequate for the current sludge quantities.

As the regional land fill, Ohio Gulch must also accept sludge from Belleview and other sewage systems in the County. Future biosolids alternatives for Hailey are included in TM 4, which include dewatering to reduce the volume of biosolids for disposal.

February 2012 3-19

4.6.3 Design Summary

The design criteria for the existing Woodside WWTP are listed in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria


Units Current

Capacity Headworks Area Submersible Pumps - Influent Pump Station - Woodside Number No. 2 Capacity mgd 2.02 Motor Size hp 25

Influent Screening Type: Mechanical Drum Screen Number No. 1 Capacity mgd 4.75

Grit Basin No. 1 Capacity mgd 4.3 Diameter ft 8.5

Secondary Treatment Batch Tank Number No. 1 Dimensions ft x ft 27.66 x 81 Water Depth ft 9.22 Volume MG 0.15

Batch Tank Mixers Number No. 2 Motor Size hp 4

SBR Tank Number of Tanks No. 2 Dimensions ft x ft 81 x 81 Water Depth ft 21 Volume MG 1.03 SBR Pumps Number No. 2 Capacity gpm 5,700

3-20 February 2012

Table 3.5 Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Units Current

Capacity Motor Size hp 100 SBR Blowers Number No. 3 Motor Size hp 100 Airflow scfm 1,150 Discharge Pressure psi 9.5

Equalization Tank Number of Tanks No. 1 Dimensions ft x ft 81 x 23 Water Depth ft 15.75 Volume MG 0.22

SBR Effluent Pumps Number No. 3 Capacity (each) gpm 1,500 Motor Size hp 7.5

Tertiary Treatment Tertiary Filters Type: Cloth Disc Filter Number Basins No. 1 Discs per Unit No. 6 Surface Area per Disc ft2 54 Surface Area per Unit ft2 324 Avg Day Capacity mgd 1.51 Peak Hour Capacity mgd 2.71

UV Disinfection Type: High Intensity, Low Output Number of Basins No. 1 Number of Lamps (total) No. 240 Disinfection Capacity mgd 4.00

Effluent Gravity Outfall Size (diameter): inch 18 Effluent Diffuser (length) feet 400

February 2012 3-21

Table 3.5 Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Units Current

Capacity Solids Handling Sludge Thickening Clarifier Number No. 1 Diameter ft 35 Side Water Depth ft 8 Volume gallons 89,000

Aerobic Digester Number No. 1 Volume gallons 298,700 Hydraulic Retention Time (estimated) days 30

5.0 SUPPORT FACILITIES

This section reviews the administration and maintenance facilities of the Woodside Treatment Plant. These support components are not directly involved with wastewater treatment, but are essential to support operations and management of the facilities.

5.1 Headworks Building

The Headworks Building is a classified area, rated as Class I, Div 2, defined by NFPA 820, Standards for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, (National Fire Protection Association). There is a natural gas-fired unit heater located outside the building with a nameplate rating of 3,000 cfm and 197,500 Btu/hour output. Forced air supply is discharged from a barometric relief louver on the opposite side of the building, which appears to keep the room under positive pressure.

The Headworks Building requires mechanical ventilation in accordance NFPA 820, Chapter 9. The ventilation system must include the following elements and design features:

12 air changes per hour

Mechanical air supply and exhaust fans

Provide combustible gas detection

Ventilation fitted with flow detection and alarms

Maintain negative differential pressure in the room

3-22 February 2012

Mechanical ventilation to have provisions for standby power

Alarm on loss of primary power

The existing ventilation system for the Headworks Building does not provide all of the requirements to comply with the current NFPA 820 standards (2008 Edition).

5.2 Process Building

The Woodside Treatment Plant has one central Process Building, housing the SBR motive pumps and piping, the filters, UV disinfection, blowers, and the electrical cabinets for power and control. The Process Building is steel framed, insulated metal building, approximately 10,300 square feet. The building is divided into the Filter and UV Room, Blower Room, Chemical Room, and the SBR Equipment Room.

The building was reported to have a chronic roof leak that has been difficult to patch. The City staff also identified the need to add a building security system and fire alarms.

5.2.1 Plant Water System (Non-Potable)

The plant water pump is installed in the filter effluent channel, prior to the UV disinfection. The non-potable plant water is pumped to the headworks building to assist with fluidizing the grit basin and for the grit classifier. A hydropneumatic tank in the Process Building maintains plant water pressure. The plant water pump is a 5 HP motor, and produces wash water at approximately 60 psig.

5.2.2 Wash Water System (Non-Potable)

Wash water is provided to the Process Building off the City’s distribution system through a reduced pressure, backflow prevention device. The wash water piping is routed through the Process Building, around the SBR basins, and to the Headworks Building, and is used for hydrants, pump seal water, and foam spray on the SBR basins.

5.3 Administration and Laboratory Building

The Woodside Treatment facilities have a central Lab and Administration Building, which is approximately 2,350 square feet. The building provides operator locker rooms, four offices, a conference room, and a laboratory. The City conducts the analyses for BOD, TSS, and pH as well as other process monitoring lab tests. Nutrient samples for ammonia, TKN, and TP are sent to a contract lab.

The City would like to upgrade the Administration and Laboratory Building security system and add fire alarms, similar to the Process Building.

February 2012 3-23

5.4 Maintenance Building and Shop

The City constructed a maintenance garage and shop for the sewer line maintenance crews. This facility size is estimated at 2,500 ft2 and is used for equipment and vehicle maintenance, and parts storage. The City is in the process of upgrading the fire detection system and security monitoring in this building.

5.5 Standby Generators

The Woodside WWTP is equipped with two diesel engine standby generators. The original package plant was constructed with a 250 kW generator, which remains in use. With the WWTP upgrades in 2000, a new 400 kW generator was added. The larger 400 kW generator serves the 100 hp motor loads for the SBR motive pumps and the 100 hp aeration blowers. The 250 kW generator supports all other critical loads, including the UV disinfection.

There is a 500-gallon bulk diesel storage tank and each generator has a 100 gallon base tank. If the bulk tank is full, the City estimates that the generators can run for two days.

6.0 FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

The wastewater service area and future population projections were presented in TM 1. The general flow and loading projections for the 20-year planning period are listed in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Projected 2028 Future Flow and Loading Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Parameter Population-Based Projections Flow Avg Day (mgd) 1.14 Max Month Avg Day (mgd) 1.25 Max Week Avg Day (mgd) 1.38 Peak Hour (mgd) 3.65 BOD Average Day Loading (lbs/day) 2,548 Max Month Loading (lbs/day) 2,930 TSS Average Day Loading (lbs/day) 2,915 Max Month Loading (lbs/day) 2,532 Nutrients Average Day NH3-N Loading (lbs/day) 282 Average Day TKN Loading (lbs/day) 456

3-24 February 2012

Table 3.6 Projected 2028 Future Flow and Loading Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Parameter Population-Based Projections Average Day TP Loading (lbs/day) 67

6.1 Big Wood River TMDL Requirements

The City of Hailey WWTP operating history has consistently met the discharge requirements in the NPDES permit. In 1998, DEQ published the 303(d) list, identifying segments of the Big Wood River that did not meet water quality standards, even though the regional WWTPs were all in general compliance with the NPDES permits. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that States identify and prioritize impaired water bodies. The Big Wood River was listed as impaired on the State 303 (d) list for total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and E. coli bacteria.

Section 303 (d) of the CWA also requires that States develop watershed based management plans and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to bring all impaired segments into compliance. The TMDL determines the amount of pollutant a water body can assimilate without violating water quality standards. The TMDL must then be allocated among the known point sources and non-point sources in the watershed.

The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan was prepared by DEQ and approved by EPA in May 2002. The in-stream target concentrations in the Big Wood River are listed in Table 3.7. Effluent from the City of Hailey WWTP, and the other point-source discharges, must not increase the in-stream concentrations beyond these values. The future NPDES permit for Hailey will define discharge requirements to meet the TMDL and improve the stream conditions in the Big Wood River.

Table 3.7 Numeric Water Quality Target Concentrations in the Big Wood River Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey Parameter Average Month Daily Maximum

Total suspended solids (TSS) < 25 mg/L < 40 mg/L

Total phosphorus (TP) < 0.050 mg/L < 0.080 mg/L

E. coli, geometric mean < 126 cfu/100 mL < 200 cfu/100 mL

February 2012 3-25

The City of Hailey waste load allocation in the TMDL is compared to the existing NPDES permit in Table 3.8. The waste load allocation is the maximum allowable discharge that will not exceed the water quality target concentrations.

Table 3.8 Hailey WWTP Existing NPDES Permit and TMDL Load Allocation Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey

Parameter Existing NPDES

30 day Avg (lbs/day) (1) TMDL Waste Load

Allocation (lbs/day) (2)

Total suspended solids (TSS) 94 18

Total phosphorus (TP) 15 5.2

E. coli 126 cfu/100 mL 1.20 cfu9 /day(3) Notes: 1. Daily loading limits for the current WWTP design flow = 1.60 mgd. 2. TMDL LC in lbs/day, TSS LC of 3.3 tons per year = 18 lbs/day. 3. Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, Dec 2001, Page 64, LC calculated from

target concentration of 126 cfu/100 mL

As shown in Table 3.8, the new waste load allocation requires significant reduction in the pollutants the discharged to the Big Wood River. The future effluent limits for TSS can be expected to be 81 percent lower than the current permit, and total phosphorus will be 65 percent lower. EPA will draft the new NPDES permits using the TMDL load allocation. The implementation schedule to meet for the TMDL is unknown at this time.

6.1.1 Post-TMDL Development

The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan concluded that limited data was available to differentiate between point sources and the non-point source discharges into this segment of the River. To fill these “data gaps” in the TMDL, the City of Ketchum, the Meadows subdivision, and the City of Hailey, collected WWTP effluent data and sampled the receiving stream above and below each outfall from 2001 to 2003, to support DEQ with additional water quality data.

The supplemental monitoring data from the municipalities is being evaluated by DEQ to further refine the waste load allocation, which was assigned exclusively to the three existing point sources. The TMDL allocation and implementation is an on-going process that continues to be revised as more water quality information is compiled. DEQ issued a preliminary draft of the Post-TMDL Assessment of the Big Wood River (Segment 2) for the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, October 27, 2003, to Hailey and the other municipalities in the Wood River Valley. The post-TMDL review is a joint effort with the municipal committee and DEQ, that remains as a draft report. The revised data and waste load allocation must go through review and public comment before a final draft report is submitted to EPA to modify the current TMDL.

3-26 February 2012

The waste load allocation in the Big Wood River was assigned to the three municipal point sources; the City of Ketchum, the Meadows, and the City of Hailey. In addition, TMDL has no load allocation reserved for future growth. As the City of Hailey, and other municipalities continue to develop and grow, effluent must remain below the defined pounds-per-day load allocations at each point-source. As flows increase, the discharge concentrations must be reduced to remain below the daily mass loading limit defined in the TMDL.

The Post-TMDL was also developed by DEQ to identify waste load allocations that would be more supportive of the economic growth conditions in the Wood River valley, while still protecting water quality. The Post-TMDL identified waste load allocations that were higher than the original TMDL, for consideration in future NPDES permit limits. Table 3.9 provides a summary and comparison of the waste load allocation in the TMDL and the Post-TMDL for the three point source discharges to the Big Wood River.

Table 3.9 TMDL and Post-TMDL Waste Load Allocations Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorus

Discharge

Design Flow 2001 TMDL 2003 Post-

TMDL 2001 TMDL 2003 Post-TMDL

(cfs) (1) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Hailey 2.475 3.3 8.05 5.2 8.61

Meadows 0.15 0.6 0.5 2.3 2.1

Ketchum 3.821 26.5 24.85 9.9 12.3 Note: 1. cfs x 0.645 = mgd

6.2 TMDL Implementation Plan

The EPA will reference the TMDL waste load allocation for the effluent limits to be included in the updated NPDES permit for the City of Hailey. Permits typically include an implementation schedule or compliance period to adapt to changing standards. EPA expects to draft the next NPDES permit for the City of Hailey in 2012. At this time, the discharge requirements for the next NPDES permit are unknown.

The City met with DEQ Twin Falls Regional Office (TFRO) in January 2009 to review the draft Wastewater Facility Plan. DEQ TFRO discussed various options for re-opening or revising the TMDL. The Big Wood TMDL will also be updated, as regularly scheduled, in 2011. Any revisions to the TMDL must also be include public participation and coordination with the Big Wood Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) and the Municipal Committee (MC) for this segment of the River (i.e., Hailey, Ketchum and the Meadows).

February 2012 3-27

The TMDL implementation plan should include the following stages:

Review the TMDL process and findings with DEQ, establishing a plan and schedule to resolve the differences with the Post-TMDL, and confirm the final waste load allocation for Hailey.

Coordinate the TMDL revision schedule with EPA to define an appropriate strategy for the updated NPDES permit that will protect water quality and allow time to revise the waste load allocation.

Establish a supplemental water quality monitoring program with DEQ to compile additional data to support updating the TMDL and to monitor future compliance with water quality standards to remove the Big Wood River from the list of impaired waters.

Define options for pollutant reduction measures that will improve water quality in the Big Wood River, which may include optimization of the existing facilities, addition of new treatment technologies, and implementation of effluent reuse where feasible.

The TMDL Implementation Plan and the selected pollutant reduction measures will require on-going development as the water quality monitoring data is compiled. The water quality data will initially define the appropriate waste load allocation, and will subsequently measure in-stream water quality results from the City’s implementation strategy.

7.0 TMDL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

This section compares the existing WWTP effluent quality to the treatment requirements to comply with the approved TMDL, as well as capacity requirements projected in the Facility Plan.

7.1 Design Criteria Flow and Loading Projections

Table 3.10 lists the existing WWTP design criteria and the Facility Plan loading projections for the year 2028. The projected wastewater flow and loading were developed in TM 1, for growth in the service area. The average effluent quality from the Woodside Treatment Plant is also compared to effluent quality expected in the future NPDES permit, to comply with the TMDL and meet water quality standards in the Big Wood River.

3-28 February 2012

Table 3.10 Comparison of Existing WWTP Design to Projected 2028 Flow and Loading


Parameter Existing WWTP Design Criteria

Year 2028 Projected Value

Average Day Flow (mgd) 1.6 1.14

Max Month Average Day Flow (mgd) -- 1.25

Peak Hour Flow (mgd) 4.0 3.65

Influent Wastewater Concentrations (Average Day)

BOD (mg/L) 250 268

TSS (mg/L) 210 226

NH3-N (mg/L) 351 30

TKN (mg/L) 60 482

TP (mg/L) 10 7

Influent Loading (Average Day)3

BOD (lbs/day) 3,340 2,548

TSS (lbs/day) 2,800 2,146

NH3-N (lbs/day) 467 282

TKN (lbs/day) 800 456

TP (lbs/day) 134 67

Effluent Concentrations (30-day Average )4

BOD (mg/L) 6.0 305

TSS (mg/L) 3.0 1.96

NH3-N (mg/L) 0.4 1.97

TP (mg/L) 0.8 0.556

E. coli Bacteria (cfu per 100 mL) 1268 126 Notes: 1. Design criteria by Siemens Jet Tech SBR. 2. TKN concentration assumed in design criteria, no influent data available. 3. Design influent loading calculated per design influent concentrations. 4. Effluent data from WWTP monitoring reports, average concentrations 2001 to 2007. 5. Minimum technology based BOD limit in existing permit, superseded by TSS limit. 6. Water quality based limit, TMDL waste load allocation. 7. Water quality based NH3-N limit in existing permit, new limit to be determined by EPA. New limit will not be greater than existing permit limit. 8. E. coli bacteria, weekly count not to exceed geometric mean, NPDES Permit Part VI.

February 2012 3-29

The BOD and TSS concentrations of the influent sewage are slightly higher than the original 1996 WWTP design criteria. The monitoring data from 2001 through 2007 found the average flow contribution was 85 gpcd, which is lower that 128 gpcd used as the design basis for the Woodside Treatment Plant, which is addressed in TM 1. The higher influent BOD and TSS concentrations are consistent with this change in the per capita flow contribution, which effectively reduced the dilution from I/I in the system.

The projected flows, organic loads and nutrient loads indicate that the existing facilities are adequate with the exception of phosphorus, which will require consideration of alternative treatment methods to meet the waste load allocation for phosphorus per the TMDL.

7.2 Existing WWTP Effluent Quality

The Woodside Treatment Plant has been in operation for approximately 8 years and is operating at approximately 40 percent of the rated design capacity. The two most critical treatment requirements imposed by the TMDL are the TSS and TP discharge limits.

7.2.1 Effluent Total Suspended Solids

Figure 3.3 displays the effluent TSS concentrations from the existing Woodside Treatment Plant, compared to the projected TSS limits to meet the TMDL. The average TSS concentration from the existing cloth disc filters is 3.0 mg/L, or 15 lbs/day at the current flows. The proposed TSS permit limit is expected to be 18 lbs/day, which requires TSS concentrations to be less than 1.4 mg/L at the design flow of 1.6 mgd. The post-TMDL waste load allocation for TSS is 8.05 tons/year, of 44 lbs/day. At the projected average daily flow of 1.14 mgd, TSS concentrations must be less than 1.9 mg/L. As shown in Figure 3.3, the existing SBR and tertiary filters do not consistently achieve the effluent quality needed to comply with the TMDL. Therefore, process modifications to improve TSS removal must be evaluated, which are presented in TM 4.

7.2.2 Effluent Total Phosphorus

Figure 3.4 displays the effluent TP data, compared to the projected TP limits defined in the TMDL. The effluent TP concentrations from the existing treatment facilities average 0.8 mg/L, discharging 4.13 lbs/day at the current flow rate of 0.62 mgd. The future permit is expected to limit TP to 5.2 lbs/day. At the projected average daily design flow of 1.14 mgd, TP concentrations must be less than 0.55 mg/L. The post-TMDL waste load allocation for TP is 8.6 lbs/day, which requires effluent concentrations less than 0.64 mg/L at the design flow of 1.6 mgd. As shown in Figure 3.4, the existing SBR and tertiary filters will not consistently achieve TP removal to meet the TMDL. Supplemental treatment is needed to enhance and improve TP removal to meet water quality standards.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008Date

Efflu

ent T

SS (m

g/L)

Figure 3.3Effluent Suspended Solids


Future Permit TSS 1.2 mg/L

Existing Avg. TSS 3 mg/L

0

1

2

3

4

5

65/1

/2001

8/1/20

01

11/1/

2001

2/1/20

02

5/1/20

02

8/1/20

02

11/1/

2002

2/1/20

03

5/1/20

03

8/1/20

03

11/1/

2003

2/1/20

04

5/1/20

04

8/1/20

04

11/1/

2004

2/1/20

05

5/1/20

05

8/1/20

05

11/1/

2005

2/1/20

06

5/1/20

06

8/1/20

06

11/1/

2006

2/1/20

07

Time

Efflu

ent T

otal

P (m

g/L)

Figure 3.4Effluent Total Phosphorus


Future Permit TP

0.3 mg/L

Existing Avg. TP 0.8 mg/L

3-32 February 2012

7.2.3 Effluent Ammonia Nitrogen

Figure 3.5 displays the effluent Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) data, compared to the existing discharge limits. The existing treatment facilities generally meet the permit limits removing ammonia to less than 1.9 mg/L for the monthly average, 2.9 mg/L for the weekly average, and 3.3 mg/L as the maximum daily value.

EPA will determine the discharge limits for ammonia nitrogen in the next permit. The effluent ammonia concentrations can be expected to remain the same. Ammonia removal is typically one of the process-limiting condition, but the SBR has effectively met the limits and remains as a viable process for the projected future conditions. Nitrogen removal is addressed in more detail in TM 4, with the evaluation of future treatment alternatives.

7.2.4 Effluent Disinfection

The existing treatment facilities generally maintain compliance with the existing permit limits for Fecal Coliform and E Coli bacteria. However, the proposed permit limits in the TMDL require effluent E Coli bacteria remain below the load capacity of 1.2 cfu9/day, which will maintain the water quality target concentration of 126 cfu/100 mL.

7.3 Woodside Treatment Plant Reliability and Redundancy

Wastewater treatment facilities are critical and must remain in operation at all times to comply with the NPDES permit, under all conditions. At the same time, process tanks and equipment must be regularly inspected and maintained to preserve the investment value of the assets and realize the expected service life. This section reviews the existing facilities and the ability to maintain each unit process without impacting treatment capacity or the efficiency to meet the NPDES permit.

7.3.1 Reliability and Redundancy Criteria

Municipal wastewater treatment facilities must be able to meet the discharge limits in the NPDES permit under all conditions. This includes times when maintenance or repairs are being conducted, and considers the peak hour flow with one unit out of service. Each individual unit process is evaluated to determine the “firm capacity” of the WWTP, and to define what is the capacity-limiting process. USEPA Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical and Fluid System Component Reliability (EPA-430-99-74-001) defines the requirements for redundancy in municipal treatment systems.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008

Date

Efflu

ent N

H3-N

(mg/

L)

Figure 3.5Effluent Ammonia - N


3.3 mg/L Max Daily Limit

2.9 mg/L Average Weekly Limit

1.9 mg/L Average Monthly Limit

3-34 February 2012

7.3.2 Woodside Pumping Station

The current raw sewage pumps are rated at 1,400 gpm each, which equals a firm capacity of 2.02 mgd, with one pump serving as standby. The discharge on the pump station includes a third flanged connection to install a third submersible pump into the wet well. After installing the third pump, when two pumps operate in parallel and the third is redundant standby, the firm capacity of the pump station increases to approximately 2,800 gpm. With three pumps, the Woodside Pump Station will match maximum rated peak hour capacity of the SBR, which is 4.0 mgd.

The peak hour flow is projected to reach 3.65 mgd for the total service area over the next 20-year planning period. The Woodside Trunk Sewer can be expected to receive approximately 60 percent of the flows, so firm pumping capacity of 2.2 mgd (1,528 gpm) should be provided. Therefore, the influent pump capacity for the Woodside Trunk will need to be increased to pump the projected future peak hour flow. Therefore, addition of the third pump in the wet well should be provided within the next 5 to 10 years to provide sufficient firm pumping capacity. It is noted that the City currently keeps a spare pump in storage to install if needed. Keeping a replacement pump in storage is recommended to expedite maintenance, even when three pumps are in the wet well in this critical pump station.

7.3.3 Influent Screening

The single mechanical bar screen, Lakeside Rotomat, 42-inch diameter, with ¼-inch slotted openings, has a rated capacity of 4.75 mgd. The single screen appears to be adequate for the projected peak hour flow and can likely handle the increased flow with higher head loss. The amount of solids in the raw sewage also impacts the screen capacity. The City has had periodic problems from large volumes of screening or large rocks overloading and tripping the screen.

There has been no significant maintenance done on the screen since the initial operation in 2001. When the mechanical screen is taken out of service, the manual bar rack must be used. The spacing on the manual rack allows more solids into the treatment process. In addition, continuous, 24-hour staffing is required to clean the bar rack, until the mechanical screen is back in service.

The City should identify critical spare parts for the mechanical screen and keep them stocked in inventory, to minimize repair time. City staff must be prepared to provide continuous on-call coverage for periods when the mechanical screen is out of service.

When the existing mechanical screen reaches the end of the service life, the replacement screen should be sized to match the existing peak hour flow of 4.75 mgd. Mechanical equipment should be evaluated to replace the standby manual bar rack at that time.

February 2012 3-35

7.3.4 Grit Removal

The single 8’-6” diameter vortex grit basin is rated for a peak flow of 4.3 mgd. The maintenance work on the center mechanical mixer can be completed without taking the tank out of service. The need for rehabilitation of the tank can be reduced by routine inspection and cleaning to mitigate concrete corrosion.

The grit removal efficiency is unknown, since the City has never had the opportunity to dewater an SBR basin to see the extent of grit accumulation in the bottom. There have been no maintenance problems identified from excessive grit, so the existing basin is believed to be adequate for the projected future flows. In addition, the I/I in the collection system is not excessive, so grit deposits related to storm flows would not be expected.

The grit classifier and washer inside the Headworks Building are high-wear items. The City has welded patches onto the cyclone separator to repair worn areas. If maintenance is needed, the wet grit can be hauled to the landfill and handled as septage. The City can keep spare replacement parts for the grit washer to reduce the time and the costs associated with hauling wet grit. The city has also had water-hammer problems with solenoid valves used on the air and wash water lines to fluidize and pump the grit. The solenoid valves have been replaced with activated ball valve which has reduced the problem.

7.3.5 Batch Tank

The single influent batch tank has an effective volume of 154,570 gallons between the high and low water levels. The tank is mixed with two submersible mixers that can be removed for service without draining the basin.

The volume of the batch tank provides nominal hydraulic retention time of 2.3 hours at the current design flow of 1.6 mgd, and 55 minutes at the peak hour flow of 4.0 mgd. For the projected future conditions, the batch tank provides hydraulic retention time of 3.25 hours at the average day flow of 1.14 mgd, and 60 minutes at the peak hour of 3.65 mgd.

The hydraulic residence time in the Batch Tank is used to synchronize the SBR cycles, which are discussed in the next section.

The batch tank provides anaerobic (without oxygen) retention time of approximately 45 minutes, which will enhance formation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), which are utilized in the secondary treatment process by phosphate accumulating organisms (PAO). The existing batch tank appears to be suitable for the conditions used for biological phosphorus removal.

3-36 February 2012

7.3.6 Sequencing Batch Reactor

Each SBR has a total volume of 1.03 million gallons. The bottom 16-feet of tank depth is retained to hold the biomass mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) required for treatment, after the settling and decant cycle. The top 4 feet of the tank fills for the react cycles. The maximum decant volume is 160,000 gallons in each basin. It appears that the influent batch tank was sized to retain the volume for one full SBR treatment cycle.

Current process operations require approximately 5.3 hour total cycle time. In general, the settling and decant cycle times are held constant. The fill time and the react time are variables that can be increased or decreased for the required flow and loading.

The SBR manufacturer (Siemens) recommends removing a basin for inspection and service after the first year of operation, with follow-up inspections every 2 to 3 years as necessary. The basins must be completely drained and taken out of service to access, inspect, and clean the jet aeration header and the floating decanter. To drain a basin, influent flow must be retained in the batch tank and treated through the single SBR basin remaining in use. The basin to be serviced is first decanted to the maximum extent possible, and a portion of the mixed liquor must be transferred with pumps to the other basin to maintain biological treatment. The City must bring in temporary portable pumps to drain an SBR basin and transfer solids. Due to the complexity and difficulty with pumping and draining basins, and the potential to violate the NPDES permit, the City has never taken the SBR out of service for inspection. Without routine maintenance, the potential for premature equipment failure increases, which ultimately may result in expensive repairs and permit violations.

7.3.6.1 SBR Hydraulic Loading

With two SBR basins in service, the influent flow is directed into one basin for 2.4 hours (maximum) during the fill cycle. As one SBR starts the react, settle, and decant phase, flows are diverted into the second SBR, with some flexibility to retain flows in the influent batch tank.

When one SBR basin is out of service, the Batch Tank must store the influent over the full cycle time. The fill and treatment cycle time can be compressed adding more aeration time. The settle and decant times must remain constant, so the minimum cycle time is approximately 4 hours. Therefore, influent flows cannot exceed the 154,000-gallon available storage volume of the inlet batch tank, during any 4-hour period of the day, to operate with a single SBR basin.

With influent flows currently averaging 0.62 mgd, one single SBR basin would be in continuous treatment for 3 to 5 complete cycles to handle the peak hours of the day, and the batch tank will fill to the full level while the SBR is completing the decant cycle. If

February 2012 3-37

influent flows increase, the SBR cycle will have to be shortened to avoid overflowing the batch tank. The short SBR cycle may potentially violate the NPDES permit.

There does not appear to be sufficient batch tank storage to take one SBR basin out of service for other than a very short maintenance period, less than twelve hours, without significant risk of upsetting the treatment process. Required maintenance activities must be planned and scheduled during low-flow periods at night.

Therefore, the “firm capacity” of the SBR process, if one basin is out of service, is 0.70 mgd. Larger influent storage volume or additional SBR basins are required, to enable the facility to conduct inspections and complete maintenance.

7.3.6.2 SBR Organic Loading

The SBR design food-to-microorganism (F:M) ratio is 0.06 lbs BOD/lb MLSS with design MLSS concentration of 3,200 mg/L. If one SBR basin must be taken out of service for maintenance, the MLSS must be transferred to one basin and the concentration adjusted in proportion to the influent organic loading. Excess mixed liquor is sent to the aerobic digester. The maximum month BOD loading in 2007 was 1,600 lbs BOD/day and in 2008 was approximately 1,800 lbs BOD/day. Therefore, to operate with one SBR basin and remain at the design F:M ratio of 0.06 lbs BOD/lb MLSS, the MLSS in one basin should be adjusted to approximately 27,000 to 30,000 lbs MLSS, which is an equivalent MLSS concentration of 3,200 to 3,500 mg/L. The process has never operated at these mixed liquor concentrations, so a transition time should be anticipated to adjust the F:M and MLSS before attempting to take a basin out of service.

From the above analysis, with one SBR basin out of service 1,600 lbs BOD/day is the maximum organic loading that can reliably be treated according to the SBR design criteria. Therefore, the “firm capacity” of the SBR process at the Woodside WWTP is approximately 0.70 mgd with an influent BOD loading of 1,600 lbs BOD/day, considering that one SBR basin may need to be out of service for maintenance.

7.3.6.3 SBR Mechanical Equipment Redundancy

Each SBR basin is equipped with one motive pump and electrical valve actuators for automatic operation, with no crossover piping between basins. Therefore, if one motive pump or any of the automated valves is out of service, the respective SBR basin is effectively out of service. As noted in the previous section, with only one basin operating, the capacity of the Woodside WWTP is limited to approximately 0.70 mgd. The City should identify critical replacement parts and keep them in inventory. The City has the main pump castings for a motive pump, which was removed after the initial WWTP startup. The pump should be completely assembled and made ready to operate to use as a standby so it can be quickly set in place if needed. The pump should be kept in a clean and dry storage area.

3-38 February 2012

Three aeration blowers are provided for the SBR process, which includes one standby blower as redundancy. The control program operates one or two blowers during the react cycle. If one blower is out of service, a standby blower is available; the react time can be extended to provide the required process oxygen. Therefore, the aeration blowers do not limit the SBR treatment capacity.

The City identified that the 1-inch PVC pipe for alum feed is connected to the motive pump discharge piping without an isolation valve. If the plastic piping is broken, a significant flood will occur in the equipment room. The SBR basin must be taken out of service and drained to the bottom to be able to install an isolation valve at the tap.

7.3.7 Equalization Basin and Pumps

The Equalization Basin has a 12.75-foot side depth available, providing 158,360 gallons for equalization, which is equal to one decant cycle from the SBR. During the peak diurnal flow, the SBR decant cycles can occur 60 to 90 minutes apart. The equalization pumps must discharge between 1,800 gpm to 2,700 gpm to pump out the basin and make room for the next decant cycle. Each equalization pump is capable of delivering approximately 1,400 gpm, and two pumps are required accommodate peak flows. VFDs adjust the pump speed to match flows. The City reports that the average equalization pump rate is approximately 800 gpm.

The three existing pumps provide redundancy to continue operations with one pump out of service. The City has also been able to clean the equalization basin and complete pump maintenance during low flow periods.

7.3.8 Cloth-Disc Filters

With only one installed bank of filters, there is no redundancy. It is unlikely that the City will be able to comply with the NPDES permit when bypassing the filters. The filter media is reported to have an estimated service life of seven years, so the filter bank must be taken out of service periodically to change the media. The City has previously changed the media twice and has determined the replacement period is approximately 4 years. Media replacement must be scheduled during low flows, and completed quickly on individual discs and then repeated until complete. Service of the filter media will become increasingly difficult as the WWTP flows increase. The second bank of filters should be added to provide redundancy and to facilitate maintenance and repairs.

The manufacturers recommended maximum hydraulic loading for one bank of six filters is 1,940 gpm, using the maximum of 6 gpm/ft2. The equalization pumps deliver 2,700 gpm at peak day, which exceeds the maximum filter loading. Adding the second bank of filters increases the maximum filtration capacity to 3,870 gpm.

February 2012 3-39

7.3.9 Ultraviolet Disinfection

The manufacturer reports a rated peak capacity of 4 mgd at a UV dose of 30,000 mw.sec/cm2. Two banks provide disinfection, and the third standby bank provides redundancy.

The City is able to remove up to three dirty modules for cleaning, and utilize three spare modules to maintain the UV dose.

Installation of three additional UV banks in the parallel channel will increase the UV design dose to 60,000 mw.sec/cm2. The higher dose may be desired if the WWTP effluent is used for Class A reuse application, and a higher level of disinfection is desired. The second parallel channel is not necessary for a discharge to the Big Wood River, at the expected disinfection level of 126 cfu/100 mL.

During a power outage, the standby generator operates the UV system automatically, without operator intervention to restart the system. The UV disinfection system appears to satisfy all capacity requirements with the required redundancy to allow service and maintenance on the system.

7.3.10 Effluent Flow Meter

The primary element used for the effluent flow meter is a rectangular weir. The flow-measuring device appears to be adequate. If the ultrasonic flow meter is out of service, the City should report flows from manual readings of the depth over the weir, as required in the NPDES permit.

7.3.11 Outfall Sewer and Diffuser

The Hailey outfall sewer discharges effluent through a perforated diffuser pipe buried below the River bottom to eliminate a mixing zone. A mixing zone is a defined area immediately around the point-source discharge that might not meet water quality standards until additional dilution is achieved. In certain cases, mixing zones may be allowed if there is no physical interference in the stream, and the zone does not exceed specified cross section, length, and dilution ratios (IDAPA 58.01.02, 060) to satisfy acute and chronic water quality criteria.

While the buried diffuser provides aesthetic and water quality benefits, the hydraulic capacity of the diffuser is unknown. The gravel pack around the diffuser is potentially susceptible to plugging with solids, either from natural sand or silt on the outside, or from effluent TSS on the inside. The diffuser operating head is unknown, which fluctuates with the depth in the River. The perforated pipe section has flushing connections to allow for some cleaning capability, but access is restricted, and the pipe has never been cleaned or inspected. Unexpected plugging of the outfall would result in catastrophic overflow at the plant. The WWTP staff should monitor the operating depth in the drop box, immediately below the effluent weir, and schedule regular inspection and cleaning on the outfall.

3-40 February 2012

7.3.12 Aerobic Digester

The aerobic digester has separate compartments that would allow portions to be taken out of service for cleaning, maintenance, or repairs. The overall tank volume available and the retention time are adequate for the process needs. In addition, the drying beds at the landfill provide flexibility to receive liquid biosolids, with or without thickening. In conclusion, the aerobic digestion process has adequate redundancy.

The digester blowers have adequate capacity, and a standby unit is available. One original blower has been replaced and replacing the second original blower is likely based on the years of operation.

The steel tank has not been re-coated since start-up. As such, a complete blast and coating is necessary within the next 5 years, based on the severe visible corrosion. In addition to the tank corrosion, a fiberglass consultant (Midwestern Fabricators, Salt Lake City, UT) conducted an inspection of the fiberglass dome in June 2008 and indicated that exposure to ultraviolet light has resulted in cracks and stress fractures with visible fiber mesh in several locations. The costs for rehabilitation of the steel tank and replacement of the fiberglass cover are significant enough to warrant replacement. As such, replacement of the aerobic digester with an aerated sludge holding tank coupled with biosolids stabilization and dewatering is recommended as a priority project, which is described in TM 4.

The electrical room and the 800 Amp service for the aerobic digester will likely need to be increased while the aerated sludge holding tank and associated biosolids dewatering facilities are constructed.

8.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this section is to review the existing wastewater treatment components, and estimate the rehabilitation and repair costs over the 20-year planning period.

8.1 Asset Conditions

Each unit process in the Woodside Treatment Plant is listed Table 3.11. Structures and tanks are addressed, as well as the mechanical and electrical equipment items that require periodic maintenance and replacement. In general, wastewater treatment equipment is subject to severe duty, requiring continuous operation in wet and dirty conditions. To a greater extent, the headworks facilities handling raw sewage, and the biosolids components are subject to even greater corrosion and abrasive conditions. The time in operation is listed for the process equipment. The expected operating life is identified, taking the severity of the service conditions into account. The remaining service period expected from the equipment and tanks is listed, to predict rehabilitation and replacement funds and the general scheduling.

February 2012 3-41

The conditions in Table 3.11 were identified in a plant inspection by Carollo Engineers, June 2007, and interviews with the City staff discussing the general maintenance history and operational requirements for each unit process. The effective operating life of equipment is based on industry experience, and recommendations from equipment manufacturers. Following a schedule of planned maintenance and process rehabilitation, the City will realize the best long-term value from the treatment plant, and avoid costly emergency repairs. Planned maintenance also improves the WWTP efficiency and the ability to comply with the NPDES permit. Table 3.11 Condition of Unit Processes and Major Equipment Wastewater Facilities Plan Cit y of Hailey

Unit Process Component Age

(years) General

ConditionRepair

Frequency

Estimated Remaining

Service (years)

Woodside Pump Station

Submersible Pumps

21

7 G M

A A

8 3

Wet Well Structure

7 G O2 13

Piping and Valves 7 G A 13 Influent Metering 5 G Q 5 Headworks & Building

Concrete Structure

7 A O2 13

Metal Building 7 A O2 13 Mechanical Bar

Screen 7 M W 3

Manual Bar Rack 7 G O3 13 Vortex Grit Basin 7 A O2 13 Vortex Grit Mixer 7 A Q 13 Grit Washer and

Classifier 7 M W 3

HVAC 74 P M 2 Utilities 7 A Q 5 Batch Tank Concrete

Structure 7 G O 20

Mechanical Mixers

7 M A 3

Chemical Feed Building & Structure

7 G O 13

Chemical metering pumps

5 M M 1

Chemical storage tank

7 G O 105

3-42 February 2012

Table 3.11 Condition of Unit Processes and Major Equipment Wastewater Facilities Plan Cit y of Hailey


(years) General

ConditionRepair

Frequency

Estimated Remaining

Service (years)

SBR Concrete Structure

7 G O 20

SBR Equipment, Pumps & Valves

7 A M 13

Aeration Blowers 26

7 G M

A A

8 3

Electrical and Controls

7 A A 3

Equalization Pumps

Submersible Pumps

1 G Q 9


7 A A 3

Cloth-Disc Filters

Concrete Structure

7 G O 20

Filter Media 37 A A 4 Filter Equipment,

Pumps & Valves 7 A A 13


7 A A 3

UV Disinfection Concrete Structure

7 G O 20

UV Lamps 28 A W 2 UV Quartz

Sleeves 28 A W 6

UV Ballasts 28 A W 6 Electrical and

Controls 7 A A 3

Process Building

Concrete Structure

7 G O 20

Metal Building 7 A M 13 HVAC 7 M M 3 Utilities 7 G M 13 Aerobic Digester

Steel Tank 32 M O2 5

Fiberglass Dome 32 M O2 5 Center Sludge

Collector 32 M Q 5

February 2012 3-43

Table 3.11 Condition of Unit Processes and Major Equipment Wastewater Facilities Plan Cit y of Hailey


(years) General

ConditionRepair

Frequency

Estimated Remaining

Service (years)

Blowers 32 M Q 5 Misc. Piping &

Valves 32 M Q 5

HVAC 32 M Q 0 Standby Power 400 kW

7 G Q 13

Standby Power 250 kW

32 M Q 5

Legend: General Condition: G = Good A = Adequate M = Marginal P = Poor Repair Frequency: D = Daily W = Weekly M = Monthly Q = Quarterly A = Annually O = OtherNotes: 1. One Woodside RS Pump Rebuilt in 2005. 2. Structures subject to corrosive environment require routine cleaning and maintenance. 3. Continuous operator attention needed when in service. 4. Headworks Building HVAC system repaired in 2008 5. Chemical tank not in service. 6. One Aeration blower rebuilt in 2005. 7. Cloth disc media estimated life is 7 years. 8. Typical UV lamp life is 4 years. Typical quartz sleeve life is 5 years. Typical ballast life is 5 years.

