This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at [email protected] and include the phrase “Digital Documents” in your subject heading.

To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu

Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071

Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82071

Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785

Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission (http://wwdc.state.wy.us)

III 111111111111111111111111111I11~llilllllllllllllllll 39092 05739124 7 lJt:--- PROPERTY OF n~~ Qj Water Resburces Data System Library ~ Wyo Hall 230 > ~ 'I -t: 307-766-6661 .~ i' ~ ~ t ~ (\:) ~ ~ I ~ = 1 I § ~ ~ ~ -=... 0 ~ ! ~ ~ ~ '--~ r~ "~ ~ f'I ·ff i~ ; J p"If rn "ACK NOBLITT & ASSOCIA YES

1920 Thomes Ave., Suite 620 Cheyenne. VWyo. 82001 (307) 634·9064

December 15, 1993 Mr. Michael K. Purcell, Director Wyoming Water Development Commission Herschler Building Cheyenne WY 82002 Dear Mr. Purcell, We are pleased to submit the report of the Level II Feasibility study for Water System Improvements at Laramie Regional Airport. The Feasibility Study was prepared in association with WRC Engineering, Inc., of Denver, Colorado. The Feasibility Study identified the fire flow requirements for the airport and developed several alternative means to provide the required flow. Based on an analysis of the costs and effectiveness of the alternatives, a preferred alternative was selected and a computer model of the performance of the system with the selected alternative was prepared. All work on this project by Jack Noblitt & Associates and by WRC Engineering, Inc., was performed by or under the immediate supervision of Professional Engineers licensed to practice in Wyoming.

We wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Mr. Evan Green, WWDC project Manager, as well as information and insights provided by the Laramie Regional Airport Board, Airport Manager Jack Skinner, Laramie city Engineer Bob Juve, Fire Chief Jim Noel, and Water Superintendent Wes Bressler. We appreciate the opportunity to have been able to provide this study. Please let us know if you need additional information on anything in this submittal.

Sincerely,

Jack L. Noblitt, P.E.

Engineers. Planners Wyoming Water Development Commission

LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

LEVEL II

FEASIBILITY STUDY

DECEMBER, 1993

Jack Noblitt & Associates, P.C. Cheyenne, Wyoming

WRC Engineering, Inc. Denver, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

I. INTRODUCTION 1 ll. EVALUATION OF FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS 2 m. EVALUATION OF EXISTING STORAGE, TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 8

IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 10 v. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 17

VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS/ABILITY TO PAY 18

VU. PERMITTING 20 vm. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21

APPENDIX A- COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES 1 THROUGH 8 10 pages

APPENDIX B- LAYOlITS OF ALTERNATIVES 1 THROUGH 7 (FIGURES 3 THROUGH 9) 7 pages

APPENDIX C- COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUf FOR THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 11 pages LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

TABLE -1 NEEDED FIRE FLOW CALCULATION 6

TABLE - 2 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX 12

TABLE - 3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS - LOCATION OF MINIMUM PRESSURES 16

TABLE - 4 PONSOR'S ANNUAL PAYMENT OBLIGATION FOR VARIOUS COST SHARING FORMULAS AND INTEREST RATES 19

ii LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

FIGURE -1 EXISTING BUILDINGS AT LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT 3

FIGURE - 2 GENERALIZED COMPUTER MODEL OF EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 11

FIGURE - 3 ALTERNATIVE NO.1 B.1

FIGURE - 4 ALTERNATIVE NO.2 B.2

FIGURE - S ALTERNATIVE NO.3 B.3

FIGURE - 6 ALTERNATIVE NO.4 B.4

FIGURE -7 ALTERNATIVE NO. S B.S

FIGURE - 8 ALTERNATIVE NO.6 B.6

FIGURE - 9 ALTERNATIVE NO.7 B.7

FIGURE -10 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL (ALTERNATIVE 2) C.1

iii I. INTRODUCTION

The Laramie Regional Airport is located approximately 4 miles west of Laramie. The airport obtains its water supply from the City's water distribution system. Water is transmitted to the airport through a 10-inch pipe. The capacity of the 100inch pipe is inadequate to supply water in sufficient quantity for fire fighting purposes. Further development at the airport has been restricted until adequate fire flows can be provided. In June, 1993, the Wyoming Water Development Commission contracted with Jack Noblitt and Associates, P.C. of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and its sub-consultant WRC Engineering, Inc. of Denver, Colorado to conduct to a Level II feasibility study of improving the water supply system serving the Laramie Regional Airport.

The Scope of Services consisted of evaluating the fire flow requirements at the airport; evaluating the City's existing storage, transmission and distribution system to determine its capability to provide the recommended fire flow; evaluating alternatives and preparing alternative cost estimates; preparing an economic analysis and determining potential funding sources; determining permitting requirements.

The purpose of the project was to determine a cost effective method of providing adequate fire flow to the Laramie Regional Airport that was in reasonable compliance with the City of Laramie's Water Supply Master Plan. The recommended fire flow for the Laramie Regional Airport is 4000 gallons per minute for a 4 hour duration. The fire flow was determined using data obtained from field observations and the methodologies contained in the Insurance Service Organization Fire Suppression Rating Schedule and the Uniform Fire Code.

The Laramie Regional Airport is located in Zone 1 of the City's system. The existing storage, transmission and distribution system in Zone 1 was evaluated to determine if there was capacity to meet the fire flow requirement. It was concluded that there was adequate storage. However the existing 100inch pipe serving the airport is inadequate.

Eight alternatives were developed that could supply the recommended fire flow to the airport. For each alternative, cost estimates were prepared and computer models were created to determine the impacts on the existing system. Alternative No 2A was recommended and accepted by the project sponsor and participants as the preferred alternative. The estimated cost of Alternative No. 2A is $2,058,000. The proposed improvements include a 1.0 million gallon storage tank, 12-inch and 16-inch pipeline, a booster pump and a fire pump.

1 ll. EVALUATION OF FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS

A. GENERAL

An evaluation of the existing types of construction and building uses at the Laramie Regional Airport (LRA) was conducted to determine fire flow requirements. The evaluation included site observations to determine the type of construction and current uses of the existing buildings, research of the City of Laramie Fire Ordinance, Insurance Services Office (ISO) Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, Specific Commercial Property Evaluations, 1991 Uniform Fire Code and calculation of the Needed Fire Flow for each of the existing buildings.

B. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

There are currently 16 buildings at LRA. The uses of the buildings and types of construction are varied. Figure-l presents the location of the existing buildings and corresponding building number for cross referencing the following descriptions.

1. Building 1 - University of Wyoming Hangar

The University of Wyoming Hangar is a pre-engineered metal building with a floor area of approximately 14,000 square feet (st). The building is used for aircraft storage and maintenance, machine shop, vehicle maintenance and office space. The structural members of the building are not protected. Framed partition wails with drywall are present.

2. Building 2 - Hangar 1

Hangar 1 is a masonry building with steel roof trusses and wood roof deck. The floor area is approximately 4,900 sf. The building has no heat or electric power and is currently not being used. The west side of the building is lined with rooms that were used as machine shops and paint rooms. The ~ side of the building used to be lined with offices. The office area has wood floors and framed partition walls. There are no plans to occupy the building due to the improvements needed to upgrade the building and building systems to conform to the current building codes.

3. Building 3 - Hangar 2

Hangar 2 is approximately 11,700 sf. Approximately one-half of the building is constructed with masonry walls, timber roof trusses and wood roof deck. The other one-half of the building is a pre-fabricated metal building. The building has no heat or electric power. The north side of the building is lined with storage rooms. Approximately one-third of the rooms have framed walls and ceilings with drywall. The building is currently used to store aircraft. There are no plans to occupy the building due to the improvements needed to conform to current building codes.

4. Building 4 - Cowboy Aviation (fB0)

This building is wood framed with a stucco exterior. The floor area is approximately 1,500 sf. The building is used for offices.

2 \\

/ ,'l 250 125 0 250 500 I I dCALE:1 N =25d. I ~~9 C'-_____LA_R_A_M_IE_R_E_G_IO_N_A_L_A_IR_P_O_R_T ____ ---') E~ 5. Building 5 - Garage

This is a wood framed building used to store motor vehicles and small equipment. The floor area is approximately 1,300 sf.

6. Building 6 - Mobile Home

This building is a double wide trailer used to house airport personnel. The floor area is approximately 1,400 sf.

7. Building 7 - Terminal Building

The terminal building is a frame building with stone and brick sides, timber columns and beams and framed interior partitions. The floor area is approximately 8,400 sf. The building uses includes offices, passenger loading, car rentals, flight and airport operations

8. Building 8 - Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFf) Building

The ARFF building is a pre-engineered metal building, with approximately 2,000 sf of floor area. the building is used to store aircraft rescue and fire fighting equipment. Preventative maintenance is performed on the vehicles inside the building. The structural steel members of the building are not protected.

9. Building 9 - Ouonset Hut

There was no access to the Quonset Hut during the site visit. Observations through the windows and doors revealed that the building is approximately one-half offices with wood frame partitions. The rest of the building is used as a garage and for storage. The building area is approximately 4,200 sf. It has metal sides.

