Shambhala Mountain Center Wastewater Utility Plan Utility Plan... · Shambhala Mountain Center....

Shambhala Mountain Center

Wastewater Utility Plan

REVISED April 2010REVISED March 2010

REVISED January 2010February 2009081-039.000

Prepared by:

WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.Denver, Colorado

Prepared for:

Shambhala Mountain CenterRed Feather Lakes, Colorado

Shambhala Mountain Center Wastewater Utility Plan

Prepared by:

WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. Denver, Colorado

REVISED April 2010 081-039.000

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Facilities Plan Summary ...................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Implementation .................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Summary of Utility Plan Structure ....................................................................................... 6

2.0 GENERAL PLANNING ................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Feasibility of Consolidation of Facilities Reg. 22 @ 22.8 (1) (b) .......................................... 6 2.2 Wastewater Reuse .............................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Environmental Components ................................................................................................ 7

2.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Information .................................. 10 3.0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................ 10

3.1 Service Area Designations ................................................................................................ 11 3.2 Population Datasets & Forecasts ...................................................................................... 11 3.3 Wastewater Flow Projections ............................................................................................ 14

3.3.1 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis ................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 Character of Influent ....................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 Industrial Pretreatment Program ..................................................................... 22

3.4 Treatment Works .............................................................................................................. 22 3.4.1 Process System and Dispersal System .......................................................... 22 3.4.2 Infrastructure Sizing and Staging .................................................................... 32 3.4.3 Location and Siting.......................................................................................... 32 3.4.4 Biosolids Handling........................................................................................... 32 3.4.5 Schematic of Treatment Works ...................................................................... 33 3.4.6 Odor Control Considerations .......................................................................... 33

3.5 Air Quality Permit .............................................................................................................. 33 3.6 Stormwater Management Plan .......................................................................................... 38 3.7 Site Characterization Report ............................................................................................. 38 3.8 Collection System .............................................................................................................. 38

3.8.1 Major Lift Stations ........................................................................................... 39 3.8.2 Interceptor Sewers .......................................................................................... 39 3.8.3 Collection System Plan ................................................................................... 39

3.9 Maps.................................................................................................................................. 43 3.9.1 Treatment Plant Site Envelope ....................................................................... 43 3.9.2 Service Area ................................................................................................... 43 3.9.3 Collection System ........................................................................................... 43

4.0 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................... 47 4.1 Water Quality of the Receiving Water ............................................................................... 47 4.2 TMDLs and/or Waste Load Allocations ............................................................................. 47 4.3 Watershed Issues ............................................................................................................. 48 4.4 Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PELs) ............................................................................. 48 4.5 Maps.................................................................................................................................. 49

4.5.1 Watershed ...................................................................................................... 49 4.5.2 Impaired Waters ............................................................................................. 50

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 50 5.1 Treatment Works .............................................................................................................. 50

5.1.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) .................................................................. 51 5.1.2 Extended Aeration Activated Sludge............................................................... 51 5.1.3 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) .......................................................................... 51

5.2 Level of Treatment ............................................................................................................ 52 5.3 Cost Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 55 5.4 Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 56 5.5 Proposed Implementation Schedule ................................................................................. 58

ii

5.6 Public Participation and Selection Process ....................................................................... 59 6.0 MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANS ................................................................... 59

6.1 Management Structure and Agreements .......................................................................... 59 6.2 Wastewater Management Plan ......................................................................................... 60 6.3 Financial Management Plan .............................................................................................. 61

6.3.1 Financial Assistance ....................................................................................... 63 6.3.2 User Charge Summary ................................................................................... 63

7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 63

iii

TABLES Table 1 Existing Conditions - Buildings on Central Wastewater System .................................................... 11 Table 2 Existing Conditions - Buildings on Separate OWS ......................................................................... 11 Table 3 Existing Buildings on Central Wastewater System That Have Septic Tanks ................................. 19 Table 4 Existing Buildings Currently on Separate OWS ............................................................................. 19 Table 5 Influent BOD Concentrations to the Existing Wetland Cells (After Presedimentation Tanks) on

Various Dates .......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 6 Character of Wastewater Influent to the Proposed WWTF ........................................................... 22 Table 7 Estimated Capital Costs of Collection System By Phase ............................................................... 43 Table 8 PELs Issued to SMC by CDPHE (October 30, 2009 Letter) .......................................................... 49 Table 9 Comparative Estimated Capital Costs – WWTF ............................................................................ 55 Table 10 Comparative Annual O&M Costs ................................................................................................. 56 Table 11 Ranking of New WWTF Processes ............................................................................................. 58 Table 12 Shambhala WWTF Implementation Schedule ............................................................................. 59 Table 13 Summary of Capital, O&M, Replacement Costs and Total Revenues ......................................... 62

FIGURES Figure 1 Shambhala Mountain Center WWTF, Magic Sky Ranch Girl Scouts Camp and Ben Delatour Boy

Scout Camp Location Map ........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2 Property Boundary, Service Area, Wastewater Utility Planning Area, and the Ultimate Planning

Area ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 Average Daily Water Use for Each Overnight Person by Month - 2007 to 2009 (Based on Total

Metered Water Pumped from Onsite Wells and Number of Overnight Visitors Plus Staff) .... 15 Figure 4 Projected Flow and Peak Population for 20 Year Planning Period Compared to Design Capacity17 Figure 5 Projected BOD Concentration for 20-Year Planning Period Compared to Design Capacity ........ 21 Figure 6 Process Diagram Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) .................................................................... 28 Figure 7 Dispersal System Conceptual Design Plan ................................................................................... 29 Figure 8 Dispersal System Conceptual Design Profile................................................................................ 30 Figure 9 Unnamed Drainage Swale Watershed Site Map .......................................................................... 31 Figure 10 Wastewater Treatment Facility Location ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 11 Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Plan .................................................................................... 35 Figure 12 Preliminary Design – Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Plan ........................................... 36 Figure 13 Preliminary Design – Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Profile ........................................ 37 Figure 14 Wastewater Collection System Existing Condition ..................................................................... 44 Figure 15 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan ............................................................................... 45 Figure 16 South Sewer Line Master Plan .................................................................................................... 46 Figure 17 Process Diagram Extended Aeration Activated Sludge .............................................................. 53 Figure 18 Process Diagram Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) ......................................................................... 54

APPENDICES (END OF REPORT)

A Preliminary Effluent Limits Letter (October 30, 2009) B Letter Dated March 2, 2010 to Wayne Lorenz from the NFRWQPA Regarding Shambhala

Mountain Center Utility Plan C Letter Dated September 27, 2001 to Richard A. Swaback from the CDPHE Regarding

Compliance Advisory on Compliance Inspections of Shambhala Mountain Center D Geotechnical Investigation and Phase II Percolation Study for the SMC WWTF performed by CTL

Thompson (December 11, 2009) E Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Map F Watershed Map G Opinion of Capital Costs – Collection System H Opinion of Capital Costs – Treatment Plant Options

Text.doc#_Toc260223158

iv

I Letter Dated December 14, 2009 to Jon Barbieri from The Sakyong Foundation Regarding Donor Funds

J Site Ownership/Control Documentation K CDPHE Consent Order

081-039.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 1 Revised April 2010

SHAMBHALA MOUNTAIN CENTER WASTEWATER UTILITY PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Shambhala Mountain Center (SMC) currently is served by a wastewater system that consists

of onsite wastewater treatment and a Central Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF).

This Wastewater Utility Plan (WUP) presents a phased construction program to address

modifications to the existing wastewater collection system and a new mechanical WWTF.

The preferred alternative for wastewater treatment processes at SMC were based on meeting the

water quality limits received from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

(CDPHE) in Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) letters for discharge to groundwater. The

groundwater discharge is proposed via a dispersal system constructed in the meadow to the

northeast of the SMC “downtown” area. A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is proposed as the

major treatment process to meet the PELs at SMC. The groundwater discharge permit limits will

be met, and monitored, prior to the dispersal system.

The projected wastewater flows from the SMC and required wastewater treatment capacity are

addressed in Table E-1.

Table E-1 SMC Wastewater Treatment Capacity

Population

Wastewater Flows Flow Average Daily

(gpd) Summer Maximum Daily1

(gpd) To Be Constructed 650 Persons 33,000 49,000

Future Expansion 1,250 Persons with Day Visits of 3,000 63,000 94,000

1 Based on 1.5 summer maximum daily flow to average daily flow.

The preferred alternative treatment process system (the SBR system) was sized based on the

projected average daily flow of 33,000 gallons per day (gpd) with a summer maximum daily flow

of 49,000 gpd. This wastewater treatment flow capacity will address up to 650 people of the



anticipated growth forecasts. An expansion of the capacity of the proposed SBR treatment

system will be needed for the future visitation wastewater flows.

The wastewater collection system piping needed for the central wastewater treatment system will

be constructed based on the phasing shown in Figure 10 in this report.

An opinion of probable capital costs for the wastewater collection system piping, by phase, is

presented in Appendix G. The wastewater collection system piping costs to most of the onsite

wastewater treatment systems (OWS) into the central facility is $530,000 to $780,000, to be

constructed by the end of Phase II. These costs do not include the future phase development.

The capital cost of the preferred wastewater treatment process (SBR process) is estimated at

$1.46 million to $2.15 million (49,000 gpd). The anticipated annual operations and maintenance

(O&M) cost is $82,000 per year.

Construction of the new mechanical WWTF is proposed to begin in March of 2011.



1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Shambhala Mountain Center (SMC) is a mountain retreat center located in the Red Feather

Lakes area in Larimer County, Colorado. It is approximately 30 miles to the north and west of

the City of Fort Collins and is situated on 600 acres. The SMC offers programs on Buddhist

meditation, yoga, and other disciplines. Most of the visitors use the facilities on a short-term

basis. The SMC opened in 1971. SMC is limited to 450 visitors and staff on the main campus,

plus an additional 80 people on the Red Feather Campus during peak months (June to

September), or a total of 530 people during peak months, in accordance with current Larimer

County Land Use requirements. During off-peak months, (October to May) Land Use

requirements limit SMC visitors and staff to 150 people on the main campus plus an additional

50 people on the Red Feather Campus, or a total of 200 people.