From the WWTP survey, a general priority and ranking was developed for this report, The priorities are listed in order from 1 through 4.

Priority 1: Poor Condition - Equipment is not operable or is clearly operating in poor condition. Major maintenance or replacement must be conducted immediately, within one year, to keep in compliance with NPDES requirements, or to protect the health and safety of the WWTP personnel and the public. The inspection in June 2007 did not find any critical or immediate rehabilitation or repair requirements at the Woodside WWTP.

Priority 2: Marginal Condition - Equipment is running but in a marginal condition and has been in operation for the majority of the expected service life and is well worn. Some degree of rehabilitation or repair is needed to regain full operability or to reach full efficiency. Repair or replacement items in this category are considered to be necessary within a five-year period, to maintain treatment efficiency, or to keep a structure in use.

3-44 February 2012

Priority 3: Adequate Condition - Equipment is operational and is efficiently serving its intended function. However, the components show early signs of wear. Following prescribed maintenance procedures should hold the operability in the near future. Repair or replacement items in this category should be planned for completion within a ten-year period.

Priority 4: Good Condition - Equipment is operable and/or running, and efficiently serving its intended function. The component shows little sign of wear, and ongoing preventive maintenance should retain a high level of operability for the foreseeable future. Repair or replacement items in this category should be planned for completion within a fifteen-year period.

Long Term In this category, equipment is considered in like-new condition. Repair or replacement will not be necessary for approximately twenty years.

8.2 Asset Rehabilitation and Repair Schedule

The projects identified as Marginal Condition, that generally will require a capital outlay to complete rehabilitation work are organized and listed in Table 3.12, as the highest priority items. The rehabilitation and equipment replacement costs are listed with each component. The listed items need to be budgeted and scheduled in order to keep the Woodside Treatment Plant in operating condition.

The other process areas found to be in good condition are listed in Tables 3.13 and 3.14 at the end of this TM. The maintenance and repair for these items can be addressed on a longer time schedule. A general maintenance budget and sinking fund can be established to prepare for the capital outlay needs for long-term equipment replacement.

9.0 WOODSIDE WWTP OPTMIZATION

This section provides options to improve the treatment efficiency and optimize the existing Woodside WWTP. Interim improvements can be completed to remain below the defined TMDL waste load allocations and extend the time schedule before major capital improvements are required.

9.1 Background

The Woodside WWTP was constructed with a Chemical Room and chemical feed equipment to enhance treatment. However, it was reported that the equipment was never completely installed or tested, and staff received no training or instructions on the intended operations. Chemical feed was not necessary to comply with the current NPDES limits, and as a result, was never used.

February 2012 3-45

The Chemical Room includes a 6,000 gallon bulk storage tank and chemical metering pumps to add liquid alum. A dry bag feeder was provided to add bicabonate, which is weight proportioned into a liquid slurry and pumped into the treatment process. At this time, it is our understanding that the installed systems are not operational and are not included in the automatic controls for the Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR).

9.2 Chemical Feed Process Theory

The Big Wood River TMDL defines stringent discharge limits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Chemical feed can be implemented to improve both the TSS and TP removal to remain below the discharge limits.

Alum (aluminum sulfate) is added in wastewater treatment for two purposes. Primarily, alum is a coagulant that improves settling and filtration. Coagulants influence the molecular charges of colloidal and suspended solids. Discrete particles attract and form larger particles that settle faster or filter more efficiently. In 2007 and 2008, the filtered effluent averaged 3 mg/L and 4 mg/L TSS, indicating that fine or colloidal solids can pass through. With proper coagulant addition, it should be possible to reduce effluent TSS to approximately 2 mg/L.

Alum also reacts with dissolved phosphorus compounds to from an insoluble aluminum phosphate precipitate. The existing SBR process without chemical feed produces effluent TP concentrations of 0.8 mg/L with biological phosphorus uptake, but the Big Wood River TMDL will require TP reduction to approximately 0.5 mg/L at the 20-year planning flow (1.25 mgd maximum month). Alum addition enhances precipitation and removal of the remaining dissolved phosphorous after biological treatment. The effluent TP concentrations can be reduced to low levels utilizing a combination of biological uptake and chemical addition. Chemical treatment alone for TP removal is more costly.

Wastewater suspended solids contain phosphorus, which is detected in the TP analysis. (Approximately 2 to 5 percent of the TSS concentration). The enhanced settling after alum addition will reduce effluent TSS, which also reduces particulate phosphorus.

The wastewater reactions with alum are very complex. Phosphorus is in many different forms, which change continuously and react differently with alum. Alum also reacts with other wastewater components, reducing the desired TP or TSS removal. Chemical doses are variable for TP removal, often being 3 to 20 times higher than the theoretical reactions. In practice, it is common to find the effective chemical dosage changing with each season as the wastewater temperature, viscosity, and biological treatment reactions change. It should also be noted; overdosing a coagulant can have a detrimental impact on effluent quality, keeping solids in suspension instead of the desired destabilization effect.

Bicarbonate feed equipment was provided as a supplemental source of alkalinity, as a buffer in the treatment process. The NPDES permit requires oxidation of the wastewater ammonia nitrogen, referred to as nitrification. The nitrification process consumes the wastewater natural alkalinity, which can lower the pH and potentially impede biological treatment. The SBR also

3-46 February 2012

provides simultaneous denitrification by cycling the aeration blowers on and off, which recovers a portion of the consumed alkalinity. The bicarbonate feed provides the ability to add alkalinity if needed to sustain nitrification.

Addition of alum also consumes alkalinity, depending on the alum dose and the beginning alkalinity. The NPDES permit requires effluent pH remain between 6.5 and 9.0. With alum addition, the wastewater pH can be depressed below 6.5, which must be adjusted to comply with the discharge limits. Bicarbonate feed will maintain pH balance with alum addition and biological treatment.

Commercial polymers can be added to enhance the coagulation process and improve filterability and TSS removal. There are a wide variety of available products to improve effluent quality, which can be investigated for additional benefits. The City has never added polymers, and there is currently no polymer feed equipment.

Iron salts (ferric chloride or ferrous sulfate) are also common coagulants. However, iron compounds are known to interfere with ultraviolet (UV) light transmittance. Alum is the selected coagulant for this application as there is minimal interference with the existing UV disinfection system.

9.2.1 Chemical Treatment Jar Testing

9.2.1.1 Total Suspended Solids Removal

The alum dose is initially determined in bench scale “jar testing”. Mixed liquor samples from the SBR are arranged in a series of jars. Various alum doses are added, stirred for a fixed period, and allowed to settle. The settling times, and water clarity are observed. TSS or turbidity measurements are made in the clarified liquid to quantify effluent quality. The lowest effective alum dosages are recorded, which are projected for the full-scale WWTP flows. (Typical dosages applied for TSS removal are in the range of 10 to 50 mg/L).

Similar tests can be done using a 10-micron filter in a laboratory funnel to simulate effluent filtration. Secondary coagulant dosages after settling can be tested, also with supplemental polymer addition to see if TSS removal improves. The time required to filter the sample is measured to determine if chemicals interfere with filtration rates.

9.2.1.2 Total Phosphorus Removal

The City should start additional process monitoring, by testing the influent and effluent soluble orthophosphate, in combination with the effluent total phosphate required in the NPDES permit. The orthophosphate concentration establishes a basic measure of the biological uptake of dissolved phosphorus. Modifications may be possible in the SBR operating cycles to enhance biological removal, which ultimately will reduce chemical treatment costs. Seasonal changes are normal in biological treatment, which will likely show a wide range of effluent orthophosphate concentrations. The information will be valuable to understand changes or patterns in the required chemical dose, and will support long-term understanding for phosphorus removal.

February 2012 3-47

The jar testing procedure used for suspended solids removal is also applied for phosphorus removal. The SBR mixed liquor is stirred and settled with the initial alum dosage for TSS, and the clarified effluent is tested for orthophosphate and total phosphate. If the orthophosphate concentrations are not reduced after settling, higher alum dosages are tested. The tests with higher alum dosing rates should observe effluent quality, TSS, and pH to document all potential impacts.

Alum readily reacts to form other (hydroxide) precipitates, instead of the desired insoluble aluminum phosphate precipitate, and dosages may be significantly higher than the theoretical ratios for phosphorus removal. Literature reports alum dosages ranging from 50 to 200 mg/L to effectively remove phosphates to concentrations less than 0.5 mg/L TP. Due to the complexity of the reactions, the effective dose is usually confirmed only after full-scale operating experience.

With higher alum dosages, bicarbonate addition will likely be required to remain within pH permit limits and to maintain stable biological treatment. Bicarbonate addition can be predicted from the alum dose and the jar testing. Bicarbonate is a neutralizing buffer and the dosage rates are not critical, but close controls help to minimize chemical feed costs.

9.2.2 Full Scale Chemical Testing

As discussed, chemical treatment is variable and subject to changing process conditions. After jar testing to identify approximate chemical dosages, the chemical feed should be implemented at full-scale in the SBR process. Full-scale testing may require adjustment of the dosage rates. Full-scale testing will also verify the treatment benefits and confirm if the changes will maintain compliance with the TMDL discharge limits.

Liquid alum will be added to the SBR basins through the discharge of the motive pump. Alum dosing should occur near the end of the react cycle, to allow mixing ahead of the settling period.

9.3 Chemical Treatment Capital Improvements

The existing chemical feed equipment has never been used, and the operating condition is unknown. This section recommends chemical treatment equipment and facilities needed to support the City’s implementation strategy to comply with the TMDL.

The bulk alum storage tank is believed to be serviceable, but it should be hydrostatically tested for leaks. The tank mixer should also be tested, as it may need to be replaced.

New liquid alum chemical metering pumps will be required. One metering pump should be provided for each SBR basin, with a third common pump for redundancy and standby. If a second alum dose ahead of filtration is provided, a second series of pumps will be needed for this application. The pumps will include new piping, valves, and accessories for a complete installation.

3-48 February 2012

The capacity of the bicarbonate dry-feeder is unknown. The manufacturer should be contacted to inspect the unit and determine feed capacity and if it can be put into service. Similar conditions exist with the slurry feed pumps. Since the units are installed in a damp environment and have never been operated, it is likely that the bearings and motors are not suitable for reliable operation. However, the capacity and the serviceability of the feed equipment can be investigated further.

As constructed, the bicarbonate slurry pumps discharge into a 1-inch PVC pipe routed from the equipment room to the inlet batch tank. It is generally recommended to keep slurry piping as short and as close to the feed-point as possible, because the slurry can plug the piping. The length of the existing small diameter piping may be a maintenance issue to keep unplugged, which might interrupt dosing. The bicarbonate feeder should be repositioned closer to the injection point. Another option is to examine the feasibility of handling liquid alkalinity chemicals (e.g., caustic soda).

Space for storage and feeding polymers must be identified. Polymer can be supplied in portable (300 gallon) totes, and can be positioned in an open area of the Filtration Room or the Chemical Room. Small metering pumps will also be needed for polymer feed.

Table 3.12 provides a summary of the general improvements and costs associated with providing chemical feed equipment. Table 3.12 Conceptual Cost Estimate- Chemical Feed System Upgrades1 Wastew ater Facilities Plan Cit y of Hailey Component Cost Alum Tank Mixer $12,000Primary Alum Metering Pumps (3 total) $12,000Secondary Alum Metering Pumps (3 total) $12,000Chemical Feed Piping (allowance) $10,000Alum Inject Revisions (allowance) $5,000Bicarbonate Solid Feeder $40,000Slurry Feed Pumps (2 total) $8,000Solid Feeder and Slurry Piping Revisions (allowance) $10,000Polymer Metering Pumps (2 total) $6,000

Total Cost $115,000Note: 1. Costs do not include PLC or SCADA changes. Only material and installation costs are

assumed

February 2012 3-49

9.4 Chemical Feed Operating Costs

Costs for bulk liquid alum are estimated to be $0.21/lb, delivered as 48% solution. Dosage rates were estimated in the range of 50 to 80 mg/L. At the current WWTP flows, the expected costs for alum feed are $2,000 to $3,000 per month for the respective dosages. Projecting 2028 flows will increase alum feed costs to $3,000 to $5,000 per month. Chemical operating costs are estimates and included in Appendix A.

Supplemental alkalinity is also estimated to require approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per month with WWTP flow of 0.7 mgd. Projected 2028 flows will incrase supplemental alkalinity costs to $3,000 to $5,000 per month. The alkalinity dose will increase proportionally with the alum dose.

Supplemental polymer treatment will add approximately $1,000 per month at the initial flows 0.7 mgd, and will be approximately $3,000 per month when flows reach the projected 2028 values at an assumed dose of 5 mg/L.

There will be additional labor and maintenance associated with chemical feed equipment. However, additional operators are not anticipated.

At the current WWTP flow of 0.7 mgd, the total annual chemical costs for alum, bicarbonate and polymer will be $91,000 per year the higher dose (80 mg/L) scenario is required, and $63,000 per year under the lower dose (50 mg/L) scenario. The total annual costs for chemical feed are projected with WWTP flows in Attachment A.

9.5 Chemical Feed Controls

Dosage of the chemicals may become critical for NPDES permit compliance, as well as cost efficiency. The SBR process is controlled by an automatic microprocessor. The chemical feed dosing rates and timing must be integrated into the SBR controls and operating cycles. This section provides general functional description for the chemical feed systems, to be added in the SCADA control system.

Alum dosage will be adjusted in proportion to the WWTP flow. The chemical metering pumps should be activated during the SBR “react” cycle, allowing sufficient time for mixing ahead of settling.

If a secondary coagulant dose or a polymer dose is applied, the secondary feed pumps should be activated during the SBR “decant” cycle, with dosing to the effluent equalization basin.

Bicarbonate dosing will be flow proportioned and pH controlled, and dosing to the inlet batch tank or the SBR basins will achieve the desired results.

3-50 February 2012

Addition of on-line effluent turbidity meters is recommended for the filtered effluent to provide real-time effluent monitoring. TSS sampling and analysis is required by the permit, but requires too much time for active control. Turbidimeters can be used to monitor TSS continuously, and allow for more effective adjustments.

This section does not estimate costs for SCADA expansion, or the additional programming. It was assumed that City staff could complete these modifications.

9.6 SBR Optimization

One of the benefits of the SBR process is the ability to change operating cycles to provide anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic treatment conditions for biological nutrient removal. At the time of construction and initial operation of the SBR, the TMDL requirements for TP removal were not yet completed. The SBR operating cycles can be adjusted to improve and optimize conditions for biological phosphorus removal. Improving biological phosphorus removal will reduce the effluent soluble phosphate concentrations, which will reduce chemical treatment cost. For biological phosphorus removal, the SBR cycles should generally provide an anaerobic mixing period of 30 to 60 minutes to promote accumulation of PAO.

The final SBR treatment cycle should then provide full aerobic treatment, where the PAO absorb soluble phosphates to achieve an overall net reduction of TP.

The current SBR treatment cycle that alternates the blower operation for oxic/anoxic operation was provided for denitrification and not intended for phosphate removal.

The NPDES permit does not limit nitrate, so denitrification is not required. Optimizing phosphorus removal in place of denitrification will help comply with the TMDL conditions and reduce costs for chemical treatment.

The City has regular problems with accumulation of filament organisms and scum in the SBR. General process control parameters to respond to filamentous growth include maintaining a higher F:M ratio, and providing alternating anoxic/oxic treatment stages. As influent flows increase, the SBR operation should be changed to the Flow Proportion Mode to equalize and distribute the diurnal load between the basins.

One of the other issues is there is no effective scum removal equipment. The SBR basins should be modified with larger skimming devices to remove the floating scum to the aerobic digester.

Skimming equipment is not developed herein, but should be investigated as part of the preliminary design process. Conceptual costs would require approximately $20,000 to $30,000 for skimming equipment upgrades.

February 2012 3-51

9.7 Effluent Filtration Improvements

The Filter Building included basins and piping for two parallel filters, but only one bank was installed. The single filter bank has no redundancy, which restricts the ability to change the media and perform maintenance. The probable filter expansion costs are $654,000, as included in Appendix B of this TM with product information from the manufacturer for filter upgrades.

The provided (AquaAerobics) cloth disc filters are an accepted filter technology, approved and listed by DEQ for Class A or Class B wastewater reuse. Per the reuse requirements, this equipment is expected to be capable of meeting daily effluent turbidity of 2 NTU (arithmetic mean), and a maximum of 5 NTU. The WWTP operating records from 2001 through 2007 show the average effluent TSS concentration is 3 mg/L, which equals approximately 3 NTU. The existing filter operation was not optimal and does not consistently meet the expected turbidity performance. The second bank of filters is recommended to improve TSS removal and improve effluent quality, to remain below the TMDL limits. In addition, Class A or B effluent for reuse must include chemical feed for coagulation ahead of filtration.


The Woodside WWTP has been in operation since 2000, and in general, is meeting the discharge requirements in the NPDES permit. The TMDL for the Big Wood River will require modification of the Woodside Treatment Plant to comply with more stringent discharge limits for TSS, and for TP, which are identified and reviewed in TM 4. The treatment capacity must also be expanded to accommodate the projected future maximum month flows of 1.25 mgd, and 3.65 mgd for peak hour.

The SBR process used for biological treatment is divided into two equal basins with an influent batch tank. If maintenance is required in one of the SBR basins, the one available basin can accommodate approximately 0.70 mgd. Therefore, a third SBR basin should be added to realize the full rated capacity of the WWTP, to be able to remove basins from service and comply with the discharge permit. Costs to expand the SBR process are provided in TM 4.

The SBR treatment efficiency can be improved with several minor process modifications. Coagulating chemicals can be added along with upgrades to the effluent filters. Optimization capital improvement costs are estimated as $769,000.

In order to continue providing treatment for the next 20-year planning period, the aerobic digester and the dome cover require rehabilitation. The (5-year) priority rehabilitation requirements for the Woodside WWTP have a total estimated cost of $470,500. A sludge holding tank is recommended to replace the existing aerobic digester, which is presented in TM4.

3-52

February 2012

Table 3.13 Marginal Condition (Priority 2) - WWTP Repair and Replacement Projects Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Unit Process Marginal Condition

(5 Year Remaining Service Life ) Estimated

Project Cost1

Woodside Pump Replace submersible raw sewage pump. Add VFD operation and control to pump station. Update pump station level element and control panels

$80,000

Influent Flow Meter Replace and upgrade influent magnetic flow meters. $14,000 Mechanical Bar Screen Rehabilitate rotating elements, motor, gear reducer on mechanical bar screen.

Obtain and keep spare parts in inventory for repairs.

$25,000 Grit Washer and Classifier Service and rehabilitate grit classifier.

Obtain and keep spare parts in inventory for repairs. $20,000

Headworks Building HVAC Replace unit heater / make-up air unit. Upgrade building ventilation system for Class I, Div 2, NFPA 820.

$45,000

Batch Tank Mixers Replace (2) submersible mixers $25,000 Chemical Metering Pumps Replace sodium hypochlorite metering pumps (non-critical) $1,500 SBR Motive Pump Purchase complete spare motive pump to be in ready standby condition. $45,000

SBR Aeration Blower & PLC Rebuild or replace 2 blowers remaining from the original project Update SBR electrical, PLC and controls

$25,000

EQ Pumps Electrical Replace and update flow metering, electrical and controls. $15,000 Cloth-Disc Filters Replace filter cloth media after scheduled service life of 7 years.

Replace and update electrical and controls. $15,000

UV Disinfection Replace lamps, (sleeves) (ballasts). Replace and update electrical and controls.

$35,000

Process Building Replace or rehabilitate HVAC ventilation equipment and heating Repair leaks or reapply roofing Upgrade Effluent and Flow Element

$15,000 $20,000 $10,000

February 2012

3-53

Table 3.13 Marginal Condition (Priority 2) - WWTP Repair and Replacement Projects Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Unit Process Marginal Condition

(5 Year Remaining Service Life ) Estimated

Project Cost1

250 kW Standby Generator Service engine and generator.

$60,000

Priority 2 Projects Total $450,000

Note: 1. All costs in 2008 dollars.

3-54

February 2012

Table 3.14 Adequate Condition (Priority 3) - WWTP Repair and Replacement Projects Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Unit Process PRIORITY 3 - Adequate Condition (10 Year Remaining Service Life )

Estimated Project Cost

Woodside Pump Rebuild or replace submersible raw sewage pump. $32,000 SBR Aeration Blower Rebuild or replace 1 blower $12,000 SBR Motive Pumps & Valves Rebuild or replace 2 motive pumps.

Replace motor actuated valves $40,000

400 kW Standby Generator Service engine and generator. Update or replace electrical switch gear and controls.

$60,000

Priority 3 Projects Total $144,000 Note: All costs in 2008 dollars.

February 2012

3-55

Table 3.15 Good Condition (Priority 4) - WWTP Repair and Replacement Projects


Unit Process PRIORITY 4 - Good Condition

(15 Year Remaining Service Life or Longer) Estimated

Project Cost Headworks Structures Rehabilitate concrete corrosion, prepare and coat channel walls

Monitor steel corrosion, touch-up coatings as necessary $15,000

Batch Tank & SBR Basins Misc. concrete repair and patching. $40,000 Process Building Misc. concrete repair and patching

Monitor steel corrosion, touch-up coatings as necessary $20,000 $20,000

General Site Infrastructure Pavement replacement Stairways &, railings, Yard piping & hydrants

$30,000 $10,000 $10,000

General Building Maintenance Roofing, structural, mechanical, electrical, and furnishings upgrade. Administration and Lab Buildings, Garage and Shop

$30,000

General Vehicle and Fleet Maintenance

Electrical System Improvements

Misc. projects for reliability or code compliance

Priority 4 Projects Total $175,000 Notes: 1. All costs in 2008 dollars. 2. Routine annual inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of concrete and steel structures will significantly reduce structural rehabilitation and repair

costs and extend the effective life of the facility.

Appendix A CHEMICAL FEED DOSING AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

APPENDIX AWOODSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTCHEMICAL FEED DOSING AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

ALUM CHEMICAL REACTIONS Reference: Design Manual Phosphorus Removal, EPA/625/1-87/001

Alum (Sodim Aluminate) precipitation of Phosphates

Al2(SO4)3-14H2O + 2PO4

3- 2AlPO4 + 3SO42- + 14 H2O

Theoretical Weight Ratio: 594 g Alum : 62 g phosphorus

Alum reaction with wastewater alkalinity

Al2(SO4)3-14H2O + 6HCO3- 2Al(OH)3 + 6CO2 + 14 H2O + 3SO4

3-

ALUM DOSE

Low Dose Flow Alum Alum Supply High Dose Flow Alum Alum Supplymg/L MGD lbs/day gal/day days mg/L MGD lbs/day gal/day days50 0.7 292 54 112 80 0.7 467 86 7050 1.0 417 77 78 80 1.0 667 123 4950 1.5 626 115 52 80 1.5 1001 184 33

Commercial Liquid Alum 48.86% Solution S.G. 1.336,000 gallon bulk alum storage tank

ALUM O&M COST Liquid Alum Cost $0.21/lb

Flow Flow Low Dose MGD $/month $/year High Dose MGD $/month $/year

0.7 $1,863 $22,362 0.7 $2,982 $35,7791.0 $2,662 $31,946 1.0 $4,259 $51,1131.5 $3,993 $47,918 1.5 $6,389 $76,669

Supplemental Alkalinity Weight Ratio 594 g Alum : 504 g Bicarbonate Ratio 0.848485$0.26/lb

Flow lbs/day $/month $/year Flow lbs/day $/month $/yearLow Dose 0.7 248 $1,932 $23,182 High Dose 0.7 396 $3,091 $37,091

1.0 354 $2,760 $33,117 1.0 566 $4,416 $52,9881.5 531 $4,140 $49,676 1.5 849 $6,623 $79,482

Polymenr Addition Dose 5 mg/L $1.60/lb Flow lbs/day $/month $/year0.7 29 $1,401 $16,8131.0 42 $2,002 $24,0191.5 63 $3,002 $36,029

Appendix B CLOTH DISC FILTER UPGRADES

Designed by Rungrod Jittawattanarat, Ph.D. on Monday, May 12, 2008

HAILEY WWTP UPGRADE, ID

Option: Preliminary Design

Design#: 34740

PROCESS DESIGN REPORT

The enclosed information is based on preliminary data which we have received from you. There may be factors unknown to us which would alter the enclosed recommendation. These recommendations are based on models and assumptions widely used in the industry. While we attempt to keep these current, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for their validity or any risks associated with their use. Also, because of the various factors stated above, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for any liability resulting from any use made by you of the enclosed recommendations.

Copyright 1999, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., Rockford, IL

Design Notes

Filtration

- Aqua-Aerobic Systems recommends covering cloth media filters in environments where bright sunlight is expected to cause excessive algae growth.

- The anticipated effluent quality is based upon filterable influent solids.

- For this application, pile filter cloth is recommended, which has a nominal pore size of 10 microns.

Pricing

- Pricing includes freight, installation supervision and start-up services.

- Pricing is based upon Aqua Aerobic Systems standard materials of construction and electrical components.

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 5/13/2008 8:46:04 AM Page 2 of 5HAILEY WWTP UPGRADE, ID / Design#: 34740 / Option: Preliminary Design / Designed by Rungrod Jittawattanarat, Ph.D. on Monday, May 12, 2008

5

Avg. Design Flow = 1.44 MG/day

Max. Design Flow = 1.44 MG/day

15

20

DESIGN INFLUENT CONDITIONS

= 1000 gpm

= 1000 gpm

DESIGN PARAMETERS mg/l

5Avg. Total Suspended Solids:

Max. Total Suspended Solids:

TSSa

TSSm

TSSa TSSa

Influent <= mg/l <= mg/lRequired Anticipated

Effluent

Pre-Filter Treatment: Secondary

= (5443.2 m^3/day)

= (5443.2 m^3/day)

-- ---- --

AquaDISK FILTER CALCULATIONSFilter Type:

Average Flow Conditions:

Maximum Flow Conditions:

Solids Loading:

Average Hydraulic Loading = Avg. Design Flow (gpm) / Recommended Filter Area (ft^2)= 1000 / 322.8 ft^2= 3.1 gpm/ft^2 (2.11 l/s/m^2) at Avg. Flow

Maximum Hydraulic Loading = Max. Design Flow (gpm) / Recommended Filter Area (ft^2)= 1000 / 322.8 ft^2= 3.1 gpm/ft^2 (2.11 l/s/m^2) at Max. Flow

Solids Loading Rate = (lbs TSS/day at max flow and max TSS loading) / Recommended Filter Area (ft^2)= 240.2 lbs/day / 322.8 ft^2= 0.74 lbs. TSS /day/ft^2 (3.63 kg. TSS/day/m^2)

AquaDISK FILTER RECOMMENDATIONQty Of Filter Units Recommended = 1

Number Of Disks Per Unit = 6

Total Number Of Disks Recommended = 6

Total Filter Area Provided = 322.8 ft^2 = (29.99 m^2)

Filter Model Recommended = AquaDisk Concrete Model 54: 6 Disk Unit

Estimated total concrete requirement: = 72.3 yd^3 = (72.3 m^3)

Vertically Mounted Cloth Media Disks featuring automatically operated vacuum backwash.

AquaDISK Tertiary Filtration - Design Summary


Equipment Summary

Cloth Media Filters

AquaDisk Tanks/Basins

1 Aquadisk model # ADFC-54x6I-PC concrete filter basin accessories consisting of:

- Concrete basin(s) (by others).- Centertube support beam wall brackets.- Backwash manifold wall brackets.- Effluent chamber weldment(s).- Effluent seal plate(s).- 304SS anchors.- 6" manual butterfly valve(s).- Valve extension(s) painted steel.- Valve extension support bracket (by others).

1 Influent Flow Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- Level weir / flow separation baffle(s).- 304SS anchors.

AquaDisk Centertube Assemblies

1 Centertube Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- 304 stainless steel centertube weldment(s).- Centertube carrier assembly.- Centertube position maintainer.- Centertube end support bearing kit(s).- Effluent centertube lip seal.- Centertube drive sprocket(s).- 5/8" diameter 316 stainless steel media support rods.- Neoprene media sealing gaskets.- Pile cloth media and non-corrosive support frame assemblies.

AquaDisk Drive Assemblies

1 Drive System Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- Gear reducer and drive motor.- Drive chain(s) with pins.- Chain guard weldment(s).- Warning label(s).- Adjustable drive bracket weldment.- Stationary drive bracket weldment.- Drive spocket(s).

AquaDisk Backwash/Sludge Assemblies

1 Backwash/Sludge Pump Assemblies consisting of:

- Hidrostal model # A2QS2 submersible pumps.- Nibco bronze swing check valve(s).- 304 stainless steel combination nipple(s).

1 Backwash Discharge System Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- 304 stainless steel backwash and sludge discharge manifold(s).- Backwash discharge hose assemblies.- Anti-siphon vacuum breaker(s).- 3" ball valve(s).

1 Backwash System Suction Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- Backwash collection nozzle.


- Backwash suction hose assemblies.- 304 stainless steel threaded flanges.- Stainless steel backwash nozzle springs.- Sludge collection manifold assembly(ies).- Combination nipple(s) for hose to pipe connection(s).- Stainless steel hose clamps.- 304 stainless steel backwash collection manifold(s).

1 Backwash Support Assembly(ies) consisting of:

- Backwash support weldment(s).

AquaDisk Instrumentation

1 Filter Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) for existing filter consisting of:

- Level sensing pressure transducer(s).- 304 Stainless steel probe mounting bracket(s).

1 Filter High Level Float Switch Installation(s) for existing filter consisting of:

- Anchor Scientific model S40N0-NC float switch(es). - 316 stainless steel wall bracket(s) and anchors.

1 Filter Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) for new filter consisting of:

- Level sensing pressure transducer(s).- 304 Stainless steel probe mounting bracket(s).

1 Filter High Level Float Switch Installation(s) for new filter consisting of:

- Anchor Scientific model S40N0-NC float switch(es). - 316 stainless steel wall bracket(s) and anchors.

AquaDisk Valves

1 Influent Air Weir Assembly(ies) consiting of:

- 304 stainless steel weir weldment(s).- 304 stainless steel weir weldment(s).- Air weir actuator(s).

AquaDisk Controls w/Starters

1 Control Package(s) for both filters will be provided consisting of:

- NEMA 4X 304 stainless steel enclosure.- Starter 18 AMP 3-Pole.- Allen Bradley SLC 5/04 programmable controller.- Analog input card(s).- Pilot light(s).- Allen Bradley Panelview 600 touch screen display(s).


Project: HAILEY WWTP UPGRADE, ID

Date: May 13, 2008Attention: Rob Young

E-Mail: [email protected]

From: Rungrod Jittawattanarat, Ph.D.

Company: Goble Sampson Associates, Inc

Total Pages (including this one): 1

Ph#: 801/268-8790

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.6306 North Alpine Road * P.O. Box 2026 / Rockford, IL 61130 * Ph#:815/654-2501 * Fx#:815/654-2508

Project E-Mail

Confidentiality Notice: This page, and any accompanying pages, may contain information which is confidential or privileged and is intended for the sole use of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, is prohibited.

Correspondence ID#: AAE-86156

Ref: Preliminary Design

Rob,

Per request, please find enclosed design # 34740. New control panel in this expansion will be designed to control both existing and new filters. Existing filter level sensor will be replaced with pressure transducer. Standard pile cloth media is included in the budget price. Chlorine resistant cloth is available with an additional cost if required.

The budget price for One (1) - ADFC-54x6I-PC (6 disk) AquaDisk unit including freight, installation supervision and startup is $237,000.

Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

Regards,

Rungrod Jittawattanarat, Ph.D.Project Applications [email protected]

William Moore

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.CC:

1 2 5 9 2 W E S T E X P L O R E R D R I V E • S U I T E 2 0 0 • B O I S E , I D A H O 8 3 7 1 3 • ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 8 8 • F A X ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 2 2 5 1

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FINAL April 2012

February 2012 4-i

CITY OF HAILEY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4-1

2.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS ............................. 4-1 2.1 Influent Flow and Loading Criteria ............................................................. 4-2

3.0 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 4-3 3.1 Total Phosphorus Discharge Requirements .............................................. 4-3 3.2 Total Suspended Solids Discharge Requirements .................................... 4-4 3.3 Ammonia Nitrogen Discharge Requirements ............................................ 4-5 3.4 E. Coli Bacteria Discharge Requirements ................................................. 4-5 3.5 Facility Plan Design Criteria ....................................................................... 4-5 3.6 Future Flow Projections for Ultimate Build-Out .......................................... 4-6

4.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................................ 4-6 4.1 Wastewater Treatment .............................................................................. 4-6 4.2 Biosolids Treatment ................................................................................... 4-9

5.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 4-9 5.1 WWTP Headworks Facilities ..................................................................... 4-9 5.2 Ultraviolet Disinfection Facilities ................................................................ 4-9 5.3 Biosolids .................................................................................................... 4-9

6.0 POTENTIAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVES ............... 4-10 6.1 ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: ................................................................................................ 4-10 6.2 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Tertiary Filtration: ............... 4-15 6.3 ALT 3 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR): ..................................................... 4-26 6.4 ALT 4 - SBR with Tertiary Membrane Filtration: ...................................... 4-34 6.5 ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration: ...................................... 4-41 6.6 ALT 5A - BlueWater Technologies LoPROTM System: ............................ 4-48

7.0 ALTERNATIVE REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING ............................ 4-49 7.1 ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: ................................................................................................ 4-49 7.2 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge: .................................................. 4-50 7.3 ALT 3 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR): ..................................................... 4-50 7.4 ALT 4 - SBR with Membrane Tertiary Treatment: ................................... 4-52 7.5 ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration: ...................................... 4-53

8.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON ............................................... 4-53 8.1 Capital Costs ........................................................................................... 4-54

4-ii February 2012

8.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ........................................................... 4-54

9.0 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON AND RANKING ................................................. 4-60 9.1 Criteria Scoring ........................................................................................ 4-60

10.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 4-63

11.0 ADDITIONAL TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............................................... 4-64 11.1 Performance-Based Alternative Review and Selection ............................ 4-64 11.2 ALT 1A - Ballasted Flocculation with Sand Filters ................................... 4-65 11.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Upgrades ...................................................... 4-65

12.0 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OPTIONS ...................................................................... 4-66 12.1 Wastewater Reuse Treatment Requirements .......................................... 4-66 12.2 Effluent Management Considerations and Regulatory Requirements ..... 4-67 12.3 Irrigation Reuse Options .......................................................................... 4-68 12.4 Non-Irrigation Reuse ................................................................................ 4-75 12.5 Reuse Infrastructure and Irrigation Management ..................................... 4-75 12.6 Effluent Reuse Conceptual Cost Estimates ............................................. 4-75 12.7 Summary of Reuse Options ..................................................................... 4-76

13.0 BIOSOLIDS ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 4-77 13.1 Biosolids Stabilization and Dewatering .................................................... 4-77 13.2 Biosolids Regulations ............................................................................... 4-79 13.3 Discussion of Biosolids Dewatering ......................................................... 4-79 13.4 Biosolids Alternative Costs ....................................................................... 4-80

14.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 4-81

APPENDIX A: TSS Particle Size Distribution APPENDIX B: ALT 5 Two-Stage tertiary filtration APPENDIX C: Probable Project Cost Estimates

February 2012 4-iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 WWTP Projected Flow and Loading for 20-Year Planning (2028) ................ 4-2 Table 4.2 WWTP TMDL and Effluent Design Criteria ................................................... 4-5 Table 4.3 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 1 - SBR Expansion & Filtration ................ 4-11 Table 4.4 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with

Tertiary Filtration ......................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4.5 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 3 - Membrane Bio Reactor ....................... 4-29 Table 4.6 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 4 - SBR & Tertiary Membrane Filtration .. 4-40 Table 4.7 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 5 - SBR & Two-Stage Filtration ................ 4-42 Table 4.8 ALT 1 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Solids

Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration ......................................................... 4-55 Table 4.9 ALT 3 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs Modification to Membrane

BioReactor .................................................................................................. 4-56 Table 4.10 ALT 4 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion & Tertiary

Membrane Filtration .................................................................................... 4-57 Table 4.11 ALT 5 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Two-

Stage & Tertiary Filtration ........................................................................... 4-58 Table 4.12 Alternative Life Cycle Costs ........................................................................ 4-59 Table 4.13 Treatment Alternatives - Comparison ......................................................... 4-61 Table 4.14 Class A Effluent Reuse Criteria .................................................................. 4-67 Table 4.15 Public Sites for Potential Effluent Reuse - Monthly Irrigation Rates ........... 4-72 Table 4.16 Effluent Reuse Infrastructure Conceptual Costs ......................................... 4-76 Table 4.17 Aerated Sludge Holding Tank and Biosolids Dewatering Alternative .......... 4-78 Table 4.18 Biosolids Holding Tank and Dewatering Probable Costs ............................ 4-80

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.0 Existing Sequencing Batch Reactor .............................................................. 4-7 Figure 4.1.1 ALT 1 SBR with Solids Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration .................... 4-13 Figure 4.1.2 Alternative 1 - SBR with Tertiary Filtration .................................................. 4-17 Figure 4.1.3 ALT 1 – SBR Expansion Solids Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration ....... 4-19 Figure 4.2.1 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Tertiary Filtration ................... 4-21 Figure 4.2.2 ALT 2 Conventional Activated Sludge ........................................................ 4-23 Figure 4.2.3 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge & Tertiary Filtration ....................... 4-25 Figure 4.3.1 Alternative 3 Membrane Bio Reactor .......................................................... 4-27 Figure 4.3.2 Alternative 3 - Membrane BioReactor (MBR) .............................................. 4-31 Figure 4.3.3 Alternative 3 - Membrane BioReactor (MBR) .............................................. 4-33 Figure 4.4.1 Alternative 4 - SBR with Membrane Filtration ............................................. 4-35 Figure 4.4.2 ALT 4 SBR Expansion & Membrane Filtration ............................................ 4-37 Figure 4.4.3 ALT 4 SBR & Membrane Filtration .............................................................. 4-39 Figure 4.5.1 ALT 5 SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration ............................................ 4-43 Figure 4.5.2 SBR Expansion & Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration ......................................... 4-45 Figure 4.5.3 SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration ....................................................... 4-47 Figure 4.6 City of Hailey Candidate Public Water Reuse Sites .................................... 4-70 Figure 4.7 Monthly Crop Supplemental Irrigation Rates .............................................. 4-73

4-iv February 2012


February 2012 4-1

Technical Memorandum No. 4

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The existing Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will require modifications to achieve the higher degree of treatment defined by the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Big Wood River. In addition, the WWTP capacity must be expanded to accommodate growth in the service area for the projected 20-year planning period. Technical Memorandum No. 4 (TM 4) presents wastewater treatment alternatives to address both the projected capacity and the treatment requirements to meet water quality standards.

The objectives of this technical memorandum are to:

Develop candidate treatment alternatives to address capacity requirements through year 2028

Define technologies that will comply with the critical water quality standards for Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) addressed in the TMDL

Screen candidate technologies to identify the most beneficial treatment alternatives

Compare and recommend a preferred treatment configuration

Provide conceptual site layout and preliminary costs for the recommended alternative

2.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

The existing Woodside Treatment Plant (WWTP) provides tertiary-level treatment for the domestic and commercial wastewater from the services within the City limits. The service population per the 2010 US Census is approximately 7,960. Assuming an average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent, the population projection for 2028 will reach 13,411. The projected flow and influent pollutant loading for the area of impact were developed in TM 1.