10. Buildings 10 and 12 - T-Hangar

These buildings are 3-unit hangars used to store small aircraft. The buildings are approximately 5,000 sf each. The buildings are of post and beam construction with wood roof trusses, metal siding and roof deck. Partitions between the individual units are wood framed with particle board and plywood sheathing. The partitions extend from the floor to the bottom of the roof trusses. Some of the units have been enclosed by attaching plywood to the bottom chord of the trusses. Preventative aircraft maintenance is performed inside the hangars.

11. Building 11 - T-Hangar (4 unit>

This building has approximately 6,700 sf. The type of construction and building uses are similar to Buildings 10 and 12.

12. Building 13 Executive Hangar

This is a pre-engineered metal building used to store private aircraft. The floor area is approximately 1,100 sf. The structural steel members of the building are not protected.

4 13. Buildings 14. 15 and 16 - Executive Hangars

These are pre-engineered metal buildings with approximately 2,300 sf of floor area, in each. The buildings are used to store private aircraft and to perform preventative maintenance. The structural steel members of the buildings are not protected. c. EVALUATION OF NEEDED FIRE FLOW

The Needed Fire Flow (NFF) for each of the existing buildings was evaluated using the guidelines set forth in the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. The NFF calculation takes into consideration the type of construction, occupancy uses, exposure of adjacent buildings and the separations between the various uses within a building.

The equation to calculate NFF is:

NFF = (C) (0) (X +P)

Where o is a factor to reflect the influence of occupancy use in abuilding.

C is a factor attributed to the class of construction and building area.

(X + P) is a factor to reflect the influence exposure and building separations (X + P) is calculated for each side of the building. The maximum value of (X + P) is 1.75.

Table-l presents the building area, factors and NFF calculations for each of the buildings. The NFF ranges from approximately 800 gallons per minute (gpm) at Building 13 to over 4,000 gpm at Building 11.

D. FUTURE FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS

The City of Laramie has adopted the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by City ordinance. The City Ordinance sets minimum standards for tire flow based on zoning. The LRA is located outside the City and is not subject to City Zoning requirements. For the purposes of establishing fire flow requirements the City considers the uses at LRA to be consistent with the City's 1-1 and 1-2 zoning districts. After reviewing the allowable uses of the 1-1 and 1-2 zone districts, we are in agreement with this assessment. The 1-1 and 1-2 zoning requires a minimum tire flow of 4,000 gpm.

E. FIRE FLOW DURATION

The duration of the fire-flow recommended by the Uniform Fire Code and Fire Suppression Rating Schedule is dependant on the flow rate.

2 hours less than 3,000 gpm 3 hours 3000 gpm to 4,000 gpm 4 hours more than 4,000 gpm

The Uniform Fire Code provides that "Fire-flow requirements may be modified downward by the chief for isolated buildings or group of buildings in rural areas or small communities when the

5 TABLE -1 NEEDED FIRE FLOW CALCULATION

...... ····' .. . . ». .7:.'~ •• ~ ••.• ....: ...

... :::::!

1 University of 14,000 3 ••••••• 0.8 1,704 Wyoming Hangar

2 Hangar 1 4,900 2 1.0 1,260 C-5 1.25 1.61 2,536

3 Hangar 2 11,700 2 1.0 1,947 C-5 1.25 1.69 4,113

4 FBO 1,500 1.5 1,046 C-2 0.85 1.46 1,298

5 Garage 1,300 1.5 973 C-5 1.25 1.19 1,448

6 Mobile Home 1,400 1.5 1,010 C-4 1.15 1.19 1,383

7 Tenninal Building 8,400 1 1.5 2,475 C-2 0.85 1.00 2,103

8 ARFF Building 2,000 3 0.8 644 C-5 1.25 1.00 805

9 Quonset Hut 4,200 3 0.8 933 C-2 0.85 1.17 928

10 & 12 T-Hangar (3-unit) 5,000 1.5 1,909 C-5 1.25 1.31 3,126

11 T-Hangar (4-unit) 6,700 1.5 2,210 C-5 1.25 1.54 4,254

13 Hangar 1,100 3 0.8 478 C-5 1.25 1.33 794

14, 15 & 16 Executive Hangar 2,300 3 0.8 691 C-5 1.25 1.33 1,148

6 development of full fire-flow requirements is impractical." In a draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Laramie and Laramie Regional Airport, the fire-flow duration is noted as being I-hour. It appears that this requirement is not consistent in terms of providing appropriate durations for the recommended flow rates.

F. SPRINKLERED BUILDINGS

The NFF for sprinklered buildings can be reduced thereby reducing the demands on the water system. The Uniform Ftre Code provides that "A reduction in required fire flow of up to 75 percent, as approved by the chief, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resUlting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute".

G. SUMMARY

This section has evaluated the NFF for the existing buildings at LRA and reviewed the City's Fire and Zoning Ordinance. Subsequent sections will evaluate alternatives for providing a fire-flow of 4,000 gpm for four hours at LRA. This flow rate is consistent with the NFF calculated using the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule and the City's minimum fire flow requirements for the anticipated uses at LRA. The fire-flow rate could be reduced if those buildings described above requiring the high fire-flow were sprinklered. The fire-flow requirement for future buildings could also be reduced if they were sprinklered. Any reductions in fire-flow rates resulting from sprinklering would have to be approved by the fire chief. We recommend that sprinklering existing and future buildings with a high fire-flow requirement be considered so that the fire-flow demand imposed on the system can be reduced.

At present, the City is considering a I-hour fire-flow duration with a 1500 gpm resupply at LRA. The required resupply will reduce the amount of additional storage required. In our opinion, the 1- hour fire-flow duration provides a minimum level of protection. However, providing 4 hours of 4000 gpm fire-flow, as recommended in the Uniform Fire Code, may not be practical for LRA. In the following sections, alternatives are considered that will increase the fire-flow duration from one hour to four hours. The feasibility of increased fire flow has technical and financial limits. The technical limits are described in Section IV below. The financial limits must be determined by the jurisdictions involved.

7 m. EVALUATION OF EXISTING STORAGE, TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

A. GENERAL

An evaluation of the existing storage, transmission and distribution system serving the City of Laramie and the Laramie Regional Airport (LRA) was conducted to determine the ability to meet fire flow requirements at LRA. The evaluation included review of the Water Masterplan Report, City of Laramie, Wyoming, prepared by Banner Associates, Inc., June 1983, (Masterplan) review of the City's Water Distribution System Maps, conversations with the City and an evaluation of the ability of the existing system to provide the required fire flow. The Masterplan was reviewed to obtain an understanding of how the City's water system is operated and determine the existing storage, distribution and transmission capacities. Analysis to confirm the system demands or to evaluate alternatives for improving the existing system to meet future potable water demands in the City is beyond the scope of the project.

B. DESCRIPrION OF EXISTING SYSTEM

The City's water distribution system is divided into 5 pressure zones. LRA is part of Zone 1. Storage capacity in Zone 1 consists of an 8.0 million gallon (mg) reservoir located east of the City, and a 0.5 mg clear well at the treatment plant southwest of the City. Water is distributed into Zone I by gravity flow from the treatment plant and the reservoir. Except for periods of high demand, water from the Pope Well Field and Soldier Springs is transmitted by gravity flow to the City.

Water from the treatment plant is conveyed in 2O-inch and 24-inch steel pipes. In the winter, flow from the treatment plant in the 2O-inch and 24-inch pipes is turned off. The valve for the 2O-inch pipe is located on the west side of the Roach Addition and the valve for the 24-inch is located near Wyoming Highway 230 on the west side of Laramie. The winter demands west of the two valves, which includes LRA, are supplied by available storage at the treatment plant. Water from the reservoir is distributed to the system in the 24-inch steel pipe and in 14-inch and 16-inch pipes located in Grand Avenue. Water from Pope Well Field and Solider Springs is conveyed in 12-inch and 14- inch diameter pipes, respectively. The two pipes are combined into a 16-inch pipe which distributes flow to the system.

LRA is presently served by a 10-inch pipe that is connected to the 24-inch transmission line approximately 3 miles southwest of Laramie along Wyoming Highway 230. The University Booster Station, located on the access road from State Highway 230 to the University of Wyoming Dairy Farm, boosts the system pressure in the 10-inch pipe for delivery to LRA.

The Masterplan concluded that Zone 1 has adequate storage capacity to meet the future peak day demands, fire storage reserve of 2.0 mg and an emergency reserve equal to an 8-hour water supply at the peak daily demand of 5SO gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The Masterplan analysis of the distribution system indicated that the system has sufficient capacity to meet peak hour flows. However, when the system was modeled using peak hour flows and required fire flows (1500 gpm to 6000 gpm) several areas in Zone 1 were found to have inadequate pressures. The Masterplan recommended improvements to the water distribution system that would alleviate the inadequate pressures.

8 c. EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

The required fire flow for the LRA is 4000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 4 hours (reference the previous section). The total storage volume for fire fighting is 0.96 mg assuming no resupply; 0.60 mg if 1500 gpm resupply is provided. The Masterplan concluded that there is adequate storage capacity to meet the future demands of the City, which includes a fire fighting reserve of 2 mg. However, during the winter months when the valves on 2O-inch and 24-inch pipes are turned off, only 0.50 mg of storage is available at the treatment plant, which is inadequate to satisfy the fire fighting requirement.

According to Chief Jim Noel of the Laramie Fire Department (telephone conversation, September 23, 1993) the water line to the Airport has been tested several times. The tested flow of the line has varied from 600 gpm to 1,000 gpm.

