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)
BBBAAAGGGGGGSSS WWWAAATTTEEERRR &&& RRRAAAWWW WWWAAATTTEEERRR SSSUUUPPPPPPLLLYYY LLLEEEVVVEEELLL IIIIII RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT
BBBaaaggggggsss,,, WWWyyyooommmiiinnnggg
BAGGS WATER & RAW WATER SUPPLY LEVEL II REPORT
Prepared for: TOWN OF BAGGS P.O. Box 300 Baggs, WY 82321
WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6290 Yellowtail Road Cheyenne, WY 82002
Prepared by: DONNELL & ALLRED, INC. 908 Big Horn Avenue Worland, WY 82401
In association with: LIDSTONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4025 Automation Way, Bldg E Fort Collins, CO 80525
November 1,2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 History and Project Background...... 1 1.2 Authorization and Purpose...... 2
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING SYSTEM...... 3 2.1 Water System Overview...... 3 2.2 Water Supply and Treatment...... 3 2.3 Storage and Transmission System...... 3 2.4 Distribution System...... 5 2.5 Land Use...... 6
3.0 WATER DEMAND ...... 8 3.1 Historical Use...... 8 3.2 Current Water Demand ...... 8 3.3 Current Billing Rates...... 9 3.4 Conservation and Future Demand...... 10
4.0 STORAGE AND TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES...... 12 4.1 Isolated Transmission Line ...... 12 4.2 Increased Storage Alternatives...... 16
5.0 RAW WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM ...... 19 5.1 Background Information...... 19 5.2 Raw Water Source...... 22 5.3 Raw Water System Capacity ...... 22 5.4 Raw Water System Components...... 23 5.5 Raw Water Irrigation System Alternatives...... 26 5.6 Raw Water System Cost Estimate...... 26
6.0 REGIONALIZATION ...... 30
7.0 PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...... 35 7.1 Permitting and Easements...... 35 7.2 Environmental Aspects of Alternatives ...... 35
8.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND ABILITY TO PAY...... 38 8.1 Financing Analysis for the Transmission Line ...... 38 8.2 Financing Analysis for the Storage Tank Alternatives ...... 39 8.3 Financing Analysis for the Raw Water Irrigation System ...... 40 8.4 Financing Analysis for the Regional Water System...... 41
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 43
10.0 REFERENCES...... 45
FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1.1 - Town of Baggs...... 1 Figure 1.2 - New Infiltration Gallery ...... 1 Figure 2.1 - Existing Water System...... 4 Figure 3.1 - Average Daily Flows...... 8 Figure 3.2 - Average Flows (gpm) ...... 9 Figure 3.3 - U.S. Census Figures for Baggs ...... 10 Figure 4.1 - Dedicated Transmission Line...... 13 Table 4.1 - Transmission Line Cost Estimate...... 15 Figure 4.2 - Baggs Water Storage Tank...... 16 Table 4.2 - Storage Requirement Summary...... 17 Table 4.3 - Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 ...... 18 Table 4.4 - Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 ...... 18 Figure 5.2 - Existing Raw Water Irrigation System ...... 19 Figure 5.1a - Raw Water Irrigation System North Half ...... 20 Figure 5.1b - Raw Water Irrigation System South Half ...... 21 Figure 5.3 - Raw Water Holding Pond...... 25 Table 5.1 - Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 1 Cost Estimate ...... 27 Table 5.2 - Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 2 Cost Estimate ...... 28 Table 6.1 - Service Area Information...... 31 Figure 6.1 - Regional Water System Conceptual Plan ...... 32 Table 6.2 - Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Regional System ...... 33 Table 8.1 - Financing for Transmission Line Improvements ...... 39 Table 8.2 - Financing for Storage Tank Upgrade - Alternative 1 ...... 40 Table 8.3 - Financing for Storage Tank Upgrade - Alternative 2 ...... 40 Table 8.4 - Financing for the Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 1...... 41 Table 8.5 - Financing for the Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 2...... 41 Table 8.6 - Financing for the Regional Water System...... 42
APPENDICES Appendix A - Out-of-Town Water User Agreement Appendix B - Preliminary Engineering Report for Water Treatment Plant Expansion Appendix C - EPANET and WaterCAD Model Results Appendix D – Raw Water Model Results
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 History and Project Background
The Town of Baggs is located in the Little Snake River Valley in Carbon County, approximately 55 miles southwest of Rawlins. Baggs’ municipal water system is having an increasingly difficult time keeping up with increased demands brought on by a sudden population growth and the ongoing drought. Much of the distribution piping is sixty years old and consists of a mixture of ductile iron, asbestos cement (AC) and PVC, generally 4 and 6 inches in diameter, which is not large enough for effective fire suppression. The Town is also having problems with frequent low water pressure, increasing water losses and stagnant water in their tank, particularly during the summer months.
The population growth in Baggs is Figure 1.1 - Town of Baggs primarily due to coal bed methane (CBM) activity in the area. The 2000 census reported a population of 348 people, a jump of 28 percent from the 1990 population of 272. Much of that growth has occurred just in the past two years. Although the demands for water are basically met during the non-irrigating months, the increased demand due to irrigation needs during the summer months are exhausting the Town’s water supply and storage capabilities.
Baggs recently upgraded their infiltration gallery on the Little Snake River (see Figure 1.2). Due to the drought, there were times during July and August that they simply could not pull enough water into their water treatment plant to meet the demands. The Town also has a current study in progress by Black & Veatch Corporation of Aurora, Colorado to upgrade their water treatment plant. The Preliminary Engineering Report is referenced in Section 10 of this Report. The Town also recently filed an Figure 1.2 - New Infiltration Gallery application with the Wyoming State Lands and Investments Board (SLIB) for upgrading portions of their water distribution system.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 1 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
1.2 Authorization and Purpose
Previous studies related to the Town of Baggs water system include a Level I Study by AVI Professional Corporation (AVI) in 2002 titled “Town of Baggs, Wyoming Level I Water Master Plan”; a well exploration study in 2000 by Weston Engineering titled “Town of Baggs, Wyoming Alluvial Well Project”; and a planning study by Western Water Consultants, Inc. in 1992 titled “Little Snake River Basin Planning Study, Volume 1, Evaluation of the Baggs Water Supply, Treatment and Delivery System”. There was also a 1984 study by Black & Veatch titled “Water Supply Needs Assessment for the North Platte and Little Snake River Drainages, Phase II”.
Both the 1992 and 2002 studies indicate the need to improve several aspects of the Town’s water system. Consequently, the Wyoming Legislature authorized the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) to conduct a Level II study of the municipal water system for the Town of Baggs. Donnell and Allred, Inc. (DA) of Worland, Wyoming, in association with Lidstone and Associates, Inc. (LA) of Fort Collins, Colorado, was retained by the WWDC to complete the Level II Study of the Town of Baggs. The purpose of this study was to accomplish the following:
‹ Design a dedicated transmission line from the water treatment plant to the storage tank;
‹ Study the need and options for additional storage;
‹ Determine whether a raw water irrigation system can be implemented;
‹ Analyze the potential for a regional water system with Dixon and Savery; and
‹ Examine other water system related issues.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 2 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING SYSTEM
2.1 Water System Overview
The Town of Baggs water system essentially consists of an infiltration gallery and surface water treatment plant, distribution system and storage tank. The system draws water from the Little Snake River on the north side of town through a new infiltration gallery into the water treatment plant where it is processed for distribution. Much of the distribution system is 60-year old, 4- inch and 6-inch diameter mains, in need of replacement. The storage tank is on the south side of town and basically “floats” on the system, providing water as needed. The tank is nearly thirty years old, but is in reasonably good condition. Figure 2.1 shows the existing water system.
2.2 Water Supply and Treatment
The Town of Baggs obtains its main water source from the Little Snake River through an infiltration gallery with two 8-inch slotted pipes. This infiltration gallery was completed in January of 2003 to reduce raw water turbidity. Collected water is gravity fed through a 10-inch transmission line to a 5-foot diameter manhole. The manhole connects to a perforated 18-inch corrugated metal pipe which conveys water to the wet well. Water from the wet well is then pumped to the nearby water treatment plant.
The water treatment plant is over twenty years old and has a nominal capacity of 200 gallons per minute (gpm). Pre-filtration processes consist of coagulation and flocculation. There are two flocculation basins and a low angle tube sedimentation basin. Alum is the primary coagulant. Other chemicals used for pre-treatment prior to filtration include Nalclear 8170, potassium permanganate, soda ash, and Magnafloc 587. There are two Neptune Microfloc filters used for filtration. Disinfection is achieved by applying gas chlorine in a clear well followed by a chlorine contact chamber to allow for adequate contact time.
The Black and Veatch Preliminary Engineering Report, referenced in Section 10, cites a desired net production rate for the new water treatment plant of 225 gpm. The report details two alternatives for treatment improvements, as well as cost estimates for each alternative. The two proposed improvement alternatives include conventional treatment with cartridge filtration, and membrane filtration.
2.3 Storage and Transmission System
The current storage and transmission system consists of a 280,000 gallon bolted steel tank and an 8-inch main which carries water both ways between the tank and the distribution system. There is no dedicated transmission line from the tank to the water treatment plant. The route through the distribution system to the water treatment plant mainly consists of 4-inch and 6-inch diameter mains. The distribution mains are generally in fair to poor condition and many are in need of replacement.
The water tank was built in 1977 and most recently inspected in 2001 by Liquid Engineering Corporation. The inspection indicated that the tank is in good condition with no major problems. The tank has only one inlet/outlet line and basically “floats” on the system, providing additional
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 3 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
water as needed. The lack of flow-through in the tank has resulted in the Town enduring poor tasting water at times.