Using the historic flow contribution of 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd), the projected maximum month flow for the WWTP will reach 1.25 million gallons per day (mgd) by 2028.

4-2 February 2012

2.1 Influent Flow and Loading Criteria

Projected flow and loading criteria for the year 2028 are provided in Table 4.1, which also include projections based on buildout of the service area.

Table 4.1 WWTP Projected Flow and Loading for 20-Year Planning (2028) Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

INFLUENT WASTEWATER FLOW 1 20-YEAR PLANNING VALUE

Average Day (mgd) 1.14 Max Month (mgd) 1.25 Max Week (mgd) 1.38 Peak Hour Flow (mgd) 3.65 Buildout Average Day (mgd) 2.65 Buildout Peak Hour (mgd) 8.5

INFLUENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 1 20-YEAR PLANNING VALUE

Parameter Concentration

(mg/L) Mass Loading (lbs/day) BOD Average 268 2,548 Max Month 2,930 Max Week 3,440 TSS Average 226 2,146 Max Month 2,930 Max Week 3,176 NH3-N Average 30 282 Max Day 366 TKN Average 48 456 Max Day 593 Total P Average 7 67 Max Day 101 Temperature Degrees C Average 14 Minimum 9 Max 20 Note: (1) TM 1, Table 1.9 for hydraulic and organic loading peaking factors

February 2012 4-3

3.0 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan, prepared by the State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), defined the TMDL for the impacted segment of the River and the City of Hailey. A waste load allocation or the capacity for the pollutants of concern was assigned to the City, defining the maximum allowable discharge that would not violate water quality standards. The water quality standards require additional removal of TSS, and TP. Future NPDES permit limits for the City will be based on the waste load allocation identified by the TMDL.

The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan requires the City of Hailey significantly modify the wastewater treatment facilities to comply with water quality standards. The TP and TSS waste load allocation assigned to Hailey requires highly specialized and advanced treatment technologies.

3.1 Total Phosphorus Discharge Requirements

The TMDL defined a TP waste load allocation of 5.2 lbs/day for Hailey, which requires the TP effluent concentrations at or below below 0.5 mg/L at the projected design flows. DEQ will continue to monitor the water quality standards and beneficial uses of the Big Wood River, after the improvements are implemented at the WWTP. If the Big Wood River does not meet the target in-steam concentrations defined in the Watershed Management Plan, lower effluent concentrations may be required in the future.

To address the TP limits, treatment alternatives capable of meeting “low TP” discharge requirements. Effluent TP limits could be reduced further, requiring “very-low TP” concentrations of 0.05 mg/L or less, to achieve the in-stream water quality target concentration. Alternatives in this TM also discuss if treatment technologies can meet “very-low TP” limits of 0.05 mg/L possible in the future.

3.1.1 Total Phosphorus Treatment Technologies

TP is removed by two potential wastewater treatment methods; biological treatment, and physical-chemical treatment. Effluent limits are defined and analyzed using the “total phosphorus” test, because wastewater phosphorus exists in both soluble and particulate forms.

In biological treatment, providing an anaerobic (without oxygen) contact time of approximately 30 to 60 minutes ahead of the aeration basins encourages the growth of phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAO). In subsequent aerated mode, biomass absorbs soluble phosphates, which are then removed from the process by wasting sludge to the digester.

4-4 February 2012

Chemical treatment, adding aluminum salts, is used to convert soluble reactive phosphates into inorganic solids that are removed by precipitation, settling and filtration. The coagulation and filtration stages also enhance suspended solids removal, which reduces the particulate phosphorus.

This TM reviews both biological and physical-chemical treatment alternatives to comply with TP discharge requirements. In general, biological treatment alone will not achieve low effluent TP concentrations below 0.5 mg/L. Therefore, additional physical-chemical treatment and effluent filtration is also required.

In order to meet very low TP limits of 0.05 mg/L, high chemical dosages must be applied. Since the chemicals react with other constituents in the wastewater, high doses must influence and reduce the remaining soluble phosphate compounds. Chemical dosages have been reported to require from 5 to 20-times the stoichiometric ratio, with potential dosage concentrations from 80 to 200 mg/L. Alum can be added at various points in the secondary and tertiary treatment processes to react and remove phosphates, with the best removal efficiency using multiple locations.

Effluent from the existing WWTP currently average approximately 0.80 mg/L TP. As a general approximation, 5 percent of the effluent TSS contributes to the TP analysis as particulate phosphate. The average effluent TSS concentrations from the existing WWTP are 3 mg/L. Therefore, the particulate phosphorus component from the existing Woodside WWTP can be estimated as 0.15 mg/L with 0.65 mg/L as soluble phosphates.

3.2 Total Suspended Solids Discharge Requirements

The TMDL defined a TSS waste load allocation of 3.3 tons/year (18 lbs/day) for Hailey in a water quality based limit defined in terms of mass loading. At the projected maximum month flow of 1.25 mgd, the average TSS concentration must be below 1.9 mg/L to remain below the TMDL limit.

In comparison, the current Woodside WWTP average effluent TSS concentrations is 3 mg/L after the existing cloth disc filters. The installed cloth disc filters, are generally considered capable of achieve effluent with turbidity of 2 NTU, or approximately 2 mg/L TSS. The alternatives examined in this TM include more effective tertiary treatment and filtration technologies to comply with the TMDL limit.

3.2.1 Total Suspended Solids Treatment Technologies

Total suspended solids in wastewater effluent are typically removed using physical-chemical treatment and filtration. Effluent solids exist in various sizes ranging from larger particles, to very small colloidal particles that are difficult to remove. Many varieties and types of filters are available for use in wastewater treatment, ranging from conventional sand filters to ultra-filtration membranes capable of removing very small particles. Chemical treatment with alum, the same coagulant used for TP removal, is added ahead of filtration

February 2012 4-5

to coagulate and flocculate the fine solids into larger particles that are more effectively retained by the filter. This TM reviews chemical conditioning and filter technologies to comply with the TMDL effluent requirements.

3.3 Ammonia Nitrogen Discharge Requirements

The NPDES permit defines discharge limits for organic nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia, to meet the water quality standards. In the biological treatment process, organic nitrogen and ammonia are oxidized and converted to nitrate while under aeration. Nitrate can then be removed by biological treatment by turning the aeration cycle off periodically, which initiates the denitrification process and releases the nitrogen as gas. Denitrification is essentially a no-cost benefit that reduces oxygen demand in the activated sludge process and recovers alkalinity. Treatment alternatives considered in this TM include biological nutrient removal (BNR) to reduce nitrogen compounds, as required by the NPDES permit.

3.4 E. Coli Bacteria Discharge Requirements

The treated effluent must be disinfected to reduce bacteria concentrations. The TMDL identified a waste load allocation of 1.20 billion coliform units per day (cfu9/day). The existing UV disinfection facilities reviewed in TM 3 appear to be adequate to meet the discharge requirements, achieving effluent concentrations of 126-cfu/100 mL.

3.5 Facility Plan Design Criteria

The effluent requirements for the approved TMDL and design criteria are listed in Table 4.2, which are used as the design criteria for treatment alternatives in this TM.

Table 4.2 WWTP TMDL and Effluent Design Criteria Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Parameter

Avg Monthly Avg Weekly Max Day lbs/day mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day

BOD 30 45

TSS (1) 18 27

Total P (2) (3) 5.2 7.8

NH3-N 9 14 15.6

TKN 55 78 Notes: 1. Big Wood TMDL TSS limits defined as 3.3 tons/year = 18 lbs/day 2. Limits defined by Big Wood River TMDL defined in lbs/day 3. In-stream Water Quality Target for Total Phosphorus < 0.05 mg/L

4-6 February 2012

Treatment alternatives presented in this TM consider the statistical range of operations, and address the requirements to comply with the discharge standards under all conditions. Hydraulic requirements consider the average daily flow, maximum daily flow, and the peak hour flow. Aeration equipment and solids handling processes must maintain permit compliance under the range of influent loading covering the average day, the maximum month average day (highest 30-day period), maximum week, and the peak day. For consistency, the sizes of the alternatives herein all reference the average day flow and loading for consistent comparison.

3.6 Future Flow Projections for Ultimate Build-Out

The alternatives in this TM also consider the sizing and number of treatment units that will be required beyond the 20-year planning period. Alternative phasing and expansion to provide wastewater treatment for the entire area of impact, projected as 2.65 mgd for the average daily flow is presented. The main consideration is to evaluate if the existing 6-acre Woodside WWTP site is sufficient for the service area needs and if certain treatment alternatives may or may not fit onto the existing property. Alternatives and costs are developed and evaluated for the 20-year planning period, not the future ultimate build-out.

4.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING FACILITIES

The evaluation of the existing Woodside Treatment Plant and each process component was included in TM 3. The existing treatment plant is located on a 6-acre site on the south east side of the City.

4.1 Wastewater Treatment

The general process flow schematic of the existing Woodside WWTP is shown in Figure 4.0. The existing Woodside WWTP consists of raw sewage pumps, mechanical bar screen with 1/4-inch openings, and vortex grit removal. Influent flows are retained in the batch tank, ahead of the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR). Biological secondary treatment is achieved through the SBR, where aeration and settling are provided in the same basin by batch operating cycles. The SBR basins are decanted into a central equalization basin, where flows are pumped to Cloth-Disc Filters. The filtered effluent is disinfected by ultraviolet (UV) light. Final effluent is discharged through a gravity outfall sewer to the Big Wood River. The outfall terminates in a diffuser section installed below the river bottom to eliminate a visible mixing zone in the river.

Figure 4.0Existing Sequencing Batch Reactor





WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin

SBR1BatchTank SBR2 Tertiary

Filter BasinUltraviolet

Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

February 2012 4-9

4.2 Biosolids Treatment

The solids generated from the wastewater treatment process are transferred to the aerobic digester. The sludge is aerated and thickened by gravity settling to approximately 1.5 percent solids. Digested sludge is transported in a tanker truck to the Blaine County Landfill at Ohio Gulch, approximately 6-miles north of the WWTP. The liquid biosolids are dried in drying beds, and ultimately disposed of in the solid waste landfill.

5.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives presented in this section address expansion of the WWTP capacity for the projected 20-year flows and loading projections, and effluent requirements listed in Table 4.2 for the approved (2001) TMDL. Advanced tertiary treatment and filtration technologies are identified to meet the discharge requirements for TP and TSS to comply with water quality standards and the TMDL.

The alternatives for the WWTP expansion are shown in the space available on the current site of the Woodside WWTP, in the open areas to the east and south. Flow schematics for each candidate alternative are included in this section.

5.1 WWTP Headworks Facilities

The influent pumping, flow measurement, coarse screening, and grit removal are fairly similar in each alternative. The existing headworks facilities will be utilized to the extent possible, with some minor equipment modifications as needed to meet the projected flows. One exception is with membrane technologies, where additional second-stage fine screening is needed in the headworks, which are described further in Section 6 of this TM.

5.2 Ultraviolet Disinfection Facilities

The existing UV disinfection facilities in the process building have two parallel channels. The three UV modules in one channel have capacity to disinfect a peak hour flow of 4 mgd, with one module as standby. The second parallel channel is available to install additional disinfection, if a higher UV dosage is desired to provide additional disinfection for a specific effluent reuse application. The existing WWTP utilizes UV disinfection. Each of the treatment alternatives considered assumes continued use of the existing UV disinfection.

5.3 Biosolids

The existing aerobic digester tank and fiberglass dome need to be replaced as described in TM 3. In addition, the current agreement with Blaine County to accept biosolids at the Ohio Gulch Landfill will expire in 2019, within the 20-year planning period of this study.

4-10 February 2012

Therefore, biosolids stabilization and dewatering is presented later in this TM, to develop capital budgets and operating costs for alternatives to the current landfill disposal practices.

6.0 POTENTIAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVES

Five treatment alternatives were developed screened based on treatment and economic factors. The alternatives are as follows:

ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: Includes raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, three-basin sequencing batch reactor (SBR), flow equalization, chemical conditioning and ballasted-flocculation solids contact clarifiers, ahead of the existing cloth-disc filters and UV disinfection.

ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration: Includes raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, aeration basins, secondary clarification, with the use of solids contact clarifiers and the existing cloth disc filters and UV disinfection.

ALT 3 - Membrane Bio Reactor, (MBR): Includes raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, fine screening, MBR (activated sludge with membrane separation), and UV disinfection.

ALT 4 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Tertiary Membrane Filtration: Includes raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, fine screening, three-basin SBR, chemical addition and solids contact clarifiers, membrane effluent filtration, and UV disinfection.

ALT 5 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration: Includes raw sewage pumping, coarse screening, grit removal, three-basin SBR, flow equalization, chemical conditioning and two-stage upflow sand filters in series, and UV disinfection.

The following section provides a brief overview and general description of the biological and physical treatment processes proposed for each alternative. A more detailed discussion and screening of alternatives is presented later in the TM.

6.1 ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration:

This alternative considers providing a third SBR basin, which is needed at the current flows for redundancy to allow one basin to be removed from service for maintenance without reducing treatment efficiency. A fourth SBR basin will be needed for redundancy when influent flows reach 1.4 mgd, which are the projected max week flows at year 2028.

February 2012 4-11

The process flow diagram for ALT 1 - SBR Expansion with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration is shown on Figure 4.1.1. The preliminary design criteria and process components associated with this alternative are presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 1 - SBR Expansion & Filtration


ALT 1 - SBR Expansion & Filtration 2028 Projections Ultimate Buildout

Projections

SBR BATCH TANK, (existing) 1 1 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 81 x 27.6 x 9.2 81 x 27.6 x 9.2 Total Volume, MG 0.15 0.15 Avg. Hydraulic Retention Time, (HRT) hr. 2 1.4 SBR BASINS (Total No. Basins) (2) 3 4 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 81 x 81 x 21 81 x 81 x 21 Total Volume, MG 3.1 4.2 Avg. HRT, hr. 36.8 36.8 Total Solids Retention Time, (SRT) days 18 18 Design MLSS, mg/L 3,200 3,200 EQUALIZATION BASIN (No. of Basins) 2 2 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - existing 81 x 23 x 12.75 81 x 23 x 12.75 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - expansion 81 x 48 x 12.75 81 x 48 x 12.75 Total Volume, MG 0.55 0.55 No. Equalization Pumps 3 3 Capacity (gpm) Average 1,280 1,840 Capacity (gpm) Maximum 1,500 1,750 Horsepower (HP) each 15 15 BALLASTED-FLOC SOLIDS CONTACT CLARIFIERS (Equalized Flow) No. of Basins 2 3 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft (overall) 20 x 8 x 10 20 x 8 x 10 Average Overflow Rate, gpm/ft2 10 10 Max Overflow Rate, gpm/ft2 (one unit out) 16 16 TERTIARY FILTRATION No. Cloth Disc Filters (total) 12 18 Total Filter Surface Area, sf 648 972 Avg. Loading Rate, gpm/sf 2 2 Max Loading Rate, gpm/sf (one unit out) 4 4 Notes: 1. All unit processes sized for redundancy at peak hour flow, one unit out of service. 2. Fourth SBR basin required for redundancy with one unit out of service at 1.4 mgd.

4-12 February 2012

6.1.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

The existing inlet batch tank provides approximately 2-hour retention time to retain flow as each SBR basin proceeds through the react, settle, and decant stages. In this alternative, normal operation is divided between three SBR basins.

The inlet batch tank also provides an anaerobic zone to promote the growth and conditions for phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs), which will reduce soluble phosphorus by biological uptake.

The decant cycles from the existing SBR basins discharge to a central equalization basin. A new 0.48 million gallons equalization basin will be added with the expanded SBR basins to equalize all decant cycles. The expanded equalization volume is sized to reduce the peak hour flow, which significantly reduces the size and costs for downstream solids contact clarifiers and tertiary filters.

6.1.2 Solids Contact Clarifiers

To enhance TSS and TP removal, chemical conditioning and solids contact clarifiers will be added to the process. The most efficient type of solids contact clarifier utilizes ballasted-flocculation, such as the Kruger Actiflo® Process, which is proposed for this application.

Ballasted-flocculating clarifiers improve TSS removal in a high rate settling process. Small suspended solids and colloidal matter are chemically coagulated to form larger solids. In ballasted-flocculation, a micro-sand slurry is introduced to form dense floc particles, which accelerate settling velocities and increase removal efficiency. The sand is cleaned and recirculated back to the flocculation process. Along with enhanced TSS removal, chemical addition in this stage precipitates soluble reactive phosphorous compounds. Chemical addition and ballasted-flocculating clarifiers provide multiple benefits to meet very low TSS and TP discharge limits.

6.1.3 Cloth Disc Filter

The historical WWTP data showed the existing cloth disc filters alone without chemical addition will not comply with the low TSS limits in the TMDL. However, these facilities are relatively new and infrastructure was provided to expand filter capacity, so this alternative is presented to optimize their performance and continue use. Expansion of the equalization basin after the SBR reduces peak flows, so the filters operate under a lower and more uniform hydraulic loading rate, which generally improves TSS removal. Chemical addition and the ballasted-flocculating clarifiers remove solids, which reduces the TSS loading on the filters. The existing cloth disc filters will then function as final effluent polishing filters. Addition of polymers will be included to capture remaining fine solids passing through the ballasted-flocculating stage.

Figure 4.1.1ALT 1 - SBR with Solids Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration





WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin



Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

(Future)

Ballasted-Flocc Clarifiers


SBR3SBR4

(Future) UV (future)

Filter 4 (future)Chemical

Feed

Clarifier 3 (future)

ChemicalFeed

ChemicalFeed

February 2012 4-15

Cloth-disc filters are typically utilized to meet turbidity requirements of 2 NTU. Solids remaining after the ballasted-flocculation process may be colloidal in nature, and may pass through the porous cloth media. The costs and performance issues with retaining the existing filters are evaluated in further detail as part of this TM.

Addition of the second bank of cloth disc filters in the open basin in the Process Building expands capacity and provides redundancy to allow for one bank of filters to be removed for maintenance. For future conditions beyond the 20-year planning period, expansion of the filter building is required to install a third bank of cloth disc filters for ultimate build-out of the service area.

Due to the cold winter temperatures in Hailey, the chemical feed facilities and the ballasted-flocculating clarifiers may potentially freeze in the winter months. The tertiary treatment facilities in this alternative will be enclosed in a building similar to the existing Process Building.

6.1.4 Disinfection

Effluent will continue to be disinfected with UV light in the existing facilities in the Process Building. The general site schematic for the needed improvements is shown on in Figure 4.1.2. The expanded components in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP are shown in Figure 4.1.3.

6.2 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Tertiary Filtration:

The existing SBR process combines the aeration and settling processes in a common tank. Alternative 2 will evaluate modification of the SBR basins into conventional flow-through plug-flow aeration basins. The existing square basins will be modified with baffles to provide the desired tank geometry for anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic treatment in zones for biological nutrient removal (BNR). One SBR basin has sufficient volume for the 20-year design flow. However, aeration basins must be taken out of service for inspection and routine cleaning. Therefore, both SBR basins will be modified with baffles into aeration basins for redundancy. The existing equalization basin will remain and serve as final aeration stage, common to both existing basins.

The process flow diagram for ALT 2 Conventional Activated Sludge and Filtration is shown on Figure 4.2.1. The preliminary design criteria and project elements are presented in Table 4.4.

Two new secondary clarifiers will be constructed in this alternative. Two clarifiers are sized to provide redundancy if one is out of service. Due to the cold winter temperatures in Hailey, the quiescent settling tanks may potentially freeze in the winter months. The clarifiers in this alternative will include aluminum dome covers to retain heat and maintain continuous operation.

4-16 February 2012

For the capacity and process redundancy needed for buildout conditions, a third aeration basin and a third secondary clarifier would be required in the future.

The secondary clarifiers will be followed by chemical feed facilities, ballasted-flocculating solids contact clarifiers, and cloth disc filters, similar to ALT 1. The general site schematic for the needed improvements is in Figure 4.2.2, and Figure 4.2.3 shows the site improvements in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP. Table 4.4 Preliminary Design Criteria

ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Tertiary Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

ALT 2 - Conventional Treatment 2028 Projections Ultimate Buildout

Projections

ANAEROBIC ZONE (BATCH TANK ) Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 81 x 27.67 x 9.2 81 x 27.67 x 9.2 Total Volume, MG 0.15 0.15 Hydraulic Retention Time, (HRT) hr. 2 1.4 AERATION BASINS (No. of Basins) 2 3 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 81 x 81 x 21 81 x 81 x 21 Total Volume, MG 2.1 3.1 Average HRT, hr. 21 21 Design MLSS, mg/L 3,500 3,500 Total SRT, days 18 18 Anoxic Zone Volume, % 40 40 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS No. of Basins 2 3 Diameter, ft (inside) 75 75 Surface Area, (each) ft2 4,420 4,420 Peak Hour Overflow Rate, gpd/ft2 600 600 Max Overflow Rate, gpd/ft2 (one unit out) 1,200 1,200 BALLASTED-FLOC SOLIDS CONTACT CLARIFIERS No. of Basins 2 3 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft (overall) 20 x 8 x 10 20 x 8 x 10 TERTIARY FILTRATION No. Cloth Disc Filters (total) 12 18 Total Filter Surface Area, sf 648 972 Note: 1. All unit processes sized for redundancy at peak hour flow, one unit out of service.

Figure 4.1.2Alternative 1 - SBR with Tertiary Filtration





WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin



Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

(Future)

Solids ContactClarifiers


SBR3SBR4

(Future)

UV (future)

FIlter 4 (future)

Figure 4.1.3ALT 1 - SBR Expansion Solids Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration


Proc

ess

Build

ing

Batch

Tank

SB

R 1

SBR

2

Equa

lizati

on 1

SBR

3

SBR

4(fu

ture)

Equa

lizati

on 2

Balla

sted-F

locCl

arifie

r Buil

ding

4-20 December 2010


Figure 4.2.1ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge with Tertiary Filtration





WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Aeration Basin

1BatchTank 2 Tertiary


Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

(Future)


RAS

Secondary Clarifiers

RAS Pumps

UV (future)

Filter 4 (future)

Figure 4.2.2ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge


Figure 4.2.3ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge & Tertiary Filtration


BioReactors

Balla

sted-F

locCl

arifie

r Buil

ding

SecondaryClarifiers

4-26 February 2012

6.3 ALT 3 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR):

The Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process is a packaged treatment process that can achieve treatment and high quality effluent in a smaller footprint than conventional activated sludge. The MBR utilizes a micro-filtration membrane with openings less than 0.10 micron (µm) 1 to separate water from mixed liquor. Membranes produce high quality effluent with very low TSS concentrations and turbidity generally less than 0.5 NTU. The disadvantage of the MBR is the operating cost for agitation air to avoid membrane fouling and the replacement cost of the membranes, which is typically required very 5 to 10 years. The MBR process coupled with chemical addition in the aerated zones will yield very low TP concentrations.

The process flow diagram for ALT 3 Membrane Bioreactor is shown on Figure 4.3.1 and the principal design criteria and process components are listed in Table 4.5.

6.3.1 Bio Reactor

The aeration basin mixed liquor can be operated at much higher concentrations, because solids separation by the membrane is not restricted by the rate of gravity settling. Higher mixed liquor concentrations provide higher rate of biological treatment and require smaller basins. One SBR basin converted into an aeration basin is sufficient for the projected design flows and loads. For process redundancy, the second basin should also be modified, which provides additional aeration capacity for the future flows.

6.3.2 Membrane Filtration

The design filtration rate or “flux” through the MBR is approximately 12 gallons per square foot per day (gfd) for the average day max month flow, with design mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 mg/L. Maximum daily flux rates are generally restricted to 15 gfd, to protect against fouling the membranes.

The membranes in this alternative would be provided in new, enclosed tanks located in a new building. Membrane configurations vary based on specific manufacturers. A hollow-core fiber membrane that is bundled into modules is assumed for this alternative. The membrane bundles are typically hung vertically onto preassembled frames that can be installed into tanks. The membranes are submerged in the mixed liquor tank and a permeate pump and piping creates the transmembrane pressure that draws permeate into the hollow core fibers into permeate headers while the solids remain inside the tank. Mixed liquor is recirculated from the membrane tanks to the aeration basins, similar to conventional activated sludge. A higher recirculation ratio of approximately 400 to 500 percent of the influent flow is provided to maintain uniform flux rates in the membrane tanks. Agitation air is diffused in the membrane tanks by positive displacement blowers to keep solids in suspension and avoid membrane fouling. Chemical cleaning of membranes is still required periodically.

Figure 4.3.1ALT 3 - Membrane BioReactor (MBR)




WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal SBR 1BatchTank SBR 2 Tertiary


Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

Equalization Basin1st Stage

Coarse Screen2nd Stage

Fine Screen

Membrane Module 1

Membrane Module 3

Membrane Module 4

2 Membranes (future)Membrane AgitationAir Blosers

PermeatePumps

Membrane Cleaning Tank

UV (future)

(Abandoned)

Membrane Module 2

February 2012 4-29

Table 4.5 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 3 - Membrane Bio Reactor Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

ALT 3 - MBR Value at 2028 Projections

Value at Buildout Projections

HEADWORKS SCREENING

Coarse Screen Mechanical Bar Screen 1 2

Bar Spacing Clear Openings, inch 1/4 1/4

Fine Screen 1 2

Clear Openings, millimeter 2 2

BIOREACTOR BASINS (Existing SBR)

Aeration Basin Dimensions

No. of Basins 1 2

Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 80 x 80 x 20 80 x 80 x 20

Total Volume, MG 0.96 1.92

Avg. HRT, hr. 20 17.4

Design MLSS, mg/L 8,000 8,000

Total SRT, days 20 20

ML Recirculation Ratio 5 5

MEMBRANES

No. Tanks 4 8

Dimensions, (L x W ) ft 40 x 10 40 x 10

No. Membrane Modules (total) 700 1,400

Total Membrane Surface Area (sq. ft.) 233,640 469,980

Average Day Max Month Flux, gfd 5.3 6.2

Max Week Flux, gfd 5.9 6.8

Peak Hour Flux, gfd 15.5 18.0 Notes: 1. All unit processes sized for redundancy at peak hour flow, one unit out of service. 2. One MBR basin required for treatment. Second basin is modified to provide redundancy. 3. Flux rates based on Winter design temperature, 9ºC.

4-30 February 2012

The cleaning of membranes for an MBR process entails an in-place maintenance cleaning is approximately once per week with a low dosage of sodium hypochlorite for approximately one hour. A more extensive chemical cleaning must be performed approximately every three months, whereby a bank of membranes is isolated and given an 8-hour in-place cleaning, also with sodium hypochlorite.

Every six months, each module must be removed and aggressively cleaned for approximately 8 hours in a separate tank with a more concentrated acidic and/or caustic solution to prevent the membranes from scaling and plugging. The transmembrane pressure (TMP) is the parameter used to determine the need and frequency for the chemical cleaning, referred to as “recovery cleaning.” If chemical cleaning does not effectively reduce the TMP, the membranes are deeply fouled and must be replaced, which is generally anticipated approximately every ten years. With the chemical cleaning requirements, sufficient membrane modules must be provided, to accommodate the peak day flows, with one bank of membranes out of service.

6.3.3 Fine Screening Modifications

The existing 1/4-inch mechanical screening in the Headworks Building is inadequate to remove inert solids from the wastewater, sufficient for the MBR process. The Headworks building must be modified to include a two-stage fine screening, with maximum openings of 2 millimeters (mm). Without fine screening, fibers or hair may wrap around the membrane fibers, adding external stress that shortens the effective life of the membrane. The existing bypass channel will be utilized adding a coarse screen with 1/4-inch clear spacing and a fine screen with 2 mm perforations in series. The existing screen will remain for standby service as redundancy.

6.3.4 UV Disinfection

Effluent will continue to be disinfected with UV light in the existing channel in the Process Building. Typically, membrane treatment produces effluent with very low suspended solids and low turbidity, which is easily disinfected.

The general site schematic for the needed improvements is in Figure 4.3.2 and Figure 4.3.3 shows the site improvements in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP.

(REDUNDANT)

Figure 4.3.2ALT 3 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)


Figure 4.3.3ALT 3 - Membrane BioReactor


Membr

ane B

uildin

g

BioReactors

4-34 February 2012

6.4 ALT 4 - SBR with Tertiary Membrane Filtration:

This alternative continues to use the existing SBR process, similar to ALT 1. The major difference is that membranes are used for tertiary microfiltration, after the solids have settled by gravity in the SBR. The tertiary membranes will be constructed in separate tanks and enclosed in a building, and can be expected to produce very high quality effluent.

The process flow diagram for ALT 4 SBR with Tertiary Membrane Filtration is shown on Figure 4.4.1. The general design criteria and process components are listed in Table 4.6.

6.4.1 Tertiary Membrane Filtration

In the previous MBR alternative, the number of membranes was based on the solids loading rate and flux for the mixed liquor in the aeration basins. In this alternative, settled effluent from the SBR has approximately 20 mg/L TSS. The solids loading rate on the membranes is significantly reduced, which allows for higher flux rates. The number of membranes can be reduced in half in this tertiary application, compared to the MBR. This alternative must include micro-strainers, with 0.5 micron openings installed ahead of membranes to protect them from being damaged by large solids, hair and fibers that pass through secondary treatment.

Effluent quality from membrane filtration is lower in TSS and turbidity than effluent from conventional filters. The membrane pore size retains small effluent suspended solids and colloidal particles. Solids-contact clarifiers are not required to condition the TSS ahead of filtration, as in conventional treatment. The membrane operating requirements and cleaning procedures are similar to those previous discussed in ALT 3 for the MBR. The membranes will result in effluent with very low TSS concentrations that will comply with the TMDL. If very-low TP concentrations are required, chemical addition can be added in the SBR or in added solids contact clarifiers ahead of the membranes.

The general site schematic is in Figure 4.4.2. Figure 4.4.3 shows the site improvements in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP. The tertiary membranes and the ancillary support facilities are installed in a building in this alternative, to protect operations and facilitate maintenance in cold seasons.

Figure 4.4.1ALT 4 - SBR with Membrane Filtration





Fine Screen

WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin


Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River



SBR3SBR4

(Future) UV (future)

Membrane (future)

TertiaryMembrane

1 OPTIONAL

1 Solids contact clarifiers are optional to improve chemical treatment efficiency for advanced phosphorus removal.NOTE:

Figure 4.4.2ALT 4 - SBR Expansion & Membrane Filtration


Figure 4.4.3ALT 4 - SBR & Membrane Filtration


SBR

3

SBR

4(fu

ture)

Equa

lizati

on 2

Solid

s Con

tact

Clari

fier B

uildin

g

(Opti

on)

Membr

ane

Filtra

tion

Build

ing

4-40 February 2012

Table 4.6 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 4 - SBR & Tertiary Membrane Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

ALT 4 - SBR Expansion & Membrane Filtration

2028 Projected Value Buildout Value

SBR BATCH TANK 1 1 Dimensions (L x W x D), ft 81 x 27.6 x 9.2 81 x 27.6 x 9.2 Total Volume, MG 0.15 0.15 Hydraulic Retention Time, (HRT) hr. 3.16 1.36 SBR BASINS No. of Basins 3 4 Dimensions (L x W x D), ft 81 x 81 x 21 81 x 81 x 21 Total Volume, MG 3.1 4.2 HRT, hr. 36.8 36.8 Total Solids Retention Time, (SRT) days 18 18 Design MLSS, mg/L 3,200 3,200 EQUALIZATION BASIN (No. of Basins) 2 2 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - existing 81 x 23 x 12.75 81 x 23 x 12.75 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - expansion 81 x 48 x 12.75 81 x 48 x 12.75 Total Volume, MG 0.55 0.55 No. Equalization Pumps 3 3 Capacity (gpm) Average 1,280 1,840 Capacity (gpm) Maximum 1,500 1,750 Horsepower (HP) each 15 15 MEMBRANES No. Tanks 2 3 Tank Length, ft 40 40 Tank Width, ft 10 10 No. Membrane Modules, total 350 700 Average Day Max Month Flux, gfd 12 14 Max Week Flux, gfd 13 15 Note: 1. All unit processes sized for redundancy at peak hour flow, one unit out of service.

February 2012 4-41

6.5 ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration:

Alternative 5 entails expansion of the existing SBR process and effluent equalization to increase capacity and provide redundancy, similar to ALT 1. As previously noted, the existing cloth disc filters may not consistently produce final effluent with very low TSS concentrations below 2 mg/L. This alternative utilizes different filtration technology, with two-stage continuous backwashing upflow sand filters in-series, the Parkson Corporation Dynasand D2 filtration process. The first stage filter is a deep bed with an 80-inch sand depth using larger grain sand. The second stage filter has the conventional 40-inch deep bed, using smaller grain sand to serve as a polishing filter. The process has proven municipal applications producing effluent with very low TSS and turbidity less than 1 NTU.

The process flow diagram for ALT 5 Conventional Activated Sludge and Two-Stage Effluent Filtration is shown on Figure 4.5.1. The design criteria and process components are listed in Table 4.7.

6.5.1 Chemical Addition

An in-line mixer is used ahead of filtration for chemical feed. Chemical addition includes chlorine as an oxidizer and alum as a coagulant, and polymers as an option to assist with TSS removal through the filters.

6.5.2 Two-Stage Filtration

In this type of sand filter, flow is introduced and distributed through the bottom and flows up through the bed of sand. The up-flow velocity and injection of air fluidizes the media, which improves the hydraulic loading rates. The captured solids pass up into a sand washer and overflow the top at a reject weir. The filtered effluent discharges from the top of the first-stage filter, and flows by gravity to the second-stage filter.

The 80-inch deep bed in the first stage filter allows a high solids loading rate, referred to as continuous contact filtration (CCF). Coagulation, flocculation, and separation takes place in the filter bed. The filters are reported to operate with efficient chemical addition that can be lower than solids-contact clarifiers, because the deep sand bed effectively removes smaller floc sizes. The second stage provides finer grain sand, which acts as effluent polishing to remove small size particles remaining after the first stage.

Filter backwash and the reject solids from both stages are directed through a (Lamella) gravity plate separator. The backwash is treated with polymer to improve solids separation and recover the backwash water. The clarified backwash overflow from the Lamella separator is returned to the headworks. The solids captured and removed from the bottom of the Lamella separator are pumped to the digesters and handled with the biosolids.

4-42 February 2012

With the equalization basins, the projected design flows require twelve filter modules in the first stage, and another twelve modules for the second stage. Two modules may be out for service for maintenance or to replace the sand. Filter loading rates are maintained at less than 3 gpm/ft2.

The general site schematic for the needed improvements is in Figure 4.5.2 and Figure 4.5.3 shows the site improvements in relation to the existing Woodside WWTP. The chemical feed and filtration facilities in this alternative will be enclosed in a building similar to the existing Process Building.

Table 4.7 Preliminary Design Criteria ALT 5 - SBR & Two-Stage Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

ALT 5- SBR & Reactive Filtration 2028 Projections Ultimate Buildout

Projections SBR BATCH TANK No. of Basins 1 1 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft 81 x 27.67 x 9.2 81 x 27.67 x 9.2 Total Volume, MG 0.15 0.15 Hydraulic Retention Time, (HRT) hr. 3.16 1.36 SBR BASINS No. of Basins 3 4 Dimensions (L x W x D), ft 81 x 81 x 21 81 x 81 x 21 Total Volume, MG 3.1 4.2 HRT, hr. 36.8 36.8 Total Solids Retention Time, (SRT) days 18 18 Design MLSS, mg/L 3,200 3,200 EQUALIZATION BASIN (No. of Basins) 2 2 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - existing 81 x 23 x 12.75 81 x 23 x 12.75 Dimensions, (L x W x D) ft - expansion 81 x 48 x 12.75 81 x 48 x 12.75 Total Volume, MG 0.55 0.55 No. Equalization Pumps 3 3 Capacity (gpm) Average 1,280 1,840 Capacity (gpm) Maximum 1,500 1,750 Horsepower (HP) each 15 15 TWO_STAGE TERTIARY FILTRATION (2) Filters Modules per Stage 5 9 Total Number of Filter Modules 10 18 Module Filter Area (ft2) (per module) 50 50 Filter Area (ft2) (per stage) 250 450 Avg Loading Rate, gpm/ ft2 (per stage) 1.6 2.0 Max Week Loading Rate, gpm/ ft2 (per stage) (two modules out of service)

2.4

2.8

Notes: 1. All unit processes sized for redundancy at peak hour flow, one unit out of service. 2. Based on D2 DynaSand Process by Parkson.

Figure 4.5.1ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration





WasteDisposal

Grit Classifier

Grit Removal

Equalization Basin


Disinfection

Outfall Sewer

Big Wood River

Backwash Return to Headworks

(Future)


SBR3SBR4

(Future)

PolymerIn-LineMixer

Rapid Mix

Lamella GravityPlate Separator

Solids to Digester

UV (future)

Backwash Recovery

Two-StageSand Filters

Chem

ical F

eed

Figure 4.5.2ALT 5 - SBR Expansion & Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration


Figure 4.5.3ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration


Two-S

tage

Filter

Buil

ding

SBR

3

SBR

4(fu

ture)

Equa

lizati

on 2

4-48 February 2012

6.6 ALT 5A - BlueWater Technologies LoPROTM System:

An optional filtration process, similar to the previous ALT 5, considers an emerging technology for tertiary treatment, the Blue PRO system from BlueWater Technologies. The Blue PRO system incorporates reactive filtration in the continuously backwashing upflow sand filter, with two-stage filters in series known as the LoPROTM System. Ferric chloride is added ahead of the filter, which forms hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) coating on the sand media. The HFO adsorbs phosphorus onto the media in addition to physical filtration of suspended solids, creating a “reactive filter.” The continuous backwashing in the sand filters abrades the media to regenerate the reactive surface area. Separate chemical coagulation and flocculation tanks are not needed in this process. For the projected design flow, 14 filters are provided in each stage, for a total of 28 filters.

The two-stage filters in this process each use 60-inch deep bed sand. The ferric chloride dose is higher than the stoichiometric phosphorus requirement, in order to form the HFO coating on the media. Operation and backwash of the upflow filters is identical to the previous filters described in ALT 5. The backwash flows from the filters are returned to the aeration basins, where the suspended HFO particles are believed to flocculate in the biomass. The recycled backwash was reported to produce additional benefits with enhancing phosphorus removal.

There are only a limited number of full-scale municipal applications of the technology, performance results are only available from pilot testing facilities, and the long-term process efficiency remains somewhat unproven. However, the filtration alternative merits further investigation and consideration as a viable option.

The process flow diagram, design criteria, and the general site plan for ALT 5A are similar to ALT 5 for the purpose of comparing alternatives.

6.6.1 No Action Alternative

The Woodside WWTP is currently in compliance with the NPDES permit discharge limits. However, growth in the service area is expected to continue and the 20-year flows are expected to will exceed the existing WWTP capacity possibly causing NPDES permit violations. Process redundancy is needed in the SBR, with a third-basin for the current flow rates.

The TMDL of the Big Wood River will require additional treatment to remove TP and TSS. The existing WWTP will eventually exceed the effluent quality requirements in the TMDL.

The No Action Alternative is not considered a viable option for the 20-year planning period for either capacity or effluent quality.

February 2012 4-49

7.0 ALTERNATIVE REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING

This section reviews the alternatives and identifies the most feasible options for further analysis. The initial review investigates if technologies will satisfy the water quality standards. Options must be compatible with the existing WWTP in order to expand the facilities for the projected capacity requirements.

Alternatives that are obviously not cost competitive with capital costs and/or operation and maintenance requirements are eliminated in the preliminary screening.

7.1 ALT 1 - Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration:

7.1.1 Discussion

The SBR alternative optimizes the use of the existing treatment facilities. Addition of the third basin adds capacity and provides the needed redundancy to allow a basin to be taken out of service for maintenance. The fourth SBR basin is also needed for redundancy when flows reach 1.4 mgd. Phosphorus removal is achieved by a combination of biological and chemical treatment.