D. SUMMARY

Water service to LRA is supplied by Zone 1 of the City's water distribution system. Zone 1 has a total of 8.S mg of storage provided at the reservoir and treatment plant clear well. The total storage is adequate to meet the fire fighting requirements at LRA during the summer months. However, in the winter a valve between the LRA pipe connection and the reservoir is turned off which isolates the airport from the 8.0 mg reservoir. Storage available for fire fighting purposes at LRA in the winter is limited to O.S mg in the treatment plant clear well.

The airport is currently served by a 100inch pipe that is inadequate to provide the required fire flow. The existing pipe has been tested by the City on several occasions and has been found to have a flow of 600-1000 gpm. A generalized model of the existing distribution system will be analyzed during the alternative evaluation phase of this project to determine the impacts that each alternative will have on the City's water distribution system.

The project scope requires that the impacts to the existing system be evaluated for a "worst case" scenario which consists of peak hour demands plus fire flow. The water supply available to the airport in the winter months is limited to the storage in the treatment plant clear well. Therefore, the ability of the system to deliver the fire flows during the winter months must be considered in the evaluation of alternatives to provide the required fire flow.

9 IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES A. GENERAL

Alternatives for supplying the needed fire flow to LRA were developed and evaluated to determine impacts on the City's existing water distribution system and to determine the estimated cost of each alternative. The alternatives were modeled using Cybemet 'I'M. Cybemet is a water distribution system analysis that works within AutoCADD 'I'M. The program uses the same algorithms as the widely used KYPIPE program developed by the University of Kentucky. The input into the program includes pipe length and diameter, Hazen-Williams Coefficient (C), node elevations, node demands, and the elevation or pressure of source nodes.

A generalized model (see Figure - 2) of the existing water distribution system was used to evaluate the impacts of each alternative on the existing distribution system. The model was created using pipes 10-inches in diameter and larger. Smaller pipes were added when needed to complete loops in the system. Node elevations input into the model were determined using the U.S. Geologic Survey quadrangle maps and assuming 5.0-feet of cover over the pipe.

At the beginning of this project, it had been anticipated that the output from the computer models developed with the Masterplan would be available. This would have allowed us to review and use the same pipe parameters, verify the system demand distribution used in the Masterplan and make any needed adjustments. By doing this, we would be able to correlate the data used in this project and the Masterplan and achieve consistency between the two models. It has been determined that the computer models used in the Masterplan were not available. Therefore, the pipe parameters were determined from City maps, the Masterplan and discussions with the City's staff. The City does not maintain records of the type or age of pipe in the system. For the evaluation a Hazen-Williams coefficient of 110 was used. This value corresponds to cast iron pipe that is 10 years old.

System demands were estimated using assumptions contained in the Masterplan and information obtained from the City regarding the current population and number of taps served, approximately 26,500 and 7,000 respectively. The current population of approximately 26,500 corresponds to the 1985 popUlation projection in the Masterplan. From the 1985 Masterplan, the peak hour demand for Zone 1 is 9.5 mgd or 6,600 gpm. The Masterplan states that Zone 1 constitutes 45% of the City's total water demand. If the number of taps in Zone 1 is proportional to the demand in Zone 1 then there are approximately 3,200 taps in Zone 1. Assuming the demand is distributed evenly to each tap, the peak hour demand per tap would be 2.1 gpm. For this draft report, aerial maps of the City were reviewed, the pipes used in the water distribution system model were superimposed on the maps to approximate the area served by each node. In residential areas, the number of houses was counted. Assuming one tap per house or 2.1 gpm per house, the peak hour demand at each node was calculated. In the commercial and industrial areas, the remaining peak hour demand for Zone 1 was evenly distributed. In order to refine the distribution of the peak hour demands in the model, we have obtained records of water consumption for each of the City's water taps for the last billing cycle. We utilized that data so that the demand distribution used in the model more accurately reflects that of the City.

Eight alternatives were evaluated to determine costs and impacts on the existing system. The alternatives were developed in general conformance with the recommended improvements for Zone 1 contained in the Masterplan. Following is a description of each alternative. Table - 2 presents a comparison of the major components of each alternative and estimated cost. Detailed cost estimates for the alternatives are in Appendix A.

10 4000 2000 0 4000 8000 I I I I I SCALE: 1" =4000'

LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT

8.0 MG RESERVOIR

GRANO AVE.

,, SPRI I

TO POPE WEll FIELD &' TO TREA TMENT PLANT SOLDIER SPRINGS

~9 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ) GENERALIZED COMPUTER MODEL OF E,G. ~ I \ ( EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ~------~ TABLE -2 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX

Alternative a) 1.0 mg 5400 If 12-inch 9400 If 16-inch 1,500 gpm 4,000 4000 If to-inch a) $2,369,000 Tank size is based on the Masterplan No. 1 Masterplan recommendation @ SO psi gpm@ ISOO If 14-inch recommendations. 0.6 mg tank is b) 0.6 mg 100 psi b) $2,042,000 needed to meet airport fire demand with Fire reserve for airport wl1500 1500 gpm resupply. gpm resupply

Alternative a) 1.0 mg 12,200 If 12-inch 200 If 16-inch 1,500 gpm 4,000 4000 If to-inch a) $2,058,000 Tank size is based on the Masterplan No.2 Masterplan recommendation @ 75 psi gpm@ 2100 If 12-inch recommendations. 0.6 mg tank. is b) 0.6 mg 50 psi 1500 If 14-inch b) $1,731,000 needed to meet airport fire demand with Fire reserve for airport w/1500 1500 gpm resupply. gpm

Alternative 0.6 mg 15,000 If 12-inch 200 If 16-inch 1,500 gpm 4,000 Not Applicable $1,762,000 No.3 @ 75 psi gpm@ SO psi

Alternative Not Applicable Not Applicable 15,000 If 16-inch Not 4,000 Not Applicable $1,561,000 Fire storage reserve obtained from No.4 Applicable gpm@ existing 8.0 mg reservoir and treatment 110 psi plant clear well.

Alternative 0.72 mg Not Applicable 200 If 16-inch 1,000 gpm 4,000 $1,021,000 Upgrade University Booster Station. No.5 @ 100 psi gpm@ 50

Alternative Not Applicable Not Applicable 10,500 If 16-inch Not 4,000 (1) 24-inch valve $1,188,000 Install new valve on 24-inch conduit No.6 Applicable gpm@ west of existing airport connection to 110 psi ensure fire supply in the winter.

Alternative 0.77 - 0.82 mg 100 If 12-inch 200 If 16-inch well pump 4,000 (1) 24-inch valve $1,074,000 No.7 gpm@ 50 psi

Alternative 0.24 mg 12,200 If 200 If 1500gpm 2,500 4000 If 100inch $1,823,000 Building with a needed fire flow in No.8 12-inch 12-inch @ 75 psi gpm@ 2100 If 12-inch excess of 3000 gpm are sprinklered. 100 psi 1500 If 14-inch B. ALTERNATIVE NO.1

Alternative No.1 is based on the improvements recommended in the Masterplan to alleviate the low pressure in West Laramie and the industrial park that resulted when the system was modeled using the peak hourly flows plus legislated fire flows. It consists of a 1.0 million gallon (mg) water storage tank located in the southeast quarter of Section' 2S, a 12-inch diameter pipe extending east from the tank towards the City that connects to existing-lO-inch and 14-inch water mains. From the tank a 16 inch pipe extends west to the airport and connects to the existing 10-inch pipe that currently supplies the airport. A 4,000 gpm fire pump with a rated pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) is located at the tank to deliver fire flow to the airport. A 1,500 gpm booster pump rated at SO psi is required to resupply the tank, pursuant to the criteria of this project. Easements or right-of-way may need to be acquired for the pipe that extends east from the tank and for the pipe to the airport. It is anticipated that a portion of the pipe extended to the airport could be constructed in existing State Highway 131 right-of-way. A 3O-inch bore would be needed to cross the Union Pacific Railroad and the State Highway. A 22-inch base would be needed to cross Interstate SO. The improvements associated with Alternative No.1 are presented in Figure - 3.

This alternative provides the fire flow requirements to LRA while supplementing the City's existing distribution system to improve the supply to West Laramie and the industrial park. The size of the storage tank is based on the recommendations contained in the Masterplan. The Masterplan does not discuss the criteria used to size the tank. Discussions with the City's staff revealed that the criteria is not known. With 1500 gpm resupply, the required storage volume to satisfy LRA fire fighting requirements is 0.60 mg. That would leave 0.40 mg to supplement the City's water supply system. The City would need to determine if this reserve is adequate or if the tank needs to be larger. The estimated cost of Alternative No. lA, with a 1.0 mg tank, is $2,369,000. For Alternative No. IB, with a 0.60 mg tank, the estimated cost is $2,042,000. c. ALTERNATIVE NO.1

Alternative No.2 is similar to Alternative No.1. The water storage tank is located at the airport to minimize the distance that the fire flow needs to be pumped. A 12-inch diameter pipe extends east from the tank, parallel to Highway 130 and connects to the existing system at the intersection of Grant Street and Van Buren Street. A 12-inch pipe is proposed in Van Buren Street to provide adequate resupply to the tank with minimal impacts to the existing system and to supplement the flows in West Laramie and the industrial park. It is anticipated that these pipes could be. constructed within the existing highway right-of-way. A 1,500 gpm booster pump rated at SO psi is to provided to resupply the tank. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at SO psi is provided at the tank outlet to provide the required fire flow. A 24-inch bore is needed to cross State Highway 130. Alternative No.2 is presented in Figure - 4.