Potable water is provided to the SMC by several onsite wells that pump into a water distribution

system. The water system is designated as a community public water system (PWSID No.

CO0235685) under the requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environment (CDPHE).

SMC’s current wastewater treatment systems include both a central wastewater collection and

treatment system and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWSs). A central collection and

treatment system consists of approximately 13 septic tanks followed by presedimentation tanks, a

two-cell constructed wetland system, and a polishing pond. No disinfection is provided. Treated

effluent is discharged from the polishing pond by evaporation and to groundwater via Colorado

Discharge Permit No. COX-630037. Currently, the approved hydraulic capacity of the central

wastewater system is 7,785 gallons per day (gpd).

There are several issues regarding the wastewater system at SMC, based on a recent compliance

inspection by CDPHE. The following is a summary of issues:

1. There is no written record in CDPHE files that Site Approval and Design Approval was

obtained for the as-constructed wastewater treatment processes.



2. An inflow metering device is needed.

3. The facultative polishing pond appears to be leaking (based on a CDPHE site visit on

July 25, 2007). The leaking may also be an unpermitted surface discharge to the

unnamed tributary. The facility currently only has a Groundwater Discharge Permit,

which does not include a surface water discharge point.

4. The current General Discharge Permit does not accurately reflect the existing treatment

processes, flows, or discharge locations.

This Wastewater Utility Plan (WUP) was prepared to evaluate the existing wastewater system

and provide planning for new treatment processes that will meet groundwater discharge permit

limits via a groundwater dispersal system.

1.1 Facilities Plan Summary

The wastewater facilities proposed in this WUP represent major modifications to the existing

infrastructure. A new mechanical wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) will be constructed to

take the place of the existing wetland treatment cells. The mechanical WWTF will have

treatment processes that will meet the preliminary effluent limits (PELs). A groundwater

dispersal system will discharge the highly treated effluent to the alluvial groundwater.

Most of the existing OWSs within the service area will be abandoned and included on the central

WWTF. There are also septic tanks that are functioning on sewer lines that go to the existing

wetland treatment cells. It is planned that these septic tanks be phased out so that raw

wastewater will be directed to the new mechanical WWTF.

The abandonment of existing septic tanks and OWSs will be done in a phased approach. Phase I

is proposed as the construction of the mechanical WWTF and phasing out of septic tanks in the

“downtown” area of SMC. Phase II is proposed to abandon the OWSs at Stupa View Staff

Housing, and Red Feather Conference Center and associated buildings and connect on to the

central system. The Stupa Support Building/Visitor’s Center, MPE-Summer Kitchen, Ma

Mason, Mason House, Windhorse Hill, and Teacher’s Residence will be connected as needed



(i.e., when there are problems with the OWS). These connections, when needed, are addressed

as a Phase III in this report. The OWSs at these locations will be abandoned and connected to the

central system by construction of a gravity sewer.

In accordance with Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, Individual Sewage

Disposal System Regulations (2004) abandoned septic tanks will be pumped and filled with soil,

or removed (Larimer County, 2004).

Wastewater collection system piping will be designed and constructed according to this WUP.

1.2 Implementation

This present plan for wastewater treatment upgrades at SMC began at the end of 2006 with a

request to CDPHE for determination of PELs for the proposed groundwater discharge. Since this

2006 PEL request, the planning for the wastewater treatment and discharge has evolved and the

PELs have been updated. The most current letter from the CDPHE is for groundwater discharge

and is dated October 30, 2009 (See Appendix A).

Several alternative treatment technologies have been evaluated in this WUP based on the

groundwater PELs. A cost analysis and a schematic design for a mechanical WWTF are

presented with the alternatives analysis.

A previous draft of this WUP was presented to the North Front Range Water Quality Planning

Association (NFRWQPA) originally in February 2009 and then again in January 2010.

Comments from the review of this draft were received from NFRWQPA (letter dated March 2,

2010). This current, revised version of the draft WUP addresses the comments in the March

2010 NFRWQPA letter (See Appendix B).

A Site Application for a new WWTF will be submitted following referral review and acceptance

of this WUP by the NFRWQPA and Larimer County.

The SMC is currently in a funding program for the design and construction of the collection

system and new WWTF. It is anticipated that the funding campaign will take some time for

success. At this time, construction of the new WWTF is anticipated to begin on March 1, 2011.



1.3 Summary of Utility Plan Structure

This report is structured according to the NFRWQPA Utility Plan Guidance, approved on

June 22, 2000 and amended on June 28, 2007. Chapter 2 presents the general planning for the

collection system and new WWTF, including the considerations for consolidation, wastewater

reuse, water rights, and environmental components. Chapter 3 provides the details for the

evaluation starting with the service area and population, and continuing with wastewater flow

projections and characterization of water quality. The conceptual design of the preferred

treatment alternative is also presented in Chapter 3 along with the site location. In Chapter 4, the

water quality requirements for discharge to groundwater are addressed. The presentation of the

treatment alternatives evaluation follows in Chapter 5. The details of the management and

financial plans are covered in Chapter 6. The technical support documents are attached as

appendices.

2.0 GENERAL PLANNING

2.1 Feasibility of Consolidation of Facilities Reg. 22 @ 22.8 (1) (b)

The SMC Central WWTF is located in Section 23 Township 9 North, Range 73 West of 6th

Principal Meridian, Larimer County, near County Road 68 C. Other than individual residences,

there are two camp developments in the region of the SMC. These are the Magic Sky Ranch Girl

Scouts Camp and the Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch. The Magic Sky Ranch Camp is served by

a WWTF that has a capacity of 0.01 million gallons per day (mgd) which began operation in

2007. The Magic Sky Ranch Camp WWTF is located approximately 4.7 straight line miles from

the existing SMC WWTF, as shown on Figure 1. This distance, plus the fact that the Magic Sky

Ranch Camp WWTF does not have sufficient treatment capacity to serve SMC, makes

consolidation of the two facilities unreasonable.

The Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch has been served in the past by a lagoon and individual septic

systems. The camp has been working with the CDPHE to meet the treatment needs of the camp

given the intermittent nature of the operations. The existing wastewater systems are located at a

distance of approximately 1.4 straight line miles from the SMC WWTF, also shown in Figure 1.

Consolidation of the SMC and the Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch Camp wastewater treatment



was studied. However, the consolidation of these two facilities was not recommended due to

pipeline alignment obstacles, land ownership hoops, water rights considerations, and related

economic impacts of the geologic barriers and distance involved with consolidation.

The Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch Camp recently submitted a draft WUP (dated May, 2009) to

the NFRWQPA to address a separate WWTF to serve the Boy Scout Camp.

Finally, the 2007 update of the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) for

Larimer and Weld Counties identified both SMC WWTF and the Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch

wastewater system as “minor sources” and did not envision consolidation of these facilities.

2.2 Wastewater Reuse

SMC currently has no plans for wastewater reuse.

2.3 Environmental Components

The SMC existing WWTF and the existing OWSs are located on the property owned by the

Shambhala International (Vajradhatu). The SMC varies in elevation from about 7,650 feet to

8,360 feet and the property drains directly into Elkhorn Creek. The site of the new WWTF is at

an elevation of approximately 7,725 feet. The soil and subsurface characteristics of a WWTF

site are important for design criteria. Based on soil mapping from the National Resources

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) National Cooperative Soil Survey, the soil in the WWTF area is

characterized as a Wetmore-Boyle-Moen Complex.

A geotechnical investigation was performed on the site in the area of the proposed dispersal

system and the new WWTF in November 2009. The result of the investigation showed soils and

rock consisting of silty sand, clayey sand, moderately to highly weathered granite, and slightly

weathered to fresh granite.

The SMC is a mountain environment with a variety of mountain wildlife including deer, elk,

bears, mountain lions, bobcats, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, and many species of birds.

WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.2490 W 26TH AVE 100A

DENVER, CO. 80211(303) 480-1700

FIGURE

09/04/08 GIS; Z:\Project Files\08\081-039\081-039.000\CAD-GIS\GIS\girlscouts.mxd

LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

LOCATION MAP

RED FEATHER LAKES

Shambhala MountainCenter WWTF

Magic Sky RanchGirl Scouts Camp

APPROXIMATELY 4.7 MI.

Ben DelatourBoy Scout Camp

APPROXIMATELY 1.4 MI.

9N72W9N73W

10N72W

8N72W

10N73W

8N73W

9N71W

10N71W

8N71W

SHAMBHALA MOUNTAIN CENTERWWTF, MAGIC SKY RANCH

GIRL SCOUTS CAMP AND BENDELATOUR BOY SCOUT CAMP

PROJECT NO.

1081-039.000

Base Map: USGS Topographic Map- 24K Series

1 INCH = 8,000 FEET0 8,000 16,0004,000

FEET



The climate is characterized as low in precipitation (approximately 17 inches of precipitation per

year), low humidity, abundant sunshine, and usually low winds. Average monthly air

temperatures have wide seasonal variations. Summer temperatures range between 40°F and

95°F, while winter temperatures vary from -20°F to 50°F. Summer weather patterns produce

heavy thunderstorms that contribute a large portion of the annual precipitation.

Vegetation in the area of the existing WWTF and the proposed new WWTF consists of

groundcover that is comprised of native grasses, brush, and pine trees. The prominent trees

growing in the area are Ponderosa pines, Douglas firs, junipers, and aspen.

Wetland plants are present in the “dry swale” and the unnamed tributary. In addition, there are

wetland areas around the banks of Lake Sunyata and the existing wastewater treatment lagoon

(refer to Figure 9 for locations).

The NFRWQPA wetland policy is:

“No net loss of wetland functions should occur within the region, and cost effective use

of wetlands in urban design should be encouraged. Development within a designated or

delineated wetland should occur only when no other alternative exists. Wetland

mitigation should consist of replacement wetlands of similar type and quality, as

determined by appropriate scientific analysis, which results in an equal (at the minimum)

replacement of lost wetland functions. Wetland replacement within the same hydrologic

watershed as defined in the 208 Plan is the preferred compensatory mitigation measure.”

