HomeMy WebLinkAboutDNRC - Wastewater System ImprovDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
OF MONTANA
1625 ELEVENTH AVENUE
PO BOX 201601
HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1601
December 28, 2004
Kenneth Olson Jr
Laurel, City of
PO Box 10
Laurel MT 59044
RE: Wastewater System Improvements
Dear Kenneth:
The 2005 legislative session is upon us, and you should be preparing for the legislative
hearings that will ultimately determine the fate of your application. Every applicant,
regardless of project ranking, has the opportunity to appear before the Long Range
Planning Subcommittee. You are not required to appear before the subcommittee, but it
is highly recommended. Each applicant will have ten minutes to address the
subcommittee. You should plan a brief presentation (no more that 5 minutes) on the
merits of your proposal. Leave approximately 5 minutes to answer any questions that
the subcommittee members might have about your project.
The current funding level is set at 40, however this year there may be more funding than
expected and more projects could be funded. Attached is the current ranking sheet with
your project on it.
Applicants that have applied to both the Treasure State Endowment Program and the
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Pro~ram (RRGL) will present testimony for both
applications at joint hearings on January 7"', 10th, and 1 '1~. Hearings on the RRGL
applications will be held from Wednesday, January 12t~ through Tuesday, January 18th
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in room 350 at the Capitol Building. Hearings will begin
promptly at 8:00 a.m., and will proceed slower some days and faster on others, so plan
to arrive early and stay late. The daily schedule will be continued to 11:30 if necessary,
however many of the senators may not be present after 10:30.
The enclosed schedule identifies the date and time your project is scheduled for
discussion by the subcommittee. If you do not intend to present testimony or have a
serious conflict with this schedule, contact me as soon as possible so that I can take
your name off the schedule or attempt to arrange for an alternate time.
Subcommittee decisions on which projects will be funded, and the amount, will not be
made until the Executive Action session, which is not yet scheduled.
I have also enclosed a copy of the department's evaluation of your application to the
Renewable P,esource Grant and Loan Program. The review has been included in
Volume 7 of the Governor's Budget Book. This review represents the department's
assessment of your project with respect to the evaluation criteria used for project
ranking, it also details the comments and concerns expressed by the project reviewers
and the ranking committee.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (406) 444-6839. Have
a wonderful holiday season and we will see you in January!
Sincerely,
Pam Smith
Program Specialist, DNRC/CAP, DD
Encl. (3)
CC;
file
Crystal Bennett ME&A
Project No. 34
Applicant Name
Project Name
Laurel, City of
Wastewater System Improvements
Amount Requested
Other Funding Sources
Total Project Cost
100,000
433,000
500,000
1,033,000
Grant
Applicant
Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) Grant
Amount Recommended $ 100,000 Grant
Project Abstract (Prepared and submitted by applicant)
The City of Laurel's wastewater facilities are comprised of a wastewater collection system (sewem), two lift
stations, and a wastewater treatment facility meeting national secondary standards. Many unit processes
make up the treatment facility, including screening, grit removal, primary clarification, secondary treatment
with rotating biological contactors, secondary clarification, chlorine disinfection, anaerobic digestion, and
sludge drying.
The wastewater collection system was originally constructed in 1910. A maiority of the collection system is
comprised of vitrified clay pipe and has been in service for 50 to 100 years. More recent additions have been
made with PVC pipe. Each of the two pump stations are over 20 years old. Historically, very little
preventative maintenance was performed on the collection system.
The city's wastewater treatment plant is currently treating in excess of 1.0 million gallons per day of infiltrating
groundwater during the summer months. During peak flow events, the plant is not able to treat to permitted
effluent limits. Monthly violations have been prevented only through extraordinary efforts on the part of city
staff. In addition to peak flow effects, several other areas of the treatment plant have been identified as
needing upgrade in the near future to ensure continued permit compliance after nearly 20 years of service.