The main limitation with ALT 1 will be the ability to consistently meet the low TSS discharge limit with the existing cloth disc filters. The cloth disc media is generally able to produce effluent with turbidity in the range of 2 NTU, which is approximately equivalent to 2 mg/L TSS. There is limited operating experience proving that cloth disc filters can consistently achieve effluent turbidity less than 2 NTU, or TSS concentrations below 2 mg/L.

The tertiary treatment components will be operated at a uniform hydraulic loading rate, after the expansion of the SBR equalization basins. Chemical treatment and high rate solids-contact clarifiers ahead of filtration will improve capture of TSS, as well as enhance TP removal. With equalized hydraulic loading and the ballasted-flocculating clarifiers, the existing cloth disc filters are predicted to produce final effluent with TSS concentrations of approximately 2 mg/L. While this is generally considered good effluent quality, the performance may not comply with the load allocation of 3.3 tons per year at the 20-year design flow. The cloth-disc filters have a relatively shallow and porous pile cloth with 10-micron openings, which is relatively large in terms of the TSS.

Carollo conducted a particle distribution analysis on the City of Hailey secondary effluent and the filtered effluent. The effluent solids distribution diagram is included in Appendix A. The SBR process produces a well-distributed range of particle sizes, which generally can be chemically flocculated to enhance filtration. Approximately half of the particles are less than 10-microns, which is the nominal opening in the cloth disc filters. Therefore, smaller range particles will likely pass through the cloth media.

4-50 February 2012

Considering that the Woodside WWTP and the cloth disc filers are less than 10-years old, this alternative will be retained and the costs will be reviewed in further detail.

7.1.2 ALT 1 - General Advantages

Utilizes existing SBR and matches current operations.

Utilizes existing cloth disc filters.

7.1.3 ALT 1 - General Disadvantages

Existing cloth disc filters may not consistently reach very low TSS concentrations defined by the TMDL mass-loading limit.

7.2 ALT 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge:

This alternative requires capital improvements to convert the existing SBR basins into continuous flow-through aeration basins. The modifications include addition of baffles with rearrangement or replacement of mixing or aeration equipment. Capital costs include new separate secondary clarifiers. Aluminum dome covers should be provided over the secondary clarifiers to prevent freezing, which adds capital costs with the large footprint of the secondary clarifiers.

Conversion to a conventional flow-through process also requires careful construction sequencing, initially completing the secondary clarifiers and placing them into operation. One of the existing SBR basins would be modified to aeration the basin, while flows are treated in the remaining SBR basin. The second aeration basin modification commences when the first basin and the clarifiers are all operating.

This alternative requires the largest number of basins for the 20-year planning period, and for future expansion. Construction and the associated capital costs are clearly much higher than the requirements for ALT 1. Process modifications and sequencing during construction are expected to be very difficult. Therefore, this alternative is screened and eliminated from further consideration.

7.3 ALT 3 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR):

The main challenge in this alternative is the construction sequence to modify the existing SBR process into the continuous flow through MBR process. The existing SBR must be taken out of service to add baffles for anoxic and oxic zones in the aeration basins, which is not immediately possible due to NPDES permit compliance requirements. The MBR alternative must also modify the headworks to add fine screening equipment to remove hair and stringy solids that can damage the membrane fibers.

February 2012 4-51

The membranes would be provided in separate tanks, enclosed in a new building. The building includes agitation air blowers, mixed liquor recirculation pumps, and the membrane permeate pumps. Chemical feed equipment and the cleaning tank, with hoist equipment to remove and transfer membrane cassettes are part of the support facilities required.

The existing equalization basin will be utilized to retain peak hour flows and regulate peak hour flux to the membranes. To accommodate the peak hour flows and high solids loading, preliminary sizing estimates that four membrane tanks and a cleaning tank are required. This translates to a membrane building of approximately 5,000 ft2.

Modifications within the headworks building are required for the MBR process in order to add second-stage fine screening. Life cycle costs with this alternative must include complete replacement cost for the membranes, which is approximately every 10 years.

The energy requirements for the MBR process are higher than the SBR and conventional activated sludge. Larger blowers are needed to deliver higher oxygen in the aeration basins with the high concentrations of MLSS. In addition, the membranes require separate agitation air blowers scour the membrane surfaces to prevent fouling. Large mixed liquor recirculation pumps and permeate pumps also require significant electrical power.

The principal benefits of the MBR process is that it produces higher quality effluent compared to conventional treatment and filtration. The MBR also occupies the smallest footprint on the existing WWTP site. Future expansion for the build-out flows of 2.65 mgd can be accommodated within existing tanks with very little expansion.

Since membrane treatment is a promising technology, it will be evaluated in detail and compared to the other candidate alternatives.


The 3rd Redundant SBR Basin not required

Excellent effluent quality

Small foot-print


Complex SBR conversion into aeration basins

Membranes have high life-cycle replacement costs.

High energy requirements for aeration and membrane agitation air

4-52 February 2012

7.4 ALT 4 - SBR with Membrane Tertiary Treatment:

This alternative expands the existing SBR, similar to ALT 1, but uses membranes for tertiary filtration after the effluent is settled and decanted from the SBR. Approximately half the numbers of membranes are needed compared to the MBR alternative, which translates to lower operation, maintenance and replacement costs, and requires a smaller enclosure building. In-line strainers (50 micron) can be used ahead of the membranes to remove stringy solids, which are easier to install and operate compared to fine screening at the headworks as required for the MBR.

It is also possible to install the membranes as second stage filtration following the existing cloth-disc filters to reduce effluent TP and TSS concentrations. With high quality effluent from the existing cloth-disc filters, it may be possible to operate second stage membranes at higher flux rates which further reduce the number of membrane modules to be installed. The condition for ALT 4 does not consider the cloth-disc filters for comparison with the other alternatives. If this alternative appears to be feasible, the costs and benefits of including the cloth-disc filters into the flow schematic can be investigated in greater detail.

This alternative will produce effluent quality that is superior to conventional treatment with low TSS concentrations and very low effluent TP concentrations. Effluent from tertiary membranes will meet or exceed the water quality standards in the Big Wood River. Membrane filtration has been proven in many full-scale municipal utilities. This alternative will therefore be retained for analysis and comparison with the other feasible options.

Chemical addition is required to reduce effluent TP, which can be added directly to the SBR basins. A lower and more efficient chemical dose could be realized if solids-contact clarifiers are constructed ahead of the membranes. The comparison of chemical O&M costs to the capital costs for separate solids-contact clarifiers is not included in this TM. The main alternatives are compared using the lower capital cost option. If this ALT 4 is the preferred option, improving chemical efficiency can be investigated further.


Utilizes existing SBR and matches current operating procedures.

Membranes produce high quality effluent with turbidity of 0.5 NTU.

Membranes can also be installed after the cloth-disc filters.


Capital costs for membranes are typically higher than conventional treatment costs.

February 2012 4-53

7.5 ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration:

Alternative 5 expands and utilizes the existing SBR process. Upflow sand filters have been proven extensively in wastewater treatment and effluent reuse applications producing effluent turbidity below 2 NTU. Two-stage sand filters greatly improve TSS removal, and are capable of reaching effluent turbidity less than 0.5 NTU. Chemical treatment ahead of the filters reduces TP concentrations. Due to the apparent simplicity and application of conventional technology, this alternative will be retained for further evaluation and comparison of the costs.


Utilizes existing SBR and matches current operating procedures.

Utilizes conventional filtration technology to produce high quality effluent.


Does not utilize and abandons the existing cloth-disc filters.

Bidding documents must address methods to compare patented technologies.

ALT 5A - BlueWater Technologies LoPROTM Reactive Filtration, as previously discussed is an equivalent option, but the limited full-scale municipal experience must be evaluated more thoroughly. The long-term impacts or efficiency from recycling filter backwash to the biological process are not proven under long-term full-scale operations. The reactive filtration alternative can be evaluated in further detail if two-stage filtration (ALT 5) is the preferred option.

8.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON

Preliminary screening of the candidate alternatives identified the least-cost most feasible options:

ALT 1 - SBR with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Tertiary Filtration

ALT 3 - SBR Conversion to MBR

ALT 4 - SBR with Tertiary Membrane Filtration

ALT 5 - SBR with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration

This section develops the probable capital costs for each alternative for the capacity improvements for the 20-year design flow and to comply with the water quality standards in the TMDL.

4-54 February 2012

Expansion of the existing SBR treatment process is common to three of the alternatives compared in this section. The costs for the SBR are presented with each option to identify the total capital improvement requirements.

8.1 Capital Costs

Alternatives are compared using the total construction costs, which include all material, equipment, and labor to construct the complete facilities. All project trades are included such as civil and site work, pavement, yard piping, mechanical work, equipment, electrical and instrumentation costs. Probable costs include a planning level contingency of 25 percent, appropriate for conceptual estimates, which accounts for unknowns and unforeseen conditions. Construction costs include an allowance for the general contractor mobilization, bonding, permits, and general conditions; along with overhead and profit.

Total project costs include a factor for allied costs associated with engineering design, construction, inspection, legal and administration fees.

8.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include electrical power, equipment replacement, and costs to purchase and add chemicals for treatment.

Power costs assume an average rate of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWhr). The annual power requirement was determined from the City’s operating records and utility billing history through 2007, which recorded approximately 1,750,000 kWh/yr for plant operations and the existing SBR, with solids handling in the aerobic digesters. The power costs for the SBR expansion for the projected design flows are estimated as 2,000,000 kWh/yr. The annual power requirements for tertiary filtration are listed for each alternative.

The major chemical cost is for alum as the coagulant in tertiary treatment and filtration, as a settling aid to supplement suspended solids removal, and to precipitate reactive soluble phosphorous. The alum dose of 80 mg/L was assumed. Costs for bulk alum used $0.21/lb. Polymer is also added to supplement suspended solids removal, estimated as 5-mg/L dose, with a cost of $1.60/lb.

Maintenance costs are presented for equipment and structural components. Annual maintenance costs are based on a percentage of the estimated construction cost for service over the expected life of the units.

Labor costs are considered to be essentially equal to the existing facilities based on the projected flows, and are similar for all the alternatives, so they are not included with the comparison of alternatives. It is assumed that the existing City staff are sufficient for any of the alternatives.

February 2012 4-55

8.2.1 ALT 1 - SBR Expansion with Solids Contact Clarifiers and Cloth Disc Filters:

The probable construction costs and annual O&M costs for expansion of the SBR with ballasted-flocculating solids contact clarifiers and expansion of the existing cloth disc filters are listed in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 ALT 1 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Solids Contact Clarifiers & Tertiary Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey


3rd SBR Basin & Equalization Tank $5,572,400 4th SBR Basin (future) $1,696,500 Ballasted-Flocculating Clarifiers $4,781,300 Tertiary Cloth Disc Filter Expansion $654,000



Power - SBR, Biosolids, & WWTP $200,000 Power - Tertiary Clarifiers & Filtration $20,000 Maintenance $149,500 Chemicals - Tertiary Clarifiers & Filtration $121,800



8.2.2 ALT 3 - Membrane BioReactor (MBR)

Construction costs and annual O&M costs for ALT 3 MBR are listed in Table 4.9.

Electrical power required for the MBR alternative includes aeration air, membrane agitation air, membrane recycle pumps, and permeate pumps. Annual electrical demand is estimated as 4,000,000 kWh/yr total.

Life cycle maintenance includes costs to replace membranes estimated as every eight years. The manufacturer warranty on membrane life is typically five years.

Chemical costs are included for regular membrane cleaning.

4-56 February 2012

Table 4.9 ALT 3 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs Modification to Membrane BioReactor Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey


SBR Basin Modifications to BioReactor $1,032,300 4th SBR Basin (future) N/A Tertiary Membranes & Building $11,790,800



Power - BioReactor & Biosolids $200,000 Power - Membranes $200,000 Maintenance $33,800 Membrane Replacement $137,000 Chemicals - P removal & membrane cleaning $40,700



8.2.3 ALT 4 - SBR Expansion with Tertiary Membrane Filtration:

Construction costs and annual O&M costs for ALT 4, SBR Expansion with Tertiary Membrane Filtration alternative are listed in Table 4.10.

Electrical power required for the membrane filtration in this alternative includes aeration for agitation air and permeate pumps, which are estimated as 1,111,000 kWh/year above the electrical requirements for the SBR process.

Maintenance and replacement costs for the membrane tanks and building are based on a percentage of the construction and equipment costs. In addition, membranes must be replacement approximately every eight years in this alternative, which is included in the operating requirements.

Chemical costs for the membranes include sodium hypochlorite, and sodium bisulfite for dechlorination used in the routine maintenance cleaning, and caustic soda and citric acid for the semi-annual recovery cleaning. Coagulant and polymer costs are reduced with this alternative compared to conventional filtration, assuming the fine pore size in the membranes separate the TSS without additional coagulation.

February 2012 4-57

Table 4.10 ALT 4 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion & Tertiary Membrane Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey


3rd SBR Basin & Equalization Tank $5,572,400 4th SBR Basin (future) $1,696,500 Tertiary Membranes $8,107,000



Power - SBR, Biosolids, & WWTP $200,000 Power - Tertiary Membrane Filtration $111,100 Maintenance $76,300 Membrane Replacement $80,000 Chemicals - filtration & membrane cleaning $33,600



8.2.4 ALT 5 - SBR Expansion with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration:

Construction costs and annual O&M costs for ALT 5, SBR Expansion with Two-Stage Tertiary Filtration are listed in Table 4.11.

8.2.5 Total Life Cycle Cost Summary

The total costs of the four feasible alternatives are compared in Table 4.12. Construction costs are as estimated in 2008 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index: 8126, April 2008, 20-City Average). The total project costs are presented for each alternative, which include costs associated with engineering design, bidding, construction inspection, and contract administration with other legal and City administration costs. The total project costs are estimated as 25-percent of the construction cost.

Future expansion to add the fourth SBR basin is also estimated in 2008 dollars, and is included in the equivalent uniform annual cost to simplify comparison of alternatives. The costs and requirement for expansion of the SBR process are the same in all alternatives, and therefore do not influence the evaluation of the lowest life-cycle cost.

The overall capital improvements implementation plan and schedule, the funding options, and the potential user rates for the recommended alternative are presented in the Financial Plan in TM 5.

4-58 February 2012

Table 4.11 ALT 5 - Probable Construction and O&M Costs SBR Expansion with Two-Stage & Tertiary Filtration Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey


3rd SBR Basin & Equalization Tank $5,572,400 4th SBR Basin (future) $1,696,500 Two-Stage Tertiary Sand Filters $6,099,900



Power - SBR, Biosolids, & WWTP $200,000 Power - Two-Stage Filtration $18,800 Maintenance $142,100 Chemicals - Tertiary Filtration $121,600



February 2012 4-59

Table 4.12 Alternative Life Cycle Costs Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Item

ALT 1 SBR Expansion

Contacting Clarifiers Tertiary Filtration

ALT 3 MBR

Membrane Bio-Reactor

ALT 4 SBR Expansion

Membrane Tertiary Filtration

ALT 5 SBR Expansion

Two-stage Tertiary Filtration

Construction Cost $12,704,200 $12,823,100 $15,375,900 $13,368,800

Total Project Cost1 $15,880,200 $16,028,900 $19,219,900 $16,711,000

Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost2

$1,250,700 $1,272,500 $1,525,900 $1,326,700

Annual O&M $491,300 $611,500 $501,000 $482,500

Total Uniform Annual Cost3

$1,742,000 $1,884,000 $2,026,900 $1,809,200

Notes: 1. 25% Project cost factor for engineering, construction administration, and legal. 2. Amortized Capital Costs 20 years, 4.875% interest. 3. Uniform equivalent annual cost for 20-year planning period, including capital, operation and maintenance.

4-60 February 2012

9.0 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON AND RANKING

The alternatives are reviewed and compared in this section. Comparison criteria consider the life-cycle costs, the treatment efficiency and performance, and other construction or operation related criteria that influence the selection.

9.1 Criteria Scoring

A relative comparison of presented in Table 4.13. Evaluation criteria are listed for each option, which are ranked relative to the three alternatives, with the following system:

+ Offers relative advantage when compared to other options

o Offers no advantage or disadvantage when compared to other options

- Offers relative disadvantage when compared to other options

ALT 3 (MBR) and ALT 5 (SBR expansion with two-stage tertiary filtration) appear to have the highest number of relative advantages over the other alternatives. The evaluation categories and the basis for the scoring are discussed below.

9.1.1 Cost Criteria

The construction and O&M costs for ALT 4, membrane tertiary filtration indicate that this alternative will result in the highest relative construction cost as well as the highest annual O&M costs, which is presented in Tables 4.8 through 4.11.

A comparison of ALT 1 and ALT 5 indicates that they have similar construction costs and annual O&M costs. The costs for constructing the two-stage filters in ALT 5 were based on using concrete tanks for the filters, which were slightly higher than the costs for the ballasted-flocculating clarifiers in ALT 1, which are supplied in above-ground steel tanks. Each option has similar size and space requirements with nearly equal buildings to enclose the tertiary treatment. Options for materials of construction and other potential cost savings with each alternative can be investigated during the preliminary design phase.

ALT 3 conversion of the SBR into an MBR does not require the third redundant SBR basin, which reduces construction costs. However, the SBR basin needs to be modified into a continuous plug-flow aeration basin, which adds costs and requires a complex sequence of construction.

February 2012 4-61

Table 4.13 Treatment Alternatives - Comparison Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Evaluation Criteria

WWTP Alternatives

ALT 1

SBR Expansion Solids Contact

Clarifiers & Filtration

ALT 3

Membrane Bio-Reactor MBR

ALT 4

SBR Expansion & Membrane

Filtration

ALT 5

SBR Expansion & Two-Stage

Filtration

Cost Criteria Construction Cost O&M Costs

o o

o -

- -

o o

Treatment / Effluent Quality TSS Removal TP Removal

- o

+ o

+ o

+ o

Operating Requirements Operation & Maintenance Chemical Addition

o o

- o

- o

o o

Construction Sequence Space Requirements

o o

- +

o o

o o

Total Combined Scores

– 1 3 3 0

o 7 3 4 7

+ 0 2 1 1

4-62 February 2012

The MBR ALT 3 conversion of the SBR requires additional evaluation of the modifications for the aeration basins. The current complete-mix reactor operated in anerobic/anoxic/oxic treatment cycles may not work efficiently enough in the MBR configuration. A biological treatment process model can be used to more carefully evaluate the treatment performance and detailed modification options for the SBR. The existing jet aeration header configuration and blower operation should also be evaluated in detail. Costs for the basin modification are believed to be a conservative approach and could possibly be reduced.

ALT 1 has the lowest total life cycle cost, but the difference is relatively minor between ALT 5 and ALT 3. The total costs are therefore considered essentially equal on a life cycle cost-basis.

9.1.2 Treatment Performance & Effluent Quality

ALT 1 was developed as the option to continue using the existing cloth disc filters at the Woodside WWTP. The typical effluent from the cloth disc filters can be expected with turbidity of 2 NTU. In comparison, the effluent quality expected from ALT 3, ALT 4 and ALT 5 will have turbidity of 0.5 NTU.

ALT 1 was given the lowest relative ranking in terms of effluent quality and treatment performance. ALT 1 is technically not feasible for very low TSS requirements. If treatment through the ballasted flocculating clarifiers is not optimized, the solids remaining may pass through the cloth disc filters. With ALT 1, there is a possibility that the effluent might violate the permit limits, which would require follow-up construction and costs to add filters in series, or membranes.

Bulk chemical handling, and various combinations of chemical feed are needed in all alternatives. There was no distinct difference in the alternatives in terms of phosphorus removal. All alternatives required chemical addition and were considered to provide equal TP removal efficiency.

9.1.3 Operation and Maintenance

The membrane processes in ALT 3 and ALT 4, require operator attention and maintenance for chemical cleaning and membrane replacement, and therefore received lower relative rankings. The membrane agitation air blowers and permeate pumps have the largest motor horsepower requirements, with the most associated mechanical maintenance. Monitoring membrane operations and conducting the various stages of chemical cleaning are also greater than the operating requirements of the other conventional filters in ALT 5. Finally, the replacement of the membranes has higher operating costs compared to maintenance of conventional sand filters in ALT 5.

All alternatives include bulk chemical storage, and various chemical feed requirements in each case. ALT 3 and 4 require routine chemical cleaning of the membranes. ALT 5

February 2012 4-63

requires chemical addition for TP and TSS removal. There was no practical difference between alternatives when considering chemical treatment requirements.

9.1.4 Construction Sequencing and Space Requirements

It was shown on the Woodside WWTP site plan that all four alternatives fit easily onto the existing City property.

The SBR expansion is common to three alternatives, and can be constructed separately without impacting operation of the existing SBR basins.

The tertiary treatment components were all configured in separate, stand-alone buildings that can also be constructed without impacting the ongoing WWTP operations. Tie-in of the tertiary treatment components would be scheduled and completed within allowable low-flow time periods.

In ALT 3, conversion of one SBR basin into the MBR provides sufficient capacity for normal operation. However, the second basin should be modified to provide redundancy, allowing either basin to be removed from service for maintenance.

The construction sequence to remove one of the SBR basins for modifications will impact the treatment capacity and will likely not meet the current NPDES permit limits. The construction sequence for ALT 3 MBR conversion requires additional planning. Temporary treatment measures might be required during the construction phase, which will add to the costs of implementing this alternative. ALT 3 received the lowest relative ranking for the construction sequence.

10.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

The alternative with the most of relative benefits is ALT 5, SBR expansion with two-stage tertiary filtration. ALT 5 is recommended based on the following benefits:

High level of redundancy and efficiency with multiple filter cells, and two stages of filtration.

Chemical treatment and filtration in a combined step in the first stage filter. Separate solids contact clarifiers are not required ahead of filtration.

Conventional filtration technology and equipment has been in operation for many years in municipal wastewater facilities.

Two-stage filters in series produce very-low TSS concentrations, and very-low TP concentrations.

Meets the requirements for Class A effluent reuse, with a high degree of reliability and redundancy.

4-64 February 2012

Construction in phases allows the capital costs to be extended over a longer period to match water quality requirements of the TMDL.

Fits within the existing Woodside WWTP hydraulic profile. The building can be constructed on the existing site, with adequate space remaining for potential future expansion required for ultimate build-out in the service area.

Manufacturers drawings for ALT 5 the two-stage filtration process are included in Appendix B.

11.0 ADDITIONAL TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

This section reviews additional treatment and operational considerations with the recommended alternative, and options to consider with the implementation strategy.

11.1 Performance-Based Alternative Review and Selection

As presented in Table 4.13, the comparison of treatment alternatives indicates that all feasible options share an equal number of benefits with few apparent disadvantages. Review of the effluent quality and ranking of the expected performance was based on the available published testing data and experience from operating facilities where available.

The tertiary treatment components are all modular, self-contained processes. The implementation plan and schedule can include pilot-scale demonstration testing in order to better assess how the technologies will perform with the actual wastewater. The two-stage reactive filter technology discussed as ALT 5A, is a new developing system and a candidate that should be evaluated further with pilot testing.

Pilot testing facilities can be arranged directly with the equipment manufacturers, which are available from all candidate alternatives. The typical costs entail equipment rental, providing electrical power as well as support for installation, training and monitoring. Additional costs will also be incurred for any sampling and analyses. Pilot testing should also follow an established plan or protocol to obtain the required data and provide an objective basis for evaluation and selection of the alternatives.

The costs, logistics, and potential benefits of pilot testing should be considered by the City to determine if this is warranted. The pilot testing must be completed in time and coordinated with final design and construction in order to meet the implementation of the TMDL. However, as of this date, there are no defined implementation milestones in the TMDL, and the City is waiting for EPA to finalize the draft NPDES permit.

February 2012 4-65

11.2 ALT 1A - Ballasted Flocculation with Sand Filters

Chemical treatment coupled with ballasted flocculation and settling were considered with ALT 1 ahead of the existing cloth disc filters in order to optimize use of the existing equipment. The alternative can also be supplied with single-stage gravity sand filters, to replace the existing cloth disc filters. The sand filter provides an 18-inch deep mixed media filter bed. Including the sand filters with this option increased the total construction costs to $15,100,000. The added cost for sand filters is greater than the cost increment between ALT 1 and ALT 5.

11.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Upgrades

Expansion of the existing SBR process was the most practical and cost-effective option for secondary treatment. A third and fourth SBR basin would be added as needed with expansion of the service area capacity and to provide redundancy to take basins out of service for maintenance. The expansion assumed the use of similar process equipment and operation.

The SBR manufacturer, SIEMENS, is developing a modification for secondary treatment named the “Cannibal®” process. The process modification changes the microbiology of the aeration basins using a combination of side-stream treatment, reported too significantly reduce the amount of sludge wasted to the digesters. Potential savings in sludge handling costs are reported as the main benefit.

The Cannibal® process would add side-stream fine screening. The mixed liquor from the aeration basins is circulated through the screens to remove inert solids, which reduces the overall solids inventory. In addition, the Cannibal® process provided a patented Side-Stream Interchanger Bioreactor, which modifies the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) in the process, and is reported to effectively reduce the solids yield. Budgetary quotes for the equipment with the Cannibal® process modification were approximately $1,400,000, in addition to the conventional SBR equipment. The equipment costs do not include the added costs associated with civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical modifications to construct the process modification. The Cannibal® process also remains in the development stages. The option is brought to the City’s attention because the WWTP operating staff has had difficulties controlling the accumulation of filamentous organisms in the process. The Cannibal® process may be an option to improve the microbiology and control filaments in the SBRs.

4-66 February 2012

12.0 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OPTIONS

The treatment alternatives in this TM were based on the City of Hailey discharging to the Big Wood River under an NPDES permit and in compliance with the TMDL.

This section provides an overview of the regulatory requirements and management considerations to utilize treated effluent as a source of irrigation water as an alternative to discharging to the Big Wood River. Wastewater reclamation and reuse is a viable option to divert flow out of the Big Wood River, which reduces the mass loading of pollutants. The City currently does not offer reclaimed water as an option for irrigation. Lawns and green spaces in the City are watered from the potable water system. Over the past three years, the City installed water meters to transition from flat-rate water service to metered service, to encourage conservation and reduce summer irrigation demand on the potable water system. Effluent reuse can provide multiple benefits, reducing pollutants discharged to the River, and conserving water resources for higher priority potable use. The design consideration and conceptual costs for effluent reuse are developed in this section.

12.1 Wastewater Reuse Treatment Requirements

The State of Idaho Reuse Rules (IDAPA 58.01.17) defines the treatment requirements for beneficial use of treated effluent, which can be applied in a variety of irrigation or industrial applications. Effluent must be oxidized, settled, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected to various degrees defined by DEQ as Class A, B, C or D. When used for irrigation, the treatment requirements must match the land use, location, and public access to the application sites, and the crop type.

The treatment alternatives to comply with the TMDL in this TM include oxidation, settling, coagulation, and filtration, which therefore satisfy the requirements for Class A Reuse. Class A effluent is the highest standard, which is compatible for irrigation of residential landscaping, parks, and golf courses.

The existing cloth disc filters at the Woodside WWTP are included on the DEQ list for wastewater Class A Filtration Technology Acceptance. However, the filters require that a coagulation step must be provided, so chemical feed facilities must be added. Effective coagulation must limit the influent turbidity to less than 10 NTU, not more than 5-percent of the time (24 hour period), and not exceed 15 NTU at any time. With optimization from adding coagulating chemicals and the additional redundant cloth disc filter bank, the Woodside WWTP will be able to meet the DEQ requirements for Class A or B effluent reuse. The two-stage filters in ALT 5 may not be required but provide higher effluent quality, which might be more supported by the public. The City of Hailey the reuse program and treatment requirements will have to include public participation.

February 2012 4-67

Class A effluent requires a higher standard for disinfection, compared to the NPDES effluent requirement. The higher degree of disinfection can be provided by adding chlorine or by installing additional UV modules. Chlorine is the assumed method for reuse disinfection in this section.

Treatment facilities for effluent reuse must also include full reduancy to maintain effluent quality. Redunancy can be provided in multiple treatment units, to allow processes to be removed from service for maintenance. In addition, the redundancy criteria can be met by providing multiple disposal options. If effluent does not meet the Class A criteria for reuse, it can be diverted to an alternate discharge or storage location. The City of Hailey can utilize the NPDES permit as an alternative discharge for redundnacy. Effluent that does not satisfy the Class A requirements can be discharged, but the level of treatment must also comply with water quaity standards and the TMDL. The principal criteria for Class A effluent are listed in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14 Class A Effluent Reuse Criteria Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Parameter Units Average Maximum

Turbidity (1) NTU 2 5

Turbidity (2) NTU 0.2 0.5

Disinfection Concentration/Contact time mg-mm/L 450 minimum

Disinfection Virus Inactivation 5-log (minimum)

Disinfection Model Contact Time minutes 90 (minimum)

Disinfection Total Coliform CFU/100 mL 2.2

Notes: 1. Filtration standard applied to granular media and cloth media filters 2. Filtration standard applied to membrane processes.

12.2 Effluent Management Considerations and Regulatory Requirements

Effluent reuse requires a separate Wastewater Land Application Permit from Idaho, DEQ. With treatment to Class A or Class B standards, allowable irrigation rates are based on the seasonal irrigation needs and water balance determined for the cover crop. High quality treated effluent has low nutrients, which are typically below the crop fertilizer recommendations, but the annual nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates are monitored as a management practice.

4-68 February 2012

General management guidelines and compliance provisions for effluent irrigation include the following:

Effluent applied to the land must not exceed the uptake, evaporation, and transpiration requirements of the cover crops, and effluent should not percolate through the soil beyond the depth of the root zone.

There shall be no surface runoff.

Wastewater nutrients applied shall not exceed the recommended uptake rates for plant growth, and crops are harvested and removed to maintain the nutrient balance.

If effluent is used for groundwater recharge, percolation shall not contaminate the aquifer.

Effluent must be disinfected to protect public health.

Irrigation is typically done during hours of non-use.

To deliver reclaimed water to the customers, the City must provide additional infrastructure for effluent storage and pumping. The system must provide flexibility to match water delivery with the land use or customer needs. Irrigation with Class A effluent is typically done during the night to allow fields and lawns to dry, ahead of the time of use or contact with the public. Nighttime irrigation requires some provisions for storage. The reclaimed water distribution piping, referred to as “purple pipe,” must be installed in accordance with the Idaho Reuse Standards, with protection measures to prevent cross-contamination, and identification as non-potable water. The reuse water supply pressure in the distribution system must also be coordinated with the irrigation methods used at the sites.

Effluent reuse infrastructure requires additional capital investment and routine costs for operation and maintenance, in addition to the treatment costs in this TM. The costs for reclaimed water can either be funded as part of the water and wastewater utilities, or with user rates as a separate utility system.

12.3 Irrigation Reuse Options

To implement an effluent reuse program for seasonal irrigation, available land must be identified. The water balance for irrigation is calculated over the application area. Several scenarios are investigated to define potential benefits in terms of water conservation, and to assess the reduction in pollutant loading to the Big Wood River.

February 2012 4-69

12.3.1 Option 1: Irrigation of City Public Areas, Parks and Play Fields

The City currently has several parks, cemeteries and open areas that use potable water for irrigation. To conserve potable water, treated effluent can be applied with a pressure irrigation system. Irrigation rates must match the evapotranspiration (ET) needs to keep the grass green and healthy, without over-watering.

The City identified several possible sites that are currently City property or public areas to consider for effluent reuse. Figure 4.6 shows the candidate application sites, and the acreage is listed in Table 4.15. The sites are generally all in the southern half of the City, relatively close to the Woodside WWTP and the source of the reuse water.

The monthly supplemental irrigation requirements are calculated from a water balance to satisfy the recommendations for irrigated turf. Treated effluent is used to make up the water deficit; supplementing the difference in precipitation, and the water losses to soil evaporation and crop transpiration during the summer months. The regional evapotranspiration (ET) and net irrigation requirements for specific crop types at regional stations in Idaho are available on: http://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/ETIdaho/

The total water requirements for summer irrigation are listed in Table 4.15 for the candidate sites. The net irrigation and water balance calculations are in accordance with the Idaho DEQ Guidance for Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater, September 2007.

For irrigated turf, the net irrigation water required to make up the precipitation deficit is approximately 23.0 inches total over the growing season from April through September. The monthly water demand is shown, which must be included in the irrigation management practices to avoid over-watering and surface runoff.

As shown in Table 4.15, the 51 acres available in the public sites can potentially reduce the discharge to the Big Wood River by approximately 28% to 75% over the summer season, based on the current average flow of 0.63 MGD. The remaining wastewater effluent would be discharged under the NPDES permit.

In the future, as Highway 75 is developed, treated effluent could also be used to irrigate the right-of-way, which adds approximately 15 acres of land for alternative effluent disposal, bringing the total area to approximately 66 acres.

The influence or changes in water quality from the reduced effluent loading is not easily quantified. The pollutant loading to the River must be evaluated under all statistical stream flow conditions, and requires an effluent model to evaluate dilution and other pollutant interactions.

QuigleyCanyon

City Limits Service Area Boundary

Friedman Memorial Airport

WoodsideTreatment Plant

7 acres

20 acres

4 acres

12 acres

8 acres

2.4 acres

13 acres1.4 acres

City OwnedLEGEND

School DistrictCemetaryITD R-O-W (Future)

Croy CreekCanyon Figure 4.6

City of Hailey Candidate Public Water Reuse SitesWASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

CITY OF HAILEY

4-72 February 2012

Table 4.15 Public Sites for Potential Effluent Reuse - Monthly Irrigation Rates Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey

Irrigation Requirement (mg/month)

Site Acres (1) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total Annual Irrigation

(mg)

Foothills Park 8 0.04 0.86 1.80 2.29 2.01 1.04 8.05

Cemetery 20 0.10 2.16 4.51 5.73 4.9 2.59 20.10

Elementary School Fields 12 0.06 1.29 2.71 3.44 3.01 1.55 12.07

High School Fields 11 0.05 1.19 2.48 3.15 2.76 1.42 11.06

Total Irrigation 51 0.26 5.5 11.5 14.6 12.8 6.6 51.3 mg/year

% Total WW Flow2 1.4% 28.2% 60.8% 74.9% 65.8% 34.9% 44.7% Notes: 1. Class A effluent assumes no buffer zones 2. Fraction of total effluent utilized for reuse, base on 2008 avg. flow 0.63 mgd

February 2012 4-73

12.3.2 Option 2: Summer Total Effluent Reuse and Winter Discharge

As shown in Option 1, the City’s current flows of 0.63 MGD can irrigate more than 50 to 75 acres of available public space. To divert more effluent out of the Big Wood River over the summer, larger land area is needed. During the non-growing season, October through March, the City would resume the discharge to the Big Wood River.

The ET and supplemental irrigation changes over each of the summer months, with the least supplemental irrigation water needed in April and the greatest in July. Figure 4.7 shows the annual supplemental irrigation water required for turf grass for each month.

Figure 4.7 Monthly Crop Supplemental Irrigation Rates

Source: Precipitation Deficit from Hailey Ranger Station (NWS NOAA-103942) Irrigated Turf ET Idaho

To completely divert flow out of the River from the April through September growing season, the available land must be large enough to match the water balance and hydraulic loading rate in the month of April. However, turf grass only requires 0.1 inches of net supplemental irrigation in April, which is only 0.5% of the annual total of 23 inches.

To more effectively divert effluent out of the Big Wood River, growing a cover crop such as alfalfa with a higher irrigation requirement of approximately 33 inches is more effective for effluent disposal, which requires dedicated agricultural land outside the City limits.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Januar

y

Februar

yMarc

hApril May Jun

eJul

yAugu

st

Septem

ber

October

November

December

Month

Irrig

atio

n W

ater

(mm

/day

)

4-74 February 2012

With the variable irrigation requirements over the summer a more effective effluent management strategy is to deliver a constant supply of reuse water, based on the mid-level water demand in May or September.

At the current average flow of 0.63 MGD, land application over approximately 200 acres will satisfy the irrigation requirements for May. Approximately 95% of the effluent will continue to be discharged to the river in April, due to the low water demand. In addition, the crops will require supplemental irrigation from another water source in June, July, and August because the effluent volume is not sufficient to make up the ET deficit and optimize plant growth.

As the growth continues in the service area, additional land must be secured to irrigate the projected flows throughout the planning period. Approximately 300 to 400 acres will ultimately be needed needed for effluent disposal. The site water balance will discharge to the river in April, achieving a balance in May, and require supplemental irrigation water through the remaining summer months. The pollutant loading from this option must also be evaluated with the dilution flows in the river during the periods when the City is discharging, to quantify the water quality benefits.

12.3.3 Option 3: Total Effluent Reuse and Winter Storage

Option 3 will achieve “zero discharge” into the Big Wood River. In the winter non-growing season, effluent will be retained in storage ponds. During the defined growing season from April through September, the accumulated flow from storage and the effluent generated each month are spray irrigated onto the crops. For the 20-year projected flow, approximately 300 to 400 acres of agricultural land growing alfalfa are needed. In addition, storage ponds with an open surface area of approximately 85 acres and 12-feet deep are needed for winter retention.

The goal is to pump all accumulated annual flow to fields during the irrigation season. By the end of September, the volume in storage should be essentially zero, which maximizes storage available ahead of the non-growing winter months.

The 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan (Keller & Assoc.) investigated the feasibility of securing agricultural land south of Hailey, with pumping to the remote site for storage and application. If the site is isolated and the public is not exposed to effluent, it is possible to irrigate with Class C or Class D effluent, and reduce the costs for treatment. Based on the findings and recommendations from the 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan, this alternative was not feasible.

February 2012 4-75

12.4 Non-Irrigation Reuse

In Hailey, there are no significant industrial or commercial customers with non-potable water demand that can use reclaimed effluent.

Groundwater recharge is not considered a feasible option as the aquifer in the Big Wood River Valley is the potable water supply for several down-gradient municipalities. The aquifer is also made up from relatively porous gravel, and is considered to have a high rate of travel, making it susceptible to potential contaminants. Groundwater recharge would also require a higher degree of treatment in addition to the filtration upgrades in this TM, to comply with groundwater anti-degradation standards. For groundwater recharge, total nitrogen must be reduced to very low levels (less than 10 mg/L), which requires modification of the SBR or additional treatment stages to remove nitrate. This would add capital cost as well as operational cost to any of the treatment alternatives presented.

12.5 Reuse Infrastructure and Irrigation Management

Effluent irrigation must be coordinated with the land use, especially in public locations. For residential irrigation, parks and golf courses, irrigation is conducted in the non-use hours. Pumping during the night requires some degree of effluent storage. However, there are no storage facilities available at the Woodside WWTP. The City will have to identify the volume needed, locations, and strategy for effluent storage to be coordinated with the reuse sites. There are many options for either storage at the treatment site or at the application site, which must be developed to match the specific land use.

The current NPDES permit requires continuous monitoring of effluent flows, with composite sampling for specific wastewater constituents, and effluent disinfection. Under a wastewater reuse permit, the City will also be required to monitor and record effluent flow used for irrigation, along with turbidity (NTU) and effluent disinfection. The annual organic and nutrient loading rates must be tracked to support sustainable effluent management practices.

In addition to the timing of irrigation, the supply pressure for reuse water must be considered. The City can provide a high-pressure system (60 psig) sufficient to operate sprinkler systems. Alternatively, the City can provide a lower pressure supply (20 psig) if the application sites have booster pumps, or storage and irrigation pumping facilities.

12.6 Effluent Reuse Conceptual Cost Estimates

This section presents conceptual costs to construct a reclaimed water transmission pipeline and pumping facilities. Effluent would be diverted from the WWTP outfall after the UV disinfection into a pumping vault that would also serve as a chlorine contact basin.