2.4 Distribution System
The existing Baggs distribution system consists of mostly 4-inch and 6-inch AC and ductile iron pipe, with some PVC pipe. Many of the lines are dead-ended, which reduces the circulation and makes it difficult to keep the water fresh and disinfected with an even chlorine residual. Also, much of the piping is approaching sixty years in the ground, well beyond a normal life expectancy for most water pipe.
For this study, the existing system was modeled using EPANET 2.0 developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for modeling municipal water systems, and WaterCAD 6.5 by Haestad Methods. Both models show that the existing system is capable of delivering low to average flows, with pressures generally in the 40 to 60 psi range, depending on the level in the tank. If the tank is full, pressures approach 60 psi in most areas. If the tank is low, pressures will drop to the 40’s, which meets minimum pressure requirements, but is not desirable.
The small mains make it virtually impossible to achieve true fire flows from most of the hydrants on the existing system. A 750 gpm fire flow was modeled in different areas of town with both EPANET and WaterCAD and most of the system was not capable of delivering that much water without dropping to extremely low pressures.
The hydraulic models show that keeping the tank full and looping the dead ends would have a very positive effect on the system. The tank level directly affects pressures in the system, and looping the dead ends improves the circulation and water quality. Running an 8-inch diameter transmission line from the treatment plant to the tank, and circulating water through the tank and then into the distribution system, ensures that the tank is always full and the water always fresh with good chlorine contact time. With the proposed transmission line in place, the model shows that some locations can achieve 750 gpm fire flows. However, full fire flows will not be possible at all locations until the proposed distribution upgrades are completed. Maximum flows can be achieved by opening the valve where the transmission line will tie into the 36-inch chlorination contact line and allowing water to flow west into town, as it presently does. This will allow two separate feeds, one from the water treatment plant down North Street, and one from the tank via Highway 789 (normally the valve feeding west should be closed once the new transmission line is constructed). Model results are included in Appendix C.
The Town also needs to repair the section of line on Meeker Street that carries water under Highway 70. This line experienced a leak under the highway and was shut off some time ago because the Town could not afford the cost of a new highway bore. This repair/upgrade should be included in the first phase of distribution system upgrades.
A plan for systematically upgrading the distribution system was prepared for the Town, and an application for funding was submitted to the SLIB for consideration at their January, 2005 meeting.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 5 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
2.5 Land Use
Ordinances for the Town of Baggs were reviewed to determine any issues which may affect potential water system improvement projects. Based on this review, it does not appear that these ordinances would impact any potential water system infrastructure improvements that are proposed in this Level II study. However, there are land use issues which the Town should consider in regards to further development and improvements for the Baggs’ water supply system. The most important of these issues is the annexation and development of areas adjacent to the Town. Currently, the Town’s ordinances require that any new development area that will be served by the Town’s water system shall be annexed into the town limits. The four areas where future development is most likely to occur include (1) the area southwest of Baggs below the West Side Canal and south of the School Addition, (2) further expansion of the Meadowlark Plat, (3) further expansion of the Scanlon addition (east area of Baggs, north of Highway 70), and (4) the area north of the river, west of Highway 789. Originally, the Meadowlark Plat included a larger development area. However, a portion of this plat area was recently withdrawn and will not be developed in the near future.
The Town currently provides water to the Scanlon Addition, 44 Subdivision, and the Cedar Plaza Trailer Court. Also, a small 2-inch service is used to supply water to Boone and Verna Weber and the Country Inn. The Scanlon Addition, Weber Line, and the 44 Subdivision are located outside of the incorporated town limits. These three areas have an “Out-Of-Town Water User Agreement” with the Town. An example of one of these agreements has been included in Appendix A. While the Cedar Plaza Trailer Court is located within the town limits, this area is also considered an outside user. A flow meter is installed on the transmission line at the delivery points to the Scanlon Addition, 44 Subdivision, Weber Line, and the Cedar Plaza Trailer Court to measure each area’s water use. Billing for each area is based on this meter reading. The written water user agreements address the proportional responsibility of individual water users in regards to system leaks. Under the existing system, none of the out-of-town water returns to the Town of Baggs’ water system. The user agreement dictates that this water is for potable water purposes and is not intended for irrigation.
The management of water sales to out-of-town users is a challenging task for any municipality. Rural users often need water and sewer service to minimize their own operations and management costs and to ensure the availability of a high quality water supply. When a town provides either water or sewer services to an out-of-town user, the town does not benefit from an increased tax base. While the Town receives some benefit from the sale of the water or sewer service to the out-of-town users, water rates are limited by state statutes.
Typically, in the case of water service, individuals form an informal association or water district, which is responsible for delivering water to the users. This association is responsible for line maintenance and compliance with EPA rules and regulations. The extent and bylaws of these water associations were not reviewed as part of this Level II study.
The Town of Baggs has developed out-of-town water sales agreements which establish that the Town will provide water to a single meter and that the Town has no maintenance liability beyond that meter. As none of this water returns to the municipal system, the Town feels that they have no water quality liability should a source of contamination develop within an “out-of town”
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 6 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
system. The Town is not responsible for flushing lines or monitoring disinfection within an out- of-town line.
The Town of Baggs is favorable to annexation, yet recognizes that there is an inherent liability in assuming responsibility for existing water and sewer systems that may not meet their municipal standards or ordinances. In addition, the Town is concerned with the availability of treated water and recognizes that their first obligation is to the citizens of the Town. With this in mind, the Town has placed a moratorium on new out-of-town services and taps and is reviewing and amending their obligations to these services in time of water shortage.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 7 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
3.0 WATER DEMAND
3.1 Historical Use
The Level I Study reported an average water consumption for 2000 to 2001 of 33,903,000 gallons per year, which was approximately 5,300,000 gallons more than the previous two years. This translates to an average daily demand for the period of just under 93,000 gallons per day.
On a per capita basis, Baggs residents consumed an average of 267 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd). This is comparable to the highest per capita use reported in the 1992 study of 288 gpcpd, while the 1984 Black & Veatch study reported a value of 305 gpcpd. The peak daily and peak hourly figures have been reported at roughly two and three times the average daily figures, respectively.
3.2 Current Water Demand
For this study, updated monthly flows were obtained from January, 2002 through June, 2004, as shown in Figure 3.1. Although the overall average daily demand is similar to the previously reported figure of 93,000 gpd, there is a significant difference between the average daily wintertime flows and average daily summertime flows.
Flows for the non-irrigating months of 2002 averaged slightly over 63,000 gpd. The following year, that amount increased to around 72,000 gpd. During the 2002 and 2003 irrigation seasons, flows averaged around 137,000 gpd, but the peak flows rose from 163,000 gpd (June 2002) to 187,100 gpd (July 2003). Reduced flows in 2002 may be at least partially attributed to water restrictions and the drought. As is typical in Wyoming, the demand during the summer months is nearly three times the demand during the winter months.
TOWN OF BAGGS AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS JAN. 2002 TO JUNE 2004
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000 GALLONS
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2 02 2 02 02 03 03 03 4 04 00 20 200 0 20 2003 2 2 20 20 r 20 y c h y c h y e r 2003 y uar M ay July 2002 r M a July 2003 b M a n M ar nuar M a M arc h 2004 Ja Ja January 200 e p te m b e r S N ovem ber 20 S e p te m N o v e m b e
Figure 3.1 - Average Daily Flows
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 8 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
The basic potable water need is represented by flows during the non-irrigating months, which in this case is 72,000 gpd or 207 gpcpd. System leakage, which was reported as 7% in the 2002 WWDC Water System Survey, is also included in this figure. The additional 115,000 gpd during peak summer months is assumed to be primarily due to irrigation of lawns and gardens. This irrigation water could be supplied as raw water rather than potable water, which would decrease the need for 115,000 gallons of potable water each day from the water treatment plant and 115,000 gallons of capacity in the water storage tank. Figure 3.2 shows the fluctuation in average flows over the past two years. Each flow number represents the average gallons per minute delivered by the water treatment plant over month’s time.
TOWN OF BAGGS AVERAGE GALLONS PER MINUTE
250
200
150
100 GAL./MIN.
50
0
2 2 3 4 4 0 02 0 0 0 0 002 002 0 00 004 0 2 2 2 2003 2003 2003 20 2 y 2 r r 2 2 y r ly ch er e a Ju be ber 20 July 2003b b rch u May 2002 m May 2003 uary Ma March te Mar an Ma Jan vem January ptem vem J e o Sep No S N
Figure 3.2 - Average Flows (gpm)
3.3 Current Billing Rates
The water rate schedule in Baggs has not changed since the 2002 Level I Report. Rates for both commercial and residential users are as follows:
Minimum usage = 8,000 gallons
In-Town Users
Bill for up to 8,000 gallons = $26.00
Cost per thousand over 8,000 gallons = $3.25
Out-of-Town Users
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 9 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Bill for up to 8,000 gallons = $30.00
Cost per thousand over 8,000 gallons = $3.75.
3.4 Conservation and Future Demand
Unless measures are taken to upgrade the distribution system piping, much of which is old AC pipe, the Town of Baggs can expect to see escalating problems due to leakage. Maintenance personnel are already aware of this problem, and it is quickly becoming a full-time job just trying to keep up with repairs.
Unless the Town can implement a raw water irrigation system, the need for increased output from the water treatment plant and more potable water storage will quickly become a reality.
The 1992 study predicted a population in 2042 of 406 persons using data from the Department of Administration and Fiscal Control (DAFC) and the Wyoming Economic Forecasting Model (WEF), then extrapolating out 30 years using a linear growth factor. The 2000 Level I Study predicted a population in 2030 of 360 persons, slightly under the projection from the previous study. By 2002, it became apparent that a population projection of 360 persons would fall short, as the recently completed census showed the population had already reached 348. That study used a straight-line, one percent annual growth factor to come up with a 30-year projection of 472 residents for the year 2032. These projections do not include out-of-town customers that are hooked up to the Baggs water system. Figure 3.3 shows the Town of Baggs census figures.