In addition to affecting the treatment plant, increasing amounts of infiltration and inflow are impacting the
capacity of sewer mains within the collection system. Also, failure or back-up of sewer mains have led to
release of raw sewage in basements and homes.
The top priority, Phase lA, includes repairing/replacing the Idaho Avenue sewer main, the 8-inch sewer main
connected to the larger 18-inch plant trunk main, and the wastewater treatment plant drain pump station.
These repairs/replacements will reduce infiltration by approximately 40 pement.
The next priority identified (the proposed project) is a continuation of Phase lA in reducing the infiltration by
the remaining 60 percent. The proposed project includes the replacement of the lines in open fields.
Together, the improvements from Phase lA and the proposed project will reduce peak flow events byup to
1.0 million gallons per day during summer months, allowing the plant to treat to its permitted effluent limits,
and preventing sewer back-ups.
Technical Assessment
Proiect Backqround
The City of Laurel~s wastewater facilities are comprised of a wastewater collection system, two lift stations,
and a wastewater treatment facility. The wastewater collection system was originally constructed in 1910. A
majority of the collection system is comprised of vitrified clay pipe and has been in service for 50 to 100 years.
The wastewater treatment plant is currently treating in excess of 1 million gallons per day of infiltrating
groundwater during the summer months. During peak flow events, the plant is not able to treat to permitted
effluent limits. In addition to affecting the treatment plant, increasing amounts of infiltration and inflow are
impacting the capacity of sewer mains within the collection system. Also, failure or back-up of sewer mains
has led to release of raw sewage in basements and homes.
Technical Approach
Through the comprehensive PER process, the City of Laurel has identified locations along trunk mains where
infiltration/inflow contributions ara particularly high and remedies can be cost effectively implemented. The
city is currently undertaking improvements that are expected to eliminate approximately 40 percent of the 1
million gallons of infiltrating groundwater being treated by the treatment plant. The primary goal of the
proposed project is to remove the remaining 60 pement of the groundwater infiltrating the wastewater system
during the summer months, which will allow the plant to treat to its permitted effluent limits, and prevent sewer
back-ups.
Alternatives were evaluated for replacing the identified trunk mains where infiltration/inflow contributions are
particularly high. The PER included a justification for the basis of selecting the preferred alternative. The
preferred alternative is the replacement of approximately 6,500 lineal feet of trunk mains in open, irrigated
fields.
Project Management
The proposed project involves several agencies, and the city has decided to contract with a project
administrator to manage the project from start to finish. The administrator will be responsible for keeping
each funding agency informed of project prograss. The project management plan outlines the duties for the
project administrator, engineer, attorney, auditor, city clerk, and city council. This provides for a good staff of
specialists to perform duties important to the project within their areas of expertise.
The city's proposed public involvement includes providing a discussion of project progress from bidding to
completion stages in the monthly billings to the consumers. In addition to describing project progress, the
billing will encourage residents to attend semi-'monthly council meetings to give input, in addition, the city's
newsletters will be utilized to provide project updates and encourage residents to attend council meetings.
The project management plan provides for thorough and well-organized contract management with regulatory
and funding agencies, consultants, contractors, and other involved parties.
Financial Assessment
Budget Item RRGL Grant RRGL Loan Match Total
Administration $0 $0 $38,490 $38,490
Professional & Technical $0 $0 ! $134,510 $134,510
Construction $100,000 $01 $760,000 $860,000
Total $'100,000 $01 $933,000 $1,033,000
The project budget is complete and includes adequate detail to show that the proposed budget is sufficient to
complete the proposed project. The applicant has applied for a TSEP grant in the amount of $500,000 and
has committed $433,000 of city funds to the project.
The applicant is a local government and has the ability to collect charges for debt and operation. Current
residential charges for wastewater service are $30.10 per month; the projected residential rate is $32.10 per
month, and will affect 2,400 households. This will result in a residential utility bill (water and sewer) of $74.50,
which exceeds the target rate by $18.13.