As discussed in Alternative No.1, the size of the storage tank is based on the Masterplan recommendations. This alternative provides the fire flow requirements at LRA and supplements the City's water supply system. The estimated cost of Alternative No. 2A, with a 1.0 mg tank, is $2,OS8,OOO. For Alternative 2B, with a 0.60 mg tank, the estimated cost is $1,731,000.

D. ALTERNATIVE NO.3

Alternative No.3 is similar to Alternative No.2. Rather than the 12-inch pipe from the tank connecting to the existing system at the intersection of Grant Street and Van Buren Street, it continues to parallel Highway 130 and extends south to connect to the 24-inch conduit from the treatment plant. The Alternative No.3 improvements are presented in Figure - S.

13 The size of the storage tank is 0.60 mg, with a 1500 gpm resupply rate. The tank for this alternative is smaller because it is used to only provide fire reserve for the airport. By connecting to the 24-inch conduit, it does not supplement the flow in West Laramie or the industrial park. A 1,500 gpm booster pump rated at 75 psi is needed to resupply the tank. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at SO psi is provided at the airport to meet the fire flow requirements. It is anticipated that this alternative could be constructed within existing right-of-ways. The estimated cost of Alternative No.3 is $1,762,000.

E. ALTERNATIVE NO.4

Alternative No.4 is similar to Alternative No.3 except that there is no additional storage provided. The reserve required for fire fighting at the airport is obtained from the 8.0 mg reservoir and 0.5 mg clear well at the treatment plant. A 16-inch pipe is connected to the 24-inch conduit from the treatment plant. The pipe runs parallel to Highway 130 to the airport. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at 110 psi is needed to deliver the needed fire flow. It is anticipated that this alternative can be constructed within existing rights-of-way. The Alternative 4 improvements are presented in Figure - 6.

Alternative No. 4 meets the airports fire fighting requirement. However, it does not help to alleviate the conditions in West Laramie and the industrial park. The estimated cost of Alternative No.5 is $1,561,000.

F. ALTERNATIVE NO.5

Alternative 5 consists of a 0.72 mg water storage tank at the airport. The tank size is based on a 1,000 gpm resupply rate through the existing 100inch pipe to the Airport. The University Booster Station would need to be upgraded to ensure this resupply rate. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at 50 psi would be needed to deliver the needed fire flow from the tank. A future connection to the City's water system could be provided that would parallel Highway 130. The future connection would be in conformance with the improvements recommended in the Masterplan, similar to what is shown in Alternative No. 's 1 and 2. Figure - 7 presents the improvements associated with Alternative No.5. The estimated cost of Alternative No.5 is $1,021,000.

A disadvantage to this alternative is the potential for poor water quality in the tank. On a daily basis the withdrawal from the tank will be minimal, resulting in stagnant water in the tank. Options to alleviate this problem include constructing a separate distribution system at the airport solely for fire fighting purposes to avoid discharging stagnate water into the potable water distribution system, providing equipment to circulate and aerate the water in the tank and discharging water from the tank on a regular basis and refilling with fresh water. Construction of a separate distribution system may lead to inadvertent interconnections between the two systems as development occurs. Circulating and aerating the tank water will require equipment and controls that will need additional maintenance. Discharging water from the tank is not a beneficial use of the water, especially during periods of drought.

G. ALTERNATIVE NO.6

Alternative No.6 provides for a 16-inch pipe that connects to the existing 24 inch pipe from the treatment plant. The proposed 16-inch pipe would parallel the existing 10 inch supply line to the airport. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at 110 psi would be needed to deliver fire flow to LRA. A new valve would be installed west of the connection of the 100inch pipe to the 24-inch conduit. The new valve could be turned off in the winter, instead the valve that is located further east. This would ensure that the water in the 8.0 mg reservoir could be used for fire fighting reserve during the winter months. Additional easement or right-of-way may be needed. The new 16-inch pipe is routed around the northeast end of the runway to avoid the need to bore under the runway. Figure - 8 presents the

14 improvements associated with Alternative No.6. The estimated cost of Alternative No. 6 is $1,188,000.

H. ALTERNATIVE NO.7

Alternative No.7 consists ofa 0.77 to 0.82 mg tank at the airport that is supplied by the existing 10- inch pipe and a new well. Water from the well would be treated so that is could tie into the water distribution system. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at 50 psi would be needed to deliver the needed tire flow from the tank. A future connection to the City's water system, similar to that described in Alternative No. 5 could be made. The well would provide additional re-supply to the tank, thereby reducing its size. The anticipated yield from the well is 100-300 gpm. The well supply, combined with an estimated 500 gpm resupply from the existing 10-inch pipe would reduce the size of the tank by 144,000 - 192,000 gallons. The water quality problems described in Alternative 5 are possible with this alternative. The alternatives improvements are presented in Figure - 9. The estimated cost for Alternative No. 7 is $1,074,000.

I. ALTERNATIVE NO.8

As noted in the previous section, the fire flow requirement and duration at the airport could be reduced if buildings were sprinldered. The amount of the reduction would be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. If buildings with a needed fire flow of 3,000 gpm and greater (buildings 2, 10, 11 and 12, see Figure - 1) were sprinldered and the fire flow requirement reduced 50%, the resUlting tire flow for these buildings would be 1,500 gpm to 2,000 gpm. The controlling fire flow requirement at the airport would then be that for building 2 (2,500 gpm). Using the improvements associated with Alternative No.2 and assuming a 1,500 gpm resupply to the tank, 0.24 mg of storage would be required for 4 hours of fire fighting reserve. The estimated cost for this Alternative is $1,823,000.

J. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

Alternatives were developed and evaluated to supply 4,000 gpin fire flow to the airport for 4 hours. The computer models prepared for each alternative indicate that the existing water distribution system can meet the additional demands. Except for Alternative No.6, the minimum pressure in the system satisfies the criteria of 20 psi minimum residual pressure with fire flows. The minimum pressures and general vicinity that they occur are presented in Table - 3. .

It is recommended that Alternative No.2 be selected for conceptual design and further evaluation. This alternative provides the required fire flow to the airport and generally conform to the Masterplan recommendations for Zone 1. The water quality problems associated with Alternatives No.5 and 7 are not present with Alternative No.2. This alternative is selected over Alternative No.1 because it avoids a railroad bore and minimizes right-of-way acquisitions.

15 TABLE - 3

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS LOCATION OF MINIMUM PRESSURE

1 28 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds 2 28 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds 3 30 psi 11 th and Mitchell 4 23 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds 5 32 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds

6 23 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds 7 32 psi 11 th and Mitchell, Fairgrounds

16 v. CONCEPfUAL DESIGN

Alternative No. 2A was selected by the project sponsor and participants as the preferred alternative.

The water system demands used in the computer model were refined as part of the conceptual design phase of the project. As discussed in previous sections of this report, the demands used in the modeling for the 1985 Masterplan are not available. In order to evaluate alternatives, demands were calculated by estimating the number of taps served by each node in residential areas and applying a peak hour demand of 2.1 gpm per tap. The remaining peak hour demand for Zone 1, from the masterplan, was evenly distributed to the commercial/industrial areas.

To refine the demands for the conceptual design, records of the City's latest quarterly billings was obtained. These records contained the billings for April, May and June, 1993. From the billings, the industriall commercial users with the highest demands were identified. Assuming that the billings for April, May and June represent average day demands and that industriallcommercial users operate an average of 10 hours per day, 5 days per week an average day demand was calculated. A peak hour factor of 3.45 (from the 1985 masterplan) was used to calculate peak hour demands. The remaining peak hour demand was prorated and distributed to the remaining nodes in the residential areas.

The computer model used has been simplified and includes pipes 8-inches and larger. We feel that the methodology used to determine the peak hour demands is sufficiently accurate for predicting the impacts that the proposed improvements will have on the City of Laramie's existing water system. However, the demands and model are not accurate enough to predict the effects that other improvements may have on the system, the impacts that new users may have or to accurately predict the pressure and flow rate at specific locations in the system. In order to achieve that level of accuracy, a more detailed model and a detailed analysis of historical meter records would be needed to determine the demand distribution.

Appendix C contains a schematic of the Alternative No. 2 computer model depicting the configuration, pipe and node numbers. Computer outputs summarizing the input data and results of the modeling are included. Alternative No 2A can supply the recommended 4000 gpm tire flow to the LRA for 4 hours while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi in the water system. The estimated cost for Alternative No. 2A is $2,058,000 which includes contingencies, engineering, permitting and right-of-way acquisition.

17 VI. ECONOl\DC ANALYSIS I ABILITY TO PAY

This section discusses the costs to the sponsors and the amount the sponsors must be prepared to pay. The scope of this study does not include investigation of possible means of funding or the criteria for funding under various programs.

In addition to grants and loans from the Wyoming Water Development Commission, there are several state and federal programs under which funds are made available for municipal water system improvements and airport improvements. However, it is not likely that implementation of the recommendations in this report would have a high priority in any of them. Therefore, this discussion is limited to assumptions of WWDC funding.