Census Population
600 Historic Projected 500
400
300 Population 200
100
0 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 Year
Figure 3.3 - U.S. Census Figures for Baggs
Since Baggs has never really experienced straight-line growth, but instead has always had boom/bust cycles much like most of Wyoming, it was felt that a straight-line projection may not
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 10 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
be realistic. Using census data from 1920 to 2000, the highest population on record is from 1980 where the census reported 433 persons. A realistic growth factor for a peak population during a boom year was felt to be around 10 percent. 433 plus 10 percent is 476, which is within 1.0 percent of the estimate of 472 predicted in the 2002 study. Therefore, for this study, the highest population predicted in the next 30 years is 476. Although out-of-town users are not addressed in this model, the boom/bust cycle does not proportionally increase peak summer demand. Although the population projection may not adequately address out-of-town users, subsequent water demand projections will. Due to the random nature of boom/bust cycles, no one knows when this growth may occur. If CBM exploration continues, it could very well happen sooner, rather than later.
Based on a peak future population of 476, the anticipated average potable water demand (excluding irrigation water) is 100,000 gpd. This is the amount of water the treatment plant would need to produce during the non-irrigating months, or if a raw water system is implemented, the amount needed year-round. This assumes the same basic per capita usage of about 210 gpcpd.
If there is no raw water system implemented, summertime flows would be estimated at 256,000 gpd (one month average), with a single peak day estimated at 322,000 gpd. The per capita usage in this case would be 538 gpcpd, which is 2.6 times higher than the non-irrigating potable water demand.
Clearly, having a raw water system supplying Baggs’ irrigation needs will conserve a huge amount of potable water, as well as the chemicals and water treatment equipment needed to produce it. In this case, the Baggs water treatment plant is capable of producing the basic potable water need of 100,000 gallons per day. It cannot produce the future estimated need, in the event there is no raw water irrigation system, of 256,000 gallons per day.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 11 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
4.0 STORAGE AND TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Isolated Transmission Line
It is important for any public water system to be able to meet the requirements of its customers, even though those requirements are constantly changing. The need for a dedicated transmission line from the water treatment plant in the northeast corner of Baggs to the water storage tank south of town was first identified in the 1992 study, “Little Snake River Basin Planning Study Volume 1 – Evaluation of the Baggs Water Supply, Treatment and Delivery System” by Western Water Consultants. It was pointed out again in the Level I Study 10 years later by AVI as a necessary component to provide the following benefits:
‹ Provide more consistent pressures throughout the system;
‹ Provide more chlorine contact time; and
‹ Reduce filling time and pumping costs.
The system pressure is, as the models show, controlled primarily by the water level in the tank. It is imperative that the water level remain fairly constant in order to maintain consistent pressures throughout the distribution system. It is also important to maintain the tank level in order to handle constantly changing demands, as well as maintaining fire-fighting capabilities. The only way to keep the tank both consistently full, and the water consistently fresh, is by running all the water from the treatment plant through the tank before it goes into the distribution system. This will require one line into the tank, and a separate line out to the distribution system. It is also important that the configuration of those lines be such that a short-circuit through the tank is avoided. Ideally, the last drop of water in should also be the last drop of water out. This is accomplished in some tanks, for example, by running the inlet piping up to the top of the tank, while the outlet comes out the bottom on the opposite side.
A basic SCADA control (supervisory control and data acquisition) system, consisting of an ultrasonic level transmitter in the tank, a central SCADA operator interface panel in the water plant, and a communications connection between the two, would control the water level in the tank automatically. The operator could monitor the tank level on the panel at any time, as well as control the set points for turning the pumps on and off. The panel would be simple to operate by means of a touch screen, and could be used to control future operations such as automating the water treatment plant backwash system. A total of seven sites, including the tank, could be monitored with this system.
The route chosen for the transmission line accomplishes several objectives (see Figure 4.1):
‹ It avoids having to tear up and replace asphalt streets;
‹ It is direct enough to avoid unnecessary head loss and pipe cost, yet in a good location for installing fire hydrants;
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 12 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
‹ It crosses the Ledford Slough and the West Side Canal in reasonably good locations;
‹ It is a realistic compromise between the “through town” option and the “around town” option previously presented.
The pipeline would be constructed using 8-inch diameter, Class 150, DR-18, C900 PVC. Baggs sits on alluvium and there are areas with rocky, cobble-type material that the pipe must be protected from. Therefore, the pipe bedding from 6 inches under the pipe to 12 inches over the pipe should be select granular material no larger than ½-inch rock, and preferably 3/8-inch pea gravel (1/2-sack flowable fill or a sand bedding could also be used in difficult areas). Fittings should be AWWA C900-compatible PVC or Class 250 Ductile or Cast Iron. For corrosion protection, valves and fittings should have 9-lb. sacrificial magnesium anodes, cad-welded to the fitting or valve.
Baggs has historically had only minor soil-related corrosion problems, mostly in areas where the soils are alkaline. This has caused rapid corrosion of galvanized metals – pipe, bolts, etc. The Town has not had any problems with stainless steel or ductile iron, although any ferrous material such as ductile iron would be expected to corrode eventually in such conditions. A soil sample near the south bank of Ledford Slough was tested for resistivity, which can be correlated to soil corrosiveness. The result was 17,800 ohms per centimeter, which is considered non-corrosive. However, for this project it is important that the recommendations for PVC fittings and sacrificial anodes be followed for all fittings and valves to protect them from corrosion.
The highway crossings and slough crossing should be bored using 8-inch SDR-11, 160 psi high- density polyethylene (HDPE) inside 12-inch SDR-11 HDPE carrier pipes. This creates a completely fused system (no joints) that cannot corrode. Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division (DEQ-WQD) regulations require isolation valves on either side of any water crossing over 15 feet wide, with the one nearest the water source being in a manhole. For this project, isolation valves with testing ports in manholes are designed for each side of the slough crossing. The canal crossing is much smaller and could be open-trenched, with permission from the canal’s board. There would be valves located not far upstream and downstream of the canal crossing, should the Town need to isolate that section of pipe.
The hydraulic models show that the Town can provide average daily flows with the tank out of service. Instantaneous peak demands would not be met without the tank. Therefore, any shutdowns to service the tank should be planned for before or after the irrigation season, when demands are low, probably from October to March. To bypass the tank once the transmission line is installed, flows can be directed from the end of the 36-inch chlorination line west into Town, as is currently done. Valves on both the existing line to the tank and the proposed transmission line would be closed to isolate the tank. As long as everyone is informed of the shutdown and the need to conserve water for that period, servicing the tank should be feasible, particularly if it can be done within just a few days. Flows during that time would be limited to the output from the water treatment plant. If at some point in the future the Town does construct a raw water system, the tank could be isolated most any time of year with water provided by the treatment plant and the raw water system. However, if the schedule allows, it is preferable to perform such maintenance procedures during the low-flow times of year.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 14 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Although the isolated transmission line would be available to feed fire hydrants most anywhere along its length, it should not be tapped for services or used as a feeder for other lines. It is important that this line be used for its intended purpose, a dedicated line to ensure the tank is kept filled and fresh.
The estimated cost to design and construct the transmission line is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 - Transmission Line Cost Estimate WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Mobilization 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 100% Pipe Line - 8 In. Dia. Class 150 DR-18 PVC 5300 LF $35.00 $185,500 100% Gate Valves - 8 In. with Anodes 2 Ea $1,000 $2,000 100% Pipe Line Fittings with Anodes 7 Ea $850 $5,950 100% Highway Crossings - Bore 2 Ea $18,000 $36,000 100% Ledford Slough Crossing - Bore 1 Ea $18,000 $18,000 100% Canal Crossing (open cut, repair) 1 Ea $5,000 $5,000 100% 8" Valve & Test Port in Manhole 2 Ea $4,000 $8,000 100% Connection to 36" Line 1 Ea $1,500 $1,500 100% Tank Connection, Plumbing 1 Ea $10,000 $10,000 100% Telemetry (SCADA) 1 LS $18,000 $18,000 100% Flushing Hydrants 2 Ea $3,000 $6,000 100% Sub-Total $325,950 Engineering = 10% $32,595 100% Sub-Total $358,545 Contingency = 15% $53,782 100% Sub-total Construction Cost $412,327 100% Surveying $10,000 100% Legal Fees $4,000 100% Permitting & Mitigation $4,000 100% Geotechnical $8,000 100% Easements $8,000 100% Final Designs & Specs $35,000 100% Total Estimated Cost $481,327 100%
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 15 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
4.2 Increased Storage Alternatives
The Town’s existing storage consists of one bolted steel water tank with 280,000 gallons capacity. The tank was installed in 1977 by TecTank of Parsons, Kansas (now Colombian TecTank of Kansas City, KS). As part of this report, the flow information from the Level 1 Study was updated to include flows from January, 2002 through June, 2004. The highest flows recorded during that time period was for July, 2003 with an average daily flow of 187,100 gpd. The average daily flow during the non- irrigating months is only 67,500 gpd, or about one-third as much, and the average daily flow overall for the past two years was slightly over 90,000 gallons. This is comparable to the 93,000 gpd reported in the Level 1 Study. For this study, the conservative number of 93,000 gpd will be used for Baggs’ average current overall daily demand.
The 30-year projected population of Baggs has been Figure 4.2 - Baggs Water Storage Tank estimated at approximately 476 people (see Section 3.3). By proportioning the current daily flows based on this future population, the projected average daily flow of treated water in 30 years would be 127,200 gpd (yearly average). The average projected flow during non-irrigating months as shown in Section 3.3 is approximately 100,000 gpd and the projected peak flow during the irrigation season is 256,000 gpd.