Cost estimates wera provided for the options considered for each of the project components and were used to
help determine preferred alternatives. Engineering costs are within the typical range for a project of this
magnitude.
Benefit Assessment
The proposed improvements will reduce the peak flows currently being experienced at the treatment plant,
which will result in a conservation of electricity at the plant and give the city the capability to properly manage
the wastewater system. In addition, the city has had several sewer back-ups, which resulted in insurance
claims against the city. Several claims were directly impacted by the infiltration from the open, irrigated
agricultural fields. With this project, the city will be able to effectively manage any potential back-ups,
minimizing their occurrences. Excess groundwater at the treatment plant could result in the overflow of unit
processes at the treatment plan or the need to completely bypass to the Yellowstone River, resulting in
untreated wastewater spilling onto the ground and entering the groundwater and/or partially treated
wastewater entering the Yellowstone River. The proposed improvements will preserve the existing quality of
both groundwater and surface water.
Letters submitted with the grant application substantiate public involvement and support for the project. ·
Environmental Evaluation
Environmental impacts associated with this project were thoroughly evaluated and no apparent adverse long-
term impacts will result. Short-term construction-related impacts will be controlled through permitting and
proper construction methodology including traffic control.
Funding Recommendation
DNRC recommends grant funding of $'100,000 upon development and approval of the final scope of work,
administration, budget, and funding package.
'Ranked Project Sponsor] Recommended Cumulative Recommended
Order Project Name Grant Funding Recommended Loan Funding
Milk River Joint Board of Control
1 Halls Coulee Siphon Repair $100,000 $100,000
Spring Meadows County Water District
2 Water System Improvements $100,000 $200,000
Montana State University
3 Assessment of Ground and Surface Water in the Four Corners Area $99,618 $299,618
Beaverhead CD
4 Spring Creek Restoration Project- Phase l $100,000 $399,6'18
St. Ignatius, Town of ·
5 Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $499,618
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation '
6 Deadmans Basin Supply Canal Rehabilitation $100,000 $599,618 $ 50,000
Jefferson Valley CD
7 Jefferson River Restoration $95,469 $695,087
Carter Chouteau County WSD
8 Car~er Water System Improvements $100,000 $795,087
Sheridan, Town cf
9 Water System Improvements $100,000 $895,087
Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District
10 Lower Yellowstone Canal Control $100,000 $995,087
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
11 Frenchman Dam Rehabilitation Study $100,000 $1,095,087
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
'12 Martinsdale North Dam Riprap Program $100,000 $1,195,087 $ 80,340
Seeley Lake Sewer District
13 Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $1,295,087
Upper and Lower River Road County WSD
'14 Water and Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $1,395,087
Buffalo Rapids Irrigation District
15 Improving Irrigation Efficiency and Management through Canal Automation $88,955 $1,484,042
Choteau, City of
16 Water System Improvements $100,000 $1,584,042
Dodson, Town of
17 Wastewater Improvement Project $100,000 $1,68,~,042
Gallatin County
18 Gallatin County Floodplain Delineation $100,000 $1,784,042
Yellowstone Irrigation District
19 Flow Measurement Project $100,000 $1,884,042
Gardiner-Park County WD
20 Water System Improvements - Phase II $100,000 $1,984,042
Liberty County CD
21 Chester Sprinkler Irrigation Project $100,000 $2,084,042