4-76 February 2012

Many effluent pumping scenarios are possible. The general location of the transmission pipeline was assumed to parallel the Woodside Trunk Sewer, from the treatment plant out to Fox Acres Road, which is approximately 10,000 lineal feet to the Wood River High School.

A pipeline sized for the projected max week average flow of 1.38 mgd requires an 16-inch diameter line, which assumes pumping to the application site over a 6-hour period at night at a flow rate of 3,830 gpm. A nominal retention time of approximately 120 minutes was assumed for the pumping wet well, which provides chlorine contact time and a storage volume equal to 460,000 gallons. To maintain distribution pressure of 60 psig, the pumps require approximately 150 horsepower.

If the reuse pipelines are installed in phases, a 12-inch diameter line is adequate to pump flows up to approximately 1.0 mgd, with a storage vault of 180,000 gallons. The conceptual costs for effluent reuse infrastructure are summarized in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16 Effluent Reuse Infrastructure Conceptual Costs City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan

Pipe Diameter (inch) 16 12

Pipeline Cost (1) $1,322,000 $1,175,000

Pumps Station / Storage Vault Cost (1) $1,061,000 $534,000

Total Project Costs (2) $3,425,000 $2,456,000Notes: 1. Direct construction costs 2. Project costs with general conditions, overhead & profit, engineering, legal and

administration costs.

12.7 Summary of Reuse Options

Wastewater reclamation and reuse offers many potential benefits, when considering the water quality of the Big Wood River. Available water resources can be reserved for the most critical demands, substituting reclaimed effluent for the less critical irrigation needs. Beneficial effluent reuse can be implemented on a case-by-case basis to supply irrigation needs, and partially reduce the effluent loading to the Big Wood River as potential reuse customers are identified.

To divert all flow out of the Big Wood River, the City will need to secure approximately 300 to 400 acres of arable land for effluent reuse, and construct winter time effluent storage ponds, which does not appear to be cost effective.

February 2012 4-77

Effluent reuse involves a new separate land application permit from DEQ, and requires additional capital investment for reclaimed water infrastructure. The City can select effluent reuse projects on a case-by-case basis, when sufficient benefits are identified.

13.0 BIOSOLIDS ALTERNATIVES

This section identifies the improvements required to replace the existing aerobic digester and improve the sludge handling practices at the Woodside WWTP. The original (1974) packaged treatment plant used for biosolids storage is old and corroded and will require continual inspection and coating repairs to keep the tank from failing. The fiberglass dome cover has deteriorated to the extent that complete replacement is more cost effective. New biosolids treatment will provide effective service for the 20-year planning period, to be consistent with the effluent treatment alternatives in this TM.

13.1 Biosolids Stabilization and Thickening or Dewatering

A new open top reinforced concrete sludge holding tank is proposed to replace the old steel package plant. High efficiency submersible aspirating aerators or mixers are also recommended to keep solids in suspension. The aerators would be operated intermittently to allow the waste sludge to settle for decanting and to increase the solids concentrations. The solids thickening should produce thickened sludge to at least 1.5 percent solids, based on the existing operation.

Thickened sludge from the holding tank would be pumped to a dewatering screw press inside a new dewatering building. Progressive cavity positive displacement pumps are recommended to feed the screw press at a constant rate. Liquid polymer would be added to improve the dewatering characteristics of the sludge. The screw press is expected to yield sludge cake at 15 percent solids, which is dry enough to haul in an open dump truck.

Current operations records indicate that approximately 1.8 million gallons per year of liquid sludge is hauled to the landfill, which requires in excess of 350 loads each year using the City’s 6,000 gallon (29.7 cubic yard) tanker truck. Biosolids thickened to three to four percent solids would reduce the number of loads (trips) to approximately 100 – 125 per year. Biosolids dewatered to 15 percent solids would require approximately 100 loads per year with a smaller seven cubic yard dump truck.

The design criteria for the proposed sludge holding tank and dewatering equipment are listed below in Table 4.17.

4-78 February 2012

Table 4.17 Aerated Sludge Holding Tank and Biosolids Dewatering Alternative City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan

Component Units Values

Sludge Quantities Waste Sludge (2010) at 0.68 MGD Lbs/day 1,000 Waste Sludge (2028) at 1.14 MGD Lbs/day 1,680 WAS Flow (2010) at 0.4% TSS gpd 30,000 WAS Flow (2020) at 0.4% TSS gpd 50,300

Sludge Holding Tank Number 1 Volume Gallons 460,600 Dimensions Feet 70 ft dia x 16 ft SWD Hydraulic Retention Time (2010) Days 15.4 Hydraulic Retention Time (2020) Days 8.3 Submersible Aspirating Mixers Number 2 Horsepower HP - each 30

Sludge Transfer Pumps Number 2 Type Each Progressing Cavity Capacity gpm 32 Approximate Horsepower HP - each 7.5 Drive Each VFD Dewatering Screw Press Number 1 Feed Rate gpm 32 Operating Time at 0.68 MGD Hours/week 22 Operating Time at 1.25 MGD Hours/week 40 Cake Solids (Dewatering) % 15 Solids (Thickening) % 3-4 2010 Cake Volume (Dewatering) Cy/week 3 2020 Cake Volume (Dewatering) Cy/week 5 2010 Solids Volume (Thickening) gpd 3,400 2020 Solids Volume (Thickening) gpd 5,700 Design Polymer Dose lbs/dry ton 15 Liquid Polymer Use (2010) Lbs/year 1,600 Liquid Polymer Use (2028) Lbs/year 4,600 Dewatering Building Dimensions Feet (L x W x H) 38 x 28 x 14

February 2012 4-79

The volume of the biosolids holding tank was selected to provide a retention time of two weeks at the current design flow and sludge production levels, matching the approximate volume of the existing package plant. Regular (daily) decanting of the waste sludge is required to maintain the two week retention. This tank volume provides nominal storage for the operation of the SBR process and the current staffing levels. It should be noted that additional retention time would be required to provide a stabilized Class B biosolids for off-site disposal using aerobic digestion. The EPA biosolids regulations are discussed in the next section. If solids dewatering is combined with the aerobic sludge holding, the sludge cake can be stored and allowed to air dry to meet the biosolids disposal regulations. Dewatering is included with the biosolids treatment alternative to improve flexibility of the disposal operations

13.2 Biosolids Regulations

Biosolids must be stabilized and managed according to guidelines the Federal Register, 40 CFR, Part 503. The City’s biosolids handling practices must address the following key points:

The City currently utilizes a combination of aerobic digestion and air-drying at Ohio Gulch to comply with the pathogen reduction requirements in the regulations.

If the air-drying option at Blain County is discontinued in the future, the City will have to provide alternative treatment, handling and disposal options.

Alternatives for pathogen reduction listed in 40 CFR, Part 503 will need to be added at the Woodside WWTP. – Aerobic digestion with 60-day solids retention time (SRT) for Class B criteria. – Other options or combinations for pathogen destruction can be applied. – Vector attraction reduction (VAR) measures must be provided, depending on

the final disposal practices and locations.

If the landfill disposal option is not available in the future, the City will need to locate and obtain regulatory approval for disposal or to apply Class B biosolids on agricultural land.

Biosolids stabilization procedures and annual disposal quantities must be tracked and reported to Idaho DEQ.

13.3 Discussion of Biosolids Dewatering

Dewatering the biosolids to produce sludge cake greatly reduces the disposal requirements and costs compared to the existing liquid handling practices. Reducing the volume of the solids also improves operational flexibility with reduced labor for hauling. Biosolids dewatering is a new practice for the City staff, so several important issues are presented:

4-80 February 2012

Chemical coagulation and polymer flocculation improves the solids capture and dewatered cake solids. With the nominal storage volume of the holding tank, the partially digested sludge will likely require higher chemical dose compared to completely digested sludge to achieve the same cake solids.

Dewatering equipment produces the highest and most consistent solids concen-trations when fed at uniform flow rates and consistent feed solids concentrations.

Dewatering equipment can be set up, started, and run in “batch mode” pumping from the aerated sludge-holding tank. In general, dewatering in long batch runs is more efficient and consistent than starting and stopping daily batches within the normal 8-hour day. At the future flows, the dewatering screw press will need to operate for 2 to 3 days each week, which must include automated monitoring equipment and may require additional staffing hours.

Demonstration or pilot testing of the dewatering equipment may be beneficial for the specific Woodside WWTP sludge to confirm expected cake solids concentrations, sludge dewatering characteristics, and chemical feed requirements.

13.4 Biosolids Alternative Costs

Budgetary costs for the biosolids holding tank and dewatering building are shown in Table 4.18. Detailed costs are included with the biosolids data in Appendix D of this TM.

Table 4.18 Biosolids Holding Tank and Dewatering Probable Costs Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey


Aerated Sludge Holding Tank $1,172,500 Building, Screw Press & Pumps $1,053,400



Power $19,200 Maintenance $29,400 Chemicals $5,900

Total Annual O&M Costs $54,500 Note: 1. Construction Costs in 2008 dollars. Estimates do not include project costs for engineering, legal, administration, easements, taxes,

or escalation to mid-point of construction.

The new biosolids storage tank and dewatering building can be constructed in the open area toward the eastern property boundary. The location can be selected from more

February 2012 4-81

detailed discussions with operations staff during preliminary design. The tentative location is shown in the Executive Summary and in TM 6.


The TMDL for the Big Wood River requires advanced treatment to reduce TSS and TP to very low levels, to meet the water quality standards. In the near term with the anticipated reduced growth, treatment needs can be met by adding new cloth disk filters to double the existing filtration capacity. Chemical storage and feed equipment would also be added to implement chemical phosphorus removal. In the future as flows increase, loading limits will require treatment to lower concentrations.

Five general options were identified in this TM for future treatment needs. Four alternatives were reviewed in more detail and probable costs of construction were developed.

The four alternatives considered have essentially equal project costs and total life-cycle costs. The alternative that provides the most overall benefits is ALT 5, SBR expansion with two-stage tertiary filtration using continuously backwashing, upflow sand filters. Benefits of ALT 5 include:

Capable of meeting very low TSS and TP discharge standards as required by the TMDL.

Suitable for construction within the City property of the existing Woodside WWTP site, and can be expanded to meet future capacity needs for the projected flows of 2.65 mgd with build-out in the area of impact.

Utilizes the existing SBR process, and will be easily adapted by the City WWTP operations staff.

Construction in phases defers capital costs to match effluent loading more closely with revised effluent requirements.

The existing SBR process with two basins requires expansion to add a third basin, needed as soon as practical. The third basin will permit any one basin to be taken out of service for inspection and maintenance. Expansion to add the fourth SBR will be required when influent flows reach 1.4 mgd. At that time, if one of the three basins is out of service, two cannot accommodate the influent flows. The fourth basin provides redundancy and flexibility to perform maintenance on the SBR basins. The fourth basin also adds capacity sufficient to treat future flows beyond the projected maximum month flow projection of 1.25 mgd.

Construction of a new aerated sludge-holding tank is recommended to replace the existing aerobic digester. Addition of biosolids dewatering reduces disposal costs for hauling sludge and greatly increases operational flexibility.

Appendix A

TSS PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 100

Particle diameter, μm

Num

ber o

f par

ticle

s pe

r siz

e ch

anne

l, co

unts

/mL Filter influent (2.17 NTU, 72.7% UVT)

Filter effluent (1.67 NTU, 74.8% UVT)

6/17/08-City of Hailey

Appendix B

ALT 5 TWO-STAGE TERTIARY FILTRATION

Appendix C

PROBABLE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

12592 WEST EXPLORER DRIVE, SUITE 200 BOISE, IDAHO 83713 (208) 376-2288 FAX (208) 376-2251 C:\pw_work ing\pro jec twise\bdav ies\d0105398\TM005.doc

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AND SCHEDULING FINAL February 2012

February 2012 5-i



CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AND SCHEDULING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5-1

2.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CHARGES ................................................................... 5-1

3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES ............................................................ 5-2

4.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 5-4 4.1 Repair and Rehabilitation ........................................................................... 5-4 4.2 Redundant SBR Treatment Components ................................................... 5-5 4.3 Advanced Treatment for TMDL and Water Quality Improvements ............. 5-6 4.4 Future Capacity Increase ............................................................................ 5-6

5.0 FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................ 5-7

6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE .............................................................. 5-7

7.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS ............................................................. 5-11 7.1 Scenario 1 – Average Service Area Growth ............................................. 5-11 7.2 Scenario 2 – Revised TMDL Waste Load Allocation ................................ 5-11 7.3 Wastewater Collection System Expansion ............................................... 5-11

APPENDIX A: Wastewater Rate Ordinance APPENDIX B: Wastewater Effluent Loading Projections

5-ii February 2012

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 Facility Plan Capital Requirements ................................................................ 5-4 Table 5.2 Priority Capital Improvements ....................................................................... 5-5Table 5.3.1 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Requirements

– Scenario 1 ................................................................................................ 5-13 Table 5.3.2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Requirements

– Scenario 2 ................................................................................................ 5-15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1 City of Hailey Sewer System Finances 2008/2009 ........................................ 5-3 Figure 5.2.1 City of Hailey Sewer System Finances 2011/2012 ........................................ 5-8 Figure 5.2.2 City of Hailey Sewer System Finances with SRLF Funds ............................. 5-9

February 2012 5-1


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AND SCHEDULING

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the financial considerations for the City of Hailey wastewater services, updated with the findings and recommendations from this Wastewater Facility Plan and the TMDL requirements.

The City of Hailey completed construction of the existing Woodside WWTP in 2000. The current sewer rates include bond retirement costs for this previous expansion of the WWTP and collection system improvements.

The TMDL for the Big Wood River will require additional treatment technologies, as reviewed in TM 4. Additional capacity may also be required for the updated growth projections over the next 20 years, depending on the annual growth rates.

The WWTP upgrades are required to reduce the mass pollutant loadings (pounds per day) discharged to the Big Wood River defined by the TMDL to meet water quality standards. The schedule to implement the improvements depends on the growth rate in the service area, the waste load allocation in the TMDL, and the implementation plan established in the NPDES permit.

Capital improvement scenarios are developed in coordination with annual population growth and final development of the TMDL and NPDES permit. The associated users costs are presented covering the existing system costs and the potential costs identified for the next 20-year planning period.

2.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CHARGES

The City of Hailey Municipal Code, Title 13, defines the rates and fee basis for the use and services of the municipal wastewater system. The user fee ordinance is included in Appendix A.

Wastewater user charges cover the costs of the system, including operation and maintenance costs, employee salaries and benefits and administrative costs, insurance, training, and short-tem depreciation. A base minimum user fee is calculated. In addition monthly variable fees are calculated based on the average non-irrigation season water use of each property. Variable user fees include labor, benefits and administrative costs, parts, fuel, utilities, lab testing vehicle maintenance and chemicals, covering the variable costs of the system.

Bond payment fees are intended to cover the bond and note retirement costs, which are the legal indebtedness of the City defined on a set retirement schedule. The monthly bond

5-2 February 2012

payment is determined by dividing the noted retirement costs by the number of wastewater customers using the system over the year.

A connection fee is charged to any property connected to the wastewater system for the value of the wastewater service. The basis for the fee is to charge for the value of the system capacity that a new user will absorb at that point in time. The gross value of the system is determined each year by updating the original cost of construction to the current cost of replacement in that particular year using published construction cost index. (Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI)). The remaining bond principal retirement is subtracted from the gross value, so connection fees cover the net wastewater system value.

The current City of Hailey user charges for the existing wastewater collection and treatment system are provided in Figure 5.1. The current monthly debt service to the customers is approximately $6.43 per month, and the monthly operation and maintenance user fees are approximately $30.68 (for the average user) totaling $37.11 per month for wastewater. The current wastewater connection fee, based on the net value of the collection and treatment system is calculated to be $3,407.

3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES

The major capital improvements recommended in this Facility Plan can be organized into four main categories:

1. Additional treatment facilities required to meet water quality standards to comply with the TMDL;

2. Treatment facilities required to provide process redundancy (back-up) criteria;

3. Added facilities for capacity to meet growth projections;

4. Repair and/or replacement of equipment or processes that are worn or obsolete.

Costs of adding new treatment components to comply with changing regulations for the TMDL are the responsibility of all users, both current customers and future. Costs to add required redundancy to the existing WWTP, and costs for repair or replacement are also paid by the existing and future customers. Costs to add capacity to the wastewater collection and treatment system, to serve customers outside of the current City limits will be the responsibility of future customers.

The number of customers using the system will change over the 20-year planning period as growth occurs and expansion projects are completed, so the user costs vary over the life of the facilities. The total costs associated with the four categories of improvements are summarized in Table 5.1, which cover the entire planning period.

FILE: R:\QPRODOCS\4765.WB3 Revised: 07/08/200803/15/99 B.YEAGER T. Hellen

Refer to Itemized Sewer System Component List

Based onTotal

Depreciationfrom 1985

Design Capacity of Plant=1.6mg/d360g/d per E. C. of demand from Facility Plan Update by Keller & Associates

Background InformationDesign Capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant 4444 12,500 people w/in City Limits per Facility Plan Update by KellerDesign Capacity of Interceptor Sewers 5040 2.48 people per equivilant connection from Facility Plan Update by KellerEquivilant Connections to System 3100

Monthly User ChargeOperation and Maintenance Cost $1,162,422 Bond Retirement Cost $241,517 Bond Payments to be made this yearBond Retirement Monthly User Charge $6.49

Operation, Maintenance & Bond Retirement Costs / EQ Connections/12

Connection FeeGross System Value of Treatment Plants $8,411,168 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI valuesGross SystemValue of Interceptor System $12,068,391 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI values

Remaining Treatment Plants Bond Principle to be retired $2,914,064 $4.5x10^6 bond ratio'd by cost of improvementsRemaining Interceptor System Bond Principle to be retired $820,936 $4.5x10^6 bond ratio'd by cost of improvements

Net Treatment Plant System Value $5,497,104 Gross system value minus Bonds to be retiredNet Interceptor System Value $11,247,455 Gross system value minus Bonds to be retired

Treatment Plant Connection Fee $1,236.97 Net system value divided by the design capacityInterceptor System Connection Fee $2,231.64 Net system value divided by the design capacity

Total Connection Fee $3,468.61 Sum of both connection fees

Figure 5.1City of Hailey Sewer System Finances, 2008/2009


5-4 February 2012

Table 5.1 Facility Plan Capital Requirements Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey 1 Capital Improvement Category Cost 1

Additional Treatment - Two Stage Filtration ALT 5, TM 4 (All Current & Future Customers)

TMDL $7,624,900

Optimize Woodside WWTP Chemical Feed & Cloth Disc Filter Bank (TMs 3 & 4) (All Current Customers and Future Customers)

TMDL

$961,300

WWTP Redundancy - 3rd SBR Basin ALT 5, TM 4 (All Current and Future Customers)

Redundancy $6,965,500

WWTP Capacity Increase with 4th SBR Basin ALT 5 TM 4 (Future Customers) (after 1.4 MG)

Expansion & Redundancy

$2,120,600

WWTP Repair & Replacement (Total) (TM 3, priority and schedule) (All Current Customers)

Repair $961,900

Biosolids Stabilizing and Dewatering (TM4) (All Current and Future Customers)

$2,782,400

Collection System Defects (Total) (TM 2, priority and schedule) (All Current Customers)

Repair $1,101,600

Collection System Expansion (Optional) TM 2 (Future Customers from annexation)

Capacity -

Facility Plan 20-year Capital Improvement Total: $22,518,200 Note: 1. Capital Improvement Project Costs including Engineering, Legal and Administration (25%).

All costs in 2008 dollars. Future costs not adjusted for inflation to the time of construction.

4.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

The capital cost categories and projects listed in Table 5.1 are reviewed further in this section to review the potential funding sources.

4.1 Repair and Rehabilitation

The costs associated with repair and rehabilitation in the collection system and the wastewater treatment plant are expected to be covered under the City’s current system replacement funds established in the connection fees for this specific purpose. The City should also revisit the available replacement funds generated throughout the 20-year planning period to make sure longer term projected repair and rehabilitation projects are covered.

The Facility Plan identified both short-term and general longer-term costs to repair existing equipment or replace obsolete components. The existing user rate includes a depreciation

February 2012 5-5

component that has been paid by existing users. The enterprise fund maintains a positive balance to pay for planned and necessary repairs. If the depreciation funds are not adequate for a larger project, the balance must be borrowed.

The most significant rehabilitation cost is the replacement of the original Woodside package treatment plant equipment, aerobic digester and cost for the new aerated sludge holding tank and sludge dewatering facility. The construction costs for the priority WWTP rehabilitation are included in the financing plan. (Reference TM 3, Category 2 (5 year) Rehabilitation).

4.2 Redundant SBR Treatment Components

Addition of the third SBR basin is a priority to maintain compliance with the NPDES permit. The costs for the redundant treatment components are assigned to all current users.

The capital improvements for redundancy were not included in the previous (2000) WWTP expansion or the original capital improvements plan. The improvements are needed for compliance with EPA permit requirements, but no funds have been collected from the current user fees. The City will need to borrow to add the funds for the redundant SBR basin.

Improvements to optimize chemical feed facilities (TM 3) are also a priority to improve effluent quality and delay the need to install advanced filtration. The filtration upgrades for TMDL compliance can be delayed and shifted to future years pending the resolution of the TMDL findings, the NPDES permit limits, and an acceptable implementation schedule defined with EPA and Idaho DEQ.

Priority capital improvements and repair requirements are summarized in Table 5.2. These projects should begin detailed design no later than 2012 to allow time for completion of construction by 2014. The priority improvements are estimated to increase monthly payments by about $6.00 resulting in an estimated monthly payment of about $43/month.

Table 5.2 Priority Capital Improvements Wastewater Facility Plan

City of Hailey

Construction Cost

Woodside WWTP Priority Equipment Repairs $450,500

Cloth Disc Filter Expansion and Chemical Feed $769,000

Biosolids Stabilization and Dewatering $2,226,000

TOTAL $3,445,000 Notes: 1. All costs estimated in 2008 dollars. 2. Construction costs do not include engineering, inspection, legal, or administration.

5-6 February 2012

4.3 Advanced Treatment for TMDL and Water Quality Improvements

The addition of the advanced filtration components are needed to comply with the TMDL and the NPDES discharge limits. Advanced treatment benefits all current and future users, so funding is distributed among all customers.

The capital improvements for advanced treatment are for developing regulatory requirements. The City has not established a sinking fund in the user rates to generate capital for the additions. Scheduling the improvements also depends on negotiations with Idaho DEQ and EPA on the TMDL and the NPDES permit limits. The City will need to borrow funds to add the advanced treatment components to comply with these changing regulations and water quality requirements.

The advanced filtration additions are sized for the 20-year flows, providing service to future customers. User costs for debt retirement will be applied to all current and future system users. The monthly charges for debt payment and the additional monthly O&M costs are estimated to increase monthly sewer charges to approximately $60.00 per month.

4.4 Future Capacity Increase

WWTP expansion and interceptor capacity increases are required to serve future residential, commercial, and industrial development. The funding portion of the capital improvements to increase capacity for new customers outside the current service is the responsibility of those future customers.

Construction loans and bonding can be used to fund wastewater capacity expansion. As an alternative to the City incurring debt, expansion project costs can be reduced by capital contributions from the developers. The City’s general policy is to have annexation fees cover the costs for extension of services outside of the City limits.

Monthly user charges and debt service for expansion of the wastewater collection system, or the future expansion to add the fourth SBR basin are not calculated. Due to the many options for borrowing and financing, these funding alternatives should be calculated as needed to accommodate the proposed developments.

5.0 FUNDING SOURCES

There are very limited grant funds available from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to assist municipalities with funding water quality upgrades.

Financing costs in this section assumed an interest rate of 4.875%, with a conventional payment period of 20 years.

The State of Idaho also administers a State Revolving Loan Fund (SRLF) for wastewater projects. The priority ranking and projects qualifying for availability of funds is determined

February 2012 5-7

by DEQ. The City must apply to DEQ to participate in the SRLF program. The fiscal year interest rate in the SRLF is 3.25%. User charges with SRLF loan program are provided in Figure 5.2.2.

Several additional funding agencies may provide assistance for low to moderate income citizens, or other special funds, which can be investigated on a case-by-case basis to determine the requirements to qualify.

6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE

The TMDL for the Big Wood River does not have a compliance mandate or a defined enforcement schedule. EPA will assign the discharge limits in the updated NDPES permit. The City will also begin the dialog with EPA with the next permit to establish the TMDL implementation plan, and the appropriate compliance schedule.

The TMDL defines water quality based limits, which must be implemented to remove the Big Wood River from the list of impaired waters. The TMDL was completed by IDEQ in 2001 and approved by EPA in May 2002. A 5-year period was identified in the TMDL as an appropriate implementation schedule to attain beneficial uses in the Big Wood River, with an additional 5 years to monitor the effectiveness of the waste load allocations, to be completed by 2011. The subsequent Post-TMDL study by IDEQ was never completed, so the City or the other point source discharges have not established an overall TMDL implementation plan for this segment of the Big Wood River.

The schedule to complete the capital improvements and meet water quality standards depends on two principal conditions:

The allowable waste load allocation for the City of Hailey as defined by the TMDL, (or other subsequent water quality investigations initiated by the City).

The growth rate of the community and the mass loading of pollutants (pounds per day) discharged to the River.

The treatment alternatives in this Facility Plan are based on the TSS and TP waste load allocations in the approved TMDL. To stay below the TMDL waste load allocations, pollutant reduction measures are needed. Appendix B, Figure B.1 shows the current and projected TSS effluent loading.

As an interim plan of action, performance of the Woodside WWTP can be optimized with chemical addition (TM 3) to improve TSS and TP removal efficiency by approximately 30% and reduce the effluent loading to the Big Wood River. With the reduced pollutant loading, the City will remain below the TMDL waste load allocation until approximately 2020, using the average annual growth rate for the projected future loadings. If the service area grows at a lower rate, the City will remain below the TMDL waste load allocation beyond 2025.

Engineering econ factor A/P (i=4.875% APR, n=20 yrs) 0.07939 WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (YEAR 2011)Population in year 2028 10,185 3rd SBR BASIN $5,795,228

CHEMICAL FEED AND CLOTH DISC FILTER ADDITION $799,751PRIORITY WWTP REPAIRS $506,751BIOSOLIDS STABILIZATION & DEWATERING $2,314,909

CONVENTIONAL FINANCING TOTAL PHASE I $9,416,639Interest Rate 4.875%

Background Information (2000 WWTP Facility Plan, Keller & Assoc)Design Capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant 4,444Design Capacity of Interceptor Sewers 5,040Equivalent Connections to System 3,100

Revised Background Information Design Capacity of Plant = 1.6 mgd after addition of 3rd SBR basinDesign Capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant 7,436 19,241 design population in City Limits for Facility Plan Update by Carollo Design Capacity of Interceptor Sewers Unchanged 5,040 2.58 people per equivalent connection used by Carollo, 85 gpcd flow 2011 Equivalent Connections to System 3,948

Monthly User ChargeOperation and Maintenance Cost $1,530,953 Annual O&M Increased by $150,000 for 3rd SBR, biosolids dewatering andAverage Monthly O&M per ERU $32.32 added cloth disc filters and chemical feed, inflated to 20202000 Bond Retirement Cost $241,517 Bond Payments to be made this year2000 Bond Retirement Monthly User Charge $5.102011 WWTP Bond Retirement Cost $747,587 Annual Bond Payments Ammortized at 4.875% for 20 years 2011 WWTP Bond Retirement Monthly User Charge $15.78 Payment for customers projected on the system in year 2020TOTAL MONTHLY WWTP O&M & Debt $53.20 Operation, Maintenance & Bond Retirement Costs / EQ Connections/12

Connection FeeGross System Value of Treatment Plants $18,878,058 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI valuesGross System Value of Interceptor System $13,575,299 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI values



Treatment Plant Connection Fee $2,539 Estimated net system value divided by the design capacityInterceptor System Connection Fee $2,600 Estimated net system value divided by the design capacity

Total Connection Fee $5,139 Sum of both connection fees

Priority Capital Improvements - Conventional Financing WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN

CITY OF HAILEY

Figure 5.2.1

Engineering econ factor A/P (i=3.25% APR, n=20 yrs) 0.06878 WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (YEAR 2020)Population in year 2028 10,185 3rd SBR BASIN $5,795,228

CHEMICAL FEED AND CLOTH DISC FILTER ADDITION $799,751PRIORITY WWTP REPAIRS $506,751BIOSOLIDS STABLIZATION & DEWATERING $2,314,909

STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FINANCING TOTAL PHASE I $9,416,639Interest Rate 3.25%

Background Information (2000 Facility Plan by Keller & Assoc)Design Capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant 4,444Design Capacity of Interceptor Sewers 5,040Equivalent Connections to System 3,100

Revised Background Information Design Capacity of Plant = 1.6 mgd after addition of 3rd SBR basinDesign Capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant 7,436 19,241 design population in City Limits for Facility Plan Update by Carollo Design Capacity of Interceptor Sewers Unchanged 5,040 2.58 people per equivilant connection used by Carollo, 85 gpcd flow 2020 Equivalent Connections to System 3,948

Monthly User ChargeOperation and Maintenance Cost $1,530,953 Annual O&M Increased by $150,000 for 3rd SBR, biosolids dewatering andAverage Monthly O&M per ERU $32.32 added cloth disc filters and chemical feed, inflated to 20202000 Bond Retirement Cost $241,517 Bond Payments to be made this year2000 Bond Retirement Monthly User Charge $5.102020 WWTP Bond Retirement Cost $647,676 Annual Bond Payments Ammortized at 3.25% for 20 years 2020 WWTP Bond Retirement Monthly User Charge $13.67 Payment for customers projected on the system in year 2020TOTAL MONTHLY WWTP O&M & Debt $51.09 Operation, Maintenance & Bond Retirement Costs / EQ Connections/12

Connection FeeGross System Value of Treatment Plants $18,878,058 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI valuesGross SystemValue of Interceptor System $13,575,299 Installation Cost of each system component carried forward by ENR CCI values



Treatment Plant Connection Fee $3,167 Estimated net system value divided by the revised design capacityInterceptor System Connection Fee $2,600 Estimated net system value divided by the design capacity

Total Connection Fee $5,767 Sum of both connection fees

Figure 5.2.2Priority Capital Improvements - SRLF Financing


5-10 February 2012

TSS effluent loading projections with optimization of the WWTP by chemical addition are shown in Appendix B, Figure B.2.

If the City initiates actions to review and update the waste load allocations in the TMDL, the compliance period may also be extended. For example, if the TSS and TP waste load allocations in the Post-TMDL are adopted and approved by EPA, the pollutant loading projections show that the City will comply with water quality standards until approximately 2027. In addition, the interim chemical feed facilities are not required until the time when effluent loading begins to approach the TMDL limits.

The City’s TP discharge reached the TMDL waste load allocation in 2008. Optimization of the Woodside WWTP with chemical addition reduces the TP effluent loading, which extends the compliance period to 2020, similar to the condition with TSS loading. If the Post-TMDL TP waste load allocation is approved the City will remain in compliance for more than 20-years. The TP effluent loading projections are shown in Appendix B, Figure B.3. The reduction in TP effluent loading for chemical addition is shown in Appendix B, Figure B.4.

The City must monitor effluent quality and the total flow from growth in the service area to track pollutant loading to the Big Wood River at least on an annual basis. As effluent loadings approach the defined TMDL limits, the City should initiate the design process to comply with the TMDL. The City must anticipate growth projections and allow sufficient time to complete the design, bidding and construction phases of the capital improvements, in advance of reaching the TMDL loading limits. In general, a total period of three to four years should be allowed for the design, bidding and construction of the treatment alternatives in this Facility Plan.

7.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS

The recommended capital improvements and the year they are necessary for the WWTP and the collection system improvements over the 20-year planning period are shown in Table 5.3, with various scenarios due to the variable growth rates, and possible adjustments or revisions to the TMDL waste load allocations.

7.1 Scenario 1 – Average Service Area Growth

Table 5.3.1 presents Capital Improvement Scenario 1, which is the recommended approach to comply with the approved TMDL, and maintain water quality standards. As shown in the effluent loading projections in Appendix B, the City must add the chemical feed facilities and optimize the existing WWTP as soon as practical to remain below the approved TMDL. The two-stage filtration improvements can then be deferred to approximately 2020, assuming an annual population increase between 2% and 4.5%. If the service area expands more slowly with population growth less than 2% per year, the filtration improvements and the fourth SBR basin will not be required until after 2028.

February 2012 5-11

7.2 Scenario 2 – Revised TMDL Waste Load Allocation

If the TMDL is reviewed and higher waste load allocations are appropriate for the City, the filtration upgrades to enhance TSS and TP removal may not be required until beyond 2028. The interim chemical feed facilities and cloth disc filer upgrades are recommended, but potentially could be delayed until the effluent loading begins to approach the final negotiated waste load allocation. Table 5.3.2 shows Capital Improvement Scenario 2, if the TMDL is revised to increase the allowable waste load allocation for Hailey. For this example, the capital improvements schedule to comply with the Post-TMDL loading limits is shown, which will not require WWTP upgrades until beyond 2028.

7.3 Wastewater Collection System Expansion

The collection system expansion alternatives (TM 2) are necessary if growth and development occurs outside the current service area. The extensions to the collections system and must be scheduled and coordinated with development and addition of future customers.


Average annual population growth rate in the service area by 2028 (See TM 1).Redundant cloth disc filters are added to optimize the Woodside WWTP in 2013Chemical feed facilities are added to optimize the Woodside WWTP in 2013New Biosolids stabilization and dewatering facilities included in priority improvements.Future WWTP tertiary filter upgrades to meet TMDL based on 2% average annual growth, to meet the approved (2001) TMDLWastewater collection system expansion costs are optional, to be coordinated and funded with development proposals outside the service area (TM2).

Item Present Worth 10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Big Wood Trunk Defect Repairs (Table 2.17A) $379,400 $470,456Misc Collection System Defect Repairs (2.17B) $386,900 $526,184Airport Pump Station Upgrades $229,900 $285,076


Airport Pump Station Upgrades $229,900 $285,076High School Service Line $183,700 $227,788



Item Present Worth '10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Redundant Cloth Disc Filter Upgrade (TM 3) $654,000 $889,440Chemical Feed Facilities & Optimization (TM 3) $115,000 $156,400

Category 2 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.13) $470,500 $639,880Category 3 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.14) $144,000 $213,149Category 4 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.15) $175,000 $315,158

Existing Plant Capital Requirements $1,558,500 $1,685,720 $213,149 $315,158


Existing Plant Capital Requirements $1,558,500 $1,685,720 $213,149 $315,158Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $389,625


Item Present Worth '10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 283rd SBR & Equalization Basin Expansion $5,572,400 $4,124,133 $4,460,706 4th SBR Basin Expansion $1,696,500 $4,512,690Tertiray Filter Addition for TMDL $6,099,900 $12,358,397Sludge Holding Tank and Dewatering $2,225,900 $1,647,389 $1,781,833

WWTP Upgrade & Expansion Costs $13,368,800 $5,771,522 $6,242,539 $12,358,397 $4,512,690Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $3,342,200



Yearly Construction CostTotals $983,320 $2,211,904 $5,984,671 $6,242,539 $315,158 $12,358,397 $4,512,690




Revised TMDL with Higher Waste Load Allocation (Example: 2003 Post-TMDL)Average annual population growth rate in the service area Chemical feed facilities to optimize the Woodside WWTP not required until 2027WWTP tertiary filter upgrades to meet Post-TMDL not required until beyond 2028, based on average annual growthRedundant cloth disc filters are added to optimize the Woodside WWTP in 2011New Biosolids stabilization and dewatering facilities included in priority improvements.

Item Present Worth 09-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Big Wood Trunk Defect Repairs (Table 2.17A) $379,400 $470,456Misc Collection System Defect Repairs (2.17B) $386,900 $526,184Airport Pump Station Upgrades $229,900 $285,076High School Service Line $183,700 $227,788




Item Present Worth 10-Jan 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 28Redundant Cloth Disc Filter Upgrade (TM 3) $654,000 $810,960Chemical Feed Facilities & Optimization (TM 3) $115,000 $242,305

Category 2 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.13) $1,167,900 $1,448,196Category 3 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.14) $144,000 $213,149Category 4 Rehab (TM 3 Table 3.15) $175,000 $315,158

Existing Plant Capital Requirements $2,255,900 $2,259,156 $213,149 $315,158 $242,305Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $563,975



Item Present Worth 10-Jan 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 > 283rd SBR & Equalization Basin Expanion $5,572,400 $4,124,133 $4,460,706 4th SBR Basin Expansion $1,696,500 $4,512,690Tertiray Filter Addition for TMDL $6,099,900 $16,225,734Sludge Holding Tank and Dewatering $2,225,900 $1,647,389 $1,781,833

WWTP Upgrade & Expansion Costs $15,594,700 $5,771,522 $6,242,539 $20,738,424Engineering, Legal & Admin (25%) $3,898,675



Yearly Construction CostTotals $3,242,476 $526,184 $5,984,671 $6,242,539 $315,158 $242,305 $20,738,424



Appendix A

WASTEWATER RATE ORDINANCE

13.04.110–13.04.130

13.04.120 Basis for user fees. There is established a system of periodic rates and fees for the use of and services provided to maintain the Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems. The rates and fees provided by this chapter are levied and assessed against each building or Property connected with the Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems, and all Owners shall pay the user fees established under the provisions of this chapter.

13.04.130 Water and wastewater user fees. The Owner or Owner’s agent of

all Property connected to the Municipal Water or Wastewater System under the terms of this chapter shall be assessed and shall pay monthly user fees as follows:

A. Water User Fees. 1. User Base Fee. The monthly user base fee is intended to cover the costs

of the Municipal Water System, including the operation and maintenance costs which consist at least of, but not limited to; 50% of the labor, benefits and administrative costs and 100% of DEQ fees, insurance, training and short-term depreciation. The monthly user base fee shall be assessed to each Property. The monthly user base fee shall be calculated by dividing the yearly operation and maintenance costs of the Municipal Water System described herein by the number of Water Users. Property with two or more services extended to it shall have the choice of paying a single monthly user base fee (for all services connected to the Property) or establishing separate accounts for each service with a Landlord/Tenant agreement as described in Section 13.04.150.

2. Metered Water Fee. The monthly metered fee is intended to cover the variable costs of the Municipal Water System, including the operation and maintenance costs which consist at least of, but not limited to, 50% of the labor, benefits and administrative costs, parts, fuel, utilities, vehicle maintenance, lab tests and chemicals. The monthly metered water fee shall be assessed to each separate Service Connection based upon the total amount of water used by that Property during one billing period. The metered rate is determined on a sliding scale based upon the variable costs of the Municipal Water System described herein, and as adopted by City Council resolution. The sliding scale shall assess a proportionally greater cost per gallon(s) of water as more water is used by a Property.

1 (Hailey 6/07)

13.04.110–13.04.130

3. Bond Payment Fee. The monthly bond payment is intended to cover the cost of bond and note retirement costs which are the legal indebtedness the City is obligated to retire on a set schedule. The monthly water bond payment is determined by taking the bond and note retirement costs and dividing by the number of Water Users utilizing the system during the twelve month period. The monthly bond payment fee shall be assessed to each Property. Bond payment fees will continue even if water services are discontinued at any point.

4. Irrigation Fee. The monthly metered irrigation fee shall be assessed to each Property with a separate irrigation account based upon the amount of water used during one billing period.