Wyoming DEQ-WQD regulations (Chapter 12, Section 13) require that public water systems serving from 50,000 to 500,000 gallons average daily demand be capable of providing clearwell and system storage capacity equal to the average daily demand plus fire storage. Using the required 750 gpm fire flow for two hours, or 90,000 gallons, the total current required storage capacity under DEQ Chapter 12 is 183,000 gallons. Under this scenario, the existing 280,000 gallon tank provides a safety factor of 1.53, indicating the tank has 53 percent extra capacity. So based strictly on the DEQ regulations, the existing tank is large enough.
However, based on the highest average daily flow of 187,100 gpd during July, the Town would need a total of 277,100 gallons of storage. The safety factor under this scenario for current peak conditions is 1.01, indicating the tank is adequate, but with no additional margin of safety.
Therefore, although the existing 280,000 gallon tank does technically meet the current DEQ- WQD requirements for storage, it is only marginally adequate for the hottest summer months due to the demand for irrigation water, which nearly triples the requirement for water. This could be greatly alleviated with a raw water irrigation system, as discussed in Section 5. With a raw water system providing water for irrigation needs, there should be very little variation between winter and summer flows. Using the most recent non-irrigating demand of 72,000 gpd (non-irrigation months, 2003) plus 90,000 gallons of fire flow storage yields a safety factor of 1.73 currently, and 1.5 in the future. Therefore, the existing tank would provide sufficient storage, even during the summer months, with a raw water system supplying Baggs’ irrigation needs.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 16 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Projecting 30 years into the future, the total storage capacity based on an average daily flow of 127,200 plus 90,000 gallons for fire suppression would be 217,200 gallons. The 280,000 gallon tank would provide a safety factor in this case of 1.29. In this case, the existing tank is again adequate. In fact, the only scenario where the existing storage is not sufficient is when considering future peak flow of 256,000 gpd (includes irrigation) plus 90,000 gal fire flow storage totals 346,000 gpd, which yields a safety factor 0.81.
It should be noted that for this discussion, the flows listed represent the average daily flows over an entire month’s time because DEQ requires storage capacity equal to average daily demand, not maximum daily demand. It is generally not economical, nor practical, to size equipment for flows that only occur a couple times a year, or on a very sporadic basis.
Storage Alternative #1 is to raise the existing tank 10 feet to provide additional storage of 87,500 gallons. This alternative would entail rebuilding the tank foundation, adding a new 10-foot tall panel to the bottom of the tank, and perhaps replacing the second panel from the top to increase the thickness. The support columns, cleanout, ladder and other items would have to be adjusted as well. The cost evaluation also includes provision for sand-blasting and recoating the existing materials to be reused. This alternative would provide the town a tank in almost new condition, with 367,500 gallons of capacity, at a very reasonable price. The only disadvantage of this alternative is the lack of redundancy in the system. However, if the tank needs to be serviced, it can be done during the low flow months where the tank storage is not as critical to supply the basic system needs for a short time.
Storage Alternative #2 is to install a new 100,000 gallon tank adjacent to the existing tank. This would include the necessary fittings to bypass either or both tanks, as well as additional SCADA controls for the new tank. While this solves the storage redundancy issue, it does introduce some additional complexities. The SCADA system to monitor the tanks becomes somewhat more cumbersome, and the maintenance on the system storage would essentially double in cost and effort. This alternative also comes in at nearly twice the cost of Storage Alternative #1.
Table 4.2 summarizes the above discussion and includes safety factors when considering the addition of 87,500 gals from Alternative #1.
Table 4.2 - Storage Requirement Summary Current, Current, w/o Future (30 years), Future (30 years),
w/Irrigation Irrigation w/Irrigation w/o Irrigation Avg Daily Flow, gpd 93,000 72,000 127,200 100,000 Peak Flow, gpd 187,100 256,000 Fire Flow Storage 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 DEQ Ch 12 Requirement 183,000 162,000 217,200 190,000 DEQ Ch 12 SF 1.53 1.73 1.29 1.47 DEQ Ch 12 SF, Alternative #1 2.01 2.27 1.69 1.93 Peak Flow Requirement 277,100 346,000 Peak Flow SF, Existing 1.01 0.81 Peak Flow SF, Alternative #1 1.33 1.06
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 17 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Table 4.3 - Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Mobilization 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% Materials to Raise Tank 1 LS $32,000 $32,000 100% Replace Foundation 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 100% Sand-blasting/Refinishing 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 100% New SCADA for Tank 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% Sub-Total $102,000 Engineering = 10% $10,200 100% Sub-Total $112,200 Contingency = 15% $16,830 100% Sub-total Construction Cost $129,030 100% Geotechnical $1,500 100% Foundation Design $7,000 100% Final Plans & Specs $12,500 100% Total Estimated Cost $150,030 100%
Table 4.4 - Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Mobilization 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 100% 100 kgal Steel Tank w/Foundation 1 LS $130,000 $130,000 100% Fittings to Tie Tanks Together 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% SCADA for New Tank 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% Sub-Total $170,000 Engineering = 10% $17,000 100% Sub-Total $187,000 Contingency = 15% $28,050 100% Sub-total Construction Cost $215,050 100% Surveying $2,000 100% Geotechnical $10,000 100% Final Plans & Specs $21,000 100% Total Estimated Cost $248,050 100%
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 18 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
5.0 RAW WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
5.1 Background Information
The DA project team evaluated the feasibility of constructing a raw water irrigation system to supply non-potable water for irrigating green areas and lawns within the Town of Baggs. A major benefit to a raw water irrigation system is the corresponding reduction in the daily peak flow requirement from the water treatment plant. Currently, approximately 60 to 70 percent of the peak daily flow required from the water treatment plant is utilized for lawn irrigation. Treating water for this use is an unnecessary burden on the plant operation and overall treatment capacity. It is estimated that a raw water irrigation system would reduce the amount of water that is needed from water treatment plant by at least 50 percent. In addition, a raw water system would reduce the amount of water storage in the storage tank, allowing the Town to meet fire flow requirements. An overview of the raw water irrigation system design is shown on Figures 5.1a and 5.1b.
Currently, there are three large areas within the town limits that utilize raw water for irrigation. These areas include the following:
‹ Jeben’s Park – irrigated with a portable pump from the Little Snake River
‹ High School Track & Football Field and adjacent green area – irrigated with a small pump station and pump house from the Ledford Slough
‹ School Grounds - irrigated with a portable pump from the Little Snake River
Figure 5.2 shows a photo of the existing raw water irrigation system adjacent to the High School Track and Football Field. The total acreage associated with the three green areas listed above is approximately 8 acres. The majority of the other green areas are standard business or residential lots.
Figure 5.2 - Existing Raw Water Irrigation System
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 19 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc EXISTING AREAS IRRIGATED 3 WITH RAW WATER BED URBAN OPMINT AREAS
GENERAL NOTES
IN ASSOCIATION WITH L LEGEND
....-RMWATER IRRIGATION . . . -RIVER . . . . CANNAL ------SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES NON-ANNEXED TOWN
ON LINE
EXISTING WATER TANK
EXISTING AREAS IRRCAT 3 WITH RAW WATER
BED URBAN OPMINT AREAS
5.2 Raw Water Source
The DA project team evaluated several sources of raw water including a review of previous studies sponsored by the Towns of Baggs and Dixon. These studies addressed both ground water and surface water alternatives. In addition to surface water, both the Towns of Baggs and Dixon have addressed shallow and deep ground water alternatives. The water quality is usually poor and existing wells have limited yield. Lidstone and Anderson, Inc. conducted a Level I study for the Town of Dixon and completed a comprehensive look at deep ground water alternatives including the Tertiary Browns Park and Fort Union Formation, and Cretaceous Land and Mesa Verde Formations and did not identify a cost-effective solution for a high quality / quantity water source. Therefore, it was determined that surface water was the most feasible potential source for supplying the raw water irrigation system.
The two main surface water sources which could be utilized for the raw water irrigation system are the Ledford Slough and the Little Snake River. Based on an investigation of the number of diversion permits on Ledford Slough, it does not appear that it is over-appropriated. However, the slough relies on irrigation return flows to generate the base flow yield. There is usually good flow available in the early and middle portions of the summer, during which time the slough would provide an adequate water source for the irrigation system. However, during the late summer, flow in the slough decreases significantly. Since the raw water irrigation system will need to operate into the early fall, utilization of the slough as a reliable source may not be feasible. It was therefore determined that the Little Snake River would be a better source for the raw water irrigation system.
The Town must file for a present day permit with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO) for obtaining flows from the Little Snake River. When this permit goes out of priority, the Town may utilize water from the High Savery Reservoir. The Town has already filed a letter of intent to obtain a water right from the new reservoir for 300 acre-feet of water. This amount would be more than sufficient to provide raw water to the irrigation system, while also serving as a reserve supply for the Town’s potable water use.
The preferred withdrawal point for obtaining flows from the Little Snake River is the West Side Canal, located immediately south of Town. This point is elevated above the Town by approximately 60 feet, which will aid in pressuring the irrigation system. In addition, the canal is a more efficient conveyance system, as delivery loss in the canal will be significantly less than that from the river. The DA project team has discussed obtaining approval and consent from the West Side Canal Ditch Company to use the ditch as a conveyance source for the Town’s raw water. Representatives from the ditch company indicated that this issue would need to be brought before the board for approval. In conversations with these representatives, they noted that there was adequate capacity within the ditch to serve the Town’s raw water needs in terms of flow and timing of flow.