Cascade, Town
22 Water System Improvements $100,000 $2,184,042
Ranch County WSD
23 Water System Improvements $100,000 $2,284,042
Libby, City of
24 Cabinet Heights Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $2,384,042
Broadview, Town of
25 Developing a Viable Water Supply for Bmadview $99.997 $2,484,039
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
26 Martinsda]e Outlet Canal Drop Structures $100,000 $2,584,039
Roosevelt County CD
27 Fort Peck Irrigation Water Quality and Quantity Enhancement - Phase I $99,995 $2,684,034
Buffalo Rapids Irrigation District
28 Improving Irrigation Efficiency and Water Qualily $100,000 $2.784,034
Paradise Valley ID
29 Turnout Replacement $100,000 $2,884,034
Ranked Project Sponsor/ Recommended Cumulative Recommended
Order Project Name, Grant Funding Recommended Loan Funding
Manhattan, Town of
30 Wastewater Treatment System Improvements - Phase II $100,000 $2,984,034
Woods Bay Homesites County WSD
31 Water System Improvements $100,000 $3,084,034
Custer Area-Yellowstone County WSD
32 Wastewater System Improvements $100.000 $3,184,034
Fort Belknap Irrigation District
33 Sugar Factory Lateral - Phase II $100,000 $3,284,034
Laurel, City of
34 Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $3,384,034
Yellowstone CD
35 Canyon Creek Sb'eam Restoration, Education. and Weed Control $100,000 $3,484,034
Valier, Town of
36 Wastewater System improvements $100,000 $3,584,034
Fairfield, Town of
37 Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $3.684,034
Glasgow Irrigation District
38 ~/andalia Dam Improvements - Phase IIh Struts and Walkways $100,000 $3.784,034
Ennis, Town of
39 Wastewater System Improvements - Phase II $100,000 $3,884,034
Bighorn CD
40 ~.ssessment of Alluvial Aquifers of Northern Big Horn County $100,00g $3.984,034
Savage Irrigation District
41 Savage Irrigation Rehabilitation Plan $62,814 $4,046,848
Butte-Silver Bow
42 [~ig Hole River Transmission Line Replacement $100,000 $4.146,848
INhitefish, City of
43 ~/ater System Improvements $100,000 $4,246.848
Circle, Town of
44 ~Vastewater System Improvements $100,000 $4,346,848
E~lack Eagle WSD
45 Mater System Improvements $50,000 $4,396,848
Lewis and Clark CD
46 Florence Canal Rehabilitation $100,000 $4,496.848
Sweet Grass County CD
47 ~iddle Glaston Reservoir Feasibility Study $85,000 $4,581,848
Livingston, City of
48 Livingston Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study $100,000 $4,681,845
Liberty County CD
49 Vlarias Basel[ne Development $100,000 $4,781,848
Hammond Irrigation District
50 ~'orcupine Creek Siphon Rehabilitation $38,200 $4,820,048
E~ear Creek, Town of
51 ~/ater System Improvements $100,000 $4,920.048
Ryegate, Town of
52 ~/astewater System Improvements $100.000 $5,020,048
Sun Prairie Village county WSD
53 ~/ater System improvements $100.000 i $5,120.048
IButte Silver Bow
54 ~Water Master Plan $100,000 $5,220,048
=Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
55 ~lncraasing Montana Water Management Capacity $99,714 $5,319,752
Milk River Joint Board of Control
56 Lake Sherburne Dam Outlet Works Rehabilitation $100,000 $5,419,762
Bigfork County WSD
57 Wastewater System Improvements $100,000 $5,519,762
Ruby Valley CD
58 Ruby Groundwater Management Plan - Phase I $33,694 $5,553,456
Cartersville Irrigation District
59 Sand Creek Siphon Rehabilitation $100,000 $5,653,45B $ 30,843
'Ranked Project Sponsor/ Recommended Cumulative Recommended
Order Project Name Grant Funding Recommended Loan Funding
TOTAL FUNDS RECOMMENDEI: $5,653,456 $ 161,183
Projects below this line were not recommended for funding
E~laine County CD
D~y Fork Dam Spillway Improvements $0
Deer Lodge Valley CD
Cottonwood and Peterson Creek Restoration - Phase I $0:
Missoula County
Grant Creek Restoration and Flood Mitigation $0
Montana Heritage Commission
Virginia City Comfort Stations $0