The proposed central WWTF is being planned to avoid existing regulated wetland areas.

However, the sewer lines and the piping to the dispersal system will need to be constructed

through wetland areas. Prior to submittal of the Site Application to the CDPHE, it is planned

that a wetland delineation be performed to assess the extent of impact of new construction.

It is anticipated that a Nationwide 404 Permit will need to be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) to address the construction of the piping to the dispersal system and

wastewater collection piping.



2.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Information

The wastewater facilities addressed in this WUP are on private lands and the project will be done

on behalf of a private landowner. The SMC is not intending to apply for construction funds from

the State Revolving Loan Fund for this project. Therefore, the requirements of NEPA may not

specifically apply to the project. It is anticipated that this WUP addresses the EA information

that is needed, including the need for the project, alternatives (when there is an unresolved

conflict concerning alternative uses of available resources), environmental impacts of the

proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.

3.0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

The Utility Plan for the new central wastewater system to serve the SMC is described by a

service area, projected flow rates, required treatment, and the description of the new WWTF site

and system. The service area was established based on the property boundary and the eventual

consolidation of most of the existing septic tank/leach field systems into the central treatment

system. It is anticipated that Hyagriva and a residence at Windhorse Hill may remain on

residential OWS.

The population that will be served by the project has been estimated using past employee and

visitation records and proposed plans by the Owner.

Water demand by the existing residents form the basis for the wastewater flow projections.

The existing central treatment facility consists of a series of pre-sedimentation tanks, submerged

flow wetland cells, and a “polishing” pond. In CDPHE’s Compliance Advisory Letter (dated

September 27, 2007) it was stated that the effluent pond “appeared to be leaking, with a possible

unpermitted discharge to an un-named surface water creek”. This compliance advisory is one of

the reasons for the project. A copy of the Compliance Advisory Letter is included in Appendix

C.

The recommended treatment system was selected based on the Alternatives Analysis presented in

Section 5.0. A description of the proposed new WWTF is presented in Section 3.4.



3.1 Service Area Designations

The 2007 update of the 208 Plan for Larimer and Weld Counties has been prepared by the

NFRWQPA as part of the continuing 208 Plan update process. The 208 Plan identifies the SMC

as a “minor source” and recognizes the SMC service area. The service area map presented in

Figure 2 shows the entire property which is the service area. The service area map in Figure 2

defines the ultimate planning area (UPA). This is also the Wastewater Utility Planning Area

(WUSA). As presented in this WUP, the new WWTF will be built in two phases. The new

WWTF will ultimately be sized to treat flows from the WUSA based on full buildout conditions.

3.2 Population Datasets & Forecasts

Within the WUSA, each existing building with wastewater flows has been identified to be

currently either on the central wastewater system or on separate OWS. The buildings that are

currently on the central wastewater system are shown in Table 1 and the buildings that are

currently on OWSs are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 Existing Conditions - Buildings on Central Wastewater System

Vajra Bath House Rigden Lodge Ratna Bath House Padma Toilet House Kitchen Sacred Studies Hall Puspa Bath House-Downtown Shambhala Lodge Shotoku (Tiger-Lion)

TOTAL BUILDINGS 10

Table 2 Existing Conditions - Buildings on Separate OWS

Teachers Residence Stupa View Staff Housing Ma Mason Mason House and Trailer Red Feather-Ranch House, Caretakers House, Lodge Building

Red Feather Bath House

MPE Kitchen Stupa Support Building Windhorse Hill Hyagriva

With the exception of the Padma Bath House, the buildings presented in Tables 1 and 2 have an

associated septic tank (both on central and OWS).



It is planned that all of the buildings on the property (and within the WUSA) will eventually be

served by the central wastewater system in the future, with exceptions of Hyagriva (a single

family residence) and Windhorse Hill.

Currently, the SMC population averages approximately 45 employees and during peak

population periods (e.g., training sessions) with visitors there can be a total of up to 450 people

on the SMC site.

SMCs Land Use Plan allows 450 population. Subsequent to this, SMC purchased the adjacent

40 acres (formerly the Amokula Campfire Girls Camp). Larimer County allows this property’s

continued use of an additional 80 population, so the total allowable summertime population for

the SMC is 530.

It is planned that with additional SMC program development, up to a population of 650 will be

supported at the SMC. Therefore, Phase I of the project will be constructed to serve the 650

population even with the consideration that some of the buildings will still be on OWS. Phase I

construction will include new mechanical WWTF. It is also planned that all of the septic tanks in

the downtown area and the Ratna and Vajra Bath Houses will be bypassed and abandoned and

(by County Regulations) connected to the central wastewater system by the end of Phase I.

Phase II collection system construction is proposed to abandon the OWSs at Stupa View Staff

Housing and Red Feather Conference Center and associated buildings and connect on to the

central system.

Phase III is proposed to address collection system construction when there is OWS failure or any

new buildings that are built in the proximity of the Ma Mason, Mason House, Windhorse Hill

(only if mobile home use continues), Stupa Support Building/Visitor’s Center, MPE-Summer

Kitchen, and/or Teacher’s Residence. At this time, none of the OWSs that serve these buildings

are failing. The OWSs at these locations will be abandoned and connected to the central system

at the time of OWS failure (if and when they do fail) or prior to new buildings construction. All

buildings proposed for connection to the treatment facility during Phase III will meet Larimer

County requirements.



It is anticipated that a future phase will be developed at the SMC. This future phase would be a

major phase where additional buildings would be developed, up to an overnight population of

1,250 with day long events with up to 3,000 in attendance. The WWTF planning presented in

this WUP addresses the above proposed Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III with expansion area

allocated for the future phase (1,250 people).

The Land Use Plan for this future phase population (i.e., 1,250 overnight) and development must

be reviewed and approved by Larimer County. The currently approved Land Use Plan addresses

a population of 450. Subsequent to this, SMC purchased the adjacent 40 acres (formerly the

Amokula Campfire Girls Camp). Larimer County allows this property’s continued use of an

additional 80 population, so the total allowable summertime population for the SMC is 530.

It is anticipated that the CDPHE will require Larimer County approval of the Land Use Plan that

addresses the greater population (i.e., 650 overnight) and development addressed in this WUP.

Larimer County is a referral agency in the process for the Site Application addressing the

wastewater treatment facilities. A Site Application approval from CDPHE is required prior to

construction of a new wastewater treatment facility.

3.3 Wastewater Flow Projections

For planning purposes, combined historic metered water from four wells over a three year period

(years 2007 to 2009) was used to approximate the amount of wastewater flows to be expected in

the future. On a monthly basis, the SMC records the total amount of water pumped from the

water wells. The SMC also keeps a record of visitors and employees that stay overnight at the

site. (SMC does not track day use of the facility). However, using the total metered water use

includes use by day visitors (and any wastewater flow from day visitors). Also, day use

population is minimal and is not believed to have a significant wastewater contribution to the

SMC WWTF. Therefore, per capita water use is estimated based on overnight users only. The

estimated per person water use on a monthly basis for the past three years is shown in Figure 3.

The historic water use ranged from 28 to 64 gpd per person. This range is probably due to

factors such as varying irrigation amounts, type of program and activity taking place on the site,

number of beds in tent-based housing, etc. In addition, there have been incidents during this



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Wat

er

Use

(G

PD

/Cap

ita

Average = 44 GPD/Capita

2007 2008 2009

period that have been reflected in the metered water use that would not have resulted in

wastewater flow. For example, a garden hose was left on overnight that significantly increased

the amount of water metered.

Based on the water use data presented in Figure 3, the overall average daily use is 44 gpd per

capita. For the purposes of this plan, WWE assumed that 50 gpd per person could be used in-

house and result in a wastewater flow. The wastewater flow of 50 gpd per person was compared

to other planning criteria (e.g., Metcalf Eddy, 2003) for this type of development and was

reasonable when compared with these criteria.

The 50 gpd per person was assumed to represent a conservative average daily wastewater flow.

To determine the rated capacity of the new WWTF, WWE used a factor of 1.5 times (including

infiltration/inflow [I/I]) the 50 gpd per capita (or 75 gpd per capita) to estimate a design peak day

flow to the WWTF.

Figure 3 Average Daily Water Use for Each Overnight Person by Month - 2007 to 2009

(Based on Total Metered Water Pumped from Onsite Wells and Number of Overnight Visitors Plus Staff)

Wat

er U

se (G

PD

/Cap

ita)



Using the average daily and peak day wastewater flows described above, and the population

projections described in Section 1.0, Figure 4 shows the projected wastewater flows to the

WWTF over a 20 year period. This average daily wastewater flow to peak day peaking factor is

consistent with several references. The Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual of

Practice No. 8, Design of Municipal Wastewater Plants and the CDPHE Guidelines on Individual

Sewage Disposal Systems suggest average daily to peak day peaking factors of 1.6 and 1.5,

respectively.

Figure 4 shows two proposed increases in peak population over the 20 year planning period. The

first increase is from 450 to 530 total overnight guests and staff and then to to 650, which is

anticipated to occur in 2013. The WWTF will be designed to handle the flow from this increase.

This increase in peak population is contigent on modifications that may be imposed by Larimer

County.

The next population increase would be for up to 1,250 overnight guests and employees and is

projected to occur in 2018. A WWTF expansion will be needed to accommodate this 1,250

population.



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Po

pu

lation

Flo

w (

gpd

)

Year

Avg. Day WWTF Capacity Population

Figure 4 Projected Flow and Peak Population for 20 Year Planning Period Compared to

Design Capacity

3.3.1 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis

The collection system is small and inflow from such sources as leaky faucets are generally

controlled though water use monitoring and water conservation measures. Infiltration from

groundwater is limited due to the overall groundwater table, generally lower than the collection

system, and the low precipitation in the region.

The current collection system is comprised of mostly 4-inch diameter pipelines (SDR -35) that

have been buried at shallow depths and are not in the typical groundwater zone. Therefore,

infiltration from groundwater conditions probably does not occur.