B. Wastewater User Fees. 1. User Base Fee. The monthly user base fee is intended to cover the costs

of the Municipal Wastewater System, including the operation and maintenance costs which consist at least of, but not limited to, 50% of the labor, benefits and administrative costs, and 100% of DEQ fees, insurance, training and short-term depreciation. The minimum monthly user fee shall be assessed to each Property. The monthly user base fee shall be calculated by dividing the yearly operation and maintenance costs of the Municipal Wastewater System described herein by the number of Wastewater Users. Property with two or more services extended to it shall have the choice of paying a single monthly user base fee (for all services connected to the Property) or establishing separate accounts for each service with a Landlord/Tenant agreement as described in Section 13.04.150.

2. Metered Wastewater Fee. The monthly metered fee is intended to cover the variable costs of the Municipal Wastewater System, including the operation and maintenance costs which consist at least of, but not limited to, 50% of the labor, benefits and administrative costs, and 100% of parts, fuel, utilities, vehicle maintenance, lab tests and chemicals. The monthly metered wastewater charge shall be assessed to each separate Property based upon the average amount of water used by that Property between November 1 and March 31 of the following year. During the following month of April the monthly wastewater metered charge shall be adjusted based upon such average use of water used by each Property.

3. Non-Metered Account Fee. The new construction Wastewater user accounts, where an average winter water use has not been established, shall pay a set monthly charge to cover all fixed and variable costs of the Municipal Wastewater System.

2 (Hailey 6/07)

13.04.130

4. Bond Payment Fee. The monthly bond payment is intended to cover the cost of bond and note retirement costs which are the legal indebtedness the City is obligated to retire on a set schedule. The monthly bond payment is determined by taking the bond and note retirement cost and dividing by the number of Wastewater Users utilizing the system during the twelve month period. The monthly bond payment fee shall be assessed to each Property based upon a standard water service connection. Bond payment fees will continue even if sewer services are discontinued at any point.

C. Reduction in Water and Wastewater User Base Fees. A reduced monthly

water and Wastewater User base fee described in Sections 13.04.130(A)(1) and (B)(1) may be assessed upon proper application to the City Clerk for the following:

1. Residences occupied by persons qualifying under the Blaine County Assessor’s Office for circuit breaker reduction in property tax rates shall have a reduced User Base Fee as established by City Council resolution.

D. Reduction in Metered Water and Wastewater Fees. 1. Leak in Private Water Service Line or within a Building. In the event a

leak is discovered in a Private Water Service Line or in a private water service line in a building and the City is notified of the leak or the City notifies the Water User of the leak, the metered water fee and the metered wastewater fee shall be eligible for a credit for a period beginning 30 days before the City is notified or the City sends notification, until sixty (60) days following notification (the “Credit Period”), provided the leak is repaired during the sixty (60) day period following notification, except as otherwise provided herein. If the leak is not repaired during the sixty (60) day period following notification, the Water User shall not be entitled to any reduction in the metered water fee and the metered wastewater fee, and the water and wastewater metered fee shall be calculated as set forth in Sections 13.04.130(A)(2) and (B)(2), except as otherwise provided herein. If the leak is repaired during the first thirty (30) days following notification, the metered water fee and the metered wastewater fee during the Credit Period shall be calculated based on the Water User’s water usage during the same period of the previous year, or the actual metered quantity, whichever is less. If the leak is repaired between thirty (30) days and sixty (60) days following notification, the metered water fee and metered wastewater fee during the Credit Period shall be based on the following:

[(the actual metered usage) – (the Water User’s water usage during the same period of the previous year)] x 50%, or the actual metered quantity, whichever is less.

The Water User has the burden to notify the City when the leak is repaired. Exceptions:

a. If a leak is discovered in a Private Water Service Line between December 1 and April 15 of the following year, the thirty (30) and sixty (60) day periods described above to repair a leak shall begin on April 15 and the Credit Period as defined above shall be modified so that the Credit Period begins 30 days before the City is notified or the City sends notification, until June 14.

3 (Hailey 11/07)

13.04.130

b. If a leak is discovered in a Private Water Service Line and if the Water User is unable to repair the leak because a private contractor did not perform the repair within sixty (60) days following notification, the Credit Period shall be extended for an additional maximum period of thirty (30) days, provided the private contractor was contacted by the Water User and the private contractor agreed to perform the repair services within ten (10) days of the notification.

2. Provision of Water to Neighboring Water User. In the event water service is disrupted to a Water User based on a frozen Private Water Service Line between December 1 and April 15 of the following year, and a Water User provides water from the Municipal Water System to the Water User whose water service was disrupted following notification to the City, the metered water fee and metered wastewater fee to be charged to the Water User who provides water for the period of time between the date of notification and the date water is no longer provided to the Water User whose water service was disrupted (which shall not extend beyond April 15) shall be based on the water usage by the Water User whose water service was disrupted during same period of the previous year, or a water usage of 6000 gallons per month, whichever is less. In such a case, the metered water fee and the metered wastewater fee to be charged to the Water User whose water service was disrupted shall be based on the Water User’s water usage during the same period of the previous year or on a water usage of 6000 gallons per month, whichever is less.

3. Freeze Protection. In the event water usage for a Water User exceeds 6000

gallons per month between December 1, 2006 and April 15, 2008, based on allowing water to continually or intermittently run to prevent frozen pipes in a Private Water Service Line and if the City is notified of the continual or intermittent use of water, the metered water and wastewater fee for the period of time between the date of notification and date water was not continually or intermittently run shall be based on the Water User’s water usage as metered or 6000 gallons per month, whichever is less. The provisions of this Section 13.04.130(D)(3) shall be effective through April 15, 2008, at which time the provisions of this Section 13.04.130(D)(3) shall terminate and become null and void.

4 (Hailey 11/07)

13.04.140

13.04.140 Connection fees. A. The Owner or agent of any Property connected to the Municipal Water or Wastewater System shall pay a water connection fee for the value of water service and a Wastewater connection fee for the value of Wastewater service. The basis for the connection fee for those persons or entities connecting to the Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems is to charge the value of the system capacity that the new user will absorb at that point in time. The value of the system is determined each year by updating the original construction cost of each major capital improvement to the system to determine the cost to replace that improvement in that particular year. This is accomplished by determining the annual average engineering news record construction costs index (“ENR (CCI)”) in the year that the improvements were made and the year that the connection fee is being determined. The ENR (CCI) for the year calculated is divided by the ENR (CCI) for the year in which the improvements were made. The value is then multiplied by the original cost for the improvements. The value obtained is the estimated cost to replace the improvements at the time the connection fee is calculated. The gross value to replace the system must be adjusted by subtracting the remaining bond principal to obtain the net value. The remaining bond principal to be paid for bond retirement is determined from the bond retirement schedule each year. The remaining bond interest is not subtracted from gross system value.

B. The following is the equation for determining the net system value of the

Water and Wastewater Systems: Net system value = gross system value – remaining bond principal C. All ¾” water services shall be treated as one City standard base connection.

The base connection fee, as determined for a standard ¾” residential connection, is then determined by dividing the net system value by the design capacity of the system component expressed in City standard ¾” residential connections. All other size connections shall pay a connection fee based upon the size of the water service using the multiplication factors set forth in Section 13.04.140(D). The size of the water service shall be used as the determination of the Wastewater connection fee using the multiplication factors set forth in Section 13.04.140(E). D. For a water service larger than ¾”, the connection fees for both water and Wastewater services shall be based upon the size of the water service and shall be based upon the following schedule:

Water Service Size Multiplication Factor 1” 1.7 1-1/2” 3.3 2” 5.3 3” 15 4” 25 6” 50

5 (Hailey 6/07)

13.04.140

6 (Hailey 6/07)

E. The design capacity of the system component is determined by the City

Engineer based upon City policy and sound engineering practices. 13.04.150 Administration of municipal water and wastewater systems. A. Water and Wastewater Department Budget. The Water and Wastewater

department of the City shall, during the month of June of each year, propose an estimated budget showing the anticipated costs of replacement, repair, maintenance and operation of the Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems for the next fiscal year. The previously established Water and Wastewater connection fund shall continue to be used for the purposes established by the Water and Wastewater department and approved by the Mayor and City Council.

B. Annual Calculation of Fees. The City Council shall calculate on an annual

basis, or more frequently if deemed necessary by the City Council, the monthly Water and Wastewater User base, bond payment, metered water and irrigation fees, metered wastewater fees, connection fees, and other fees authorized by this Chapter to be charged by the City pursuant to the provisions set forth herein. The fees shall be established by a resolution of the City Council, duly made, passed and entered into the minutes of the meeting of the City Council, and shall become effective upon the date as established within the resolution.

Appendix B

WASTEWATER EFFLUENT LOADING PROJECTIONS

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

EF

FL

UE

NT

TS

S (

lbs/

day

)

Existing NPDES Permit TSS Limit 94 lbs/day (30-day average) (17 tons/year)

Low Growth Scenario 2.0 %

Average Growth Scenario 4.5%

TMDL WLA TSS <18 lbs/day

Post-TMDL WLA TSS < 44 lbs/day

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 EF

FL

UE

NT

FL

OW

(M

GD

)

EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADING PROJECTIONS

0.0

5.0

10.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030YEAR

Figure B.1Total Suspended Solids Discharge Projections

WATEWATER FACILITY PLANCITY OF HAILEY

Effluent waste load to Big Wood River, based on existing WWTP average effluent concentration TSS = 3 mg/L

JRichardson

FreeText

High Growth Scenario 4.5%

JRichardson

Line

JRichardson

Highlight

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

EFFL

UENT

LOA

DING

(lb

s/day

)

TMDL WLA TSS < 18 lbs/day

Effluent loading to Big Wood River average concentration TSS = 2 mg/L after chemical treatment


Low Growth Scenario 2%

Post-TMDL WLA TSS < 44 lbs/day

1.8

EFFL

UENT

FLO

W (M

GD)

1.5

1.2

0.9

0.4

EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADING PROJECTIONS WITH CHEMICAL TREATMENT

0.0

5.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030YEAR

Figure B.2Enhanced WWTP with Chemical Treatment TSS Effluent Loading Projections


JRichardson

FreeText


JRichardson

Highlight

JRichardson

Highlight

JRichardson

Line

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

EFFL

UENT

TP

(lbs/d

ay)

Existing NPDES Permit TP Limit 15 lbs/day (30-day average)

TMDL WLA TP < 5.3 lbs/day


Average Growth Scenario 4.5%Post-TMDL WLA TP < 8.6 lbs/day

1.8

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.6

0 3

EFFL

UENT

FLO

W (M

GD)

EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS LOADING PROJECTIONS

0.0

2.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030YEAR

Figure B.3Total Phosphorus Discahrge Projections


Effluent waste load to Big Wood River based on existing WWTP average effluent concentration TP = 0.8 mg/L

0.3

JRichardson

FreeText


JRichardson

Highlight

JRichardson

Line

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

EFFL

UENT

TP

(lbs/d

ay)

TMDL WLA TP < 5.3 lbs/day



Post-TMDL WLA TP < 8.6 lbs/day1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

EFFL

UENT

FLO

W (M

GD)

EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS LOADING WITH CHEMICAL TREATMENT

0.0

1.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030YEAR

Figure B.4Enhanced WWTP with Chemical Treatment TP Effluent Loading Projections


Effluent waste load to Big Wood River average concentration TP = 0.5 mg/L after chemical treatment

JRichardson

Highlight

JRichardson

FreeText


JRichardson

Line

1 2 5 92 W E S T E X P L OR E R D R I VE , S U IT E 2 0 0 • B OI S E , IDA H O 8 3 71 3 • ( 2 08 ) 3 76 - 2 28 8 • F A X ( 2 08 ) 37 6 - 2 2 5 1 C:\Users\ jw i l l i ams\Desk top\TM006_R4.docx

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT FINAL March, 2015

6-ii March 2015



ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................... 6-1

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 6-2 2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant ....................................................................... 6-2 2.2 Wastewater Collection System ................................................................... 6-5

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................................... 6-7

3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 6-7 3.2 General Description of the Site ................................................................... 6-7 3.3 Area of Potential Effects (APE) ................................................................... 6-9 3.4 Wastewater Flow Projections ...................................................................... 6-9 3.5 Topography and Soils ............................................................................... 6-10 3.6 Climate ...................................................................................................... 6-10 3.7 Population Distribution .............................................................................. 6-10 3.8 Economics, Social Profile, and Environmental Justice ............................. 6-11 3.9 Land Use ................................................................................................... 6-11 3.10 Floodplain Development ........................................................................... 6-12 3.11 Wetlands ................................................................................................... 6-12 3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................. 6-13 3.13 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 6-13 3.14 Flora and Fauna ........................................................................................ 6-13 3.15 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................... 6-14 3.16 Recreation and Open Space ..................................................................... 6-14 3.17 Agricultural Lands ..................................................................................... 6-15 3.18 Air Quality and Noise ................................................................................ 6-15 3.19 Water Quality, Quantity, and Sole Source Aquifers .................................. 6-16 3.20 Public Health ............................................................................................. 6-17 3.21 Solid Waste Management ......................................................................... 6-18 3.22 Energy Consumption ................................................................................. 6-18 3.23 Reuse/Land Application or Subsurface Disposal System ......................... 6-19 3.24 Regionalization .......................................................................................... 6-19 3.25 Formally Classified Lands ......................................................................... 6-19 3.26 Visual Aesthetics ....................................................................................... 6-19 3.27 Transportation ........................................................................................... 6-19

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ................................. 6-20 4.1 Direct Environmental Impacts ................................................................... 6-20 4.2 Indirect Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 6-20 4.3 Short-term Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 6-20

March 2015 6-iii

4.4 Long-term Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 6-20 4.5 Cumulative Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 6-20

5.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 6-21

6.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INPUT ................................................................ 6-22

APPENDIX A: Affected Agencies Survey Report APPENDIX B: Endangered Species Coordination APPENDIX C: Public Outreach Documentation

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Wastewater Flow Projections ........................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6.1 – Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6.2 – Proposed Planning Area ................................................................................ 6-8

6-iv March 2015

-This Page Left Blank Intentionally-

March 2015 6-v

City of Hailey WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN


COVER SHEET

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan City of Hailey 115 Main Street South Hailey, Idaho 83333 CONTACT PERSONS

Project Contact

Ms. Mariel Platt, AICP LEED AP Public Works Director and City Engineer 115 Main Street South Hailey, Idaho 83333 Phone (208) 788-9815 - Ext 24 Fax (208) 788-2942 Email: [email protected]

Environmental Review Contact

Mr. Jeremy Williams, P.E. Project Manager Carollo Engineers, P.C. 1265 E Ft Union Blvd, Ste 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84047 (801) 233-2500 Email: [email protected]

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE / FUNDING SOURCES

The estimated capital costs for the Proposed Actions at the wastewater treatment plant are as follows: WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS*: $4,120,000

* Conceptual level construction cost estimate for priority WWTP upgrade

projects, estimated in 2015 dollars. See the Executive Summary portion of the facility plan for details of the other capital improvements including wastewater collection system expansion over the 20-year planning period.

The City will consider funding the recommended upgrades through an SRLF loan. The estimated WWTP project costs, including engineering services, administration, and legal (at 16 percent of capital cost) are approximately $4,779,000 in 2015 dollars.

See the following table for a breakdown of estimated construction costs and funding sources:

6-vi March 2015

Estimated Construction Costs (See TM 5 for more detail. Values adjusted to 2015 dollars using ENR Cities Construction

Cost Index) Secondary Treatment $3,200,000 New Interceptors $0

Advanced Treatment $920,000 Recycled Water Distribution $0

Inflow and Infiltration Correction $0 Combined Sewer Overflows $0

Sewer System Rehabilitation $0 Storm Water Sewers $0

New Collector Sewers $0 Engineering, Administration, & Legal

Not included

Total Estimated Costs $4,120,000

Funding

DEQ share 100%

Other share 0%

Total Funding 100%

ESTIMATED USER FEES

The current wastewater system user charge is approximately $43.66 per month for an average customer using 6,000 gallons/month. The debt service portion of the monthly charge is $6.43 for the previous modification of the Woodside Treatment Plant in 2000. The proposed WWTP process improvements project will increase the user charge by approximately $6.44 per month for new debt service (does not include engineering, admin, and legal costs for the project); additional facility operation and maintenance costs for the chemical feed optimization have already been included in the 2012/2013 rates. The total monthly cost per household after the WWTP upgrade project will be approximately $50.10 per month (2013).

The current wastewater collection system assessment fee (connection fee) is $3,468 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The project will increase wastewater assessment fees to approximately $3,650 (2013).

These wastewater system user costs are summarized in the table below:

Estimated Wastewater System User Fee A. Current Average Monthly User Charge per EDU $43.66 B. Change in Operation & Maintenance Monthly

Charge per EDU $0

C. Change in Debt Service Monthly Charge per EDU

$6.44

D. Future Average Monthly User Charge per EDU (A+B+C)

$50.10

March 2015 6-vii

ABSTRACT

The City of Hailey is undertaking an overall wastewater facilities evaluation to identify present and future improvements necessary to meet the water quality criteria in the Big Wood River, and provide capacity for the service area. A Wastewater Facility Plan was prepared to identify the necessary improvements (Reference 1). As part of the overall wastewater treatment plant evaluation, this environmental report has been prepared to assess the potential impacts that the actions could have on the existing environment within the planning area. This environmental report is a separate chapter and is part of the facility plan. It is comprehensive and includes a description of the existing environment, a description of the alternative actions, an assessment of potential impacts that the actions could have on the environment, and a listing of mitigation measures that would be followed during implementation of the Proposed Action.

A public hearing has been held during the preparation of the final report to solicit input on the alternative evaluations. Results of the public hearing are presented later in the document and included in the Appendix.

March 2015 6-1



1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The City of Hailey owns and operates the Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which treats municipal wastewater from the City. The City has updated the Wastewater Facility Plan to meet future growth and potential future National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit discharge requirements. The WWTP currently discharges all treated wastewater to the Big Wood River. The existing WWTP has adequate treatment capacity to serve existing customers and meet the discharge requirements in the current NPDES permit but may not meet the future NPDES permit– the final NPDES discharge permit (effective August 1, 2012) was not ready at the time the facility plan was prepared.

Continued growth will require expansion of the treatment capacity at some future point; however, the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Big Wood River defined load allocation (LA) for the City of Hailey requires additional treatment to remove total phosphorus and total suspended solids. Technical Memorandum No 3 (TM 3) of the above referenced Wastewater Facility Plan (Reference 1) identifies deficiencies in the current treatment plant and its inability to meet projected treatment requirements (TM 3, Table 3.8); see Sections 6 and 7 of TM 3 for further detail.

TM 4 discusses modifications and additional treatment facilities needed to maintain compliance with the WWTP’s new permit. The Proposed Action outlined in this document addresses this need by installing additional cloth filters and optimizing the chemical feed systems to meet the TMDL, and construction of solids handling facilities to manage removal and disposal of solids. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct improvements necessary to allow the WWTP to meet current and proposed water quality regulations for the Big Wood River and meet treatment requirements over the next 20 years.

Table 1 Wastewater Flow Projections Wastewater Facility Plan Update City of Hailey

Parameter 2008 Operations 2028 Projections, average growth

Population 7,993 13,411

Avg. Day Flow (mgd) 0.63 1.14

Avg. Max Month Flow (mgd) 0.70 1.25

Peak Hour Flow (mgd) 2.02 3.65

6-2 March 2015

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Wastewater Facility Plan evaluates and recommends various upgrades and expansion options for the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the collection system. As part of this process, alternatives are evaluated, with a No Action Alternative for a baseline reference. The Proposed Action and Alternative Actions consist of expansion and construction of new treatment facilities to meet future discharge requirements. A site-plan identifying the locations of the Proposed Action improvements is provided in Figure 6.1. The following discussion is broken down into each process area, detailing the Proposed Action and alternative comparisons.

2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Secondary treatment at the WWTP removes total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia, and nutrients from the flow stream. Tertiary treatment provides filtration for additional solids removal.

Secondary treatment at the existing WWTP is provided in two Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) basins. Existing tertiary treatment includes six cloth disc filters. Final effluent is disinfected with ultraviolet (UV) light. Technical Memorandum No 3 of the Wastewater Facility Plan contains a detailed description of the secondary and tertiary treatment processes. Upgrade alternatives are presented in Technical Memorandum No 4.

2.1.1 Proposed Action – Wastewater Treatment

The Proposed Action involves constructing new solids handling and tertiary treatment processes, as discussed below. This action provides the WWTP with the ability to meet current and projected permit limits, provides redundancy for the cloth filters, improves solids handling capabilities, and is the lowest cost alternative that meets all of the WWTP’s needs.

2.1.1.1 Solids Handling

In order to ensure reliable plant operation and reduce solids disposal costs, it is recommended to replace the existing solids holding tank with a new aerated holding tank and a solids thickening or dewatering building utilizing screw presses. Biosolids regulations and solids handling is discussed in detail in TM 4, Section 13.

2.1.1.2 Secondary Treatment

No modifications to the secondary treatment process are proposed as part of this project.

2.1.1.3 Tertiary Treatment

The existing bank of six cloth disc filters has an average day treatment capacity of approximately 1.5 mgd, with no redundancy to take filters out of service. Additionally, the cloth disc media has nominal openings of approximately 6 to 10 microns. Historical records show the total suspended solids (TSS) concentration in the filtered effluent averages

Figure 6.1Site Plan


SBR 3

SBR 4(future)

Equalization 2

BiosolidsStorage

Tank

Thickening orDewatering

Building

Two-StageFilter Building

(future)

(future)

New cloth filters andchemical storage and

feed equipment

Future

Legend Future facilities (not part of the proposed action) New facilities recommended as part of the proposed action

6-4 March 2015

3.3 mg/L. To consistently meet the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) limits defined by the Big Wood River TMDL, additional tertiary filtration is recommended. The recommended action is to add an additional bank of six cloth disk filters, along with associated chemical storage and feed equipment for chemical phosphorus removal. The second bank of cloth disc filter equipment is needed to improve treatment efficiency, and to provide redundancy for maintenance.

2.1.1.4 Disinfection

The existing UV disinfection system has adequate capacity to treat the projected peak flows and no modifications are necessary.

2.1.2 Alternative Actions – Wastewater Treatment


Alternatives to screw presses were not discussed in TM 4. Possible alternatives include centrifuges and belt filter presses. These alternatives can be evaluated further in the design stage, but screw presses require less energy (lower hp motors) and are typically quieter in operation than centrifuges and belt presses.


Expansion alternatives developed for the secondary treatment process included treatment trains with sequencing batch reactors (SBR), conventional activated sludge, and membrane bioreactors.

The SBR made the best use of the existing equipment and tankage, and therefore had the lowest cost (see Figure 6.1 for possible SBR expansion configuration). Conventional activated sludge and membrane bioreactor alternatives were expensive and did not make the best use of the existing facilities.

The secondary treatment expansion can be deferred for approximately eight to ten years because of lower growth rates; however, the identified solids handling improvements need to be done in the near term to replace falling infrastructure, and to reduce O&M costs. See TM 4 for a more detailed discussion of this evaluation.


Tertiary treatment expansion included adding various types of chemical addition and solids conditioning clarifiers, and filtration equipment including membranes, upflow sand media, and two-stage filtration. Based on the evaluation completed, expansion of the cloth disc media is recommended. See TM 4 for a more detailed discussion of this section.

March 2015 6-5



2.1.3 No Action – Wastewater Treatment

The No Action alternative would be the lowest cost alternative but it would also compromise the ability of the WWTP to effectively meet effluent water quality standards in the Big Wood River. The No Action Alternative is not recommended.


As discussed in TM 4, the WWTP currently removes in excess of 350 loads of sludge each year using the City’s 6,000 gallon (29.7 cubic yard) tanker truck. Biosolids thickened to three to four percent solids would reduce the number of loads (trips) to approximately 100 – 125 per year. Biosolids dewatered to 15 percent solids would require approximately 100 loads per year with a smaller seven cubic yard dump truck. These figures are for current sludge production values, which will increase when chemical addition is implemented to meet the new permit. No Action for solids handling is not recommended because the current method of solids handling is not sustainable.


Expansion and/or improvement of secondary treatment at the WWTP is not needed to meet capacity or discharge requirements for the new permit. No Action is acceptable until such time that extra capacity and redundancy is needed.


Some form of tertiary treatment is needed to consistently meet the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) limits defined by the Big Wood River TMDL. The No Action Alternative is not recommended.



2.2 Wastewater Collection System

The existing wastewater collection system is comprised of predominantly conventional gravity sewers. The sewers and pumps stations cover the current service area within the incorporated City limits. The pipelines have capacity to serve the existing customers and accommodate some growth for the minor amount of fill-in development remaining in the City. The entire collection system was reviewed in detail in TM 2.

6-6 March 2015

The majority of the collection system is in good condition with only a few areas identified for repair/replacement. Areas of the collection system with immediate needs have already been addressed by City staff and are not discussed further in this document.

The unincorporated area of impact around the City is subject to development proposals, with requests to connect to the City of Hailey wastewater system. Extension of the wastewater collection system to include new customers outside of the current service area requires expansion of the collection system capacity.

2.2.1 Proposed Action

There is no proposed action at this time to expand the wastewater collection system outside the current City limits. Expansion of the system is dependent upon the size and location of development proposed in the area of impact.

In the No Action alternative, the City of Hailey will continue to provide wastewater collection services within the City limits. New customers outside the City limits would not be included into the system.

2.2.2 Alternative Actions

Conceptual alternatives to expand the wastewater collection system alternatives were developed for general planning purposes and were not developed in detail. The potential development in the area of impact for the 20-year planning period may reach a population of 21,500, and ultimate build-out in the area of impact can reach 31,000 people. Conceptual alternatives to interconnect the collection system zones and expand capacity throughout the system were prepared to identify planning-level budgets. Funding the expansion of future collection system to serve new customers in the area of impact is the responsibility of the new development.

March 2015 6-7

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This section provides a description of the existing environment for the Proposed Action, discusses potential environmental consequences associated with the action, and describes the consequences of no action.

3.1 Affected Environment

The proposed project planning area includes the incorporated areas of the City of Hailey, areas served by the collection system (see TM 2, Figure 2.1), the WWTP site, the Ohio Gulch transfer station (landfill), and the area downstream of the discharge to the Big Wood River, see Figure 6.2.

The Proposed Action and Alternative Actions are all located within the existing City wastewater treatment plant property boundaries on a vacant portion of the lot. The existing wastewater treatment plant is the sole wastewater treatment plant in the City of Hailey’s planning area. No inter-regional issues result from construction within the plant boundaries.

There are no active plans to regionalize wastewater treatment in the Big Wood River watershed. The economies of scale from a larger centralized treatment facility may offer a marginal cost savings with regionalized wastewater treatment. However, the total costs for regional collection are expected to exceed any savings in treatment, so regionalization has not been developed. Currently, there are no inter-agency agreements to support regionalization.

The following paragraphs provide a general description of the existing wastewater treatment plant site and describe the features and conditions of the site. See Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

3.2 General Description of the Site

The wastewater treatment plant is located in the southeast corner of the City of Hailey. The site is situated on existing land that is owned by the City, within an area enclosed by a security fence. The portion of the site to be used for new construction as part of the proposed action is not currently used for any designated purpose other than material storage. The site is located within the City’s area of impact, within the City incorporated boundaries, and within Blaine County. Less than 1 acre of the site will be used as part of the proposed project.

Woodside WWTP

18” OutfallPlant Discharge to

Big Wood River

March 2015 6-9

3.3 Area of Potential Effects (APE)

The Proposed Action lies within the existing wastewater treatment plant’s boundaries. The Proposed Action is compatible with current and future land uses at the site, and no area outside the existing plant boundaries will be directly affected by the Proposed Action other than the improvement of water quality downstream of the treatment plant’s discharge.

As shown in Figure 6.1, a portion of the property along the southeast boundary is reserved for future construction of SBR 3 and SBR 4. A future two-stage filter building could be built in the center of the property, south of the building that will be modified to house the new cloth filters, chemical storage and chemical feed equipment. None of this future work is included in the project associated with the Proposed Action.

As part of the Proposed Action, a biosolids storage tank will be constructed along the south boundary, and a thickening/dewatering building constructed along the southwest boundary.

The area of potential effect will essentially be any residents within the WWTP service area, Ohio Gulch (landfill), and users downstream of the outfall in the Big Wood River. The affect will be a reduction in truck traffic to remove solids, less area needed at Ohio Gulch for solar drying, and an improvement of water quality downstream of the discharge point by reducing pollutant discharges. The proposed project will have a positive impact on the APE. Because the area of impact downstream of the WWTP effluent discharge is large and difficult to define, and because the outcome of the project will be a positive impact, this zone has not been defined as part of this scope; see Figure 6.2.

3.4 Wastewater Flow Projections

Wastewater flows are projected to increase over the next several years as the City population grows. In 2007, the City experienced an average day flow of 0.63 mgd. Wastewater flows are projected to reach an annual average flow of 1.14 mgd in the service area within the next 20-years, assuming a low annual growth rate of 1.5% for the next five years followed by an average annual growth rate of 3.5% per year thereafter until 2028. Population projections for the City limits within the area of impact that The WWTP serves could result in an ultimate flow of 2.62 mgd. See Technical Memorandum No. 1 for more details.

The upgraded wastewater treatment facilities must be capable of providing adequate treatment for the plant to meet its discharge permit requirements and flow projections. The Proposed Action will provide adequate treatment capacity for the plant to meet current and projected future needs. See the Executive Summary for recommended sequencing of improvements at the WWTP.

6-10 March 2015

3.5 Topography and Soils

The main topography of the site consists of relatively flat ground. The northern side of the site leads up into the Hailey foothills. A copy of the soil survey map for the immediate area (per U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)) is included in Appendix A. Soil units at the site consist of Bringmee Loam, Drage Very Gravelly Loam, and Little Wood Very Gravely Loam.

No slides or faults were identified at the site, and groundwater is approximately 10 feet below the surface.

3.6 Climate

The climate of the Hailey area can be characterized as a moderate continental climate characterized by hot, dry summers with cold and wet winters. The temperature varies from a normal mean low temperature of approximately 8.3 degrees Fahrenheit in January to a normal mean high temperature of 84.9 degrees Fahrenheit in July (Reference 2). Snowfall averages 78 inches per year, total yearly precipitation averages about 16 inches, with free water surface evaporation reaches about 30 inches a year (Reference 3).

The new facilities associated with the Proposed Action will not produce any emissions; no air quality impacts are expected. The climate does require the cloth filter and solids thickening/dewatering processes to be inside enclosed buildings, which is part of the recommendation.

3.7 Population Distribution

The WWTP is located on the southeast edge of the City off Glenbrook Drive. There is undeveloped land north and east of the plant, agricultural land to the south, and residential/commercial development to the west. The entire City of Hailey lies north and west of the WWTP.

The population of Hailey grew as follows from 1990 to 2008:

Year Population

1990 3,575 1995 3,881 2000 6,200 2005 7,618 2008 7,993

Overall, the rate of growth averaged about 4.5 percent per year for the 20-year period, while growth during the period from 2000 to 2005 was slightly higher at about 5.3 percent per year. Total population growth could ultimately reach 19,000 within the City limits.

March 2015 6-11

The City’s population is expected to increase at a low rate of 1.5 percent per year through 2015 followed by an average growth rate of 3.5 percent each year from 2016 through 2028. The population growth and anticipated wastewater service area indicate that the future population will be 13,411 by 2028, which is the end of the 20-year planning period. This represents a population increase of 68%, and at 2.58 people per household, a possible residential unit increase of 2100; see TM 1.

The cumulative 20-year statewide population increase is 34.5%, projected from 2008 to 2028 (IHS Global Insight, Idaho Population Projection 1961-2042, October 15, 2012). Growth for the 20-year planning period will exceed the 20-year statewide projection by more than 20% and have a change of more than 500 estimated residential units over the life of the project.

This growth in the City will be a contributing factor necessitating upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant at some point, but the low growth rate for the next few years allows expansion of the plant to be deferred until expansion of the secondary treatment processes is needed for capacity and redundancy; see TM 4.

3.8 Economics, Social Profile, and Environmental Justice

In 1999, the per capita income for the City of Hailey was $43,060. This is about 165 percent of the State of Idaho’s per capita income of $26,137 for the same year (Reference 2). This data, compared with the size of the monthly rate increase described at the beginning of this section, suggests that the local populace can afford to build the proposed improvements.

The Proposed Action is the least expensive alternative for upgrading the wastewater treatment capacity for the City. This provides an opportunity to minimize cost impacts to the residents, some of whom are lower-income citizens. In this way, the impacts to the existing socio-economic make-up of the area should be minimized.

The Proposed Action takes place entirely on the existing WWTP site and no purchase of additional land is required. No developers or landowners stand to benefit directly from the improvements made at the plant, nor should the improvements adversely affect neighboring property values.

No low income or minority groups will be adversely affected by the project. As stated above, no additional land is required and property values will not be negatively impacted by the improvements.

3.9 Land Use

No additional property will be purchased for this project. The Proposed Action lies within the existing wastewater treatment plant’s boundaries, and the appearance of the improvements will be similar to existing structures. The Proposed Action is compatible with current and

6-12 March 2015

future land uses at the site, and no area outside the existing plant boundaries will be affected by the Proposed Action.

The inhabited area north and west of the WWTP will not be adversely impacted by the project. The area will likely benefit from the Proposed Action, as implementation of the solids handling portion of the project will reduce the number of trips the City’s sludge tanker truck needs to make through that area annually.

The Proposed Action will most directly improve water quality, not capacity; therefore, new development should not be expected any more than what would normally occur. No specific new development will arise as a direct result of this project.

The current site does not require purchase of additional property or rezoning; no land use changes are anticipated for the surrounding properties. Land use is discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.3 in TM 1.

3.10 Floodplain Development

As discussed previously, the Proposed Action involves expansion of the current wastewater treatment plant site. The site is located above the 100-year flood plain that has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A map of the 100-year flood plain is included in Appendix A. Construction of facilities within this area of impact will be done with the boundary of the facilities above the 100-year floodplain.

Because the current WWTP site is not in a 100-year floodplain, no measures have been taken to minimize the effects of a 100-year flood. The facility will still be able to fully function and operate during a 100-year flood event.

The City will not be required to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program because the site is not located in a 100-year floodplain.

3.11 Wetlands

The project location is bordered to the northeast by a hillside, to the south and east by farmland, and to the west by a road and commercial development. The elevation of the site is much higher than the river, and a visual inspection of the site (much of which has already been disturbed by the previous project and plant operations) shows no wetlands characteristics within the fenced plant boundaries. The site is also higher than the canal that runs along southwest side, in some places up to 5 ft higher. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within the plant boundaries in an upland environment that is void of any hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation (typical indicators of wetland conditions), and is not subject to wetlands hydrology. See site photos and figure in Appendix A. The figure shows that no excess vegetation, shrubs or waterways, which indicate wetlands, are visible and therefore wetland conditions on the site are not a concern.

March 2015 6-13

The contractor will be required to implement a SWPPP during construction and use BMPs to keep erosion and stormwater from leaving the site and possibly entering the canal outside the fence on the south side of the plant site.

Given the existing site conditions and designation of mitigation measures, no direct or indirect impacts to any existing wetlands would occur as a result of constructing the Proposed Action.

3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The WWTP discharges to the Big Wood River, but the river is not located in or near the plant boundaries. The project site is east of the river against the foothills, and the plant effluent is carried by a discharge pipe to the river. This portion of the Big Wood River is located in Administrative Basin 37 (Reference 6) and is not designated as a wild and scenic river; see the map provided in Appendix A.

No designated or proposed wild and scenic rivers will be affected by the Proposed Action.

3.13 Cultural Resources

An archaeological, cultural, and historical resource survey was completed prior to the expansion of the Woodside Treatment Plant (Reference 8) in 2000. No cultural resources were found or recorded for the Proposed Action site at that time. As such, the Proposed Action in this Facility Plan is not projected to have any impact on cultural resources. DEQ will consult with Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.

The National Register of Historic Places was viewed to determine if the Proposed Action at the treatment plant site was located near any registered historic sites (Reference 4). A State of Idaho historic preservation officer was also contacted for review of the site and determined that “No additional investigations are recommended. Project can proceed as Planned” (see Appendix A). While there are historical sites listed in Hailey, all are within the City limits and away from the Proposed Action site. No impact to these historical sites is anticipated.

3.14 Flora and Fauna

Most of the existing site contains large process equipment buildings and concrete tanks, asphalt and gravel roadways, and has been disturbed by previous development. The site is also fenced with a 6-foot chain link security fence with outrigger and 3-strand barb wire. The Proposed Action would result in construction of additional buildings and concrete tanks and roadways and cover a part of the remaining disturbed ground, which is within the plant boundaries. Construction of the Proposed Action would be confined to areas within the existing site and within the existing fence.

6-14 March 2015

From the previous 2000 Woodside WWTP project construction (see TM1 §3.2.1), no species listed as threatened or endangered were present in the planning area based on current information. A current US Fish and Wildlife Service threatened and endangered species list specific to this project was obtained and is included in Appendix B. The Idaho Fish and Game Department was also contacted to verify current conditions. Their assessment was consistent with previous assessments - there are no designated threatened or endangered species or critical habitats in the proposed project planning area. Since the last version of this document, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) have updated the endangered species list for Blaine County. Changes made to the new list removed the endangered North American Wolverine. Flora and Fauna to consider according to the updated list:

Greater Sage Grouse – Lives predominantly in sagebrush; cleared and fenced site provide no habitat

Yellow Billed Cuckoo – Lives in cottonwood and willows; cleared and fenced site provide no habitat

Canada Lynx – Not typically found in the area; cleared and fenced site provide no habitat

Bull Trout – Found in rivers; improved plant effluent will benefit fish

Whitebark Pine – No whitebark pines are found on site

IDEQ performed additional coordination with USF&WS after the endangered species list was updated. Information on the wildlife consultation includes a memo that gives further details on the endangered species list. This memo and all documentation pertaining to flora and fauna is found in Appendix B.

In summary, the project will not have direct or indirect adverse impacts on any such designated species or habitats, nor will the project have direct or indirect adverse impacts on other fish and wildlife, or their habitats, including migratory routes, wintering, or calving areas. The planning area does not include a sensitive habitat area designated by a local, state, or federal wildlife agency.

3.15 Essential Fish Habitat

The project will have no effect on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. A copy of the Salmon EFH map (Reference 9) has been included in Appendix A.

3.16 Recreation and Open Space

The site is bordered by open pasture and rangeland to the northeast and agricultural land to the south. Access to this land would not be altered with construction of the Proposed

March 2015 6-15

Action. No recreational open space, parks, or areas of recognized scenic or recreational value will be eliminated or modified for this project.

It is not feasible, nor desirable for security reasons, to combine the project with parks, bicycle paths, hiking trails, waterway access, and other recreational uses

3.17 Agricultural Lands

The USDA-NRCS designated 25 soil units within Blaine County considered as prime farmland (see Appendix A). Prime farmland is defined as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for those uses.”

Neither the Proposed Action nor the Alternative Actions would directly convert any prime farmland to a different use. The project site is not part of any prime farmlands and will be built entirely within the plant boundaries on land already designated for use as a wastewater treatment plant. The WWTP and its proposed improvement are not located on designated prime farmlands. No conversion of use or change of zoning will be necessary.

3.18 Air Quality and Noise

The Proposed Action would result in short-term increases of vehicle and equipment emissions during periods of construction, but all emissions during construction should meet federal and state emission standards contained in the air quality state implementation plan (SIP). The WWTP site is not located within an Idaho Nonattainment Area (Reference 5, Appendix A). The Contractor will be required to meet any applicable emission standards for construction equipment, as these are governed by the EPA. In addition, dust control measures would be implemented during construction to limit the formation of airborne dust.

Operation of the improvements should not increase current WWTP emissions or odors or create new emissions or odors. Optimization of the new solids handling facilities should improve the current facility’s ability to control undesirable odors, and if design of the improvements identifies that odors would be an issue, specific odor control equipment could be incorporated into the design.