5.3 Raw Water System Capacity
The raw water irrigation system design analysis was based on the peak daily use of 322,000 gpd which allows for long-term growth. It is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the peak daily use is attributed to lawn watering. Therefore, the peak daily use for the raw water irrigation system is approximately 225,000 gpd. To account for variable demand on the system
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 22 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
throughout the day, the raw water system design is based on achieving a peak flow capacity of 250 gpm, or 0.56 cubic feet per second (cfs).
5.4 Raw Water System Components
Required components for the raw water irrigation system include supply source improvements for the diversion from the West Side Canal, and the conveyance system to deliver the water to irrigation areas. Listed below is a summary of the infrastructure improvements that are proposed for the raw water irrigation system.
‹ Diversion structure improvements for the West Side Canal
‹ Addition of a holding pond to act as a settling basin. This should store approximately 1.5 days worth of maximum daily use of the raw water system (338,000 gallons or 1.04 acre- feet). The pond will have geotextile liner (45 mil poly) to reduce seepage losses. A detail of the proposed pond is shown on Figure 5.3. The pond could serve multiple purposes, including a water feature at a new Town-owned park. The pond could be located above the town storage tank and as such maintain a gravity distribution system or it could be located below both the tank and the West Side Canal. In this latter case, the irrigation distribution system would require a booster pump to ensure adequate pressures.
‹ Construction of a raw water conveyance and distribution system throughout Town.
‹ Addition of a booster pump to pressurize the water system.
‹ Addition of delivery points. A single delivery point consisting of a yard hydrant of similar type of hook up will be provided at each residential or business lot. The outlet will include a multi-lingual sign indicating non-potable water. The outlet could also include a key to prevent unauthorized access to the raw water.
Various alternatives were evaluated for the conveyance system including an open ditch (earthen or concrete) system and pipeline routes. While an earthen ditch system will have the lowest construction costs, it will require annual upkeep for cleaning. Any open ditch could present a hazard during the winter when the ditch is obscured by snow. While a concrete ditch would not require as much cleaning, it would still present the same maintenance issues as an earthen ditch. A ditch system would also dictate the need for every resident involved in the irrigation system to have their own pump. Also, culverts would still be needed to carry the water under all the streets and alleys. However, an open ditch system does mitigate the concern for inadvertent drinking of non-potable water. Shallow pipelines, which are more costly and may be more accessible for inadvertent use, are recommended because of their lower operation and maintenance requirements over their lifetime.
Based on the above investigation, it is recommended that shallow pipelines be constructed for the conveyance system. These lines can be buried approximately three feet deep (2 feet of cover over the top) since they will only be operated during the summer and early fall. The shallow bury depth will require that the lines be drained in the fall. Drain points will also be constructed to release water to the river during seasonal maintenance. Standard PVC pipeline materials are recommended for the conveyance system. Either C-900 PVC pipe (100 psi pressure rating) or
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 23 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
SDR-21/26 PVC pipe (200 psi and 160 psi pressure rating) would be adequate. The C-900 pipe has a higher safety factor (4.0), so a lower nominal pressure rating is acceptable in this instance.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 24 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Sizing requirements for the conveyance system were based on the peak flow value of 250 gpm. For the modeling analysis, this flow was distributed throughout the system and a pipe network was developed to convey the design flow rate. Based on the modeling analysis, it was determined that 6-inch diameter primary service lines and 4-inch feeder lines will convey the 250 gpm peak flow requirement. This pipeline network could also provide flows up to approximately 400 gpm, if necessary, without experiencing significant low pressure problems. Summary tables of the modeling analysis have been included in Appendix D.
It should be noted that since the raw water conveyance pipelines are delivering untreated water, precautions are required to protect the potable water distribution pipelines when the two lines are in close proximity. According to WYDEQ/WQD guidelines, when an untreated water line is within 10 feet of a potable water line, the raw water line shall be cased or backfilled with impermeable materials. There are numerous areas in the Town of Baggs where this will be required. It is anticipated that flowable fill, or “flow-fill”, a cement treated backfill, will be utilized for the trench backfill in these areas.
Another recommendation for the raw water irrigation system is a pumping system to boost operational pressure. The current elevation of the West Side Canal would generate an operational pressure of approximately 25 psi, which will not adequately pressurize the system to operate sprinklers. Therefore, pumping will be necessary to provide adequate pressure to efficiently operate individual sprinkler systems. The system pump will include a variable frequency drive unit to provide the variable flow yields. In addition, a screening device will be placed on the pump intake to eliminate debris from entering the irrigation system.
5.5 Raw Water Irrigation System Alternatives
The first raw water system alternative involves constructing the system as recommended above. A second alternative was also developed, as a scaled down version of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 will involve the use of SDR-26 pipe, which is rated for 160 psi (pressure plus surge) and is less expensive than C900 PVC; installation of limited pipe bedding; alternating irrigation days; and construction of a smaller holding pond, thereby reducing excavation and construction costs.
5.6 Raw Water System Cost Estimate
A construction cost estimate for the raw water irrigation system is presented in Table 5.1. The improvements listed in Section 5.3 include a variable frequency drive to operate the proposed pumping system. After discussion with the Town, there may also be a possibility of moving the location of the pond up the hill and pumping from the canal to the settling pond, thereby using that elevation to set the system pressure. These alternatives can be evaluated in greater detail during subsequent design efforts. Based on operation conditions proposed above, it is estimated that the peak monthly operation costs during the summer will average approximately $1000.
Table 5.2 presents a cost estimate for Alternative 2 of the raw water irrigation system. This cost estimate is based on utilizing a lower class pipe than Alternative 1, installing limited pipe bedding material and construction of a smaller holding pond.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 26 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Table 5.1 - Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 1 Cost Estimate
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION AND SOURCE AREA IMPROVEMENTS WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Mobilization 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 100%
Holding Pond Excavation 1825 CY $4.00 $7,300 100% Pond Subgrade Prep & Liner Cover (gravel) 600 CY $15.00 $9,000 100% 45 mill poly liner for pond, installed cost 21100 sq. ft. $1.00 $21,100 100% Diversion structure West Side Ditch 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 100% 10 HP Pump w/ VFD, electrical Panel, Valves & Pump Pad 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 100% 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe 2000 LF $16 $32,000 100% Power Line Hookup 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 100% Property Access 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% Sub-Total for Transmission & Source Improvements $138,900 100%
RAW WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe 5250 LF $16 $84,000 0% 4 in. dia. PVC Pipe 5900 LF $14 $82,600 0% 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe w/ Flo- Fill Backfill 7250 LF $18 $130,500 0% 4 in. dia. PVC Pipe w/ Flo- Fill Backfill 5900 LF $16 $94,400 0% 6 in. Gate Valve 8 Ea $350 $2,800 0% 4 in. Gate Valve 16 Ea $250 $4,000 0% 4 in. & 6 in. Fittings 60 Ea $150 $9,000 0% Highway Crossings - Borings 3 Ea $12,000 $36,000 0% Raw Water Service Connection & Lawn Hydrant 215 Ea $300 $64,500 0% Sub-Total for Distribution System Improvements $507,800 0% Sub-Total $646,700 21.48% Engineering = 10% $64,670 21.48% Sub-Total $711,370 21.48% Contingency = 15% $106,706 21.48% Sub-total Construction Cost $818,076 21.48% Surveying $12,000 50% Legal Fees $3,000 50% Permitting & Mitigation $5,000 50%
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 27 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Geotechnical $8,500 50% Easements $3,000 50% Final Designs & Specs $45,000 50% Total Estimated Cost $894,576 Total WWDC Eligible Cost $213,959 23.9% Total WWDC Non-Eligible Cost $680,617 76.1%
Table 5.2 - Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 2 Cost Estimate
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION AND SOURCE AREA IMPROVEMENTS WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Mobilization 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 100% Holding Pond Excavation 1000 CY $4.00 $4,000 100% Pond Subgrade Prep & Liner Cover (gravel) 300 CY $15.00 $4,500 100% 45 mill poly liner for pond, installed cost 10550 sq. ft. $1.00 $10,550 100% Diversion structure West Side 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Ditch 100% 10 HP Pump w/ VFD, electrical Panel, Valves & Pump Pad 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 100% 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe (Transmission) 2000 LF $11 $22,000 100% Power Line Hookup 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 100% Property Access 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 100% Sub-Total for Transmission & Source Improvements $110,550 100%
RAW WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe 5250 LF $11 $57,500 0% 4 in. dia. PVC Pipe 5900 LF $9 $53,100 0% 6 in. dia. PVC Pipe w/ Flo-Fill Backfill 7250 LF $13 $94,250 0% 4 in. dia. PVC Pipe w/ Flo-Fill Backfill 5900 LF $11 $64,900 0% 6 in. Gate Valve 8 Ea $350 $2,800 0% 4 in. Gate Valve 16 Ea $250 $4,000 0% 4 in. & 6 in. Fittings 60 Ea $150 $9,000 0% Flushing Hydrant 5 Ea $5000 $15,000 0% Highway Crossings - Borings 3 Ea $12,000 $36,000 0% Raw Water Service Connection & Lawn Hydrant 215 Ea $300 $64,500 0% Sub-Total for Distribution System Improvements $401,300 0%
Sub-Total $511,850 21.6% Engineering = 10% $51,185 21.6% Sub-Total $563,035 21.6%
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 28 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Contingency = 15% $84,455 21.6% Sub-Total Construction Cost $647,490 21.6% Surveying $12,000 50% Legal Fees $3,000 50% Permitting & Mitigation $5,000 50% Geotechnical $8,500 50% Easements $3,000 50% Final Designs & Specs $50,000 50% Total Estimated Cost $728,990 Total WWDC Eligible Cost 180,595 24.8% Total WWDC Non-Eligible Cost 548,395 75.2%
Note Cost estimates provided in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 do not include the costs of water meters for the raw water irrigation system. It is proposed that users pay a monthly or seasonal fee for raw water depending upon the size and number of their taps/yard hydrants. This payment method is used successfully by other towns such as Basin and East Thermopolis.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 29 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
6.0 REGIONALIZATION
The feasibility of developing a regional system to connect the towns of Baggs, Dixon, and Savery and adjacent rural residents was investigated. Figure 6.1 presents the conceptual plan for regionalization. Rural residents within one mile of the proposed transmission line were considered as potential hook-ups. Major benefits of a regional system include (1) the ability to mitigate high operation and maintenance costs, which are currently endured by each of these small towns and are likely to increase in the future; (2) the ability to provide high quality water not only to the incorporated municipalities, but also to rural residents; (3) the establishment of a larger population base and service area, resulting in increased fiscal support and professional responsibilities for the water treatment plant and system operators; and (4) creation of equalization storage, storage for fire flows, and redundancy in the individual water systems, along with the funding base to support these improvements.