There are few manholes on the current system that could otherwise be sources of I/I. There are

numerous septic tanks, and the wetland cell pre-sedimentation tanks that are constructed from

precast concrete. Normally, precast septic tanks have been constructed to be water tight. Also,



these septic tanks are installed away from stormwater runoff areas. There is only one location

where a septic tank could possibly receive some storm water runoff, and diversion landscaping is

maintained in that area.

The existing wetland cells are lined with a synthetic membrane (polypropylene 30 mil) that was

constructed by a reputable liner installer (Watersaver Company) and the installation of the liner

was observed by a competent SMC employee.

SMC staff has made observations of the outfall into the existing polishing pond and the inflow

into the manhole ahead of the wetland pre-sedimentation tanks. These observations have been

made early in the morning hours between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. at various times of the year when

population on the property was at a minimum. Only “pencil thin” flows were observed at these

locations.

In addition, staff and guests are encouraged to report plumbing fixtures that are found to be

leaking, and signs with instructions how to report leaks are posted in many of the public

restrooms.

This plan anticipates that most of the existing sewer piping on the site will be replaced. Future

wastewater collection pipelines (to connect existing buildings that are currently on OWS) will be

designed and constructed to minimize infiltration.

3.3.2 Character of Influent

The inflow wastewater to the existing wetland treatment system is characterized by a domestic

sewage process by septic tanks. Most of the buildings that are currently on the existing central

wastewater system have an installed septic tank. The existing buildings that are known to have

septic tanks and the associated septic tank volumes are presented in Table 3.



Table 3 Existing Buildings on Central Wastewater System

That Have Septic Tanks

Building Septic Tank Volume (Gallons) Comments Phase to Connect

to Central System Vajra Bath House 1,500 Summer Use Only Phase I Ratna Bath House 1,500 Summer Use Only Phase I Shambhala Lodge 2,000 & 1,500 Phase I Padma Toilet House 2,0001 Summer Use Only Phase I Sacred Studies Hall 1,500 Phase I Kitchen 500 and 1,500 Grease Trap-500 Gallons Phase I Bath House-Downtown 1,500 Phase I Puspa 1,250 Phase I Shotoku (Tiger-Lion) 1,500 Phase I Rigden Lodge 330 and (3) 1,500 Grease Trap-330 Gallons Phase I

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPTIC TANKS 13 1 This septic tank receives sewage from Padma Toilet House, Sacred Studies Hall, Kitchen, Puspa, and Shotoku

The existing buildings that are currently on separate OWS are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Existing Buildings Currently on Separate OWS

Building Served Septic Tank Volume (Gallons) Comments Phase to Connect

to Central System

Teacher’s Residence 1,250 48 Infiltrators; 3-100 Foot trenches Phase III

Stupa View Staff House-Phase I 2,000 Infiltrators-54 Chambers; 827 ft2 Phase II

Ma Mason 1,000 Phase III Mason House & Mason Trailer 750 Phase III Red Feather-Ranch House, Caretaker’s House, Lodge Building

Old Tank = 750 New Tank = 1,000 Grease Trap Phase II

Red Feather Bath House (Men & Women) 2 - 1,500 Phase II

MPE Kitchen 1,250 Summer Only Phase III Stupa Support Building 1,000 Phase III

Haygriva 1 Tank-Volume Unknown

Single Family Residence

To Remain on OWS

Windhorse Hill 2 Tanks-Volume Unknown

Residence-4 Mobile Homes Phase III

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPTIC TANKS 13

Based on Tables 3 and 4, there are a total of 26 existing septic tanks on the SMC. In addition,

there are three existing grease interceptors. Each grease interceptor is planned to be replaced



when the building that it serves joins the central system. Each grease interceptor will be properly

sized, according to codes/regulations.

The wastewater quality data obtained in the influent to the existing wetland cells demonstrate

BOD concentrations, as shown in Table 5 from samples taken at periodic time intervals. The

average of these BOD concentration data is 164 mg/L.

Table 5 Influent BOD Concentrations to the Existing Wetland Cells (After

Presedimentation Tanks) on Various Dates

Sample Date Influent BOD (mg/L)

8/27/2006 143 8/30/2006 137 9/3/2006 152 9/6/2006 111 9/10/2006 148 9/13/2006 169 9/17/2006 100 9/20/2006 134 9/24/2006 234 9/28/2006 150 3/18/2007 158 7/11/2007 331 Average 164 Minimum 100 Maximum 331

The wastewater quality characteristics to the new WWTF are expected to change somewhat as

the existing septic tanks are bypassed and facilities are placed on the collection system and the

OWSs are abandoned and connected to the central system. The existing septic tanks remove a

portion of the suspended solids and BOD in the raw wastewater. Therefore, the concentrations of

these parameters in the raw wastewater to the new WWTF may be lower than will be

experienced when the OWSs are abandoned.

A significant contribution of organic loading to the WWTF will be from kitchen and wash room

sources. A Water Environment Research reference, “Food Service Establishment Wastewater



Characterization,” which was provided to WWE by NFRWQPA Board Members, provides a

design value for BOD concentration from restaurants of 1,523 mg/L. Wastewater from kitchens

on the SMC site is expected to account for approximately 15 percent of the total wastewater flow

to the WWTF (Leverenz and Tchobanoglous). The remaining 85 percent of wastewater will be

from other domestic uses and is expected to have a BOD concentration of 240 mg/L (CDPHE

ISDS Regulations). The combined BOD concentration is expected to be 430 mg/L. For the new

WWTF, at average day flow, the BOD loading to the WWTF will be 117 pounds per day and at

peak day the BOD loading will be 175 pounds per day. Figure 5 shows the projected loading to

the WWTF over a 20-year period, assuming this organic loading concentration.

Figure 5 Projected BOD Concentration for 20-Year Planning Period Compared to Design

Capacity

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Load

ing

(lb

s./d

ay)

Year

Average Day WWTF Capacity



Other wastewater quality characterization parameters and their expected concentrations are

presented in Table 6.

The parameters and concentrations of the parameters shown in Table 6 were used for the

planning of the wastewater treatment processes presented in this WUP. The concentrations of

the parameters shown in Table 6 are based on existing, onsite data, WWE experience, and

criteria in various references (e.g., Metcalf Eddy 2003).

Table 6 Character of Wastewater Influent to the Proposed WWTF

Parameter Concentration Units Carbonaceous BOD5 (Average) 430 Milligrams per Liter (mg/L) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Average) 300 mg/L Ammonia Nitrogen (Average) 50 mg/L as Nitrogen Total Alkalinity (Average) 50 mg/L as Calcium Carbonate pH 6.8 to 7.5 Standard Units (SU)

3.3.3 Industrial Pretreatment Program

The SMC is a religious retreat resort with no industries within the WUSA. The property

managers are responsible for maintaining the individual septic tanks.

3.4 Treatment Works

Three treatment process alternatives were evaluated for the wastewater generated at the SMC.

The evaluation was based on conceptual design and resulted in a preferred alternative. The

alternative analysis is presented in Section 5.0.

This section describes the preferred alternative and presents the proposed site location for the

WWTF. A treated effluent dispersal system for discharge to groundwater is also described.

3.4.1 Process System and Dispersal System

The preferred alternative for the treatment processes at SMC were based on meeting the water

quality limits received from the CDPHE in the PELs letter, see Appendix A. The PELs for

groundwater discharge were issued by the CDPHE on October 30, 2009 (PEL No. 200188). The



preferred treatment process alternative addresses the PELs for groundwater discharge, see

Section 4.4.

The specific treatment processes proposed for the preferred alternative for the SMC are shown in

Figure 6. The selection of the treatment processes may be further evaluated by the design team

during final design, as further discussed below under specific process system descriptions. Each

process will be designed to treat the design peak day flow of 49,000 gpd. Refinement of sizes

and capacities of each treatment process will be determined during final design. The following

are short descriptions of each process within the preferred alternative.

Manually Cleaned Bar Screen – A bar screen will be provided at the entrance location to

the WWTF to screen out large items that are non-biodegradable. The screen will have

openings of ¼ to ½ inch and will need to be manually raked on a daily basis. During final

design, the design team may further evaluate this treatment process to determine if it is a

CDPHE requirement and an appropriate and necessary treatment process for the SMC

WWTF.

Influent Flow Measurement – An open channel flow Parshall (or Palmer Bowlus) Flume

or a mag meter will be used to measure the influent to the WWTF. This flow

measurement flume will be placed inside of the headworks room of the WWTF building.

Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs) – The SBR process is a form of the activated sludge

process in which anoxic zone, aeration, sedimentation, and decant functions are combined

in a single reactor. Two SBRs are proposed in the preferred alternative to address the

redundancy required by the CDPHE. The SBR process employs a five stage cycle: fill,

react, settle, draw, and idle. The SBR will provide nitrification and denitrification for

biological nitrogen removal. Biological reactions begin to take place as the raw

wastewater fills the tank and a period is allowed for the anoxic conditions to develop (for

denitrification). The wastewater is then aerated to provide the major BOD reduction and

nitrification. The next step includes settling and, after the settling period, the supernatant

is decanted (or drawn off from the top) and discharged to the flow equalization basin.



During final design, the design team will determine if the SBRs should be placed above

or below grade. The above grade option may be preferred to avoid extensive rock

excavation. In the case that the SBRs are above grade, a raw water pump station will be

required upstream of the SBRs to pump wastewater to them.

Sodium Bicarbonate Addition – The treatment process of nitrification consumes

alkalinity in the wastewater. The background alkalinity concentration in the raw water

supply to the SMC does not have adequate alkalinity for full nitrification (i.e.,

concentrations of alkalinity are less than 200 mg/L as calcium carbonate). Therefore, an

alkalinity supplement is needed in the preferred alternative. This will be provided by a

liquid sodium bicarbonate feed system.

Flow Equalization – Since the SBR process is a batch process, flow equalization will be a

part of the preferred alternative. The flow equalization basin consists of a tank that has

sufficient volume to equalize the flow and allow the effluent to be pumped at a uniform

rate to the subsequent treatment processes. Submersible pumps will be used to provide

the flow equalization to the filtration step.