Noise levels would increase in the short term during construction. The amount of construction noise could range from 68 to 96 decibels at a distance of 50 feet depending upon the type of construction equipment used. Long-term background noise may increase slightly; however, noise-generating equipment similar to existing equipment would be installed. If above-average noise-generating equipment were to be installed, provisions for noise control would be included in the design and construction of such equipment.

6-16 March 2015

3.19 Water Quality, Quantity, and Sole Source Aquifers

The Woodside WWTP currently discharges to the Big Wood River. The State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) completed the Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan in 2001, which defined the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Big Wood River. The TMDL defines the allowable pollutants the City can discharge from the Woodside WWTP to the Big Wood River to maintain water quality standards. The primary reason for the current Wastewater Facility Plan update is to determine the best compliance strategy for the City to meet the water quality standards in the Big Wood River. These specific water quality standards and challenges are discussed in more detail in the Executive Summary portion of the facility plan.

Present stream classifications in the receiving stream (Big Wood River) are not being challenged as too low to protect present or recent stream uses. There is not a substantial risk that the proposed discharge will not meet existing stream standards or will not be of sufficient quality to protect present or recent stream uses; in fact, the risk is in not constructing the proposed project. If the improvements are not implemented, the WWTP could be at risk of not meeting their discharge requirements, negatively impacting water quality.

Construction of the Proposed Action is expected to have no direct impacts on the existing water quality of the Big Wood River, located approximately 4,000 feet from the site. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be employed during construction to control erosion and contain sediment run-off from the site. Project construction and development of the site will result in more improved (paved) area and some increase in urban stormwater, but nonpoint water quality should not be a problem given the small size of the improvements. All stormwater runoff will be in accordance with local standards.

Water rights will not be affected by the project as the improvements will neither increase or decrease flow through the plant as a direct result of the improvements. There should be no direct change in flow, nor will there be a change to the outfall, so there will be no stream- bank modifications.

The City of Hailey and the other communities in the Big Wood River Valley share a common groundwater resource for the supply of drinking water. The groundwater resource is characterized by a shallow aquifer with high travel velocity through the gravel deposits, meaning the aquifer is considered highly vulnerable to contamination. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) designated the Big Wood River Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) to address the connection between groundwater and surface water within the drainage. The groundwater hydrogeology and diversion patterns are being monitored to track uses between the regional demands for water resources. In addition, the City of Hailey has defined and implemented source water protection measures in the areas of the supply wells. The proposed project planning area and area of potential effect are within the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer source area but are not within the aquifer

March 2015 6-17

area. US EPA was consulted to determine if the project is part of a sole source aquifer program and what the impacts might be (Reference 7, Appendix A). USEPA “. . . reviewed the information provided and find that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the Eastern Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer and therefore the funding may proceed.”

The plant discharges to the Big Wood River and no changes to the outfall are included in the Proposed Action. As such, there should be no adverse affect to the recharge area of the Big Wood River relating to the Proposed Action. Any sources that may pull from the Big Wood River would likely benefit from the improved water quality that should result from implementation of the Proposed Action.

Any water conservation measures to reduce wastewater generation would need to be done at the consumer level on a citywide basis. The impetus for the Proposed Action is more water quality driven than capacity driven; even significant water conservation measures would not eliminate the need for the recommended improvements.

3.20 Public Health

Noise levels would increase in the short term during construction. The amount of construction noise could range from 68 to 96 decibels at a distance of 50 feet depending upon the type of construction equipment used. Long-term background noise may increase slightly; however, noise-generating equipment similar to existing equipment would be installed. If above-average noise-generating equipment were to be installed, provisions for noise control would be included in the design and construction of such equipment.

The Proposed Action does not increase the amount of still or stagnant water on the project site. There should be no noticeable increase in mosquitoes or other organisms that could create a vector problem.

No unique public health problems should result from this project. Most of the current WWTP facilities were constructed in 2000, so no hazardous materials such as PCBs, lead paint, asbestos, etc., should be encountered when performing repairs or modifications to these newer existing facilities.

The original 1974 Woodside Treatment Plant is a fabricated steel package plant with an FRP dome, which is currently used as an aerobic digester, sludge thickener, and an aerated sludge-holding tank. This would be replaced as part of the new solids handling facilities. If the original 1974 facilities are demoed, the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requires the owner of any property containing or that might contain asbestos building materials, to perform an asbestos inspection prior to any demolitions or renovations of that property. A survey should be conducted to determine if there are any hazardous materials present.

Construction of the new facilities is not anticipated to create a public health risk.

6-18 March 2015

3.21 Solid Waste Management

The City currently utilizes a combination of aerobic digestion and air-drying at Ohio Gulch to comply with the pathogen reduction requirements in the regulations. There are no special sludge problems that make disposal difficult; however, if the air-drying option at Blain County is discontinued in the future, the City will have to provide alternative treatment, handling and disposal options.

Current operations records indicate that approximately 1.8 million gallons per year of liquid sludge is hauled to the landfill, which requires in excess of 350 loads each year using the City’s 6,000-gallon (29.7 cubic yard) tanker truck. Biosolids thickened to three to four percent solids would reduce the number of loads (trips) to approximately 100 – 125 per year. Biosolids dewatered to 15 percent solids would require approximately 100 loads per year with a smaller seven cubic yard dump truck.

Thickened sludge from the holding tank would be pumped to a dewatering screw press inside a new dewatering building. Progressive cavity positive displacement pumps are recommended to feed the screw press at a constant rate. Liquid polymer would be added to improve the dewatering characteristics of the sludge. The screw press is expected to yield sludge cake at 15 percent solids, which is dry enough to haul in an open dump truck.

This technology is widely used within the industry and is not controversial. Implementation of the recommended solids handling facilities would help the City’s sludge management plan conform to EPA 503 regulations if current means of disposal change in the future.

Solids handling and the associated proposed new facilities are discussed in more detail in Section 13 of TM 4.

3.22 Energy Consumption

A number of energy-consuming devises would be installed as part of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action requires the addition of pumps, process motors, and aeration blowers. The amount of increase would be determined during design of the new facilities. New equipment incorporated into the design would achieve current industry standards regarding energy efficiency.

Implementation of new solids handling facilities as part of the Proposed Action (sludge thickening and dewatering) will reduce the number of trips required to haul sludge off site (from 350 currently to 125), saving a substantial amount of energy in the form of fossil fuels. Assuming 5 mpg for the 17 mile round trip, this could save over 750 gallons each year.

Any other additional cost-effective measures to reduce energy consumption or increase energy recovery that could be included in the project will be evaluated in design and included if possible.

March 2015 6-19

3.23 Reuse/Land Application or Subsurface Disposal System

No reuse/land application or subsurface disposal system is part of the Proposed Action.

3.24 Regionalization

The planning area includes the incorporated areas of the City of Hailey. The Proposed Action and Alternative Actions are all located within the existing City wastewater treatment plant property boundaries. The existing wastewater treatment plant is the sole wastewater treatment plant in the City of Hailey’s planning area. No inter-regional issues result from construction within the plant boundaries.

There are no active plans to regionalize wastewater treatment in the Big Wood River watershed. The economies of scale from a larger centralized treatment facility may offer a marginal cost savings with regionalized wastewater treatment. However, the total costs for regional collection are expected to exceed any savings in treatment, so regionalization has not been developed. Currently, there are no inter-agency agreements to support regionalization.

3.25 Formally Classified Lands

The site is not located on any formally classified lands.

3.26 Visual Aesthetics

The new facilities to be constructed as part of the Proposed Action would be constructed within the existing plant boundaries. Care will be taken during and after construction to restore disturbed vegetation. The Proposed Action would not result in a visual impact to the area.

3.27 Transportation

Short-term traffic to the site would increase as workers, equipment, and material deliveries access the construction. In the long-term, the Proposed Action would have no significant impact on the existing traffic flow of nearby streets and roads.

6-20 March 2015

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

4.1 Direct Environmental Impacts

The only direct environmental impact of the Proposed Action will be to construct new solids handling facilities on an already existing, fenced, and disturbed site. The direct impact will be short-term and is described below.

4.2 Indirect Environmental Impacts

Indirect environmental impacts include:

A reduction in the number of trips needed to dispose of sludge offsite, which will reduce energy consumption and improve air quality

An improvement in effluent water quality, which will benefit downstream users, the Big Wood River drainage, and the Easter Snake River Plain Aquifer.

4.3 Short-term Environmental Impacts

Short-term environmental impacts are limited to the construction period and can be mitigated to reduce or eliminate the effects. Mitigation efforts are discussed later; possible short-term impacts include the following:

Demolition of the old sludge holding tank

Stormwater during construction

Dust, noise, and other impacts arising from construction activities

4.4 Long-term Environmental Impacts

Long-term environment impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed action are positive. They include the indirect environmental impacts listed above.

4.5 Cumulative Environmental Impacts

The cumulative environment impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed action are also positive. They include the indirect and long-term environmental impacts listed above.

March 2015 6-21

5.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY

Means to mitigate adverse direct and short-term environmental impacts are necessary to protect the surrounding environment during construction. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures would be undertaken as necessary:

Conduct a site survey prior to demolition of any existing facilities. Survey would be to identify all hazardous materials in the facilities to be demolished or remodeled. After the survey is complete, any identified materials would be removed by a licensed subcontractor, allowing the general contractor to obtain an air quality permit and begin demolition.

The Contract Documents would require the Contractor for the project to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and employ erosion prevention and sediment control measures to limit the opportunity for sediment to migrate off-site during construction. Methods employed would include installing silt fencing around the entire work area, placing straw bales and intermediate fencing as necessary, collecting, and routing run-off to a sedimentation area prior to discharge to off-site, constructing rock construction entrances, and other methods as required. The goal would be to minimize the opportunity for sediment to leave the site and enter area-receiving waters, such as the canal on the south side of the plant.

Equipment fueling and washing would occur in designated areas away from any run-off features.

The Contract Documents would require the Contractor to employ dust control at the site as necessary to limit the formation of dust.

Following construction, soil stabilization or site landscaping (grass cover) would be restored.

Portable sanitary facilities would be used throughout construction.

The wastewater treatment plant would remain in operation throughout construction to ensure continual use for the City’s customers and no interruptions in the treatment plant’s ability to meet discharge related water quality requirements.

6-22 March 2015

6.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INPUT

A notice was published in the Idaho Mountain Express on June 13, 2012 and a 14-day public comment period was given, which ended on June 27, 2012. No comments were received during the public comment period.

An open house public hearing was held on July 16, 2012 at the Hailey City Hall Meeting Room as part of the Hailey city council meeting. The intent of the open house was to provide an opportunity for local citizens to view the planned project and to answer any questions, and to present the facility plan for the City to accept the document and adopt an action. Public Works Director and City Engineer Tom Hellen presented a public works memo to the mayor and city council. Mayor Haemmerle opened the meeting for public comment. None was offered. The city council then accepted the facility plan and adopted Resolution 2012-48. Adoption of Resolution 2012-48 formally selected the alternative listed in the City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan Executive Summary in Table ES.3 as the Proposed Action.

Copies of the published notice, city council agenda, public works memo, meeting minutes, and resolution from the July 16th, 2012 public outreach are included in Appendix C. No public comment was received during either the public comment period or the public hearing

The final outcome of the initial public outreach was not approved by the IDWQ due to the meeting not being held separate from the committee meeting. The City of Hailey responded by holding another separate public hearing on September 15, 2014. Documentation and approval of the new public outreach is also found in Appendix C.

Several references and local, state, and federal agencies were consulted during the preparation of this document. The following is a list of these references and agencies.

REFERENCES

Reference 1 City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan, City of Hailey. 2012.

Carollo Engineers. Reference 2 Idaho Department of Labor at http://labor.idaho.gov Reference 3 Idaho State Climate Services website at http://uidaho.edu Reference 4 National Register Information System, database of the National Register of

Historic Places website at http://www.nr.nps.gov Reference 5 US EPA, Region 10 website at:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/webpage/SIP+-+General+Page Reference 6 Idaho Division of Water Resources

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/AdministrativeBasins/default.htm http://www.rivers.gov/maps/conus.php

Reference 7 US EPA, Region 10 website at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/SSA

Reference 8 City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Plan, City of Hailey. 2000.

Keller Associates. Reference 9 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/grants-loans/environmental-assessment.aspx

AGENCY CONSULTATION

The following agencies were consulted during the preparation of this Environmental Report:

U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

U.S. National Park Service – National Register of Historic Places

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Idaho Department of Commerce

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)

Mailing List

Attendees of public meetings

(none)

Affected local residents

(none)

Environmental Groups

(none)

DEQ

Brian Reed Water Quality Staff Engineer State of Idaho – Department of Environmental Quality 1363 Fillmore St Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-736-2190 [email protected]

Charlie Parkins DEQ State Office Water Quality Division 1410 N. Hilton Boise, ID 83706 (208) 373-0577 [email protected]

US EPA

Susan Eastman EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW-136 Seattle, Washington 98101 [email protected]

Appendix A

Woodside WastewateTreatment Plant

Proposed Project Planning Area (PPPA)Area of Potential Effects (APE)

Woodside WWTPWetland Map

Nov 9, 2012

This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is notresponsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. Allwetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found onthe Wetlands Mapper web site.

User Remarks:

BDavies

Oval

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant

BDavies

Typewritten Text

56005400

WWTP Boundary

Majority of site has been disturbed and shows no features consistent with wetlands.

November 9, 2012 Ms. Suzi Pengilly Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Idaho State Historical Society 210 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 Subject: City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Historic Preservation Review Dear Ms. Pengilly:

The City of Hailey is undertaking a wastewater facilities evaluation to identify the present and future improvements necessary to meet the water quality criteria in the Big Wood River. As part of the overall evaluation, an environmental information document (EID) is being prepared to assess the potential impacts that the actions could have on the existing environment within the planning area. As part of the EID, form 5-B Section D.6.i stipulates that the State of Idaho Historic Preservation Office be consulted to determine whether there are any properties on the proposed project area that are either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The purpose of this letter is to request your services with this evaluation and to provide you with a brief description of the proposed site improvements.

The Proposed Action involves constructing new solids handling and tertiary treatment processes, as discussed below. Please see Figure 6.1 for a map of the proposed site plan.

Solids Handling - In order to ensure reliable plant operation and reduce solids disposal costs, it is recommended to replace the existing solids holding tank with a new aerated holding tank and thickening or dewatering.

Tertiary Treatment - The existing bank of six cloth disc filters has an average day treatment capacity of approximately 1.5 mgd, with no redundancy to take filters out of service. To consistently meet the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) limits defined by the Big Wood River TMDL, additional tertiary filtration is recommended. The recommended alternative is to add an additional bank of six cloth disk filters, along with chemical storage and feed equipment for chemical phosphorus removal. Regarding the existing soil, the proposed holding tank and thickening or dewatering building may require excavation for all of the following activities: newly constructed pipelines, addition of structural fill, and construction of building footings and foundations.

If you have questions or would like to discuss any further details, please feel free to contact me by phone or email. We appreciate your assistance with this project. Sincerely, CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler B. Bird Staff Professional P (801) 233-2525 C (801) 455-2168 [email protected]

DATE: December 13, 2012 TO: Tyler Bird, Carollo Engineers FEDERAL AGENCY: EPA PROJECT NAME: City of Hailey Wastewater Facility Improvements

Section 106 Evaluation

Identification of Historic Properties (36 CFR 900.4):

Assessment of Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5):

Comments: Your archaeological consultant should be notified immediately if archaeological remains are discovered during construction.

12/13/12 Susan Pengilly, Deputy SHPO Date State Historic Preservation Office

The field work and documentation presented in this report meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

X No additional investigations are recommended. Project can proceed as planned.

Additional information is required to complete the project review. (See comments below.)

Additional investigations are recommended. (See comments below).

X No historic properties were identified within the project area.

Property is not eligible. Reason:

Property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Criterion: _ A _ B _ C _ D Context for Evaluation:

X No historic properties will be affected within the project area.

Project will have no adverse effect on historic properties.

Property will have an adverse effect on historic properties. Additional consultation is required.

C.L. “Butch” Otter Governor of Idaho Janet Gallimore Executive Director Administration 2205 Old Penitentiary Road Boise, Idaho 83712-8250 Office: (208) 334-2682 Fax: (208) 334-2774 Membership and Fund Development 2205 Old Penitentiary Road Boise, Idaho 83712-8250 Office: (208) 514-2310 Fax: (208) 334-2774 Historical Museum and Education Programs 610 North Julia Davis Drive Boise, Idaho 83702-7695 Office: (208) 334-2120 Fax: (208) 334-4059 State Historic Preservation Office and Historic Sites Archeological Survey of Idaho 210 Main Street Boise, Idaho 83702-7264 Office: (208) 334-3861 Fax: (208) 334-2775 Statewide Sites: • Franklin Historic Site • Pierce Courthouse • Rock Creek Station and • Stricker Homesite Old Penitentiary 2445 Old Penitentiary Road Boise, Idaho 83712-8254 Office: (208) 334-2844 Fax: (208) 334-3225 Idaho State Archives 2205 Old Penitentiary Road Boise, Idaho 83712-8250 Office: (208) 334-2620 Fax: (208) 334-2626 North Idaho Office 112 West 4th Street, Suite #7 Moscow, Idaho 83843 Office: (208) 882-1540 Fax: (208) 882-1763 Historical Society is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

mileskm

23

BDavies

Typewritten Text

National Historic Places Map

1 The National Register of Historic Places in Idaho

Compiledby Belinda Davisand Ann Swanson

The National Registerof Historic Places

in Idaho

The National Register of Historic Places in Idaho 2

Idaho State Historical SocietyMission statementTo educate through the identification, preservation, andinterpretation of Idaho’s cultural heritage.

Vision statement of purposeThe Idaho State Historical Society (ISHS) acts on behalf of thecitizens of the state to facilitate and assure the protection ofIdaho’s cultural heritage. The ISHS maintains access todocuments, artifacts, and sites that can be used by the public fortheir benefit and appreciation. The ISHS identifies, documents,collects, conserves, interprets, and maintains historic andprehistoric resources. Access to these resources is providedthrough public outreach, publications, technical assistance,exhibits, and the encouragement of local, state and regionalefforts to preserve history. The ISHS undertakes and promotesthese activities through its goals and policies in accordance withthe powers and duties assigned to it.

��

The Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) wasestablished under the auspices of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966. A division of the Idaho State HistoricalSociety, the SHPO is the lead historic preservation agency inIdaho and undertakes identification, evaluation, recognition, andprotection of Idaho’s historic resources.

��

This booklet has been financed, in part, with federal funds from the National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior, administered by the Idaho State HistoricalSociety. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the Department of the Interior.

This program receives federal financial assistance for identification and protection ofhistoric properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, theU.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,national origin, or disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believeyou have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as describedabove, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportu-nity; National Park Service; P.O. Box 37127; Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.


“

“In everycommunity, everycounty, there arecertain buildings,certain neighbor-hoods, open spaces,which traditionallyhave had specialmeaning for localresidents andwhich proclaim toall comers theunique characterand heritage of thatparticular place.”

—from Mavis Bryant,Zoning for Community

Preservation

IntroductionThe purpose of this booklet is to define briefly the National Register of His-toric Places program and to provide a guide to Idaho properties listed in theRegister. It is hoped this publication will stimulate the user’s curiosity to seekmore information about these and other important sites in Idaho’s history.More detailed information regarding each property can be obtained bycontacting the Idaho State Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO).

The information in this booklet is complete as of September 1, 1997. Updatesare available from the National Register coordinator, Idaho SHPO, phone:(208)334-3861 or FAX: (208)334-2775.

Remember, most of the properties listed are privately owned and are not opento the public. Please respect the occupant’s right to privacy when viewinghistoric properties.

The National Registerof Historic PlacesThe National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the nation’scultural resources deemed worthy of preservation. Authorized under theNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of anational program to coordinate and support public and private efforts toidentify, evaluate, and protect our historic resources. The National Register ismaintained by the National Park Service under the Secretary of the Interior.In Idaho, it is administered by the SHPO.

Properties listed in the National Register include districts (Chinese Sites in theWarren Mining District), sites (Pierre’s Hole 1832 Battle Area Site), buildings(Josiah Scott House), structures (Diversion Dam and Deer Flat Embank-ments), and objects (Treaty Rock) that are significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. These resources contrib-ute to an understanding of the historical and cultural foundation of thenation.

Listing in the National Register has the following results which assist inpreserving historic properties:

• Recognition that a property is of significance to the nation, the state, or thecommunity.• Consideration in the planning for federal or federally assisted projects.• Eligibility for federal tax benefits.• Consideration in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit.• Qualification for federal assistance for historic preservation, when funds areavailable.

Listing in the National Register does not restrict the rights of private propertyowners to alter, manage, or dispose of property.


“...the historicaland culturalfoundations of theNation should bepreserved as aliving part of ourcommunity life anddevelopment inorder to give asense of orientationto the Americanpeople;”

—The National HistoricPreservation Act as

amended

How to use this bookletThis booklet is organized alphabetically, first by county, then by city or townin or near which the property is located, and finally by property name. Listedbelow the property name is the National Register Information System (NRIS)reference number followed by the street address or other locational informa-tion. In the case of districts, boundary descriptions are provided. Propertieslocated within districts are not listed individually. Due to their sensitivenature, specific locations of archaeological sites are omitted. The date oflisting in the National Register is indicated next by year, month, and day. Inmany cases, a property is included as part of a larger group nomination ofrelated significant properties. These property listings are followed by thename of the corresponding multiple property nomination.

Multiple Property ListingsMPS—Multiple Property Submission• Chinese Sites in the Warren Mining District MPS• County Courthouses in Idaho MPS• New Sweden and Riverview Farmsteads and Institutional Buildings MPS• Public School Buildings in Idaho MPS• U.S. Post Offices in Idaho 1900-1941 MPS• Pegram Truss Railroad Bridges of Idaho MPS

TR—Thematic Resource (This format has been replaced by the MPS.)• Boise Public Schools TR• Buhl Dairy Barns TR• Early Churches of Emmett TR• Kootenai County Rural Schools TR• Lava Rock Structures in South Central Idaho TR• Long Valley Finnish Structures TR• North Idaho 1910 Fire Sites TR• Tourtellotte and Hummel Architecture TR

MRA—Multiple Resource Area (This format has been replaced by the MPS.)• Challis MRA• Idaho Falls Downtown MRA• Paris MRA• Potlatch MRA

NPNHP—Nez Perce National Historical Park• Camas Meadows Camp and Battle Sites [Clark County]• Pierce Courthouse [Clearwater County]• Lolo Trail [Clearwater County]• Weippe Prairie [Clearwater County]• White Bird Battlefield [Idaho County]• St. Joseph’s Mission [Lewis County]• Lenore Site [Nez Perce County]• Hasotino [Nez Perce County]


National Historic Landmarks (NHL)National Historic Landmark properties have significance at the national leveland are designated as such by the Secretary of the Interior. In Idaho, there areeleven National Historic Landmarks.

• U.S. Assay Office [Ada County]• Fort Hall [Bannock County]• Wasden Site (Owl Cave) [Bonneville County]• Experimental Breeder Reactor No. 1 [Butte County]• City of Rocks [Cassia County]• Camas Meadows Camp and Battle Sites [Clark County]• Lolo Trail [Clearwater County]• Weippe Prairie [Clearwater County]• Bear River Battleground [Franklin County]• Cataldo Mission [Kootenai County]• Lemhi Pass [Lemhi County]

National Register criteriaProperties nominated to the Register are generally 50 years old or older andare significant in relation to one or more of the following criteria. Criteria isdefined as the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archae-ology, engineering, and culture present in properties that possess integrity oflocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution tothe broad patterns of our history; orB. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; orC. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess highartistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individual distinction; orD. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important inprehistory or history.

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, propertiesowned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures thathave been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic build-ings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that haveachieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligiblefor the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they areintegral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within thefollowing categories:

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architecture orartistic distinction or historic importance; orB. A building or structure removed from its original location but which issignificant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving struc-ture most importantly associated with a historic person or event; orC. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance ifthere is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his orher productive life; or

“A knowledge ofour heritageprovides continuityand context forcommunities andorients them intheir decisionmaking.”

—from Kathleen A.Hunter, Past Meets Future


“These special placesreveal every aspect ofour country’s originsanddevelopment—ourland, houses,workplaces, parks,roadways, water-ways, places ofworship, and objectsof art.”

—from A Heritage So Rich

D. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of personsof transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, orfrom association with historic events; orE. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environ-ment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan,and when no other building or structure with the same association hassurvived; orF. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, orsymbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; orG. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of excep-tional importance.

Historic integrityHistoric integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidencedby the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’speriod of significance.

Historic integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting,materials, workmanship, feeling, association.

Historic integrity enables a property to illustrate significant aspects of its past.For this reason, it is an important qualification for National Register listing. Aproperty not only must retain its historic appearance but also must possess itsphysical materials, design features, and aspects of construction dating fromthe period when it attained significance. The integrity of archaeologicalresources is generally based on the degree to which remaining evidence canprovide important information. All seven qualities do not need to be presentfor eligibility as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident.

The National Registernomination processThe SHPO administers the National Register of Historic Places program inIdaho and processes nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.Properties nominated to the Register are reviewed by the Idaho Historic SitesReview Board which meets periodically throughout the year. The ReviewBoard is a volunteer group of Idaho residents who have demonstrated acompetence, interest, or knowledge in historic preservation. Their recommen-dations are reviewed by the SHPO. Finally, nominations are forwarded to theKeeper of the Register (National Park Service) for official listing.

Anyone may prepare a nomination for listing a property in the Register.Generally, nominations are prepared by private property owners, otherinterested individuals, local organizations or governments, and state orfederal agencies at all levels. Instructions for completing a nomination areavailable from the SHPO.


St. Paul’s Episcopal Church7900077872 N. Shilling Ave., Blackfoot790515

Standrod Bank7900077959 and 75 N.W. Main St., Blackfoot790830

US Post Office—Blackfoot Main89000128165 W. Pacific, Blackfoot890316US Post Offices in Idaho 1900-1941MPS

FORT HALL

Fort Hall Site7400073216 mi. N of Fort Hall, Fort Hall741121

Ross Fork Episcopal Church83000277Mission Rd., Fort Hall830103Tourtellotte and Hummel

Architecture TRRoss Fork Oregon Short LineRailroad Depot84001019Agency Rd., Fort Hall840907

BLAINE COUNTY

BELLEVUE

Bellevue Historic District82002506Roughly bounded by U.S. 93, Cedar,4th, and Oak Sts., Bellevue820616

Miller, Henry, House75000624S of Bellevue off U.S. 93, Bellevue750530

CAREY

Fish Creek Dam78003437NE of Carey, Carey

781229 HAILEY

Blaine County Courthouse780010501st and Croy Sts., Hailey780217

Emmanuel Episcopal Church77000457101 2nd Ave. S., Hailey771005

Fox, J. C., Building83000279S. Main St., Hailey830331

Pound, Homer, House78001051314 2nd Ave. S., Hailey781228

St. Charles of the Valley CatholicChurch and Rectory82000321Pine and S. 1st Sts., Hailey821117Tourtellotte and HummelArchitecture TR

Watt, W. H., Building83000281120 N. Main St., Hailey830331

Werthheimer Building85002160101 S. Main St., Hailey850912

KETCHUM

Bald Mountain Hot Springs82000320Main and 1st Sts., Ketchum821117Tourtellotte and HummelArchitecture TR

Bingham-Blaine

The Wasden Site (Owl Cave) (Bonneville County) consists of three rocksheltersformed from collapsed lava tubes. The caves provide an invaluable resource for thestudy of at least 10,000 years of cultural and environmental change on the SnakeRiver Plain. This variety of information makes the site eligible as one of Idaho’s elevenNational Historic Landmarks. (1991; ISHS 1997.21.6.)


Suggested readingArrington, Leonard. History of Idaho.

Moscow: University of IdahoPress, 1994.

Attebery, Jennifer Eastman. BuildingIdaho, An Architectural History.Moscow: University of IdahoPress, 1991.

Attebery, Louie W., ed. Idaho Folklife:Homesteads to Headstones. SaltLake City: University of UtahPress, 1985.

Beal, Merrill D., and Merle W. Wells.History of Idaho. New York:Lewis Historical Publishing,1959.

Boone, Lalia. Idaho Place Names: AGeographical Dictionary. Moscow:University of Idaho Press, 1988.

Butler, B. Robert. A Guide to Under-standing Idaho Archaeology (ThirdEdition): The Upper Snake andSalmon River Country. Boise:Idaho State Historic PreservationOffice, 1978.

Conley, Cort. Idaho for the Curious: AGuide. Cambridge: BackeddyBooks, 1982.

Gottfried, Herbert, and Jan Jennings.American Vernacular Design 1870to 1940. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold Co. Inc.,1985; reprint, Ames: Iowa StateUniversity Press, 1988.

Hawley, James H. History of Idaho:Gem of the Mountains. Chicago:S.J. Clarke, 1920.

Idaho State Historical Society.Reference Series. Boise: IdahoState Historical Society. Severalhundred one- or two-page typedessays on Idaho topics.

Idaho State Historical Society. IdahoYesterdays: A Journal of Idaho andNorthwest History. Boise: IdahoState Historical Society, pub-lished quarterly since 1957.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A FieldGuide to American Houses. NewYork: Alfred Knopf, 1984.

Phillips, Steven J. Old House Dictio-nary: An Illustrated Guide toAmerican Domestic Architecture,1600 to 1940. Lakewood:American Source Books, 1989.

Rifkind, Carole. A Field Guide toAmerican Architecture. Markham,Ontario: Penguin Books CanadaLimited, 1980.

Schwantes, Carlos. In MountainShadows: A History of Idaho.Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service. NationalRegister Bulletin 16A: How toComplete the National RegisterRegistration Form. 1991.

Walker, Deward E., Jr. Indians ofIdaho. Moscow: University ofIdaho Press, 1978.

Wells, Merle W., and Arthur Hart.Idaho: Gem of the Mountains.Northridge: Windsor Publica-tions, Inc., 1985.


Idaho State Historical SocietyDirector

Steve Guerber

State Historic Preservation OfficerVacant.

TrusteesRon Bush, Chair [Pocatello]Tony Edmondson [Weiser]

Max Pavesic [Boise]Robert Singletary [Coeur d’Alene]

Eugene I. Place [Hamer]Lorna Bard [Bliss]

Mary Gin Kennedy [Moscow]

Idaho Historic SitesReview Board

Priscilla Wegars, Historic Archaeologist [Moscow]Max Pavesic, Prehistoric Archaeologist [Boise]

Wendy McClure, Architect [Moscow]Robin Bruce, Historian [Post Falls]

Tricia Canaday, Architectural Historian [Boise]Renee Magee, Urban Planner [Idaho Falls]Brent Ballif, Structural Engineer [Pocatello]

Valerie Hoybjerg, Preservation Advocate [American Falls]Arthur Albanese, Architect [Boise]

Alan Degan, Architect [Boise]Jennifer Eastman Attebery, Architectural Historian [Pocatello]

R.G. Nelson, Architect [Coeur d’Alene]

Cove Canal

Big Wood River

Hiawatha Canal

Glenbrook Dr

Woodside BlvdB

road

ford

Rd Main St

Cherrycreek Dr

Mountain Ash Dr

Berrycreek D

r

Cherry Hill Dr

Snowflake Dr

Forest Bend Dr

Black Oak Dr

Flowing W

ells Dr

Mou

ntai

n Dr

Meadow Mountain Dr

66

109

8

7

95

6

30

10942

30

112

719100

719100

719400

719400

719700

719700

720000

720000

720300

720300

720600

720600

720900

720900

721200

721200

721500

721500

721800

721800

722100

722100

722400

722400

4817

700

4817

700

4818

000

4818

000

4818

300

4818

300

4818

600

4818

600

4818

900

4818

900

4819

200

4819

200

0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet

0 300 600 900150Meters

±

43° 29' 39''

114°

14'

54'

'

43° 28' 36''

114°

14'

57'

'

43° 28' 39''

43° 29' 42''11

4° 1

7' 3

1''

114°

17'

28'

'

Map Scale: 1:9,570 if printed on B size (11" x 17") sheet.

Soil Map—Blaine County Area, IdahoNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

11/9/2012Page 1 of 3

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

Woodside Wastewater Treatment Plant

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

Woodside WWTP Soil Survey Map

BDavies

Oval

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Units

Special Point FeaturesBlowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line FeaturesGully

Short Steep Slope

Other

Political FeaturesCities

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Map Scale: 1:9,570 if printed on B size (11" × 17") sheet.

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can causemisunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil lineplacement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrastingsoils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: UTM Zone 11N NAD83

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Blaine County Area, IdahoSurvey Area Data: Version 9, Aug 13, 2012

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/7/2004

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map–Blaine County Area, Idaho(Woodside WWTP Soil Survey Map)

Natural ResourcesConservation Service


11/9/2012Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend

Blaine County Area, Idaho (ID680)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

6 Balaam-Adamson complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 41.9 3.6%

7 Balaam-Adamson complex, cool, 0 to 2 percentslopes

104.0 8.9%

8 Balaam-Adamson-Riverwash complex, 0 to 2percent slopes

159.3 13.6%

30 Drage gravelly loam, cool, 2 to 15 percent slopes 39.9 3.4%

42 Gimlett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2 percentslopes

16.9 1.4%

66 Little Wood very gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percentslopes

286.2 24.5%

95 Povey-Vitale association, 30 to 60 percent slopes 115.6 9.9%

109 Vitale-Povey association, 30 to 60 percent slopes 405.0 34.6%

112 Water 0.2 0.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 1,169.0 100.0%

Soil Map–Blaine County Area, Idaho Woodside WWTP Soil Survey Map



11/9/2012Page 3 of 3

Blaine County Area, Idaho

30—Drage gravelly loam, cool, 2 to 15 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingElevation: 4,800 to 6,100 feetMean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inchesMean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees FFrost-free period: 60 to 90 days

Map Unit CompositionDrage, cool, and similar soils: 80 percent

Description of Drage, Cool

SettingLandform: Stream terraces, fan remnantsDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Mixed alluvium

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 15 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting

textural stratificationDrainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water

(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum content: 30 percentMaximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0Available water capacity: Low (about 3.1 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4eLand capability (nonirrigated): 4eEcological site: LOAMY 12-16 ARTRV/FEID-PSSPS

(R010AY004ID)

Typical profile0 to 14 inches: Gravelly loam14 to 30 inches: Very gravelly clay loam30 to 61 inches: Extremely gravelly sandy loam

Data Source Information


Map Unit Description: Drage gravelly loam, cool, 2 to 15 percent slopes–BlaineCounty Area, Idaho




11/9/2012Page 1 of 1


66—Little Wood very gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes


Map Unit CompositionLittle wood and similar soils: 90 percent

Description of Little Wood

SettingLandform: Stream terracesDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Mixed alluvium


textural stratificationDrainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water

(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water capacity: Low (about 3.2 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4sLand capability (nonirrigated): 4s

Typical profile0 to 13 inches: Very gravelly loam13 to 26 inches: Very gravelly sandy clay loam26 to 32 inches: Extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam32 to 61 inches: Extremely gravelly coarse sand



Map Unit Description: Little Wood very gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes–Blaine County Area, Idaho




11/9/2012Page 1 of 1


109—Vitale-Povey association, 30 to 60 percent slopes


Map Unit CompositionVitale and similar soils: 50 percentPovey and similar soils: 30 percent

Description of Vitale

SettingLandform: Mountain slopesDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexParent material: Tephra and/or alluvium and/or colluvium over

bedrock derived from welded tuff and/or rhyolite and/or quartzmonzonite and/or sandstone and/or conglomerate and/orsiltstone

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 30 to 60 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrockDrainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water

(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water capacity: Very low (about 1.7 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability (nonirrigated): 7eEcological site: SOUTH SLOPE GRAVELLY 12-16 ARTRV/PSSPS

(R010AY009ID)

Typical profile0 to 6 inches: Very gravelly loam6 to 15 inches: Very gravelly clay loam15 to 23 inches: Very gravelly loam23 to 33 inches: Bedrock

Description of Povey

SettingLandform: Mountain slopesDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: Concave

Map Unit Description: Vitale-Povey association, 30 to 60 percent slopes–BlaineCounty Area, Idaho




11/9/2012Page 1 of 2

Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or colluvium over bedrockderived from igneous rock and/or sedimentary rock and/ormetamorphic rock


textural stratification; 40 to 60 inches to lithic bedrockDrainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water

(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water capacity: Very low (about 2.9 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability (nonirrigated): 7eEcological site: NORTH SLOPE LOAMY 16-22 ARTRV/FEID

(R010AY008ID)

Typical profile0 to 14 inches: Gravelly loam14 to 35 inches: Very gravelly loam35 to 60 inches: Extremely cobbly loam60 to 64 inches: Bedrock



Map Unit Description: Vitale-Povey association, 30 to 60 percent slopes–BlaineCounty Area, Idaho




11/9/2012Page 2 of 2

Woodside WastewaterTreatment Plant

Selway-BitterrootWilderness

YellowstoneNational

Park

CabinetMountainsWilderness

Eagle CapWilderness

NorthAbsaroka

Wilderness

WashakieWilderness

FitzpatrickWilderness

SawtoothWilderness

Craters ofthe Moon NM

Red Rock LakesNational

Wildlife Refuge

MissionMountainsWilderness

Anaconda-PintlerWilderness

GlacierNP

JarbidgeWilderness

StrawberryMountain

Wilderness

Hells CanyonWilderness

BridgerWilderness

TetonWilderness

GrandTeton NP

C o e u r

d ' A l e n e

Nez Perce

For tHa l l

DuckValley

Kootenai

SandpointNon-attainmentArea for PM10

PinehurstNon-attainmentArea for PM10, Area of Concernfor PM2.5

Northern Ada CountyMaintenance Areafor PM10 and CO,Ada and Canyon CountyArea of Concernfor PM2.5 and O3

Cache ValleyNon-attainmentArea for PM2.5

Fort HallNon-attainmentArea for PM10

Portneuf ValleyMaintenanceArea for PM10

0 30 60 90 12015Miles ©

SalmonArea of Concernfor PM2.5

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e B o u n d a r i e s f o r A r e a sA d m i n i s t r a t i v e B o u n d a r i e s f o r A r e a sw i t h S e n s i t i v e A i r Q u a l i t yw i t h S e n s i t i v e A i r Q u a l i t y

Areas of Concern

Class I Areas

Non-attainment Areas

Non-attainment

Maintenance

Tribal non-attainmentadministered by EPA


From: Eastman, Susan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:44 AMTo: Jeremy WilliamsCc: [email protected]: RE: sole source aquifer question Thank you for submitting your project for review. We have reviewed the informationprovided and find that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the EasternSnake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer and therefore the funding may proceed.EPA reviews federally financially assisted projects that are proposed in federally designatedSole Source Aquifer review areas to determine if the projects have a potential to contaminatethe aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health. Suchprojects are submitted to EPA by federal, state, and local governments, and by the public.This correspondence only addresses the Sole Source Aquifer Program, any other federalenvironmental requirements are your responsibility to ensure compliance. Please retain thisemail for your records.

From: Jeremy Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:58 PMTo: Eastman, SusanSubject: RE: sole source aquifer question Sorry, it took me longer to pull this together than I thought. Attached is the Sole Source Aquiferchecklist for the Hailey WWTP facility plan EID. Let me know if you have any questions or need any more info. Thanks,Jeremy

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:09 PMTo: Jeremy WilliamsSubject: RE: sole source aquifer question

General mode of operation is 30 days but it is dependent on my workload.