It is important to note that any regionalized system will not develop overnight, but rather will require a number of years to: (1) develop an administrative framework; (2) acquire funding; and (3) design and build it. A proposed administrative framework for this regional system would include initial Steering Committee representatives from each interested incorporated entity (Dixon and Baggs), a representative from the unincorporated town of Savery and a County Commissioner or other local representative from the Lower Little Snake River Valley. The Steering Committee, which is an informal administrative body, will serve to guide the program, develop an initial set of by-laws and develop the voting framework for its successor, a Regional Joint Powers Board (the Board). It is this latter body, which, pursuant to the Wyoming Joint Powers Act (WS 16-102 through 109) is a public body and an established legal entity, which can provide, conduct and perform planning, financing, acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of a water supply and delivery project.
Although there are numerous alternatives, all such joint powers boards should consist of an established number of members. These members should all be elected or appointed from each participating agency, incorporated municipality, or legally established water district. An odd number of members, to ensure plurality, is recommended. In the event that an even number of participants serves as the foundation of the Board, an additional member should be selected by a combined determination of all other participating entities (an at-large member). Each member should have a single vote, despite the size of the participating entity. With this in mind, no single town or water district would dominate the decisions of the Board. The Board should recognize that each entity brings something different to the table. This may include a good water source, larger population, existing water storage or storage opportunities, administrative skills, and/or an economic position to assist in financing. Each entity will receive benefit from the regionalization opportunity, which may include a better water source, source redundancy, financing opportunities, and cost effective storage for peak water demand or fire flows. With respect to the Little Snake River Valley, the most significant advantage of a regional water system can be found in shared personnel, shared training expenses, shared Operations and Management costs and most importantly a larger population base to draw trained personnel to the Valley.
The proposed regional water system would include a new water treatment plant north of Savery sourced by an infiltration gallery in Savery Creek. It is anticipated that this source will have higher quality water with lower turbidity than the Little Snake River. The High Savery Dam
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 30 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
would serve to moderate seasonal flow fluctuations in both turbidity and discharge and a regional storage tank would be constructed at a suitable elevation above Savery. The towns of Baggs, Dixon and Savery would be connected via an 8-inch transmission line. The existing storage tanks in Baggs and Dixon would supplement system storage, while additional storage could be added at one or both of these locations. Service area information, including the number of users which could be incorporated into the regional system, is presented in Table 6.1. Population estimates were based on U.S. Census data for the three communities and adjusted per conversations with the towns of Baggs and Dixon. The 2033 Taps estimate for the Town of Baggs includes “out-of-town” users as discussed in Section 2. Conceptual level costs for this regional system are presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.1 - Service Area Information
2003 2003 30 Year 2033 Town Population Taps Estimate Taps Baggs 358 274 477 281 Dixon 80 47 106 63 Rural Residents 95 56 126 74 Savery 13 NA 17 10 Total 385 428
2033 Taps for the System 428 Taps System Capacity (1 gpm per tap for source development and treatment plant) 428 GPM Peak Daily Use for Little Snake Valley Communities 1000 Gal/Tap Peak Daily Use 428,000 Gal/Day
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 31 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc LEOEND
8 IN. TRANSMISSION LINE
WATER TANK
TREATMENT PLANT
m POTENTIAL RURAL USERS
GENERAL NOTES
BAGGS WATER AND RAW WATER SUPPLY
R REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM Scale in Feet CONCEPTUAL PLAN
0 2500 5000 10000
Table 6.2 - Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Regional System WWDC Funding Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Eligibility Infiltration Gallery, Intake Piping Pump Plant 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 100% Prepackage Water Treatment Plant - 428 gpm Capacity 1 LS $1,300,000 $1,300,000 100% Site Work & Electrical 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 100% Telemetry System 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 100% 120,000 gallon Storage Tank 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 100% Booster Station 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 100% 8 in. Transmission Main from Water Plant to Tank 2250 LF $26 $58,500 100% 8 in. Transmission Main from Tank to Dixon 27820 LF $26 $723,320 100% 8 in. Transmission Main from Dixon to Baggs 36633 LF $26 $952,458 100% Transmission Line Easement Acquisition 66703 LF $0.50 $33,352 100% Misc. Valves & Pipe Appurtenances 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 100% Highway Crossings 2 Each $20,000 $40,000 100% Rural Resident Hook-up 28 Each $3,000 $84,000 0% Savery Hook-Up 10 Each $3,000 $30,000 0% SUBTOTAL $4,396,630 97.5% ENGINEERING = 10% $439,663 100% SUB-TOTAL $4,836,292 100% CONTINGENCY = 15% $725,444 100% SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $5,561,736 97.5% SURVEYING $20,000 100% LEGAL $20,000 100% PERMITTING $15,000 100% GEOTECHNICAL $20,000 100% EASEMENTS $10,000 100% FINAL PLANS / SPECIFICATIONS $250,000 100% TOTAL COSTS $5,896,736 97.5% Notes / Assumptions: 1 50 percent participation of rural users in the Valley was assumed. The number of rural users was calculated from aerial photographs of the Little Snake River Valley. 2 Rural hook-up costs are based on an estimate of individual service connections to the regional system. Each connection would include a service tap, meter, meter box, and backflow prevention. Service and distribution line costs are not included and would be supported under rural water district financing.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 33 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Based on discussions with the Town of Dixon, its Town Council appreciates the opportunity but has no interest in a regional system at this time. Dixon’s water treatment plant is relatively new and working very well. The Town of Dixon has retired a significant portion of their debt associated with that improvement and is not interested in further indebtedness for the purpose of regionalization. The Town expressed concern regarding higher system operator requirements, ownership of the new system and their obligations to an “outside” water supply provider.
In discussions with the Town of Baggs, its Town Council appreciates the advantages of regionalization and shared costs, but recognizes that a regional system may not be realistic at this time. Baggs is currently considering the replacement and/or upgrade of their water treatment plant as well as other system improvements. The timing of regionalization in light of the above mentioned system improvements and lack of regional support appear to make a Little Snake River Valley Regional System unrealistic. Further discussions and negotiations between communities within the Valley will be required, if the concept of regionalization is to proceed.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 34 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
7.0 PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES For this project to proceed with construction, the Town will be required to obtain certain permits, rights of way, and easements. State, county, and federal agencies must be contacted as part of the Level III process. In some instances, the initial contacts have already been made. The following issues for each alternative must be addressed during the final design.
7.1 Permitting and Easements
Private Land Easements. Easements will be required for any portion of the isolated transmission line construction, water distribution system improvement, storage tank replacement, and raw water system construction that impact private land and for which easements are not already in place. Carbon County must be contacted to obtain a permit to place a transmission line within any county road right of way.
Highway Department Easements. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WyDOT) must be contacted for any construction activity within or under a state road right of way. In this case any transmission or distribution line placed within the Wyoming Highway 70 or Highway 789 right of way will require a permit from WyDOT. Any borings, including service borings will require consent from WyDOT.
USACE §404 Permit. The isolated transmission lines associated with the existing and/or new storage tank will cross the West Side Ditch and the Ledford Slough. The intake for the proposed raw water distribution system will either be within the Little Snake River or the West Side Canal. National Wetland Inventory mapping has designated all of these features as wetlands. The Ledford Slough and Little Snake River are also classified as Waters of the United States. If either of these alternatives is selected, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must be contacted and a wetland delineation will be performed, as required. Activities in an area classified as a Jurisdictional Wetland will require a Nationwide or possibly, a §404 Permit from the USACE and §401 authorization from the State of Wyoming. Depending on the projected impact, a wetlands mitigation plan may be required.
WDEQ/WQD Permit to Construct. All system improvements will require a Permit to Construct from the WDEQ/WQD.
7.2 Environmental Aspects of Alternatives
An Environmental Report was completed by the DA team to supplement this Level II Report. The alternatives investigated for the purposes of the Environmental Report include the following:
‹ Upgrade of the existing water storage tank ‹ Construction of a new water storage tank. ‹ Addition of an isolated transmission main to the water storage tank ‹ Development of a raw water irrigation system
In addition, potential distribution system improvements were identified during the course of this Level II investigation. These improvements are discussed further in Section 9. The following is
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 35 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
a brief summary of the conclusions of the Environmental Report in reference to the alternatives outlined herein.
Visual Impact. There will be no major visual impacts as a result of the implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. The impact caused by installation of a new storage tank is considered minor considering that a storage tank already exists at the proposed site location. There will be no long-term visual impacts associated with the isolated transmission line, distribution system upgrades, or the raw water distribution system because all construction will be below ground.
Land Use. No long-term change in land use will occur with the implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. Under all scenarios, a search for gas and utility lines will be performed prior to installation of new transmission and distribution lines. Easements for the proposed isolated transmission lines, water distribution upgrades, raw water distribution system, and storage tank alternatives will be secured as needed from the appropriate landowner.
Floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has produced a Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town. The map indicates that certain portions of the Town, generally adjacent to the Little Snake River and the Ledford Slough, are within a Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by the 100-year Event. All proposed activities, with the exception of upgrades to, or the replacement of, the existing storage tank will occur to some extent within the Special Flood Hazard Area. There will be no cause for a “Letter of Map Revision” because all of the proposed construction activities within the Special Flood Hazard Area will be underground and will not cause a rise in flood elevations.
Wetlands. Impacts to potential wetlands within the Ledford Slough and the West Side Ditch are associated with the installation of an isolated transmission line that will provide a direct connection between the water treatment plant and the storage tank. Potential wetland impacts involved with distribution system upgrades would occur along Ledford Slough in the area of South Street. Construction of a raw water distribution system may result in impacts to one or more of the following potential wetland areas: Ledford Slough, West Side Ditch, and the Little Snake River. If an alternative is selected that has the potential to impact a wetland area, a formal wetland delineation will be undertaken and, if necessary, the appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will be obtained. The appropriate ACOE permit will be obtained if an alternative is selected that will result in a transmission or distribution line crossing a stream channel with a defined bed and bank (qualifying it is as a Water of the United States). Any new diversion or improvement of the existing West Side Canal diversion off the Little Snake River (raw water irrigation system) will require a permit from the ACOE.
Cultural Resources. The Wyoming State Historical Preservation Office has been contacted to perform a record search for the proposed impact areas. A formal survey, if required, will be conducted once an alternative has been selected.
Water Quality. Implementation of the water distribution system upgrades or raw water irrigation alternatives associated with improvements to the water transmission and distribution system will not result in any point source discharge. It is anticipated that a General Stormwater Permit will not be required for distribution system improvements as the disturbance associated with pipeline replacement within the corporate boundary should be less than one acre. Activities associated with the installation of a storage tank will require some degree of land clearing that may exceed
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 36 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
the one-acre criteria. If either of these two alternatives is selected, the appropriate discharge permit will be obtained. Upon completion of pipeline and tank installation, the disturbed area will be re-graded, seeded, and mulched. Roads constructed to provide access to the storage tank location will be constructed using Best Management Practices to minimize problems associated with drainage and sedimentation. No degradation of surface or ground water quality is anticipated during or after the completion of this project.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 37 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
8.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND ABILITY TO PAY
As discussed in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0, the DA project team recommends the Town of Baggs complete the following upgrades and improvements to the water system infrastructure:
‹ Develop a raw water irrigation system ‹ Add an isolated transmission main to the water storage tank ‹ Upgrade the existing water storage tank
A conceptual design was also developed for a regional water system that would serve the communities of Baggs, Dixon, and Savery and rural residents along the proposed transmission line route. Cost estimates were developed and presented for each of the proposed water system improvement alternatives. There are several potential sources for funding these projects. These sources include, but are not limited to, the following:
‹ Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC): 50% grant, 50% loan at an interest rate of 6.0% for 30 years. ‹ Rural Utilities Service (RUS): Loan or grant/loan package depending on eligibility. Loan interest rate at 5.0% for 30 years. . ‹ Wyoming State Loan & Investment Board (SLIB): 50% Mineral Royalty Grant, 50% loan at an interest rate of 6% for 30 years. ‹ Wyoming Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF): Loan package of 2.5% for 20 years. An SRF loan could replace the WWDC or SLIB loan package.
For the purposes of this presentation, we have incorporated a WWDC grant/loan package for the upgrades and improvements which meet the WWDC funding criteria. This includes improvements related to water source and supply development, water storage, and water transmission systems. Some of the recommended improvements for the raw water irrigation system also involve distribution related upgrades which are not eligible for WWDC funding. For this portion of the project, financing is based on obtaining a Mineral Royalty Grant from the SLIB along with a loan from the SRF. Funding from the SRF is available at an interest rate of 2.5% for a term of 20 years and can be used for both the supply and distribution portions of the project. Preparation of an Environmental Report is required to obtain a SRF loan. The Environmental Report which was prepared by the DA team and discussed in Section 7.0 may be utilized by the Town for this purpose. Money from this program is made available on a “need basis”.
8.1 Financing Analysis for the Transmission Line
Cost estimates for the transmission line improvements are described in Section 4.0. Funding for this project is based on a financing package from the WWDC. The Town of Baggs could also apply for and obtain a 2.5% loan from SRF, rather than the less favorable 6% loan from WWDC. The associated debt retirement (WWDC grant/loan) is shown in Table 8.1. The costs shown below include capital improvements and debt retirement only, and are in addition to current water system costs, including operation and maintenance. Debt retirement conservatively assumes “no growth” or 274 (2003) taps.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 38 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Table 8.1 - Financing for Transmission Line Improvements
Item Financing Amount Construction cost WWDC eligible $481,327 WWDC 50-percent Grant $240,664 Loan Amount $240,664 WWDC Loan @ 6.0% - 30 yr. 1 Annual Payment / 12 $1,457.00
Monthly Tap Cost Increase for 274 Taps $5.32 2 Monthly O&M Cost $0.00 Total Monthly Cost per Tap $5.32 1. Assumes annual payments to be made by the Town, with the cost per tap to be collected monthly.
2. It is expected that there will be a reduction in time required by the water plant operator to adjust the water level in the tank, which would save on O&M. However, the monthly tap cost will remain the same in order to pay for the loan.
8.2 Financing Analysis for the Storage Tank Alternatives
As presented in Section 4.2, two alternatives were prepared for upgrading the Town’s water storage facilities. Alternative 1 involves increasing the capacity of the existing storage tank. This expansion would be accomplished by adding a 10 foot ring to the base of the tank and increasing the storage volume by 87,500 gallons. Alternative 2 involves the construction of a new 100,000 gallon steel tank. The associated debt retirement costs for the two proposed alternatives are shown in Tables 8.2 and 8.3 (next page). Funding for the storage tank improvements is based on a financing package from the WWDC. The Town of Baggs could also apply for and obtain a 2.5% loan from SRF, rather than the less favorable 6% loan from WWDC. The costs shown below include capital improvements and debt retirement only, and are in addition to current water system costs, including operation and maintenance. Debt retirement conservatively assumes “no growth” or 274 (2003) taps.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 39 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
Table 8.2 - Financing for Storage Tank Upgrade - Alternative 1 Financing Item Amount Construction cost WWDC eligible $150,030 WWDC 50-percent Grant $75,015 Loan Amount $75,015 WWDC Loan @ 6.0% - 30 yr. Annual Payment / 12 $454.15
Monthly Tap Cost Increase for 274 Taps $1.66 Monthly Cost per Tap $1.66 1. Monthly O&M cost will not change from the current level. The current O&M budget will be adequate to continue cleaning and inspections of the rehabilitated tank.
Table 8.3 - Financing for Storage Tank Upgrade - Alternative 2 Item Financing Amount Construction cost WWDC eligible $248,050
WWDC 50-percent Grant $124,025 WWDC Loan Amount $124,025 WWDC Loan @ 6.0% - 30 Year term $750.86 Annual Payment / 12 Totals Monthly Cost $750.86 Monthly Tap Cost Increase for $2.74 274 Taps $0.61 Monthly O&M Cost per Tap 1 $3.35 Total Monthly Cost per Tap 1. Monthly O&M cost is based on alternating full tank recoating and spot repair on a 15-year cycle.
8.3 Financing Analysis for the Raw Water Irrigation System
Section 6.0 of the report presented the conceptual design information and the construction cost estimate for installing a raw water irrigation system for Baggs. This project would include both transmission system improvements and distribution system improvements. Therefore, the proposed funding package will include the WWDC, SLIB and SRF. Based on the construction cost estimate, approximately 22 percent of the improvements are eligible for funding by the WWDC and 78 percent by the SLIB and SRF. Tables 8.4 and 8.5 detail the financing analyses for the debt retirement of Alternatives 1 and 2 for the raw water irrigation system. All costs shown below include capital improvements and debt retirement only, and are in addition to
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 40 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
current water system costs, including operation and maintenance. It should be stressed that the raw water irrigation system will have a significant impact to the water treatment plant operation. Construction of a raw water irrigation system will most likely reduce the summer water usage from the plant and will therefore reduce the required operating cost of the water treatment plant. If a raw water system is implemented, the Town of Baggs could downsize the proposed water treatment plant improvements.
Table 8.4 - Financing for the Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 1 Item Financing Amount Item Finance Amount Construction cost WWDC $213,959 Construction cost SLIB $680,617 eligible eligible WWDC 50-percent Grant $106,980 SLIB 50-percent Grant $340,309 WWDC Loan Amount $106,980 SRF Loan Amount $340,309 WWDC Loan @ 6.0% - 30 $647.66 SRF Loan @ 2.5% - 20 Year $1,819.15 Year term, Annual Pmt / 12 term, Annual Pmt / 12 Monthly Cost $647.66 Monthly Cost $1,819.15 Monthly Tap Cost Increase Monthly Tap Cost Increase for 274 Taps $2.36 for 274 Taps $6.64
Total Per Tap $9.00
Monthly O&M Cost $2.40
Total Monthly Cost per Tap $11.40
Table 8.5 - Financing for the Raw Water Irrigation System Alternative 2 Item Financing Amount Item Financing Amount Construction cost Construction cost SLIB WWDC eligible $180,595 eligible $548,395 WWDC 50-percent SLIB 50-percent Grant Grant $90,298 $274,198 Loan Amount $90,298 Loan Amount $274,198 WWDC Loan @ 6.0% - SRF Loan @ 2.5% - 20 yr. 30 yr., Annual Pmt / 12 $546.67 Annual Pmt / 12 $1,465.75
Monthly Tap Cost Monthly Tap Cost Increase Increase for 274 Taps $2.00 for 274 Taps $5.35 Total Per Tap $7.35 Monthly O&M Cost $2.40 Total Monthly Cost per Tap $9.75
8.4 Financing Analysis for the Regional Water System
A conceptual design was developed for a regional water system that would serve the residents of the Little Snake River Valley. Since this would be relatively large and expensive project, several entities would be involved in the financing package for the regional water system. The financing plan described herein is based on obtaining grant monies from the WWDC and RUS. The loan
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 41 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
would also be financed by RUS. The entire regional system service area will be treated as a single entity for RUS’s income review for the financing plan. It is assumed that the Little Snake River Valley municipalities would qualify for RUS’s intermediate income financing plan. A rural or multiple rural water districts would need to be formed to develop and pay for a distribution system at Savery and assist in distribution and service to multiple rural users. This rural entity (entities) would serve as a member of the Joint Powers Board and would be responsible for collections, payments and service assessments. With this in mind, the financing evaluation for the regional water system is based on the following funding scenario:
‹ WWDC - 50 percent grant ‹ USDA/Rural Development – 15 percent grant ‹ USDA/Rural Development – 35 percent loan for a 30 year term, 5 percent interest rate
Table 8.6 presents the financing plan evaluation for the regional water system.