The estimated costs for the alternatives described above range from $1.02 Million (Alternative S) to 2.4 Million (Alternative la). For this discussion, we will use the estimated cost of the recommended Alternative la.. The estimated cost of this alternative is $2.058 Million for construction. Based on a total budget of $2.225 Million, and terms of 67% grant and 33% loan, and an annual interest rate of 4% for 25 yeas, the annual repayment by the sponsors would be $47,001.

If the sponsor's cost of the improvements are to be paid from water revenues, and assuming that there are 7000 taps on the water system, and the annual payment of $47,001, the cost of debt service would be approximately SO.56 per tap per month.

These amounts will vary with the actual cost, distribution of the amount between grant and loan, interest rate, and repayment period. All these assumed values are subject to change. Table 4 shows the amount that the sponsors would be obligated to repay for various interest rates (4 %, 5 %, and 6 %) , various shares of project costs covered by grants (67%, 50%, and zero), and various periods of loans (or bond maturity). The table shows in general how the financial obligations incurred by the sponsors depend on the degree to which the project cost can be leveraged by grants. Figures for other assumptions of project cost, interest rate, amounts of grants, and loan period can be readily calculated using capital recovery factor formulas. Table 4 illustrates the payments the sponsors must be prepared to make to accomplish the improvements.

18 TABLE-4

SPONSOR'S ANNUAL PAYMENT OBLIGAnON FOR VARIOUS COST SHARING FORMUlAS AND INTEREST RATES

ITOTAL PROJECT COST: $2,225,000 I

~ : : . . $1,490,750 164,932 ,001 $1,112,500 $249,898 $71,213 0% $0 000 $499 795 $1 427

67% $1,490,750 33% $734,250 $169,593 $95,089 $52,097 50% $1,112,500 50% $1,112,500 $256,959 $144,074 $78,935 5% 0% $0 1000" $2,225,000 $513919 $288148 $157,869

67% $1,490,750 33% $734,250 $174,308 $99,761 $57,438 50% $1,112,500 50% $1,112,500 $264,103 $151,153 $87,027 6% 0% $0 1000" $ 000 207 306 $174054 VU. PERMI'ITING

Wyoming statutes require that a permit be obtained to "Construct, install, modify or operate any public water supply... " (WS 35-11-301 (a) (v» . Design and construction standards for public water supplies are published as Chapter XII of the Water Quality Rules and Regulations.

Any modifications to the Laramie public water system is subject to the Act and the regulations of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the City of Laramie. This includes all the alternatives presented in this Level n Feasibility Study.

In addition to water quality permitting required by statute, implementation of any of the alternatives will require coordination and in some cases permits from various agencies.

• A permit from the Wyoming Department of Transportation District Engineer is required for work in the right-of-way of state highways. All the alternatives will require some work in state highway right­ of-way. Work in rights-of-way of the City of Laramie and Albany County will require permits from the street departments of those jurisdictions and compliance with their requirements.

• Work on the airfield of Laramie Regional Airport will require coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Wyoming Aeronautics Commission, and the Airport management. One of the alternatives (Alternative 6) calls for construction of water lines across the airfield, but not across the airfield pavement. This is not the recommended alternative.

• The alternatives include work in the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad and on property of the University of Wyoming. Utility and construction easements will be required from these entities for work not included in existing easements. Some of the alternatives may require construction easements on other private property.

The recommended alternative (2A) includes work in the right-of-way of State Highway 130 and in City streets in West Laramie, as well as on Airport property. The proposed improvements cross a State highway at Highway 130. If this alternative is implemented, permits will be required as follows:

• Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (permit to Construct). This permit is issued upon DEQ approval of an application, construction plans and specifications, and an engineering design report which demonstrate that the proposed construction complies with Chapter XII, "Design and Construction Standards for Public Water Supplies", of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations.

• Construction Permit from the Wyoming Transportation Department District I engineer for utility construction in state highway right-of-way.

• City Construction Permits.

20 vm. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the criterion of a delivery rate of 4000 gallons per minute for four hours, eight alternative improvement plans were developed. Alternatives 1 and 2 were further subdivided based on the size of storage tank. These divisions were designated lA, IB, 2A, and 2B.

Each alternative was evaluated for cost, effectiveness in meeting the criteria, construction and environmental problems associated with each alternative, consistency with the City of Laramie Master Plan, and benefits to the City of Laramie in addition to solving the immediate problem of fire flow to the airport.

The alternative which best meets all the criteria and considerations was Alternative 2A, which provides for construction of a one million gallon storage tank at the airport, 12-inch diameter pipe east from the tank, parallel to Highway 130 connecting to the existing system at the intersection of Grant Street and Van Buren Street. A 12-inch pipe is proposed in Van Buren Street to provide adequate resupply to the tank with minimal impacts to the existing system and to supplement the flows in West Laramie and the industrial park. It is anticipated that these pipes could be constructed within the existing highway right-of-way. A 1,500 gpm booster pump rated at SO psi is to provided to resupply the tank. A 4,000 gpm fire pump rated at SO psi is provided at the tank outlet to provide the required fire flow. A 24-inch bore is needed to cross State Highway 130.

The estimated cost for Alternative 2A is $2,058,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Alternative 2A as developed in this report be the basis for further development of the water supply improvements to Laramie Regional Airport.

21 APPENDIX A

COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES 1 THROUGH 8 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1A

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 1.00 MG 600,000 600,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 5,400 LF 40 216,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 9,400 LF 60 564,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 30-INCH RAILROAD BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 30-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,720,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 172,000

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,892,000

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 283,800

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $2,175,800

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $172,000

PERMITIING AND MITIGATION $5,200

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY 16 ACRE 1,000 $16,000

PROJECT COST TOTAL $2,369,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 14-Dec-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 18

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.60 MG 600,000 360,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 5,400 LF 40 216,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 9,400 LF 60 564,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 30-INCH RAILROAD BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 30-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,480,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 148,000

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,628,000

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 244,200

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,872,200

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $148,000

PERMITIING AND MITIGATION $5,800

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY 16 ACRE 1,000 $16,000

PROJECT COST TOTAL $2,042,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 14-Dec-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2A

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 1.00 MG 600,000 600,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 12,200 LF 40 488,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 60 12,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 24-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 12-INCH PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 2,100 LF 40 84,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,504,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 150,400

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,654,400

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 248,160

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,902,560

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $150,400

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,040

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $2,058,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 14-Dec-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2B

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTllY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.60 MG 600,000 360,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 12,200 LF 40 488,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 60 12,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 24-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 12-INCH PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 2,100 LF 40 84,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,264,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 126,400

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,390,400

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 208,560

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,598,960

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $126,400

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,640

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,731,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 14-Dec-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.3

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.60 MG 600,000 360,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 15,000 LF 40 600,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 60 12,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 75,000 75,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 24-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 200 LF 200 40,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,287,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 128,700

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,415,700

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 212,355

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,628,055

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $128,700

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,245

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,762,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.4

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 15,000 LF 60 900,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 30-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 200 LF 200 40,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,140,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 114,000

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,254,000

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 188,100

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,442,100

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $114,000

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $4,900

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,561,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.5

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.72 MG 600,000 432,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 60 12,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $744,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 74,400

SUBTOTAL #2 $818,400

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 122,760

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $941,160

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $74,400

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,440

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,021,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.6

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 10,500 LF 60 630,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000 30-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 24-INCH VALVE 1 EA 8,000 8,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $858,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 85,800

SUBTOTAL #2 $943,800

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 141,570

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,085,370

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $85,800

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $4,830

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY 12 ACRE 1,000 $12,000

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,188,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.7

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.82 MG 600,000 492,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 100 LF 40 4,000 16-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 60 12,000 WELL 1 LS 75,000 75,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 200,000 200,000

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $783,000

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 78,300

SUBTOTAL #2 $861,300

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 129,195

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $990,495

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $78,300

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,205

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,074,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO.8

UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

COST OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

WATER STORAGE TANK 0.24 MG 600,000 144,000 12-INCH TANK RE-SUPPLY PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 12,200 LF 40 488,000 12-INCH FIRE LINE WI APPURTENANCES 200 LF 40 8,000 BOOSTER PUMP 1 LS 100,000 100,000 FIRE PUMP 1 LS 150,000 150,000 22-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 200 LF 150 30,000 24-INCH HIGHWAY BORE & STEEL CASING 100 LF 200 20,000 10-INCH PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 4,000 LF 35 140,000 12-INCH PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 2,100 LF 40 84,000 14-INCH PIPE WI APPURTENANCES 1,500 LF 55 82,500 INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEM 28,400 SF 3 85,200

CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL (CCS#1) $1,331,700

ENGINEERING COSTS (CCS#1 * 10%) 133,170

SUBTOTAL #2 $1,464,870

CONTINGENCY (SUBTOTAL #2 * 15%) 219,731

CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,684,601

PREPARATION TO FINAL DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CCS#1 * 10%) $133,170

PERMITTING AND MITIGATION $5,229

ACQUISITION OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY $0

PROJECT COST TOTAL $1,823,000

1796-EST.WK3 WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 13-0ct-93 APPENDIXB

LAYOurs OF ALTERNATIVES 1 THROUGH 7 (FIGURES 3 THROUGH 9) • - --. , I- ~ . - , i - •• -. • ~ ... '. i: - " 1.0 MG TANK \ ..