Also just send the checklist... I will ask for more info if I need it and this looks like a straightforwardproject. Most WWTP and Drinking Water plant buildings and upgrades improve the environment sorarely issues.

mailto:[email protected]



BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

Sole Source Aquifer Evaluation Letter from EPA

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

BDavies

Typewritten Text

Susan Eastman, Environmental ScientistEPA Region 101200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900, OWW-136Seattle, WA. 98101SDWA Tribal & CWA Indian Set Aside Program, Sole Source Aquifer Program, Source WaterProtection and ID 106

[email protected]

Jeremy Williams ---01/11/2013 02:04:29 PM---Ok, so it is within the review area and I will need toget a checklist and probably the EID to you.

From: Jeremy Williams <[email protected]>To: Susan Eastman/R10/USEPA/US@EPA, Date: 01/11/2013 02:04 PMSubject: RE: sole source aquifer question



Appendix B

MEMO

TO: JEREMY WILLIAMS, CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. FROM: MIKE MAY, DEQ GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM SUBJECT: CITY OF HAILEY WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS

THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DATE: MARCH 11, 2015 The proposed project for the City of Hailey Wastewater Improvements on the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site include replacement of the existing solids holding tank with an aerated holding tank and screw press thickener, installation of an additional bank of six cloth filters with associated chemical storage and chemical phosphorus removal. Collection system improvements consist of minor repairs and infill, with no planned expansion outside the current service area.

Figure 1. City of Hailey Woodside WWTP.

The project site is located in the Camas Prairie ecoregion, a cold wet valley surrounded by Foothill Shrublands–Grasslands that trap mountain runoff. (McGrath, et al. 2002, Ecoregions of Idaho). Wet soils and flooding occur locally. Wet bottomlands support meadow grasses and sedges, and alluvial fans are covered by grasses and sagebrush. The ecoregion supports small grain and alfalfa farming, pasture, range and wildlife refuge. The average snow depth at the Hailey 3 NNW weather station peaks in February at 21 inches, with snow cover decreasing to 13 inches in March and 1 inch in April, based on data from 1893 to 1998 (Western Regional Climate Center http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id3942).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) threatened and endangered species list current as of March 11, 2015 and email correspondence with Bob Kibler of the USF&WS Idaho State Office were used to determine endangered and threatened species within Blaine County.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id3942

2

The following species are listed as threatened within Blaine County:

1. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) – Canada Lynx reside in boreal forest landscapes that provide one or more of the following beneficial habitat elements including snowshoe hares for prey, abundant, large, woody debris piles that are used as dens, and winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time.1 The proposed project is located in suburban foothills environments not typical of boreal forests and having shallow winter snow depths, and the surrounding area primarily consists of arid steep canyon walls nearly devoid of trees. The proposed project will have NO EFFECT on the Canada Lynx.

2. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) – The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to the Big Wood River approximately 4,000 feet southwest of the WWTP. The Big Wood River watershed does not contain critical habitat for bull trout,2 nor is it part of a designated recovery unit.3. The WWTP currently meets all discharge limits, but the proposed improvements do offer the potential to improve water quality. The proposed project will have NO EFFECT on Bull Trout.

The following have been listed as Candidate Species within Blaine County:

1. Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) – The Whitebark pine is a 5 needle conifer species. The species occurs from approximately 2,950 feet at its northern limit in British Columbia up to 12,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. The Whitebark Pine is typically found at or slightly lower than alpine timberline in the upper montane zone. In the U.S. it is primarily found on public lands.4 The proposed project is located in suburban and arid treeless foothills environments. The project will have NO EFFECT on whitebark pine.

Figure 2. Whitebark Pine species occurrence map (USFWS)

3

2. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) – Grouse reside in Sagebrush Steppe environments, and prefer slightly elevated features surrounded by flat terrain, but not lower portions of hillsides beneath areas that could contain raptors or other predators. The preferred Best Management Practice is avoidance: if construction activity must occur during lekking season, work should be postponed until after 10:30 a.m. The USF&WS species occurrence map below suggests that Greater Sage-Grouse are present in the mountains on the west side of the valley and on the east side south of Bellevue.5 Proposed management zone L is located south of Bellevue.6

Figure 3. Greater Sage-grouse species occurrence map (USF&WS). See text.

The WWTP site is less than 1,000 feet from State Highway 75. This makes it extremely unlikely that leks are present near the project area, since paved roads and primary and secondary routes are believed to cause adverse effects on leks at a distance of 1.6 miles.7 The proposed project will have NO EFFECT on the Greater Sage Grouse.

4

Figure 4. Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas and General Areas (BLM 2011)8

The following species is listed as a Proposed Threatened Species within Blaine County:

1. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) –Western cuckoos breed in large blocks of riparian habitats, particularly woodlands with cottonwoods and willows. Dense understory foliage is believed to be important for nesting sites. They are generally local and uncommon in scattered drainages of the arid and semiarid portions of western Colorado, western Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. USFWS reported in 2011 that the Yellow-billed Cuckoo was considered a rare and local summer resident in Idaho, with only four records of the species in northern and central Idaho over the last century. The majority of sightings have been in the Snake River corridor in southeast Idaho. On the other hand, the same paragraph states that the species has been observed numerous times in the southwestern part of the state in the past 25 years. They concluded that the information at that time was inadequate to judge trends in population or distribution.9

The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is not “known or believed to be present” in the near vicinity of the project area, according to the USF&WS map below.10 The most likely habitat in the immediate project area would be a row of trees of various species planted along the canal which runs just south of the WWTP. However,

5

recent site photographs (attached) show that the trees occupy a very narrow corridor paralleling the canal, do not exhibit the dense understory best suited for nesting, and are adjacent to developed areas, such as the WWTP, single family housing, schools and city streets. After reviewing the photographs, Bob Kibler of the USF&WS Idaho State Office confirmed that this was not suitable habitat. This is consistent with the 2014 proposed critical habitat designation,11 which indicated that floodplains at least 325 feet wide with dense canopy closure greater than 200 acres in extent are generally required to support more than a single breeding pair. The critical habitat proposal includes all known nesting areas greater than 200 acres, based on breeding records between 1998 and 2012. One such critical habitat area (ID-3) was identified in Blaine County, but it is about 10 miles south of the WWTP (see map). The proposed project will have NO EFFECT on the Yellow-billed cuckoo.

Figure 5. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo species occurrence map (USF&WS). See text.

6

Figure 6. Critical habitat in the project area (proposed for Yellow-billed Cuckoo)12

Essential Fish Habitat

The project area is located within the Big Wood Subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code 17040219). Anadromous fish are blocked by the Hells Canyon Dam complex on the Snake River, thus the Big Wood does not contain Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) or Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), as shown on the attached EFH map.

MLM

Attachments: Idaho Species List, downloaded December 5, 2014 and confirmed March 11, 2015 Woodside WWTP Site Photos (showing trees parallel to canal) Emails between DEQ and USF&WS, 2013-2015 DEQ, Chinook Salmon Essential Fish Habitat in Idaho (map)

References

1 USF&WS Species Profile: Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis),

ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073 2 Federal Register, Vol. 75, Page 63898, October 28, 2010. 3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Revised Draft Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), 2014.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073

7

4 USF&WS Species Profile: Whitebark pine, ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=R00E 5 USF&WS Species Profile: Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus),

ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W 6 Makela & Major, 2012, Idaho Sage-grouse Priority Areas White Paper,

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/wildlife/sensitive_species/sg_scoping_meeting.Par.67149.File.dat/Idaho_Sage-grouse_Priority_Areas_White_Paper_September_27_2011_FINAL_508.pdf

7 Draft Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Region Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS, Vol. II §4.2.1 8 BLM, 2011, Idaho Sage-grouse Priority Areas White Paper, September 27, 2011 FINAL,

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/wildlife/sensitive_species/sg_scoping_meeting.Par.67149.File.dat/Idaho_Sage-grouse_Priority_Areas_White_Paper_September_27_2011_FINAL_508.pdf

9 USFWS 2011, Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/candidateReport!streamPublishedPdfForYear.action?candidateId=22&year=2011, obtained from Reference 4.

10 USF&WS Species Profile: Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R#candidate.

11 Federal Register, Vol. 79, Page 48547, August 15, 2014. 12 USF&WS Critical Habitat Mapper 3.0, ecos.fws.gov/crithab/, accessed December 10, 2014.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=R00E

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/wildlife/sensitive_species/sg_scoping_meeting.Par.67149.File.dat/Idaho_Sage-grouse_Priority_Areas_White_Paper_September_27_2011_FINAL_508.pdf




http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R#candidate

http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/

Herps

Col

umbi

a Sp

otte

d Fr

og

(Gre

at B

asin

Pop

ulat

ion)

Gre

ater

Sag

e-G

rous

e

Yel

low

-Bill

ed C

ucko

o

Can

ada

Lyn

x

Gri

zzly

Bea

r

Nor

ther

n Id

aho

G

roun

d Sq

uirr

el

Selk

irk

Mou

ntai

ns

Woo

dlan

d C

arib

ou

Sout

hern

Idah

o G

roun

d Sq

uirr

el

Bul

l Tro

ut

Koo

tena

i Riv

er W

hite

St

urge

on

Ban

bury

Spr

ings

Lan

x

Blis

s Rap

ids S

nail

Bru

neau

Hot

Spr

ings

nail

Snak

e R

iver

Phy

sa

Goo

se C

reek

Milk

vetc

h

Mac

Farl

ane'

s Fou

r-O

'Clo

ck

Pack

ard'

s Milk

vetc

h

Slic

kspo

t Pep

perg

rass

Spal

ding

's C

atch

fly

Ute

Lad

ies'

-Tre

sses

Wat

er H

owel

lia

Whi

teba

rk P

ine

Scientific Name

Rana

lute

iven

tris

Cen

troc

ercu

s ur

opha

sian

us

Coc

cyzu

s am

eric

anus

Lynx

can

aden

sis

Urs

us a

rcto

s hor

ribi

lis

Sper

mop

hilu

s bru

nneu

s br

unne

us

Rang

ifer t

aran

dus c

arib

ou

Sper

mop

hilu

s bru

nneu

s en

dem

icus

Salv

elin

us c

onflu

entu

s

Acip

ense

r tra

nsm

onta

nus

Lanx

sp.

Tayl

orco

ncha

serp

entic

ola

Pyrg

ulop

sis b

rune

auen

sis

Hai

tia (P

hysa

) nat

rici

na

Astr

agal

us a

nser

inus

Mir

abili

s mac

farl

anei

Astr

agal

us c

usic

kii v

ar.

park

ardi

ae

Lepi

dium

pap

illife

rum

Sile

ne sp

aldi

ngii

Spir

anth

es d

iluvi

alis

How

ellia

aqu

atili

s

Pinu

s alb

icau

lis

Ada C P T E P-PCH

Adams C T T C T-DCH C

Bannock C P-PCH

Bear Lake C T

Benewah T T-DCH T T

Bingham C P-PCH T

Blaine C P-PCH T T-DCH C

Boise P T T-DCH C

Bonner T T E T-DCH C

Bonneville C P-PCH T T T C

Boundary T-DCH T E-DCH T-DCH E-DCH C

Butte C T T-DCH C

Camas C P T T-DCH C

Canyon E P-PCH

Caribou C T

Cassia C P E C

Clark C P T T C

Clearwater T T-DCH C

Custer C P T T-DCH C

Elmore C P T T-DCH T E P-PCH C

Franklin C T

Fremont C P T T T C

Gem C C T-DCH P-PCH C

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife OfficeLISTED, CANDIDATE, AND PROPOSED SPECIES & DESIGNATED AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT IN

IDAHO

Fish Mollusks Plants

Common Name

Table Key: C = Candidate Species P= Proposed Species T=Threatened Species E=Endangered Species PCH= Proposed Critical Habitat DCH=Designated Critical Habitat

MammalsBirds

Page 1 of 2

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Highlight

mmay

Typewriter

Downloaded 11 Mar 2015

1

Mike May

From: Kibler, Bob <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 15:37

To: Mike May

Subject: Re: USFWS Agency Consultation - Hailey WWG

Thanks Mike:

I will update my records accordingly.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

Bob Kibler

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Idaho State Office

Bob,

Thanks for speaking with me today about the Hailey, Idaho wastewater project. This email is just to recap and

confirm that I correctly understood our conversation. The key points are:

• There is no change in the project; it consists of improvements to be done within the footprint of the existing

wastewater treatment plant. At this point, we are just trying to finalize the environmental determination.

• The trees photographed on the berm along the southwest boundary of the wastewater treatment plant are

not suitable nesting habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo.

• The “no effect” determination remains valid for the species previously identified, and there are no other

species of concern:

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus

Whitebark Pine Pinus albanicus

Thank you for your help with this project.

2

Mike May

Sr. Water Quality Specialist

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

1410 North Hilton

Boise, Idaho 83706

(208) 373-0406

--

Bob Kibler

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Ecological Services

Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office

1387 South Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise, Idaho 83709

(208) 378-5255 Phone

(208) 378-5262 Fax

[email protected] Email

http://www.fws.gov/idaho/ Internet Site

mmay

Typewriter

* Hailey

mmay

Callout

Project Location

From: Tyler BirdTo: Jeremy WilliamsSubject: FW: FW: Hailey, Idaho WWTP upgradeDate: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:28:15 AM

Jeremy, Here is the response from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office. Thanks, Tyler

From: Kibler, Bob [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:01 AMTo: Tyler BirdSubject: Re: FW: Hailey, Idaho WWTP upgrade Tyler: In the event that I have not already responded to your notes, I acknowledge the no effectdeterminations that you have prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency forlisted species and proposed or designated critical habitats in the action area for the Hailey,Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant. I will update our records accordingly. Due to recentchanges in our email service, I may have provided a previous reply. Please disregard anyduplicate responses. Contact me if you have questions or require additional assistance.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Tyler Bird <[email protected]> wrote:Mr. Bob Kibler, We have spoken regarding the affect upgrades at the Hailey, Idaho wastewater treatmentplant would have on the endangered species in the area. I am sending you a draft copy of theminutes from our conversations. Could you please take a moment and review the minutes? When you are finished with your review, please verify if you agree with what has been statedor feel free to provide any additional comments. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tyler B. BirdCarollo Engineers, Inc.1265 E Fort Union Blvd, Suite 200Midvale, UT 84047P (801) 233-2500D (801) 233-2525F (801) 233-2501www.carollo.com

mailto:/O=CAROLLO/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=TBIRD



http://www.carollo.com/

TELEPHONE MEETINGMINUTES

Date: 11/1/20121/18/2013

Time: 3:30 P.M.11:50A.M.

WO #: 6813B.00

Between: Tyler Bird And: Bob KiblerIdaho Fish andWildlife Service

Subject: Blaine County Endangered SpeciesReview

Phone No.: (208) 378-5243Ext 3785255

Discussion: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species list for Blaine County, Idaho is foundat: www.fws.gov/idaho/species/idahospecieslist.pdf During our discussion we addressed all the species listed for Blaine County. It wasrecommended that for this section of the Hailey WWTP EID it will be best to write asummary of our conclusions for each species listed. Bob helped provided the followinginformation and conclusions about the listed species:

· Greater Sage Grouse - Predominantly lives in large tracts of sagebrush landscape. Theproposed project will have no affect on the greater sage grouse since the specified habitatis not found within the project site.

· Yellow-Billed Cuckoo - Predominantly lives in cottonwood and willow trees. Theproposed project will have no affect on the yellow-billed cuckoo since the specified habitatis not found within the project site.

· Canada Lynx - Predominantly found outside of city boundaries and other inhabitedareas. Due to normal human activity and fenced site boundaries the proposed project will

http://www.fws.gov/idaho/species/idahospecieslist.pdf

have no affect on the Canada lynx.

· North American Wolverine - For natal denning purposes, the wolverine lives in near-arctic conditions or high elevation areas that reliably provide deep snow cover (greaterthan 1.5 meters) into the late spring. The North American Wolverine is not found at theproject site since these climate conditions are not available. Therefore the proposedproject will have no affect on the North American wolverine

· Bull Trout - The proposed project will result in an improvement in water quality anddoes not include effluent flow increases, therefore the bull trout will not be adverselyaffected by the proposed project.

· Whitebark Pine - There are none on the site, no affect

-- Bob KiblerU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Ecological ServicesIdaho Fish and Wildlife Office1387 South Vinnell Way, Room 368Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 378-5255 Phone(208) 378-5262 [email protected] Emailhttp://www.fws.gov/idaho/ Internet Site


http://www.fws.gov/idaho/

Appendix C

AGENDA OF THE HAILEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Monday July 16, 2012 * Hailey City Hall Meeting Room

5:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - Open Session for Public Concerns CONSENT AGENDA: CA 282 Motion to approve Resolution authorizing the Release Agreement between the City of Hailey and Galen

Hanselman for Resolution 2012-45, authorizing repair of damage done in the city right-of-way during flood control activity this spring ........................................................................................................................................ 1

CA 283 Motion to approve Resolution 2012-46, authorizing amended Use Agreement for the Intermountain Professional Rodeo Association Rodeo on September 1 and 2, 2012 authorized by Resolution 2012-05, to allow payment to the City of Hailey by September 15 instead of September 10, 2012 and corrects areas within the agreement designating IMPRA and/or Sawtooth Rangers Riding Club as the responsible party where formerly only one or the other was named ................................................................................................................................................... 7

CA 284 Motion to approve Resolution 2012-47 authorizing Use Agreement with Judd Mortensen of Rocky Mountain Bull Bash Productions to host the first Sun Valley Professional Bull Riders Classic at the Hailey Arena on August 11, 2012 ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

CA 285 Motion to approve Alcohol License renewals for Hailey Restaurants ...................................................................... 27 CA 286 Motion to approve Boxing Smoker special event at Hailey Armory on July 27, 2012 from 7-9 pm ........................ 35 CA 287 Motion to approve Northern Rockies Arts & Crafts Fair on August 4 from 9-6 and Aug. 5 from 9-5 at Village at

Hailey Center 311 S. Main Street .......................................................................................................................... 41 CA 288 Motion to approve special event Kiwanis Car Show Aug. 4th 8-5 pm at McKercher Park ....................................... 49 CA 289 Motion to approve Road Runner 5K – Senior Connection special event at Hailey Armory on Sept. 15 from 8-3 ... 61 CA 290 Motion to approve minutes of June 28, 2012 and to suspend reading of them ......................................................... 71 CA 291 Motion to approve minutes of July 2, 2012 and to suspend reading of them ............................................................ 75 CA 292 Motion to approve claims for expenses incurred during the month of June, 2012, and claims for expenses due by

contract in July, 2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 81 CA 293 Motion to approve Treasurer’s reports for the month of June, 2012 ........................................................................... 119 MAYOR’S REMARKS: MR 000 PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS: PP 000 APPOINTMENTS & AWARDS PUBLIC HEARING: PH 294 Council consideration of Budget, adoption of Not-To-Exceed budget for publication in advance of August 20

public hearing ...................................................................................................................................................... 169 PH 295 Discussion of Water and Wastewater rates – proposed increases in FY 2013 Budget to meet NPDES Permit

Requirements ........................................................................................................................................................... 197 PH 296 Wastewater Master Plan Update - consideration of Resolution 2012-48 accepting five-year Wastewater Master

Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 207 PH 297 Consideration of proposed Title 13 revision – eliminating the restriction of watering on the 31st of the month If

acceptable, make motion to approve 1st reading and waive 2 readings as well as approve summary for publication................................................................................................................................................................ 231

PH 298 Woodside Boulevard Project - Approval of Second Pay Request for $401,173.01 for work done prior to June 30, 2012 .................................... 237 - Amendment to Civil Science Engineer Agreement adopted through Resolution 2012-41 – Civil Science requests

that Amendment No. 1 be revised to remove not-to-exceed language and request additional payment for services required beyond 8 hours per week for 10 weeks

- Third Inspection Report from Federal Highways Administration – grant compliance

NEW BUSINESS: NB 299 Consideration of First Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement for Mountain Sage

Subdivision II ....................................................................................................................................................... 269 NB 300 Elm Street Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Conceptual Design – consideration of alternatives ........................... 287 NB 301 Park Names – History of Archway repainting project at Hop Porter Park and discussion of naming effort for the

park area containing the arena, skatepark, interpretive center, and future indoor ice rink facility (no documents) NB 302 Mayor’s letter to Blaine County in support of Blaine County Recreation District’s Conditional Use Permit

application for the use of Lion’s Park for cross-country skiing ........................................................................... 299 OLD BUSINESS: OB 000 WORKSHOP: Staff Reports Council Reports Mayor’s Reports SR 303 Sustainability Coordinator’s report on Blaine County Recycling Committee recommendation to be given to

Blaine County Commissioners ..................................................................................................................... 301 SR 304 Green Building Demonstration at the Interpretive Center ............................................................................... 303 SR 305 Director’s report from Hailey Library from month of May 2012............................................................................ 305 SR 306 List of Special Events in Hailey .............................................................................................................................. 307 SR 307 Draft agendas for the next meetings ............................................................................................................................ 309 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending & Imminently Likely Litigation (IC 67-2345(1)(f)) Matters & Motions from Executive Session or Workshop Next Ordinance Number - 1106 Next Resolution Number- 2012-49

Public Works Memo

To:

City Council Members

Mayor Fritz Haemmerle

CC: Heather Dawson, City Administrator

Roger Parker, Wastewater Division Manager

From: Tom Hellen, Public Works Director/City Engineer

Date: July 16, 2012

Re:

Attached is the executive summary from the completed 2012 Wastewater Master Plan completed by Carollo Engineers in February, 2102. This plan has been reviewed and accepted by DEQ and was advertised for a two week public comment period on June 13, 2012. No public comments were received. DEQ then requires a public hearing and formal acceptance of the plan by the city council.

Wastewater Master Plan

Preparation of this plan began in 2008 following the receipt of a 50% grant from DEQ for its preparation. The time period for this work stretched out as it became evident that our new NPDES permit would have an impact on the future plans. As you are aware we recently received our new NPDES permit which is having an impact on the Wastewater Department budget. Simultaneous work by HDR Engineering was also used to help assess future treatment requirements.

As noted on page ES-2 the master plan needs to address 6 main areas; service area including population projections, the collection system, the treatment plant, treatment alternatives necessary to meet future permit limits, a financial plan and an environmental information document.

The service area looked at the possible expansions of both the service area and infill development over the next 20 years. This projection was used in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan rewrite and set growth projections at 1.5% for 5 years and 3.5% thereafter. It considered expansions both out Quigley and Croy canyons and infill of the airport property. This growth projection is then used to the increases in wastewater effluent discharges to the Big Wood River and determining treatment alternatives to meet permit limits. Once the 2010 census became available these projections were revised.

The collection system including its capacity was reviewed early in the process by measuring flows in multiple locations and using our video camera to determine problem areas. As noted in the report the collection system is in good structural condition with relatively few problems to correct. In fact, since the condition survey

November 19, 2012

2

was done earlier some of the defects noted have already been addressed. Capacity of most sewer mains is good with two main exceptions. There is an undersized line coming from the Wood River High School/Community Campus area that should be considered for replacement both for capacity as well as access for maintenance as this line runs through backyards. The Woodside Blvd trunk line also has limited capacity for an estimated 200 additional connections. The plan addresses this with adding a sewer trunk line along Highway 75 to relieve pressure should additional development occur.

The existing treatment plant was reviewed for its capacity, condition and optimization of treatment processes with existing equipment. In general the treatment plant is in good condition, an upgrade of the chemical feed system and an additional filter and optimization of treatment processes to meet new NPDES limits are recommended and long term an additional treatment basin will be needed. Replacement of the biosolids collection system, under the green dome, is a high priority for several reasons. The fiberglass dome is over 35 years old and is deteriorating, the biosolids thickening uses the old treatment plant steel basin which is in questionable condition, and the uninsulated dome is heated to forestall corrosion. Replacement of this facility with a new basin and dewatering equipment will reduce heating costs as the basin would be exposed, eliminate an old structure, and reduce or eliminate truck trips to Ohio Gulch with the biosolids.

Five alternatives were studied for improvements to the treatment plant to meet the more stringent NPDES permit limits. The recommended alternative was a two stage tertiary sand filtration system. The need for this expansion of the treatment plant is dependent on a number of factors including population growth and the results of optimization of plant treatment processes and chemical use. While this is the recommendation at this time any proposed project to add tertiary treatment will begin with a complete review of alternatives as the wastewater treatment industry is constantly developing new treatment methods.

The financial plan uses the master plans project costs and timeframes to estimate the impacts on user fees and bond costs. As the final costs for any major project will be re-estimated as a part of detailed engineering these are only projections and should not be thought of as final figures.

HAILEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 19, 2012

MINUTES OF THE HAILEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Monday July 16, 2012 * Hailey City Hall Meeting Room 5:30 p.m. Call To Order

Present: Carol Brown, Don Keirn, Fritz Haemmerle, Pat Cooley Absent: Martha Burke Staff: Jeff Gunter, Heather Dawson, Ned Williamson, Micah Austin, Tom Hellen, Becky Stokes, Mariel Platt, Jim Zarubica Call to Order 5:31:51 PM Mayor Haemmerle called the meeting to order. Open Session for Public Concerns 5:32:13 PM Bob McLeod, 417 E. Myrtle, thanked the Chamber of Commerce, the mayor, and City Council for a great 4th of July. CONSENT AGENDA:

CA 282 Motion to approve Resolution authorizing the Release Agreement between the City of Hailey and Galen Hanselman for Resolution 2012-45, authorizing repair of damage done in the city right-of-way during flood control activity this spring.

CA 283 Motion to approve Resolution 2012-46, authorizing amended Use Agreement for the Intermountain Professional Rodeo Association Rodeo on September 1 and 2, 2012 authorized by Resolution 2012-05, to allow payment to the City of Hailey by September 15 instead of September 10, 2012 and corrects areas within the agreement designating IMPRA and/or Sawtooth Rangers Riding Club as the responsible party where formerly only one or the other was named.

CA 284 Motion to approve Resolution 2012-47 authorizing Use Agreement with Judd Mortensen of Rocky Mountain Bull Bash Productions to host the first Sun Valley Professional Bull Riders Classic at the Hailey Arena on August 11, 2012.

CA 285 Motion to approve Alcohol License renewals for Hailey Restaurants. CA 286 Motion to approve Boxing Smoker special event at Hailey Armory on July 27, 2012 from 7-9

pm. CA 287 Motion to approve Northern Rockies Arts & Crafts Fair on August 4 from 9-6 and Aug. 5 from

9-5 at Village at Hailey Center 311 S. Main Street. CA 288 Motion to approve special event Kiwanis Car Show Aug. 4th 8-5 pm at McKercher Park. CA 289 Motion to approve Road Runner 5K – Senior Connection special event at Hailey Armory on

Sept. 15 from 8-3. CA 290 Motion to approve minutes of June 28, 2012 and to suspend reading of them. CA 291 Motion to approve minutes of July 2, 2012 and to suspend reading of them. CA 292 Motion to approve claims for expenses incurred during the month of June, 2012, and claims for

expenses due by contract in July, 2012. CA 293 Motion to approve Treasurer’s reports for the month of June, 2012.

5:33:17 PM Heather Dawson pulled CA 284. Pat Cooley pulled CA 289.

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:31:51"?Data="806426be"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:32:13"?Data="5acb1720"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:33:17"?Data="3a6beb49"�


5:33:38 PM Don Keirn moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus CA 284 and CA 289. Carol Brown seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes. 5:33:55 PM Heather Dawson explained her pulling CA 284 by noting that the City and Rocky Mountain Bull Bash Productions had tentatively agreed on changes to the Use Agreement. Ms. Dawson outlined the specific changes and the reasons for them. 5:35:25 PM Carol Brown moved to approve the Use Agreement, Resolution 2012-47, authorizing changes as delineated by Heather Dawson at this meeting. Don Keirn seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes. 5:36:24 PM Pat Cooley explained his pulling of CA 289 by noting a typographical error under the sub-head entitled “Agreement” on page 62 of the packet. He suggested that “2012 Boxing Mixer” be changed to “2012 Road Runner 5K.” 5:36:56 PM Pat Cooley moved to approve CA 289 with the corrected text in the Special Event Permit. Carol Brown seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes. MAYOR’S REMARKS: Introduction of Micah Austin, new Community Development Director. 5:38:59 PM Mr. Austin thanked Mayor Haemmerle and the Council for this opportunity and explained his goals in this position. PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS: 5:45:10 PM None. APPOINTMENTS & AWARDS None. PUBLIC HEARING:

PH 294 Council consideration of Budget, adoption of Not-To-Exceed budget for publication in advance of August 20 public hearing. 5:45:22 PM Mayor Haemmerle noted that the budget in the Council packets had ‘placeholders’ inserted for items he wanted more time to analyze. These placeholders included the compensation restructure of one staff position, and two possible new positions in water and wastewater roles. The mayor encouraged approval of “not to exceed” language. 5:48:28 PM Mayor Haemmerle opened the meeting to public comment. None was offered. Council discussion noted Staff’s “excellent job on a very flat budget.” 5:49:56 PM Don Keirn moved to adopt the “not to exceed” budget of $11,048,101 for FY ending September 30, 2013 and for publication in advance of the August 20, 2012 public hearing. Pat Cooley seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes.

PH 295 Discussion of Water and Wastewater rates – proposed increases in FY 2013 Budget to meet NPDES Permit Requirements. 5:51:00 PM Mayor Haemmerle removed this item from the agenda because the memo presented to him with new positions were not yet approved. 5:52:04 PM Carol Brown moved to continue PH 295 to August 6, 2012. Pat Cooley seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes.

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:33:38"?Data="2fc05a14"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:33:55"?Data="0bf361d4"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:35:25"?Data="1be8212b"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:36:24"?Data="4863fd4d"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:36:56"?Data="ff6f057e"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:38:59"?Data="b9c5259b"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:45:10"?Data="de3a4a38"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:45:22"?Data="f2a7f01d"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:48:28"?Data="68e49bc9"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:49:56"?Data="7afcb77c"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:51:00"?Data="87287588"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:52:04"?Data="e37d59dc"�


PH 296 Wastewater Master Plan Update - consideration of Resolution 2012-48 accepting five-year Wastewater Master Plan. 5:52:56 PM Tom Hellen explains his memo provided in Council packets and summarized the plan. Council discussion included the importance of developing guiding principles, priorities and planning. 6:05:35 PM Mayor Haemmerle open public comment. None was offered. 6:06:09 PM Carol Brown moved to accept the Wastewater Master Plan and to approve Resolution 2012-48. Don Keirn seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes.

PH 297 Consideration of proposed Title 13 revision – eliminating the restriction of watering on the 31st of the month If acceptable, make motion to approve 1st reading and waive 2 readings as well as approve summary for publication. 6:06:50 PM Ned Williamson noted the purpose for waiving readings and other minor changes for the Council to consider. 6:07:55 PM Mayor Haemmerle opened the matter to public comment. None was offered. 6:08:11 PM Don Keirn moved to approve the proposed ordinance amendment, to read by title only, to waive the three readings, to authorize the mayor to sign, and to authorize the summary for publication. Pat Cooley seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes. Mayor Haemmerle conducted the reading.

PH 298 Woodside Boulevard Project - Approval of Second Pay Request for $401,173.01 for work done prior to June 30, 2012. 6:09:46 PM Heather Dawson provided an overview and explanation of the process on this first bullet point. Council discussion included the timeline for this pay request, noting that the project is moving more slowly than planned, although the October finish date is still expected to be met. Tom Hellen explained the delays with the utilities on the project. 6:12:47 PM Discussion continued on the details of progress made and how the elevation differences are being reconciled. 6:16:15 PM Mayor Haemmerle opened the meeting to public comment. Geoffrey Moore, 406 1st Avenue and Woodside Boulevard, noted that the irrigation system on his corner has been cut or moved back, and asked when he could put the irrigation back in. Tom Hellen addressed Mr. Moore’s question and further agreed to meet with him to provide more details. 6:18:19 PM With no further comment offered, the Mayor brought the meeting back to the Council. 6:18:26 PM Carol Brown moved to authorize the Second Pay Request for $401,173.01. Don Keirn seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, abstained; Haemmerle yes. - Amendment to Civil Science Engineer Agreement adopted through Resolution 2012-41 – Civil Science requests that Amendment No. 1 be revised to remove not-to-exceed language and request additional payment for services required beyond 8 hours per week for 10 weeks 6:19:14 PM Mayor Haemmerle clarified that this is not on Civil Science’s overall project scope. Ned Williamson explained the changes and reasons behind them. Council discussion included understanding the details and whether good checks and balances are in place.

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="17:52:56"?Data="19b900e4"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:05:35"?Data="29c04744"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:06:09"?Data="0eb53151"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:06:50"?Data="2370ef68"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:07:55"?Data="fb6c7464"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:08:11"?Data="1e94faa8"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:09:46"?Data="3c4c389c"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:12:47"?Data="e7b5e861"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:16:15"?Data="149a1123"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:18:19"?Data="40859e28"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:18:26"?Data="9e72fcd0"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:19:14"?Data="5d2d2dcb"�


6:23:03 PM Mayor Haemmerle opened public comment. None was offered. 6:23:50 PM Don Keirn moved to approve Amendment No. 1 and Exhibit K. Carol Brown seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, abstained; Haemmerle, yes. - Third Inspection Report from Federal Highways Administration – grant compliance. 6:25:02 PM Heather Dawson provided overview of the satisfactory report. 6:26:26 PM Mayor Haemmerle opened the matter to public comment. None was offered. Council discussion ensued. No action was necessary. NEW BUSINESS:

NB 299 Consideration of First Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement for Mountain Sage Subdivision II. 6:26:47 PM Ned Williamson offered a brief overview and then turned to Michelle Griffith of ARCH who further explained details and background. 6:31:21 PM Carol Brown moved to approve the First Amendment to PUD Agreements as shown in the Council packet, noting the deed restriction is lifted and replaced with a 15-year deed restriction; and to authorize the Mayor to sign. Don Keirn seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes.

NB 300 Elm Street Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Conceptual Design – consideration of alternatives. 6:32:03 PM Jim Zarubica provided background and details. 6:40:35 PM Property owner, Bonnie Lazzarini, corner of Main and Elm, voiced her opinion that Option 1 was best. She expressed worries about snow removal and parking. Tom Hellen and Heather Dawson offered clarification. Bonnie further asked who is responsible for her sprinklers now located in the right-of-way. Mayor Haemmerle explained there is no real policy, but that the City welcomes working together on the matter. 6:45:40 PM Peggy Miller, Upholstery Shop at Elm and Main, asked about Jim’s reference to the property encroachment agreement for construction. Mr. Zarubica assured that agreement would be temporary and Ms. Miller expressed satisfaction with that. Geoffrey Moore, 406 1st Avenue, asked if this matter will come forward into a public hearing. 6:47:15 PM Mayor invited Mr. Moore to speak now. Mr. Moore advocated for Option 2 noting his concerns about safety and traffic. Ramona Duke, 1021 Foxmoor, agreed with Mr. Moore and strongly advocated for separation of traffic and sidewalks. Mike Penrose, 414 4th Avenue South, also voiced concerns. 6:51:40 PM Council discussion included possibility of a hybrid design utilizing Option 1 and 2 to allow parking and a buffer area. 6:53:12 PM Jim Zarubica summarized what he believed the Council suggested, and noted his direction would be to work with landowners to reach the best balance for safe routes even if it became necessary to sacrifice some parking in favor of good sidewalks. Council discussion then turned to funding. Tom Hellen explained, and 6:56:27 PM Mr. Zarubica pointed out this is a 2013 FY project, not 2012. Heather Dawson reminded that there are other funds available for this project. 6:58:40 PM

NB 301 Park Names – History of Archway repainting project at Hop Porter Park and discussion of naming effort for the park area containing the arena, skatepark, interpretive center, and future indoor ice rink facility (no documents).

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:23:03"?Data="6b1a84ee"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:23:50"?Data="2962bab3"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:25:02"?Data="deb893cc"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:26:26"?Data="f7251e93"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:26:47"?Data="99c09aeb"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:31:21"?Data="138b713c"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:32:03"?Data="1f7da3bf"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:40:35"?Data="ccefb77f"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:45:40"?Data="001dbcb1"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:47:15"?Data="63fb0d0d"�


ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:53:12"?Data="6c62d9a1"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:56:27"?Data="3b019079"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:58:40"?Data="6e467b6e"�


6:59:13 PM Mayor Haemmerle gave a brief history of the arch project, noting that as layers of old paint were removed from the arch, raised lettering was found. The words “1922 Tourist Park” were uncovered. Tracy Anderson was given the task to find an artist who would pay homage to the old ‘Tourist Park’ reference. Keith Joe Dick was selected. Mayor Haemmerle emphasized that the actual name of Hop Porter Park is not altered, and that there is no current intent to change the name. Carol Brown suggested placement of an interpretive sign at the archway to pay homage to the historical nature of the park. 7:04:38 PM Mayor Haemmerle further noted that the Parks and Lands committee asked if a name should be given to the entire rodeo grounds area, perhaps a historic name. The land was historically referenced as belonging to the Wertheimer family.

NB 302 Mayor’s letter to Blaine County in support of Blaine County Recreation District’s Conditional Use Permit application for the use of Lion’s Park for cross-country skiing. 7:08:18 PM Mayor Haemmerle explained that BCRD is working with landowners on the west side of town to see if cross-country skiing trails might be placed there in the absence of access at Quigley Canyon. Lion’s Park may also be used as a staging area or for parking. BCRD will appear at the next City Council meeting to propose their plans. OLD BUSINESS:

OB 000 7:09:58 PM None. WORKSHOP: Staff Reports Council Reports Mayor’s Reports

SR 303 Sustainability Coordinator’s report on Blaine County Recycling Committee recommendation to be given to Blaine County Commissioners. 7:10:12 PM Mariel Platt provided a brief update including the plans to reduce the current 6-bin curbside program to a 3-bin system. The plan will remove glass from curbside recycling and require glass to be taken by citizens to current cardboard recycling locations. 7:12:45 PM Ned Williamson added details regarding possible costs, hauling, safety issues, contamination, and the City’s recent franchise agreement with Clear Creek. Ms. Platt noted environmental implications. Council discussion included safety concerns at glass drop-off points. Heather Dawson pointed out the ways in which Boise has dealt with glass recycling. Further Council discussion included frustrations with the inconsistency of glass recycling systems, and how the City might encourage the County to be more consistent. Ms. Platt encouraged City officials to attend the upcoming County meeting. Mayor Haemmerle noted he would send a letter to the County on the issue.

SR 304 Green Building Demonstration at the Interpretive Center. 7:23:52 PM Mariel Platt provided a staff report on this topic in Council packets.

SR 305 Director’s report from Hailey Library from month of May 2012.

SR 306 List of Special Events in Hailey. Don Keirn asked that Airport Appreciation Day be added to the list.

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="18:59:13"?Data="c3fc2e0d"�


ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:08:18"?Data="cdf424b3"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:09:58"?Data="b9a70d9b"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:10:12"?Data="2a3bc84c"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:12:45"?Data="e3d4b17b"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:23:52"?Data="2d03e3a9"�


SR 307 Draft agendas for the next meetings. 7:24:28 PM Heather Dawson pointed out the August 6 meeting will revisit Complete Streets. 7:25:20 PM Pat Cooley noted that the Thompson Memorial Baseball tournament was a great success and appeared to have good economic impacts. 7:27:19 PM Carol Brown moved to go into Executive Session for Pending & Imminently Likely Litigation (IC 67-2345(1)(f)) Don Keirn seconded. Roll call vote: Brown, yes; Keirn, yes; Cooley, yes. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending & Imminently Likely Litigation (IC 67-2345(1)(f)) Matters & Motions from Executive Session or Workshop Mayor and council came out of Executive Session at 7:45 pm, no decisions were made.

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:24:28"?Data="bd67280c"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:25:20"?Data="97116bdd"�

ftr://?location="City Council"?date="16-Jul-2012"?position="19:27:19"?Data="687886c4"�

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY · TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ... because of years of flat...

Documents

Transcript of THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY · TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ... because of years of flat...