Filtration – The presence of higher levels of suspended solids will be detrimental to the

disinfection process and the effluent dispersal system. Efficient removal of any biosolids

that could carry over after the decant cycle from the SBR is needed. The preferred

alternative includes a filtration step to remove the remaining biosolids and ensure an

effluent that meets the nitrate limit.

There are two types of filters that would be applicable at the WWTF: fabric filter or

granular media filter. The type of filter to be used at the WWTF will be selected during

the final design phase of the project.

The fabric or granular filters are cleaned by a backflush of the filters that will be recycled

to the treatment process.

During final design, the design team will further evaluate this treatment process to

determine if it is an appropriate and necessary treatment process for the SMC WWTF.



Ultraviolet Light (UV) Disinfection – The final treatment step will be to disinfect the

treated effluent for inactivation of microbiological agents by the use of UV light. A

flume or mag meter will measure flow.

During final design, the design team will further evaluate disinfection alternatives and

may consider chlorination as an alternative to UV disinfection.

Effluent Pump Station – The treated effluent will be pumped to the dispersal system

through the effluent pump station. The station will be a wetwell located in the WWTF

building with two submersible effluent pumps. An effluent flow meter will be installed

on the discharge force main pipeline and will be located in the WWTF building.

Emergency Power Generator – Although not a specific treatment process, a key

component to the treatment process will be an emergency, propane powered generator to

provide electrical power to the essential treatment processes during a time of power

outages.

Treated effluent from the WWTF will be discharged to the groundwater through the dispersal

system. The proposed discharge permit point of compliance for the SMC WWTF is in the

Effluent Pump Station wetwell, just prior to pumping to the dispersal system. As such, the

dispersal system is not intended to provide additional treatment. The purpose of the dispersal

system is to maximize the dilution of the effluent wastewater with groundwater and surface water

in the unnamed swale watershed. SMC and WWE met with the CDPHE to discuss the proposed

concept for the dispersal system. CDPHE staff agreed that this concept would be acceptable for

discharge to groundwater.

The dispersal system will include three dispersal beds in series in the unnamed swale thalweg

north of the proposed WWTF building. Treated effluent will enter the dispersal beds through a

force main from the effluent pumps station that will deliver treated effluent to a perforated

manifold inlet pipe at the upstream end of the upstream dispersal bed. The dispersal beds will be

designed to provide a total of three days of hydraulic residence time at peak day flow. The

dispersal beds will be installed in the alluvium and weathered granite of the unnamed swale.



The dispersal beds will be configured in a step down arrangement down the unnamed swale and

will be separated by native material. The native material is comprised of silty sand and

weathered granite and has a hydraulic conductivity of 5 x 10-4 cm/s (10.6 gpd/sf).

The dispersal beds are currently envisioned to be approximately 50 feet long parallel with the

unnamed swale thalweg, 10 feet wide, and 5 feet deep. The dispersal beds will be composed of

¾ inch to 1-inch washed gravel wrapped in geotextile fabric. This material will have a hydraulic

conductivity of approximately 280 cm/s (250,000 gpd/sf). The porosity of the gravel will be

approximately 0.4 and will provide a total storage volume of approximately 49,000 gallons.

The native material has a much lower hydraulic conductivity than the proposed dispersal bed

material and will act as a semi-impervious barrier between each dispersal bed. (Travel velocity

in the swale through the native material is approximately 0.06 ft/d.) The Geotechnical

Investigation and Phase II Percolation Study for the SMC WWTF performed by CTL Thompson

in included in Appendix D.

Because the native material has a lower hydraulic conductivity, and to minimize the chance of

effluent wastewater surfacing in the unnamed channel during low flow conditions, a subsurface

“overflow” channel will be installed between each dispersal bed to provide a preferential flow

path to the next downstream dispersal bed. The overflow channels will be designed so that the

invert of the overflow channel is near the top of the upstream dispersal bed.

At the end of the downstream dispersal bed, an overflow channel will be designed to run from

the dispersal bed to near the confluence of the unnamed swale with Elkhorn Creek. At the

termination of the overflow channel, the effluent wastewater is expected to join the surface

system. A schematic plan and profile of the conceptual design for the dispersal system are shown

in Figures 7 and 8.

As stated above, the dispersal beds will be sized to each provide storage for one day of effluent

wastewater under peak design flow conditions. Under existing average day flow conditions of

15,000 gpd, the hydraulic residence time through the dispersal system will be approximately 10

days.



It should also be noted that, because of the relatively large hydraulic conductivity of the dispersal

bed material, the beds are expected to provide a preferential flow path down the unnamed swale.

This could have the effect of raising the local water table in the thalweg and may increase the

opportunity for mixing of the wastewater effluent with groundwater.

Under typical conditions, the unnamed swale is dry. Surface flow is expected during runoff

events (e.g. snowmelt or rainfall). Design of the dispersal field will be done to minimize

ponding of water on the surface.

Evidence of groundwater that provides contributory flow into the watershed is apparent in

several locations. There are several springs in the watershed, as shown in Figure 9, that indicate

that groundwater is present and joins the surface system. The springs are primarily periodic in

nature and provide surface flow primarily during snowmelt and the wet time of the year. In

addition, during the geotechnical investigation performed in December 2009, groundwater was

present in the test holes at depths ranging between 6 and 15 feet below ground surface. This

groundwater and surface water is available for dilution with the WWTF treated effluent.

To quantify the dilution that could be achieved from the unnamed swale watershed groundwater

and surface water, WWE estimates that the surface and groundwater recharge to the watershed is

approximately 1 to 2 inches over the watershed area. The unnamed swale watershed is

approximately 240 acres, and feeds into Elkhorn Creek west of the SMC. The watershed area is

delineated as shown in Figure 9. The water volume estimated to be available for recharge to the

surface and groundwater system is approximately 20 – 40 acre-feet or 6.5 – 13.0 million gallons

per year. On an annual basis, this implies a dilution ratio of approximately 1:1 to 2:1 of

groundwater and surface water to average day wastewater effluent.

As a contingency plan, in the case that the dispersal system should fail, the existing lagoon east

of the WWTF building can be used to store wastewater until repairs can be made to the dispersal

system.

E l k h o r n C r e e k

R i o R M D C

Marion Spring Box

2/15/10; Z:\Project Files\08\081-039\081-039.000\CAD-GIS\GIS\UnnamedDrainage_Watershed-9.mxd Base Map: USGS 1:24k Topographic

®1 inch = 1,000 feet

0 1,000 2,000500Feet


DENVER, CO. 80211(303) 480-1700

FIGURELARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

SHAMBHALA MOUNTAIN CENTERUNNAMED DRAINAGE SWALE WATERSHED 9

SECTIONS 13, 14, 23, 24, T 9N, R 73W, 6TH P.M.

PROJECT NO.081-039.000Site Map

LegendApproximate Spring LocationUnnamed SwaleApproximate Watershed Area (240 acres)



3.4.2 Infrastructure Sizing and Staging

A preferred alternative treatment process system was sized based on the projected average daily

flow of 33,000 gpd with a summer maximum daily flow of 49,000 gpd. These wastewater flows

will address Phase I of the anticipated growth forecasts of up to 650 persons, see Section 3.2.

Additional room for expansion for the future phase population forecasts, up to 1,250 persons,

have been allowed in the site planning for the WWTF.

3.4.3 Location and Siting

An evaluation of site locations for the WWTF was performed. The major considerations for the

WWTF site were the location of the existing collection system, odor considerations, existing site

accessibility, and impact to the Land Use Plan.

The preferred WWTF site is located at the site of the existing SMC maintenance building as

shown in Figures 10 and 11. This site provides adequate space for an access road, treatment

process building (with consideration of future expansion of capacity), location with respect to the

proposed discharge point, and location with respect to the existing SMC maintenance building.

3.4.4 Biosolids Handling

The proposed treatment plant processes produces waste sludge (biosolids) that will require

treatment and periodic removal. Biosolids will be stabilized in an aerobic digester and biosolids

storage basin or in a sludge storage tank. During final design, the design team will determine if a

sludge storage tank or an aerobic digester should be used. The waste sludge will be aerated in

this basin and allowed to settle. Decant from this basin will be drawn off and recycled to the

head of the WWTF. The remaining biosolids will be digested and the concentration of solids

will be increased to the volume capacity of the basin. It is estimated that the basin will require

removal of biosolids on a periodic basis.

The biosolids will be removed and disposed of by a qualified biosolids handling and disposal

contractor.



3.4.5 Schematic of Treatment Works

As previously discussed, the process flow schematic for the preferred alternative is presented in

Figure 6. A WWTF site plan and building layout are presented in Figures 11 and 12,

respectively. In addition, a treatment process profile of the preferred alternative is presented in

Figure 13.

3.4.6 Odor Control Considerations

The potential for aesthetic impacts of odors from the wastewater system needs to be addressed

from the perspective of the wastewater collection system and the wastewater treatment processes.

The future wastewater collection system will include the addition of new manholes that will

allow maintenance of the collection system. The manholes will be a potential source for odor

emissions. Therefore, it is proposed that the manholes that are installed at the SMC include a

seal between the manhole lid and the rim frame.

The preferred treatment alternative and the SBR process normally results in good control of odor

emissions since the mixed liquor in the SBR basin immediately mixes with the incoming raw

sewage. However, there will be odors at the WWTF, especially from the Headworks Room.

Therefore, the Headworks Room and the WWTF building air will be vented to an odor control

system. It is anticipated that an organic biofilter or a synthetic media canister type filter will be

used for filtering the air from the Headworks Room and the WWTF building. The specific odor

control system that will be used at the site will be determined in final design. Either of these

odor control processes will reduce the potential for odor release and impact to the population at

SMC or adjacent properties.

3.5 Air Quality Permit

The WWTF is a minor stationary source of biological air contaminants typical of a domestic

wastewater treatment system. A permit is not required by the Colorado Air Quality Commission.