"30" ~ORE 80 STEEL C ASING • ... , , . ., ,- .._=". " : , ~~ :'O' BORE & STEEL CASI.G' • , • ..­• • • "

• , i • \ EXISTING BOOSTER STATION - --:c."):; .... • " . • • "" "- ' . •• LEGEND , \ 1 - _ E _ 10 _' _ EXISTlNQ PIPE \ ,l i • •, L ,.' • • PAOPOSED PIPE "". • . • • ,- • • l , .'" . , t • . • / '. , ";, , ,.. . " • I . ,. ~ / /.,J.- I · . ,:' / •• .,. -

N OBUTT • A SSOCIATES) LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ---.. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ( AllERNATTVE 1) (:n~) ,,',,- .. ~ -, , " -- P- '. ' • - - • - \\.: , + I , • - • " , f • I " _\ • , , • . " • '" ' '~ " .. -, , ~" " , ...... 1 ___a;. , '

... !!-4" BORE" STEEL C •• SING" . ~, , />1 ~. I , \'" ," " ',. . • , • • ~(N[~H 9RH~ FIRE PUMP .. " J flE;LO , - ,• • , , ! ., , ", .., ;

----.J!!-" " ", .) ,- .... ,- 'm • .. • l I'~ - " .••... _- " ! E 10' ---- - EXI8T1NO PIPE \ I " 10' 1 ~'-1' ~ ',~ • , .r · ...... " I'" .-." I "' t " I • (', .. , , • o 1000 2000 4000 I , " / ' ,\.. - \ .. /\ \ , • \~. " (" I ," \\,

...... OK NOBLITT .. """'OOIAT•• LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ( ALTERNAllVE 2) CHEYENNE. WVOMING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS @:B~) -~ . + "'--. , I ,., . I I .'. ' ~ • .. ~ ~... , '...... 'f "---'---"'1 , • , • -I , ~.o , , 14' BORE & STEEL , " ~ • , , " ... • " . '. !• ., , ... , .e------'-.. ,~•• ". -- .

FIRE PUMP , ••.­ ., - I • • ( t:I • •• • • 'j'" I ~ ,. , .. -..:- -, • " .- • -". •

,•

\ • t::: '~" , , '. ". ".-- .... ,.-

• "If, "0 .> • -! . , .... -• ,; I , / ,.,I' .. /

...... OK N OaLI T'T ...... OO I A T •• LARAMIE REGIONAl AIRPORT a.vm ... WI' 'PII WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (AlTERNATIVE 3) (P:r:~) .... , • .. ... _. ." -, - ,• + , f , '! - '"j - 0 " - , ..- 2.

...... 30· BORE .. STEEL CASI NG ". • . • .. . ., ./ :, '" - G[N[AH BREES ~ , ,• "0/ • • • " , • . , " , • t •• / ~ , '\, - , . • .. It ., •

, '" I , • ~ 1 . • ,- t. 6 _.- ~- .~. ,'...... _ ... ,...... " ... ,• .. EXISTING BOOSTER STATION

\ \ ., .' I • • ", •• • • , I' r:" I . .. ., '.~ ,- - \ I.· . f - I :" - .,~

WRC_.;;Ec;N~G",IN~E~E",RI",N",G,~I';cN~C~. (~C K N O BLITT ...... OC .AT ••) LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT C ) (P:iE,"J ,-_'__ \~D~E~N~V=E~~C~O~L~O~RA~DO~\ ~ " i C IQ ,--,W.:..:A..:.T:..:E:.:R:...,::S..:Y..=Sc.:.T=E::M:-I:.:;M.:..:P-,R.:..:O:.:V:..:E=:M=E:..:N..:.TS=-./ AlTERNATIVE. PN3E. B.4 ,

" + ...:. ~, ". , " • .. " - .\ " ' .

, ,. ' , !, . :1 , \ ~Ac,hc ~ ~ -_ I > - 0,72 IIIG TA.NlI: "FIRE PUMP • M ~t~Al IIR[rS , • rio 0 I I , , \ , , , , / '" / ' , .-- • • " - r---~... --- . '. . -' , , UPGRADE EXISTING 8OOS;TER STATtON - ,

". - 1 I . ~-" - ­ .~ ,. • • UfCEND , ,\ - -~1Q:. - EXlS1'W(J PIPE , / " 1.' I .... /. , " '. • , "v -, -, • I -. -,• ./ / ·i~ '\ , / / • . ,, ·1 . , " " / J'" ,.. , • , (:'- " / .,, ~\\

L.ARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (ALTERNATlVE 6 )~~ . - - • - .- + j ',. - ,

• I '. • !• ., • -- - .. \ "AC'''C-~'' -~. I • " • I , (;E~. • ) .­• • • ,, ./ • , , •< • " K • .. ~ •• •. • FIRE PUMP

< . ,. .---~~ . t

\\ CLOSED IN THE Wn""R , ! '- , . -1 I . \ ", , , - •- .' <'-·-~7;;-· t-·- " \ : ' !"I':'." ,('II 1:,: ' LECEND EXISTING BOOSTER STATION ... .. ,I , J .' I, .. , • . - " .' • , ." -' t- '" -,

... I' / f ,, \ I \ .,-.. r ... .' 'I' ,

...... CK NOBUTT • _SOC.AT•• LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ( ALTERNAfflE 6 ) CHEYVIN!. WYOMINO WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (P:i8~ - - - ~ ." " H'

• + i . -, I• ,- ~-I-~P~- -. ""

-...... 1 ~i.o ...... ,~ 1,.0 ,M G TA NK & FIRE PU.P --, ..... ~ -,I::: 'WELlW'TH' e '''')R'.ATOR , • • .- _,. h " ,I • .1- ;[N£Ul BRHS ,• fl .0 I ••.~ I I •• , I , 6 • • ./

• ..

I • 6 .. . .: '!" . LEGEND EXISTING BOOSTER STATION ~ - t..12: _ . EXI8TlNO PIPE / .- , , ,' L . '. \ ..• ~ I .• ...., -"

NOBLITT .. AsaOCIATes) LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT ( ALTERNATIVE 7 ) ~WtGI.1HG WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS E=S~) APPENDIXC

COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUr FOR THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT

N T.S

, -"" , " , .'" "" ,~ BUllER- STREZT ,

. '" i , .." ! , , " "'.

"'"

.'"

TO POPE WELL FlEW TO TREATMENT PLANT & SOLDIER SPRINGS

LARAMIE REGIONAL AIRPORT WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FIGURE-10 CHEYEJoIJoIE. wro..lJoIG WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS MODEL - ALTERNATIVE No. 2 PAGE c'1 """""""""""""""""'" """"" SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL DATA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CyberNet Version 2.13d. Copyright 1991,92 Haestad Methods Inc. Run Description: ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 WI 12- PIPE TO AIRPORT Drawi ng: 179602

PIP ELI NED A T A

STATUS COOE: XX ·CLOSED PIPE BN ·BOUNDARY NODE PU ·PlW LINE CV ·CHECK VALVE RV ·REGULATING VALVE

PIPE NOOE NOS. LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR LOSS BND·HGL NlfJ8ER 11 12 (ft) (in) COEFF. COEFF. (ft) .. _...... __ ...... _-_ ...... _-- ...... 10·BN o 570 65687.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 7350.00 20·BN o 580 65669.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 7350.00 30 10 20 429.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 40 20 30 277.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 50 30 40 537.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 60 40 50 805.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 70 50 60 3885.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 80 60 90 7683.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 90 50 600 608.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 100 570 540 21918.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 120·PU 540 550 10495.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 130·BN o 100 9273.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 7340.00 140·BN o 100 5606.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 7340.00 150 100 110 15627.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 160 110 120 700.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 170 590 120 2253.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 180 140 180 304.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 190 140 150 2184.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 200 150 160 5549.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 210 150 170 2435.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 220 .180 780 2191.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 230 180 590 1377 .0 16.0 110.00 0.00 240 190 200 1016.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 250 200 210 472.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 260 200 220 198.0 6.0 110.00 0.00 270 220 230 684.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 280 230 240 1802.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 290 240 250 1446.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 300 260 660 729.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 310 270 280 1654.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 320 280 20 2026.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 330 .280 440 3780.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 340 280 300 1548.0 18.0 110.00 0.00 350 300 310 1763.0 18.0 110.00 0.00 380 330 340 597.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 390 340 350 554.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 400 350 360 1760.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 410 360 370 2162.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 420 370 290 1075.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 430 290 380 5812.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 440 140 390 3936.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 450 390 330 2649.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 460 330 400 1075.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 470 400 410 484.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 480 410 360 2294.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 490 410 350 614.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 500 370 310 2331.0 18.0 110.00 0.00 510 310 420 1634.0 18.0 110.00 0.00 520 420 430 401.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 530 420 440 696.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 540 290 440 2596.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 550 450 470 2084.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 560 450 730 2418.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 570 470 490 1278.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 580 470 740 2425.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 590 390 490 2558.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 600 490 500 641.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 610 500 510 324.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 620 510 520 292.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 630 490 530 781.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 640 540 920 3881.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 660·BN o 90 189.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 7280.00 680 580 760 23787.0 20.0 110.00 0.00 710 590 710 990.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 720 130 590 328.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 730 190 600 3499.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 740 600 610 729.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 750 610 670 1090.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 770 270 650 1069.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 780 650 660 1093.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 790 620 670 1081.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 800 600 710 1030.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 810 710 640 730.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 820 640 630 2187.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 830 610 640 1014.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 860 110 630 984.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 870 630 620 969.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 880 670 660 1784.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 890 610 650 1777.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 900 190 680 2500.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 910 260 700 688.0 6.0 110.00 0.00 920 700 690 346.0 4.0 110.00 0.00 930 690 680 693.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 940 680 930 1234.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 950 730 850 1425.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 960 740 840 1403.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 970 760 770 2165.0 20.0 110.00 0.00 980 10 770 8739.0 20.0 110.00 0.00 990·BN o 780 10771.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 7280.00 1000 480 810 2577.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 1020 370 830 1487.0 14.0 110.00 0.00 1060 ,810 830 1432.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 1110 480 840 1178.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 1120 460 850 1172.0 10.0 110.00 0.00 1130 840 850 2074.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 1150·BNPU 0 550 200.0 16.0 110.00 0.00 7290.00 1160 850 910 1131.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 1200·PU 910 870 11065.0 12.0 110.00 0.00 1210 450 920 809.0 24.0 110.00 0.00 1250 250 930 1344.0 8.0 110.00 0.00 PUMP DATA THERE IS A PlW IN LINE 120 - USEFUL PIllER - 30.00 THERE IS A PlW IN LINE 1150 - USEFUL PIllER - 50.00 THERE IS A PlW IN LINE 1200 - USEFUL P(ltIER - 60.00

JUNCTION NOD E DATA

JUNCTION JUNCTION EXTERNAL JUNCTION NlMJER TITLE DEMAND ELEVATION CONNECTING PIPES (g>m) (ft) ...... -_ ...... _ ...... _ ...... 10-1 0.00 7140.00 30 980 20-1 0.00 7140.00 30 40 320 30-1 0.00 7140.00 40 50 40-1 150.00 7145.00 50 60 50-1 150.00 7150.00 60 70 90 60-1 150.00 7180.00 70 80 90-1 0.00 7160.00 80 660 100-1 150.00 7270.00 130 140 150 110-1 0.00 7165.00 150 160 860 120-1 220.00 7160.00 160 170 130-1 150.00 7150.00 720 140-1 150.00 7150.00 180 190 440 150-1 430.00 7155.00 190 200 210 160-1 150.00 7180.00 200 170-1 150.00 7165.00 210 180-1 150.00 7150.00 180 220 230 190-1 170.00 7140.00 240 730 900 200-1 150.00 7135.00 240 250 260 210-1 150.00 7135.00 250 220-1 150.00 7135.00 260 270 230-1 150.00 7140.00 270 280 240-1 250.00 7145.00 280 290 250-1 420.00 7150.00 290 1250 260-1 100.00 7160.00 300 910 270-1 150.00 7150.00 310 770 280-1 100.00 7140.00 310 320 330 340 290-1 160.00 7130.00 420 430 540 300-1 0.00 7130.00 340 350 310-1 0.00 7130.00 350 500 510 330-1 140.00 7135.00 380 450 460 340-1 0.00 7135.00 380 390 350-1 150.00 7135.00 390 400 490 360-1 0.00 7135.00 400 410 480 370-1 180.00 7135.00 410 420 500 1020 380-1 0.00 7135.00 430 390-1 0.00 7140.00 440 450 590 400-1 0.00 7140.00 460 470 410-1 0.00 7140.00 470 480 490 420-1 0.00 7135.00 510 520 530 430-1 0.00 7135.00 520 440-1 0.00 7135.00 330 530 540 450-1 280.00 7165.00 550 560 1210 460-1 150.00 7165.00 1120 470-1 0.00 7165.00 550 570 580 480·1 150.00 7155.00 1000 1110 490·1 0.00 7150.00 570 590 600 630 500·1 0.00 7145.00 600 610 510·1 0.00 7145.00 610 620 520·1 150.00 7145.00 620 530·1 0.00 7145.00 630 540·1 210.00 7175.00 100 120 640 550·1 AIRPOOT 4000.00 7260.00 120 1150 570·1 0.00 7180.00 10 100 580·1 0.00 7180.00 20 680 590·1 200.00 7150.00 170 230 710 720 600·1 420.00 7155.00 90 730 740 800 610·1 160.00 7160.00 740 750 830 890 620·1 100.00 7175.00 790 870 630·1 200.00 7170.00 820 860 870 640·1 200.00 7160.00 810 820 830 650·1 150.00 7150.00 770 780 890 660·1 170.00 7155.00 300 780 880 670·1 150.00 7165.00 750 790 880 680·1 220.00 7150.00 900 930 940 690·1 0.00 7150.00 920 930 700·1 0.00 7150.00 910 920 710·1 150.00 7150.00 710 800 810 730·1 0.00 7165.00 560 950 740·1 0.00 7160.00 580 960 760·1 0.00 7165.00 680 970 770·1 0.00 7150.00 970 980 780·1 0.00 7160.00 220 990 810·1 0.00 7160.00 1000 1060 830·1 0.00 7160.00 1020 1060 840·1 0.00 7155.00 960 1110 1130 850·1 0.00 7165.00 950 1120 1130 1160 870·1 TANK RESUPPL 1500.00 7290.00 1200 910·1 0.00 7165.00 1160 1200 920·1 0.00 7165.00 640 1210 930·1 140.00 7150.00 940 1250 + ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• + MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS

NUlllber of pipes ...... 500 Number of pumps ...... 125 Number juncti on nodes...... 500 F1 CM meters ...... 125 Boundary nodes...... 50 Variable storage tank.s ...... 125 Pressure switches...... 125 Regulating Valves...... 125 Items for limited output ...... 500 limit for non·consecutive numbering .. 5010 + ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• +

Cybernet version 2.13d. SN: 1162130026-500

Extended Description:

U NIT SSP E C I FIE D

FL~TE ...... - gallons/minute HEAD (HGl) ...... - feet PRESSURE ...... - psig

OUTPUT OPT ION DATA

OUTPUT SELECTION: THE FOLUllING RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPlfT

ALL CLOSED PIPES ARE NOTED ALL PIPES WITH PUMPS FOLL(}tIING PIPES 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 130 140 15,0 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 660 680 710 720 730 740 750 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1020 1060 1110 1120 1130 1150 1160 1200 1210 1250 FOLL(}tIING JUNCTION NODES 10 20 30 40 50 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 43.0 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 730 740 760 770 780 810 830 840 850 870 910 920 930 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES 10

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION NlH3ER OF PIPES ...... (p) = 100

NlM3ER OF JUNCTION NOOES ...... (j) = 80

NlH3ER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ...... (1) = 14 NlH3ER OF BOONDARY NOOES ...... (f) = 7 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ...... (z) - 1

....'IeI,AUAAU .. AAUUAUUAAAAUUUAAA S I MU L A T ION RES U L T S

A.A.A" 'A"A'" *"" AA"" AAA" A*A "it A* A A tic A The results are obtained after 5 trials ~th an accuracy = 0.00466

S I MU L A T ION DES C RIP T ION

CyberNet Version 2.13d. Copyright 1991,92 Haestad Methods Inc. Run Description: ALTERNATIVE NO.2 WI 12" PIPE TO AIRPORT Drawing: 179602