DENVER, CO. 80211(303) 480-1700

FIGURE

12/18/08 GIS; Z:\Project Files\08\081-039\081-039.000\CAD-GIS\GIS\Figure_10.mxd

SHAMBHALA MOUNTAIN CENTER

Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility LocationRigden Lodge

Existing Wetland

LakeSunyata

ExistingPolishing Pond

Shambhala Lodge

KitchenSacred Studies Hall

Dry Swale

Proposed Dispersal System

hUnnamed Tributary

Stupa View Staff Housing

Ma Mason

Mason House

Red FeatherConference Facilities

Ratna Bath House

Vajra Bath House

Shotoku

Padma Toilet HousePuspa

Teacher's Residence

Windhorse Hill

Hyagriva

Stupa

Stupa Support Building

MPE Kitchen

Downtown Bath House

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITYLOCATION

PROJECT NO.

10081-039.000

Photo Source: NAIP 2005 (USGS)

®1 in = 600 feet

0 600 1,200300Feet

LegendBuildings to connect to CentralWastewater System in Phase 1

Shambhala Property Boundary

Buildings to connect to CentralWastewater System in Phase 2Buildings to connect to CentralWastewater System in Phase 3To remain on OWS



3.6 Stormwater Management Plan

Stormwater discharges associated with construction disturbances greater than 1 acre require a

Management Plan and Colorado Discharge Permit. A site specific soils assessment was

performed in December, 2009. Based on this assessment, it was determined that construction

dewatering will be anticipated during the installation of the WWTF. The requirements for

permitting construction dewatering and stormwater discharges will be the responsibility of the

construction contractor.

3.7 Site Characterization Report

The site plan for the new WWTF is not within a floodplain. Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps of the area are included in Appendix E and show the site

within Zone X.

Natural hazards, such as unstable subgrades, are not present on the site. It is anticipated that rock

will be encountered under the site and will need to be excavated for the construction. The extent

of rock excavation will be identified and determined during the final design process.

3.8 Collection System

The existing wastewater handling and treatment within the SMC service area consists of a

portion of buildings on 1) a central wastewater collection and treatment system and 2) some

buildings on OWS. The buildings that are on the centralized and OWS systems are identified in

Tables 1 and 2. The SMC existing central wastewater collection system is shown on Figure 14.

The existing collection system has one manhole located upstream of the existing pre-

sedimentation basins. Furthermore, existing 4-inch diameter pipes are insufficiently sized to

accommodate future flows increased by population growth onsite.

For the existing centralized system, wastewater flows from buildings served by the centralized

system are directed to septic tanks which outlet to the collection system.

Septic tank effluent flows to six presedimentation tanks prior to wetland cell treatment.

Following the wetland cells, water is piped to the existing polishing pond. The effluent is then

evaporated or infiltrated to the groundwater under the pond.



3.8.1 Major Lift Stations

Currently, there is one small lift station in the existing SMC collection system located just to the

southwest of the existing polishing pond (see Figure 14). This existing lift station receives raw

wastewater from Ratna and Vajra bath houses and pumps back to the existing wetland cell

treatment system through a force main that extends from the lift station to a manhole just

upstream of the presedimentation basins.

When the new WWTF is constructed, it is proposed that the wastewater from the Ratna and

Vajra bath houses be conveyed by gravity to the new site. The new gravity sewer (alignment

shown in Figure 10) will result in abandoning the existing lift station and force main.

Therefore, there are no proposed lift stations in the wastewater collection system.

3.8.2 Interceptor Sewers

No interceptor sewers are located in the existing SMC collection system.

3.8.3 Collection System Plan

The Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III collection system plan is shown in Figures 15 and 16 along

with the location of existing SMC buildings, the existing septic tanks and OWSs, new and

replaced/abandoned piping, and the new WWTF. The collection system to serve the future phase

(1,250 persons) is not shown since building planning is forthcoming.

The existing septic tanks and OWSs will be abandoned in a phased approach. Manholes near

buildings will be sealed with a flexible and reusable sealant to help control wastewater odor.

Sewer lines will be designed to limit rock tunneling or trenching. The anticipated design depth

from the manhole rim to the top of the pipe is 5 feet. The overall average pipe slope was

calculated by considering topographic elevations of the starting and ending points of the pipe.

The average slope is anticipated to be approximately 5 percent.



Phase I

The main objective of the Phase I wastewater system plan is to transfer existing central wetland

wastewater treatment to the new WWTF. Phase I flows transferred will be:

Sacred Studies Hall

Downtown Bath House

Downtown Kitchen

Shotoku (Tiger-Lion)

Puspa

Padma Toilet House

Shambhala Lodge

Rigden Lodge

Ratna and Vajra Bath Houses

An 8-inch diameter line will be used to bypass the existing six presedimentation tanks that

currently outlet to wetland treatment as shown in Figure 14. A new manhole will be constructed

directly to the west of the existing presedimentation tanks and a new 8-inch PVC line will

connect this junction carrying centralized wastewater flows to the new WWTF. The six

presedimentation tanks and wetland cells will be abandoned as treatment processes after

conclusion of Phase I construction.

A new 8-inch diameter sewer line will also be constructed in Phase I to collect wastewater from

the “downtown” area of SMC. New sewer lines and service lines will be installed to bypass

existing septic tanks and allow the abandonment of existing septic tanks (as shown in Table 3).

A new gravity section of 8-inch sewer line will be installed to convey the wastewater from the

existing Ratna and Vajra Bath Houses. The existing lift station and force main will be

abandoned. It is also planned that the septic tanks serving Ratna and Vajra will be bypassed and

abandoned in Phase I.



The construction of the Phase I sewer line segments will coincide with the construction of the

new WWTF, also planned for Phase I and will be completed between September 1 and

December 31, 2011.

Phase II

Several new segments of 8-inch diameter sewer line will be constructed in Phase II, as shown on

Figure 15. Major pipeline segments will collect wastewater from:

Stupa View Staff Housing

Facilities in the Red Feather Conference Center area

The OWSs that currently serve these areas will be abandoned as a result of the Phase II

construction. In accordance with CDPHE guidance and expectation, connection of these

buildings to the central wastewater system will occur within one year following the new WWTF

completion and start-up.

The existing 4-inch sewer line that currently serves the Shotoku (Tiger-Lion) facility will be

abandoned in Phase II. The Shotoku will be connected to the new Phase II segments of sewer

line as shown on Figure 15. The septic tank currently serving Shotoku will be bypassed and

abandoned in this phase.

Phase II collection system will be completed between September 1 and December 31, 2012.

Phase III

There are several facilities in the SMC service area that are currently on OWSs that are in rather

remote locations with respect to the new WWTF. These facilities are:

Stupa Support Building/Visitor’s Center

Ma Mason

Mason House

MPE-Summer Kitchen



Teacher’s Residence

Windhorse Hill (only if mobile home use continues)

Discussions between the SMC and the Larimer County Health Department staff have resulted in

the approach that the OWSs that serve these facilities currently appear to be functioning properly

and that these facilities should be put on the central collection system when failure of these

existing OWSs occurs. Therefore, construction is on an as needed basis and there is no specific

timeline.

A Phase III category is presented in this WUP to address the collection system improvements that

will be needed when these existing OWSs fail. A new 8-inch south sewer line will be

constructed to the Stupa area to pick up the Support Building/Visitor’s Center and the MPE-

Summer Kitchen, as shown on Figure 16.

Also, a new sewer line will be constructed to serve, by gravity, the Teacher’s Residence.

The Windhorse Hill (a.k.a. Monroe Property) area will be served by a gravity sewer line if it is

determined by the SMC people that the existing mobile home use will continue. This sewer line

segment will be an extension of the sewer line that will be serving the Mason House and Trailer,

as shown on Figure 16.

Long Term Future Phase

A future phase of additional SMC program facilities to accommodate up to 1,250 persons is in

concept development planning. The new WWTF has been planned for the expansion of

treatment to address this future phase population at a maximum daily capacity of 94,000 gpd.

Since the locations of building facilities for this future phase has not been determined, the

specific sewer line alignments are not known. Therefore, this WUP will need to be amended to

address the collection system planning for this future phase. Planning criteria for this future

phase would include locating future buildings in the proximity of the proposed sewer lines as

presented in this WUP, maintaining the use of the downtown center sewer line, keeping the



required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines, and aligning the future sewer

lines in roads, as possible, for ease of access and maintenance.

Collection System Costs

An opinion of probable capital costs (hereinafter referred to as “estimated capital costs”) was

developed for each phase of the collection system (Phases I, II, and III). The estimated capital

costs presented in this study are considered to be conceptual. A summary of the estimated capital

costs by phase of development is presented in Table 7. More detailed estimated capital costs are

presented in Appendix G.

Table 7 Estimated Capital Costs of Collection System By Phase

Phase Estimated Capital Costs Phase I $210,000 to $310,000 Phase II $320,000 to $470,000 Phase III $530,000 to $780,000

3.9 Maps

Topography for the entire SMC site was used to develop the maps for this WUP.

3.9.1 Treatment Plant Site Envelope

The proposed site plan for the WWTF is shown in Figures 10 and 11.

3.9.2 Service Area

The service area (and proposed WUSA boundary) is shown in Figure 2.

3.9.3 Collection System

The existing collection system and collection system plan are shown on Figure 14, 15, and 16.



4.0 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION

Existing buildings on separate OWSs within the service area are presented in Table 2. Each of

these systems are small systems that have leach fields that discharge to the soil. As discussed in

this WUP, these OWSs with the exception of Hyagriva (to remain a single family residence) and

Windhorse Hill (if it remains only as a single family residence) will eventually be connected into

the central wastewater system.

The existing central wastewater system includes septic tanks, a series of pre-sedimentation tanks,

submerged flow wetland cells, and a non-discharging effluent pond. In CDPHE’s Compliance

Advisory Letter (dated September 27, 2007) it was stated that the effluent pond “appeared to be

leaking, with a possible unpermitted discharge to an un-named surface water creek”. This

Compliance Advisory is addressed by the recommendations in this WUP.

PELs have been obtained from the CDPHE to address a groundwater discharge.

This section presents the receiving water quality issues pertaining to the design of the new

WWTF.

4.1 Water Quality of the Receiving Water

The receiving water is an undesignated groundwater basin underlying the site within the Cache

La Poudre River watershed. The permit point of compliance will be prior to discharge of the

treated effluent into the dispersal system. The PELs for the groundwater discharge are provided

by the CDPHE in Appendix A.

4.2 TMDLs and/or Waste Load Allocations

There are no approved or projected waste load allocations or total maximum daily load

requirements associated with the effluent discharge.



4.3 Watershed Issues

The NFRWQPA, in the 2007 update of the 208 Plan for Larimer and Weld Counties have

identified the SMC WWTF as a minor source. There are no known water quality issues within

the watershed.

4.4 Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PELs)

Planning for wastewater treatment and discharge at the SMC has evolved over the last several

years. Initially, SMC requested PELs for groundwater discharge for the facility on September 5,

2006. In response, CDPHE issued PELs on October 23, 2006.

SMC sent a letter to the CDPHE on June 16, 2008 requesting PELs for surface water discharge.

The request letter asked that the PELs for groundwater discharge be modified from the original

0.018 mgd to 0.05 mgd. In addition, the request was for effluent discharge to surface water of an

unnamed tributary to Elk Horn Creek at a flow of 0.05 mgd. The request letter also stated that

irrigation use of the treated effluent would be practiced for onsite landscaping during the growing

season.

In response to the June 16, 2008 request, PELs were received from the CDPHE on July 24, 2008

stating PELs for surface water discharge to a tributary to Elk Horn Creek. Just as the first draft

Wastewater Utility Plan (dated February 2009) was being submitted to the NFRWQA last year,

the CDPHE revised the surface water discharge PELs. In a February 25, 2009 letter, the CDPHE

stated that they had obtained new information about the location of the Ben Delatour Scout

Ranch drinking water intake. These newer surface water discharge PELs had much more

stringent limits for nitrate, chloride, and sulfate when compared to the previous surface water

PELs (in the July 24, 2008 letter). The result was that reverse osmosis or ion exchange treatment

was needed to meet these newer surface water discharge PELs. WWE was of the opinion that

this treatment level, although possible, was infeasible for application at SMC.

Therefore, the planning was modified and a groundwater discharge approach was planned. The

CDPHE was requested to update the groundwater discharge PELs (from the October 23, 2006



letter). In response, the CDPHE issued updated groundwater PELs in a letter dated October 30,

2009. These PELs are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 PELs Issued to SMC by CDPHE (October 30, 2009 Letter)

Parameter Limits Applied at Point of Discharge from WWTF

Prior to Ground Water Discharge (Compliance Point 001A1)

BOD5 (mg/l) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) BOD5 (% removal) 85 (30-day average) Oil and Grease (mg/l) 10 (maximum) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) TSS (% removal) 85 (30-day average)

Parameter Limits Applied at Downgradient Monitoring Wells/Lysimeters MW050B and MW050C2,

or at Compliance Point 001A1

Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (mg/l)1 10 (daily maximum) Nitrate plus Nitrite as N (mg/l)2 10 (daily maximum) pH (s.u.) 6.5-8.5 (minimum-maximum) Sulfate (mg/l) 250 (30-day average) Chloride (mg/l) 250 (30-day average) Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l Monitor (30-day average) Total Coliform, # of colonies per 100 ml Membrane Filter Technique 1.0 (average of all samples taken within a year) Multiple-Tube Fermentation Technique 2.2 (average of all samples taken within a year) 1 - Compliance Point 001A is the monitoring/compliance location subsequent to treatment, prior to ground water discharge. 2 - If the facility decides to utilize a downgradient monitoring wells to establish compliance with a permit limit the facility must first perform an upgradient groundwater monitoring study. This will be used to determine ambient groundwater quality, and what if any assimilative capacity exists.

4.5 Maps

The maps shown in Figures 10 and 11 indicate the surface area and includes the major drainages,

watersheds, sanitary sewer pipelines, and proposed WWTF site.

4.5.1 Watershed

The proposed WWTF site is near an unnamed tributary to Elk Horn Creek which is located in the

Cache La Poudre watershed. A watershed map is included in Appendix F.



4.5.2 Impaired Waters

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completes a report of watershed assessments that

are performed on watersheds throughout the U.S. A watershed assessment of the Cache La

Poudre was completed in 2002. The report indicates that most tributaries within the watershed

were not impaired. The specific tributaries in the location of the SMC were not assessed in 2002.

However, the report indicated that the watershed surrounding and downstream of SMC were in

good condition.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

5.1 Treatment Works

Three potential treatment process alternatives regarding modifications of the activated sludge

process were evaluated for a new WWTF:

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

Extended Aeration

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Each of these alternatives would include a new treatment building with an open channel flume

for inflow measurement. Each alternative would also include filtration of effluent and an

emergency power generator. The final disinfection of treated effluent for each alternative would

be accomplished by ultraviolet light in an open channel configuration. Each alternative would

include an effluent pump station and a groundwater dispersal system for discharge.

The solids handling approach for all options would be to provide aerobic digestion, solids

thickening in the digester, and solids removal by contract hauler.

Each of these alternatives use a modification of the aeration activated sludge process with

capabilities for biological nutrient removal. Nitrification of ammonia is achieved with longer

retention times in the aeration cycle. Denitrification would be included in each of these



alternatives to remove nitrate and for other advantages (e.g., solids, volume, and alkalinity

addition). Denitrification is achieved through anoxic zones with a recycle of activated sludge.

5.1.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

The SBR process is a form of the activated sludge process in which anoxic conditions, aeration,

sedimentation, and decant functions are combined in a single reactor. Most SBR facilities

consist of two or more parallel tanks. The process would employ a five-stage cycle: fill, react,

settle, draw, and idle. SBRs are capable of biological nitrogen removal which would be

accomplished by proper reactor sizing and selection of stage links in aeration times. Blowers for

the aeration cycle would be located in the treatment building. The treatment process schematic

for the SBR alternative is shown in Figure 6.

The reactor tanks would be open, deep concrete basins set into the foundation of the site so that

gravity flow is used to convey the raw wastewater to the SBR tanks. As options, either a package

plant using steel reactors or concrete reactor basins that are constructed at the floor elevation of

the building will be considered in final design. These options provide the advantage of less rock

excavation but will need a raw wastewater influent pump station.

5.1.2 Extended Aeration Activated Sludge

This approach is shown in the process diagram in Figure 17 and includes an anoxic and aeration

basin for each of two process trains. Open, concrete basins would be used with mechanical

mixers in the anoxic zones and submerged diffused aeration in the aerobic zones. Air to the

basins would be provided by new blowers located in the treatment building. Two, round

concrete clarifiers would be used. UV light disinfection would be installed.

5.1.3 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

A process diagram for a MBR process is shown in Figure 18. The MBR would utilize an

activated sludge bioreactor for organic removal and use membranes to achieve biomass and

solids separation (rather than a secondary clarifier). The primary advantages of the MBR are that

aeration basins can be reduced in size because they can be operated at mixed liquor

concentrations of 10,000 to 15,000 mg/L (compared to 2,500 to 3,000 mg/L for other systems)



and they do not need secondary clarifiers for solids settling. High effluent quality, including

nitrate removal, can be obtained in a relatively small footprint. The cost of MBR’s can be high

due to both capital costs and operational costs and there would be a need to replace membranes

every seven to ten years.

5.2 Level of Treatment

The treatment alternatives that were selected by WWE for consideration in this study all have the

capability of meeting the PELs (PELs addressed in Section 4.4). Each of the treatment

alternatives include an advance level of treatment processes to reliably and constantly meet the

PELs. As previously discussed, there are treatment processes that are common to each

alternative. The common treatment processes and discharge method are: sodium bicarbonate

addition, activated sludge effluent filtration, UV light disinfection, and discharge to groundwater

via a dispersal system. The solids handling approach for all options would be to provide aerobic

digestion, solids thickening in the digester, and solids removal by contract hauler.

Each of the alternatives presented in this report use a different modification of the aeration

activated sludge process with a biological nutrient removal approach. Although each of these

alternatives will meet the PELs, there may be a slight advantage of effluent quality for the MBR

alternative. However, this slight advantage is only one factor for selecting a preferred alternative.

WWE assessed the treatment process alternatives based on a number of other factors as

addressed in Section 5.4.



5.3 Cost Evaluation

Estimated capital costs were developed for each alternative. The estimated capital costs were

developed to provide a WWTF capacity of 49,000 gpd, which is through Phase III as shown in

Table 9. Additional capital costs will be incurred to expand the treatment capacity of the WWTF

to meet the future phase flows.

Estimated capital costs are often prepared at several points during the project planning and

design. The expected level of accuracy is directly proportional to 1) the level of engineering

effort applied and 2) known details. The estimated capital costs presented in this study are

considered to be conceptual. A summary of the estimated capital costs for each treatment

process alternative is presented in Table 9. More detailed estimated capital costs for each

alternative are presented in Appendix H.

Table 9 Comparative Estimated Capital Costs – WWTF

Item SBR Extended Aeration MBR Treatment Facility Building $178,000 $208,000 $193,000 Headworks $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Pretreatment $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Activated Sludge Process $380,000 $607,000 $508,000 Odor Control $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Ballast Concrete $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Equalization Basin $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Filtration $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 UV Disinfection $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Effluent Pump Station $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 Dispersal System and Force Main $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 Digester $66,000 $84,000 $84,000 Back-Up Power $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Site Work $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Subtotal $1,132,000 $1,407,000 $1,293,000 Electrical and Instrumentation $170,000 $211,000 $194,000 Subtotal $1,302,000 $1,618,000 $1,487,000 Contingency $195,000 $243,000 $223,000 Subtotal $1,497,000 $1,861,000 $1,710,000 Engineering $224,000 $279,000 $256,000 TOTAL $1,721,000 $2,140,000 $1,966,000



An estimate of the operation and maintenance (O&M) for each of the alternatives was developed.