PIP ELI N E RESULTS

STATUS COOE: XX -CLOSED PIPE BN -BOUNDARY NOOE PU -PUMP LINE CV -CHECK VALVE RV -REGULATING VALVE TK -STORAGE TANK

PIPE NOOE NOS. FLMATE HEAD PUMP MINOR LINE HLI NlM3ER 11 12 LOSS HEAD LOSS VELO. 1000 (!pm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/ft) ...... _- .. _- ...... _... _a ...... 10-BN 0 570 727.55 4.31 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.07 20-BN 0 580 411.61 106.54 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.62 30 10 20 411.61 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.16 40 20 30 -343.51 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.23 50 30 40 -343.51 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.48 60 40 50 -493.51 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.93 70 50 60 -1136.18 17.00 0.00 0.00 3.22 4.38 80 60 90 -1286.18 19.97 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.60 90 50 600 492.66 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.23 100 570 540 727.55 102.11 0.00 0.00 2.97 4.66 120-PU 540 550 752.10 51.99 157.81 0.00 3.07 4.95 130-BN 0 100 1256.29 23.08 0.00 0.00 2.62 2.49 140-BN 0 100 1099.17 23.08 0.00 0.00 3.12 4.12 150 100 110 2205.45 57.55 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.68 160 110 120 950.58 2.20 0.00 0.00 2.70 3.15 170 590 120 -730.58 10.58 0.00 0.00 2.98 4.69 180 140 180 -3533.64 0.37 0.00 0.00 2.51 1.22 190 140 150 730.00 10.24 0.00 0.00 2.98 4.69 200 _ISO 160 150.00 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 210 150 170 150.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 220 180 780 -5091.32 5.27 0.00 0.00 3.61 2.41 230 180 590 1407.68 2.21 0.00 0.00 2.25 1.60 240 190 200 1061.89 1.85 0.00 0.00 2.21 1.82 250 200 210 150.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 260 200 220 761.89 12.09 0.00 0.00 8.64 61.06 270 220 230 611.89 0.45 0.00 0.00 1.28 0.66 280 230 240 461.89 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.83 290 240 250 211.89 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.47 300 260 660 -287.75 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.16 310 270 280 -214.21 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.05 320 280 20 -755.12 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.51 330 280 440 74.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.07 340 280 300 366.91 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.07 350 300 310 366.91 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.07 380 330 340 268.96 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.30 390 340 350 268.96 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.30 400 350 360 181.47 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.15 410 360 370 342.82 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.48 420 370 290 73.77 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.07 430 290 380 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 440 140 390 2653.64 2.83 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.72 450 390 330 632.83 3.92 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.48 460 330 400 223.87 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.22 470 400 410 223.87 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.22 480 410 360 161.35 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.12 490 410 350 62.52 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.02 500 370 310 -354.69 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.07 510 310 420 12.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 520 420 430 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 530 420 440 12.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 540 290 440 -86.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.09 550 450 470 -1257.41 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.18 560 450 730 742.86 11.71 0.00 0.00 3.03 4.84 570 470 490 -1870.81 0.48 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.38 580 470 740 613.40 8.24 0.00 0.00 2.51 3.40 590 390 490 2020.81 1.11 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.43 600 490 500 150.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.05 610 500 510 150.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.10 620 510 520 150.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 630 490 530 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 640 540 920 -234.55 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.01 660-BN o 90 1286.18 0.49 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.60 680 580 760 411.61 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.06 710 590 710 1788.26 2.47 0.00 0.00 2.85 2.50 720 130 590 -150.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 730 190 600 -1612.25 7.21 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.06 740 600 610 -102.51 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.01 750 610 670 -229.46 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.06 770 270 650 64.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01 780 650 660 257.33 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.13 790 620 670 579.88 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.31 800 600 710 -1437.08 1.72 0.00 0.00 2.29 1.67 810 710 640 201.18 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.43 820 640 630 -375.00 2.99 0.00 0.00 1.53 1.37 830 610 640 -376.18 1.39 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.37 860 110 630 1254.87 12.58 0.00 0.00 5.13 12.79 870 630 620 679.88 3.98 0.00 0.00 2.78 4.11 880 670 660 200.42 2.26 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.27 890 610 650 343.13 2.06 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.16 900 190 680 380.36 10.39 0.00 0.00 2.43 4.15 910 260 700 187.75 3.14 0.00 0.00 2.13 4.56 920 700 690 187.75 11.37 0.00 0.00 4.79 32.87 930 690 680 187.75 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.12 940 680 930 348.11 4.35 0.00 0.00 2.22 3.53 950 730 850 742.86 6.90 0.00 0.00 3.03 4.84 960 740 840 613.40 4.77 0.00 0.00 2.51 3.40 970 760 770 411.61 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.06 980 10 770 ·411.61 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.06 990·BN 0 780 5091.32 25.93 0.00 0.00 3.61 2.41 1000 480 810 ·443.74 4.81 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.86 1020 370 830 443.74 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.36 1060 810 830 ·443.74 2.67 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.86 1110 480 840 293.74 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.87 1120 460 850 ·150.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.25 1130 840 850 907.14 5.98 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.88 1150·BNPU 0 550 3247.90 1.51 60.90 0.00 5.18 7.54 1160 850 910 1500.00 8.28 0.00 0.00 4.25 7.32 1200·PU 910 870 1500.00 81.01 158.25 0.00 4.25 7.32 1210 450 920 234.55 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.01 1250 250 930 ·208.11 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.36

J U N C T ION NOD ERE S U L T S

JUNCTION JUNCTION EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC JUNCTION PRESSURE JUNCTI ON NLM3ER TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (g>m) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi)

10·1 0.00 7241.54 7140.00 101.54 44.00 20-1 0.00 7241.47 7140.00 101.47 43.97 30·1 0.00 7241.52 7140.00 101.52 43.99 40-1 150.00 7241.78 7145.00 96.78 41.94 50-1 150.00 7242.53 7150.00 92.53 40.10 60·1 150.00 7259.54 7180.00 79.54 34.47 90·1 0.00 7279.51 7160.00 119.51 51.79 100-1 150.00 7316.92 7270.00 46.92 20.33 110·1 0.00 7259.37 7165.00 94.37 40.89 120·1 220.00 7257.17 7160.00 97.17 42.11 130·1 150.00 7246.51 7150.00 96.51 41.82 140·1 150.00 7248.42 7150.00 98.42 42.65 150·1 430.00 7238.19 7155.00 83.19 36.05 160·1 150.00 7236.80 7180.00 56.80 24.61 170·1 150.00 7237.58 7165.00 72.58 31.45 180-1 150.00 7248.80 7150.00 98.80 42.81 190·1 170.00 7235.18 7140.00 95.18 41.24 200·1 150.00 7233.33 7135.00 98.33 42.61 210·1 150.00 7233.21 7135.00 98.21 42.56 220·1 150.00 7221.24 7135.00 86.24 37.37 230-1 150.00 7220.79 7140.00 80.79 35.01 240-1 250.00 7219.30 7145.00 74.30 32.20 250·1 420.00 7218.61 7150.00 68.61 29.73 260·1 100.00 7240.09 7160.00 80.09 34.71 270·1 150.00 7240.36 7150.00 90.36 39.16 280-1 100.00 7240.44 7140.00 100.44 43.53 290-1 160.00 7239.96 7130.00 109.96 47.65 300·1 0.00 7240.33 7130.00 110.33 47.81 310·1 0.00 7240.20 7130.00 110.20 47.75 330·1 140.00 7241.67 7135.00 106.67 46.22 340-1 0.00 7241.49 7135.00 106.49 46.14 350-1 150.00 7241.32 7135.00 106.32 46.07 360·1 0.00 7241.06 7135.00 106.06 45.96 370-1 180.00 7240.03 7135.00 105.03 45.51 380·1 0.00 7239.96 7135.00 104.96 45.48 390·1 0.00 7245.59 7140.00 105.59 45.76 400-1 0.00 7241.44 7140.00 101.44 43.96 410·1 0.00 7241.33 7140.00 101.33 43.91 420-1 0.00 7240.19 7135.00 105.19 45.58 430-1 0.00 7240.19 7135.00 105.19 45.58 440-1 0.00 7240.19 7135.00 105.19 45.58 450-1 280.00 7243.62 7165.00 78.62 34.07 460-1 150.00 7224.72 7165.00 59.72 25.88 470-1 0.00 7244.00 7165.00 79.00 34.23 480-1 150.00 7232.02 7155.00 77.02 33.37 490-1 0.00 7244.48 7150.00 94.48 40.94 500-1 0.00 7244.45 7145.00 99.45 43.09 510-1 0.00 7244.41 7145.00 99.41 43.08 520-1 150.00 7244.34 7145.00 99.34 43.05 530-1 0.00 7244.48 7145.00 99.48 43.11 540-1 210.00 7243.58 7175.00 68.58 29.72 550-1 AIRPORT 4000.00 7349.40 7260.00 89.40 38.74 570-1 0.00 7345.69 7180.00 165.69 71.80 580-1 0.00 7243.46 7180.00 63.46 27.50 590-1 200.00 7246.59 7150.00 96.59 41.86 600-1 420.00 7242.39 7155.00 87.39 37.87 610-1 160.00 7242.41 7160.00 82.41 35.71 620-1 100.00 7242.81 7175.00 67.81 29.38 630-1 200.00 7246.79 7170.00 76.79 33.27 640-1 200.00 7243.80 7160.00 83.80 36.31 650-1 150.00 7240.35 7150.00 90.35 39.15 660-1 170.00 7240.21 7155.00 85.21 36.92 670-1 150.00 7242.47 7165.00 77.47 33.57 680-1 220.00 7224.79 7150.00 74.79 32.41 690-1 0.00 7225.57 7150.00 75.57 32.75 700-1 0.00 7236.95 7150.00 86.95 37.68 710-1 150.00 7244.12 7150.00 94.12 40.78 730-1 0.00 7231.91 7165.00 66.91 29.00 740-1 0.00 7235.76 7160.00 75.76 32.83 760-1 0.00 7242.14 7165.00 77.14 33.43 770-1 0.00 7242.02 7150.00 92.02 39.88 780-1 0.00 7254.07 7160.00 94.07 40.76 810-1 0.00 7236.82 7160.00 76.82 33.29 830-1 0.00 7239.49 7160.00 79.49 34.45 840-1 0.00 7231.00 7155.00 76.00 32.93 850-1 0.00 7225.01 7165.00 60.01 26.01 870-1 TANK RESUPPL 1500.00 7293.97 7290.00 3.97 1.72 910-1 0.00 7216.73 7165.00 51.73 22.42 920-1 0.00 7243.61 7165.00 78.61 34.07 930-1 140.00 7220.44 7150.00 70.44 30.52

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM VALUES

PRE S SUR E S

JUNCTION MAXIMUM JUNCTION MINIM NUMBER PRESSURES NlH3ER PRESSURES (psi) (psi)

570 71.80 870 1.72 ...d ..... - ____ h~G /rJrz:> /hU) 90 51.79 100 20.33 //!17)C 300 47.81 910 22.42 310 47.75 160 24.61 290 47.65 460 25.88 330 46.22 850 26.01 340 46.14 580 27.50 350 46.07 730 29.00 360 45.96 620 29.38 390 45.76 540 29.72

SUMMARY OF INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS

(+) INFL

PIPE FLIJ.IRATE NlH3ER ( glll)

10 727.55 20 411.61 130 1256.29 140 1099.17 660 1286.18 990 5091.32 1150 3247.90

NET SYSTEM INFL

**** CYBERNET SIKILATION CCMPLETED ****

DATE: 12/ 7/1993 TIME: 13:21: 1