The annual O&M costs are presented in Table 10.

Table 10 Comparative Annual O&M Costs

Item SBR Extended Air MBR Operation & Labor $15,000 $20,000 $15,000 Power $13,000 $16,000 $20,000 Chemicals $2,000 $2,500 $2,000 Lab Equipment $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Sludge Disposal1 $20,000 $20,000 $18,000 Lab Fees $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Subtotal $63,000 $72,000 $68,000 Contingency (30%) $19,000 $22,000 $20,000 TOTAL $82,000 $94,000 $88,000 1Cost per year at buildout.

5.4 Preferred Alternative

The selection of the most appropriate treatment process in considering a new WWTF was based

on many different factors. To assist in the determination of the recommended process, the three

process options were compared on the basis of several factors. These factors include:

Capital Cost.

Power and Maintenance Cost.

Effluent Quality – For this study, BOD5, suspended solids, ammonia, and nitrate were

considered the critical parameters for designing the treatment facility. Each alternative

can meet PELs. However, there can be a difference between the alternatives for treatment

efficiency of other parameters (phosphorus, dissolved solids, etc.).

Treatment Process Phasing – The three treatment processes were considered with respect

to the phasing.

Waste Biosolids Production – The management cost for waste biosolids can be significant

and there are differences in the quality of solids produced with the options considered.



Reliability of Operation – The reliability of the treatment process can be evaluated against

the systems susceptibility to process failure. Treatment consistency is affected by influent

wastewater characteristics, abrupt changes in influent quality, abrupt changes in

temperature, treatment technology used, and operation and maintenance of the system.

Ability to Upgrade – The ability of the processes to be upgraded to achieve improved

effluent qualities is a consideration.

Ability to Expand – Most of the treatment processes can be expanded by using modular

unit construction. However, there are differences between the three.

Future Discharge Limitations – The ability to meet more stringent discharge limits in the

future is also a consideration.

Land Area – Each of the processes will require from two to three acres of land to be

dedicated for the treatment facility. This factor addresses minimizing the area for the

treatment facility.

Aesthetics – The construction of wastewater treatment processes generally tends to be

intrusive and alters the visual character of the area. Visually, however, it is anticipated

that all of the processes will have equal impact. Odors and noise are other aesthetic

issues to be considered.

Each of the above evaluation factors was considered with respect to the three treatment

processes. A weighted numerical ranking approach was used to identify the preferred process.

The weighted numerical weighting was arrived at as follows: each evaluation factor is assigned a

weight factor that is an index of the relative impact between the different factors, from 1 to 10.

Each process was assigned a score that is an index of the relative impact to that process for the

factor under consideration. If two or more processes have an equal impact for a particular factor,

then each is assigned an identical number. The lower the number, the less is the impact

associated with that treatment process for the particular factor.



When the weighted numerical rankings for each factor are added, the lowest total score indicates

the preferred process. This method uses judgment considerations on the part of WWE as the

basis for numerical assignments. The results of this numerical evaluation are shown in Table 11.

The results of the ranking in Table 11 indicate that the SBR activated sludge process should be

the preferred alternative.

A schematic site layout of the SBR activated sludge process for the 49,000 gpd capacity is shown

in Figure 6.

Table 11 Ranking of New WWTF Processes

Evaluation Factor Weight Factor

SBR Extended Aeration MBR S* R* S* R* S* R*

Capital Costs 10 1 10 3 30 2 20 Power Costs 5 1 5 3 15 2 10 Effluent Quality 8 2 16 3 24 1 8 Maintenance Costs 5 1 5 2 10 3 15 Treatment Process Phasing 8 1 8 3 24 2 16 Waste Biosolids Production 8 2 16 2 16 1 8 Reliability of Operation 8 2 16 1 8 3 24 Ability to Upgrade 5 1 2 1 2 2 4 Ability to Expand 5 1 5 2 10 1 5 Future Discharge Limits 5 2 10 2 10 1 5 Land Area 5 2 10 3 15 1 5 Aesthetics 7 2 14 3 21 1 7 TOTAL 117 185 127 * S = Score on a scale of 1 (best) through 3 (worst). * R = Weighted Rank = score x weight factor.

5.5 Proposed Implementation Schedule

The proposed implementation schedule for the new SMC WWTF is presented in Table 12. The

schedule assumes a reasonable time for agency approvals that are needed prior to construction.

Although not shown in the schedule, the schedule allows for the fundraising activities that will

need to be performed to address the overall costs of the WWTF.



Table 12 Shambhala WWTF Implementation Schedule

Start Date End Date Task January 2010 February 2010 Submit WUP to NFRWQPA March 2010 April 2010 Submit Site Application and WUP to CDPHE April 2010 October 2010 Prepare Final Design of WWTF October 2010 December 2010 Submit Final Design of WWTF to CDPHE January 2011 March 2011 Contract Bidding Phase March 2011 November 2011 Construction of WWTF

5.6 Public Participation and Selection Process

Since the SMC WWTF will be a privately owned facility, there has been no public participation

during the planning and selection process for the SMC WWTF.

6.0 MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANS

Management and financial planning are very important aspects in the construction and operation

of a new WWTF. The management and financial planning addressed below are needed to ensure

final construction and proper operations of the WWTF to meet State requirements.

6.1 Management Structure and Agreements

The SMC property is owned by Shambhala International (Vajradhatu) and the property is

managed by the SMC. SMC has a 99 year lease on the property. SMC is a 501 (c) 3

incorporated in the State of Colorado. Shambhala International (Vajradhatu) is also incorporated

in the State of Colorado. Site Ownership/Control Documentation for the SMC property is

included in Appendix J.

The SMC offers year round programming focusing on mind and body disciplines which present

and encourage increased mindfulness and awareness in one’s life utilizing a variety of wisdom

traditions including major spiritual traditions; Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Native American and

Shaman. Over 3,000 people a year attend programs on site with guest night totals ranging from

19,300 - 28,000 a year.



The management structure includes an Executive Director and five senior managers: Finance,

Development (fund raising), Programming, Marketing and Operations. The Expansion

Department (land development including infrastructure), reports directly to the Executive

Director. This management structure is overseen by a Board of Directors.

The wastewater system is overseen by the Expansion Department with assistance from the

Operations Director. An Advisory Team consists of friends of the SMC that have been helping

with the internal planning and development of approaches to the wastewater system in

conjunction with WWE.

The SMC is part of the NFRWQPA which assists in planning facilitation and review of activities

that relate to present and future waste water needs in order to uphold a proper high standard of

water quality protection. The NFRWQPA provides assistance in creating Utility Management

Plans that guide communities and organizations through the wastewater planning process and

will be involved in the review of this report.

6.2 Wastewater Management Plan

The SMC Management Team will be responsible for the wastewater treatment system with daily

supervision by the Expansion Department. The Expansion Department staff will be responsible

for the day to day activities including inspections, regular maintenance, collecting samples, and

normal operations. SMC currently has one Class “C” Operator and one Small Systems Operator

on staff. SMC does not have a staff person with a wastewater treatment Operator “B” License.

SMC will contract with an Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) to oversee the operation of

the treatment plant. The ORC will make regular visits to the plant and be available as needed for

required process control changes or emergencies.

The Expansion Department oversees the wastewater system management with assistance from

the Operations Director. The ORC will report to the Operations Director.



6.3 Financial Management Plan

In order to provide the funds to implement a new wastewater treatment system, SMC is

launching a Capital Fund Campaign in the spring of 2010. Over the past five years SMC has

averaged raising $1,200,000 per year.

SMC plans on raising a minimum of 75 percent of the costs for construction of the plant and

collection system through its fund raising efforts and capital campaign. If necessary, additional

funds will be borrowed either through a conventional lender or through a friend of the

organization. SMC has been successful in borrowing when needed, loans up to $500,000 from

friends and board members.

Shambhala Mountain Center has received restricted grants in support of infrastructure

development for over $270,000 including a recent grant of $133,000 for design and legal fees for

work of preparing the WUP up through the site location application.

In addition, the SMC has $500,000 in a restricted donation being held by a local Foundation set

aside towards the design and construction of the WWTF, see letter in Appendix I.

Table 13 provides a summary of capital, O&M, and replacement costs and the total revenues that

will be used to finance the expenses for construction and operation of the SMC WWTF.



Tabl

e 13

Su

mm

ary

of C

apita

l, O

&M

, Rep

lace

men

t Cos

ts a

nd T

otal

Rev

enue

s



6.3.1 Financial Assistance

Besides donations, SMC is not eligible for financial assistance like many public sector entities.

We will continue to seek grants from private foundations.

6.3.2 User Charge Summary

Annual O&M costs for the SBR system and other related facilities are estimated at approximately

$100,000. For the past three years the Center has not raised its program and lodging prices. In

2011 prices will be raised in part to provide funds for the system operation which is expected to

start around 2012.

Replacement costs will be supported by adding, when necessary, to the existing capital

expenditure budget which SMC prepares on an annual basis.

7.0 REFERENCES

Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, Individual Sewage Disposal System

Regulations (2004)

Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual of Practice No. 8, Design of Municipal

Wastewater Plants and the CDPHE Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems

Water Environment Research reference, “Food Service Establishment Wastewater

Characterization

Z:\Project Files\08\081-039\081-039.000\Deliverables\Wastewater\WUP\Text.doc

DENVER2490 W. 26th Avenue Suite 100A

Denver, Colorado 80211Phone: 303.480.1700

Fax: 303.480.1020

GLENWOOD SPRINGS818 Colorado Avenue

P.O. Box 219Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602

Phone: 970.945.7755Fax: 970.945.9210

DURANGO1666 N. Main Avenue Suite C

Durango, Colorado 81301Phone: 970.259.7411

Fax: 970.259.8758

www.wrightwater.com

Wright Water Engineers, Inc.

Shambhala Mountain Center Wastewater Utility Plan Utility Plan... · Shambhala Mountain Center....

Documents

Transcript of Shambhala Mountain Center Wastewater Utility Plan Utility Plan... · Shambhala Mountain Center....