Table 8.6 - Financing for the Regional Water System Item Financing Amount Construction cost WWDC eligible $5,896,736 WWDC 50 percent Grant $2,948,368 RUS 15 percent Grant $884,510 RUS Loan $2,063,858 RUS Loan @ 5.0% - 30 yr. Annual Payment / 12 $11,188.07 Monthly Tap Cost Increase for 428 Taps $26.14
Notes: Assumes active participation of the Towns of Dixon, Baggs and their out-of-town services as well as 100 percent participation of the Town of Savery and 50 percent participation of rural users within one mile of the transmission line.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 42 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following information details the recommendations for the Town of Baggs’ water supply, storage and transmission system. These recommendations are listed in order of priority, based on the Level II Investigation.
‹ Raw Water Irrigation System - A raw water irrigation system supplied by the Little Snake River and the High Savery Reservoir would reduce the Town’s peak daily use requirement for potable water. This would decrease the demand on the water treatment plant and would also ensure that the water tank can be operated at a full level. This will benefit the distribution system’s capability to ensure that it can meet fire flow requirements. A significant cost savings in other areas of improvement, such as the water treatment plant and water storage, could be achieved if the raw water irrigation system was implemented.
‹ Dedicated Transmission Main – An isolated transmission main from the water treatment plant to the water storage tank will improve water taste, promote water turnover in the tank, improve chlorine contact time and provide more consistent system pressures. By installing an isolated transmission line, the Town ensures that the tank is consistently full, and the water consistently fresh. It allows the operator to control the tank level much better, and ensure that there is always a full tank available in case of a fire.
‹ Distribution System Improvements – Many of the Town’s water distribution lines are deteriorating and/or undersized, and at or beyond the end of their design life. To alleviate this problem, the DA project team recommended a three-phase project to begin replacing the aging and undersized lines. The Town has applied for a mineral royalty grant through the Wyoming State Lands and Investments Board to initiate Phase I of the project. The Phase I project will eliminate most of the major flow restrictions in the distribution system.
‹ Increase Water Storage Capacity – The Town’s water storage can be supplemented either by enlarging the existing tank or installing a new tank. The raw water irrigation system would significantly decrease the peak daily use during the summer time period, so a storage tank upgrade may not be needed if a raw water irrigation system is constructed. However, if a raw water system is not implemented, the Town will need the extra storage capacity during the summer months.
‹ Land Use – The moratorium on new “out-of-town” sales should continue until the Town can develop a consistent, high quality water supply which meets the “in-town” and current “out of town” obligations. With respect to the current out-of-town users, the Town should carefully review the costs of annexation versus potential long term costs and liabilities. Providing water, but not water service, to these residents can compromise the Town’s system. Inadequate backflow prevention could result in the unanticipated return of “out-of-town” water to the municipal system. A leak in an “out-of-town” line could create a significant strain on the Town’s water treatment system, with the repair of that leak beyond the Town’s control. Repair and maintenance of these “out-of-town” systems by unlicensed or untrained operators could result in water quality and/or leakage issues that may impact the Town.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 43 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
‹ Land Use – With the above in mind and if the Town maintains this moratorium and requires annexation of any new area that is served by the Town’s water system, they should develop a plan for annexation. In light of the fact that replacement or upgrades of the current “out-of-town” distribution systems may be too great for the Town taxpayers to absorb, the Town could place a 5 to 10-year limit to the renewal of all out-of-town water user agreements and direct that these “out-of town” systems use this period to upgrade their distribution system to meet city standards. Once these systems meet current standards, the Town could annex these outlying areas and maintain their water distribution systems as part of the town’s system.
‹ Regional System – While a regional system would be beneficial to the communities of the Little Snake River Valley, it does not have regional support and may be cost prohibitive relative to the existing system debt and repayment strategy. Regionalization would provide Dixon and Baggs with a redundant water supply while serving rural residents and the Town of Savery and its outlying areas off of the transmission line and regional storage. This issue can be revisited in the future if adequate interest from the surrounding communities is generated.
‹ Operation and Maintenance – The following are recommendations to improve the operation and maintenance of the system, many of which the Town currently has in effect.
o Ensure all fire hydrants are accessible and unobstructed.
o Flush hydrants at a minimum of once per year to reduce bacteria buildup.
o Exercise all gate valves within the distribution and transmission system at least once per year.
o Locate valves on maps by measuring to two other features, such as hydrants, power poles, fence corners, etc. This will ensure less effort to relocate the valves if they get buried or paved over.
o Install valves in valve boxes. Manholes and vaults may also be used, but should be limited to locations that require access for testing or adding chlorine.
o Space transmission valves every 2,000 feet, or wherever distribution lines loop in.
o Ensure acceptable backflow prevention is installed at every service line and out- of-town line to prevent cross-connections, in accordance with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division regulations.
o A representative from the Town should attend the American Water Works Association Annual Meeting / Convention at least once every three to four years, or the annual Wyoming Rural Water Association meeting. The classes and seminars at these meetings will keep the staff abreast of the changes in
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 44 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc
technologies and useful products, as well as Federal Rules and Regulations regarding the Safe Drinking Water Act, etc.
o Consider instituting a water conservation program to reduce water demands. A public awareness program for such a program typically addresses issues such as leak detection (taps, toilets, etc.), hydrant flow restrictors (showers), and lawn watering.
o Implement applicable provisions of the Source Water Protection Plan recently developed by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
10.0 REFERENCES
Geotechnical Corporation, 1983, Ground Water Report on the Proposed Hunt Subdivision near Baggs, Wyoming prepared for Mr. H. Hunt.
Western Water Consultants, Inc., 1992, Little Snake River Basin Planning Study, Volume 1 – Evaluation of the Baggs Water Supply, Treatment and Delivery System prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission.
AVI Professional Corporation, 2002, Town of Baggs, Wyoming Level I Water Master Plan prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, Wyoming Incorporated Place Population Estimates, Sorted Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table SUB-EST2002-07-56.
Black & Veatch Corporation, 2004, Town of Baggs, Wyoming Water Treatment Plant Expansion - Preliminary Engineering Report.
Donnell & Allred, Inc. 45 Level II Report November 1, 2004 S:\Projects\2004\04104-WWDC-Baggs\Baggs CD\WYDA101 Final Report.doc APPENDIX A
Out-of-Town Water User Agreement OUT-OF-TOWNWATER USER AGREEMENT TOWN OF BAGGS. WYOMING
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on this &/dayof a 2003, by and between the TOWN OF BAGGS, Carbo hereafter referred to as "TOW, and (individually)(jointly and severally) h
wITNJ5SSETH: WHEREAS, the USER owns d property in the vicinity of the corporate limits of the TOWN, on which USER'S residence/business is located, and
WHEREAS, the TOWN owns a water treatment plant and water supply system, and,
WHEREAS, USER desires that domestic/residential water service be provided by TOWN to USER'S real property under the terms and conditions as found in this agreement.
NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Agreement is specifically subject to and is not valid until it has received a majority vote by the Baggs Town Council and the same has been determined to be economically feasible and in the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Baggs, which said determinations shall be made in the sole and absolute discretion of the Baggs Town Council.
2. USER agrees that their use of the water service provided by the TOWN shall be for the specific purpose of doinestic andfor residential consumption. Specifically excluded shall be any and all types of commercial agricultural irrigation or any other commercial use. However, a commercial business structure may have indoor water use for sanitary purposes only.
3. USER agrees that they will install and maintain their own water service and water service lines, in their entirety, which said lines shall originate at the TOWN's master meter which shall be located at the municipal boundary and extend outward to USER'S . property. The TOWN shall have no liability for the installation or maintenance of any water service meters or lines. In the event of a leak, or unexplained loss of water, which occurs beyond the TOWN's master meter, the difference between the metered usage at the master meter and the total of the metered usage for all USERS on the line will be divided by the number of USERS and all USERS will be billed proportionately. USER agrees that the TOWN may perform any and all maintenance measures on USERS water meter at the USER'S sole cost and expense. USER agrees that so long as this agreement is in effect, USER hereby irrevocably gives to the TOWN authorization to operate USER's water curb stop/corporation stop, if needed, for any and all purposes necessary in the providing of water service. USER agrees that so long as this agreement is in effect, USER hereby irrevocably grants to the TOWN the right of ingress and egress onto USER'S property for any and all purposes necessary in the providing of water service and the enforcement of this agreement by the TOWN.
4. USER agrees to pay for water delivered through the TOWN'S water meter at that rate for water service to out of town users, as set by ordinance adopted by the Baggs Town Council, said rate being subject to change from time-to-time by amendment to said ordinance.
5. USER agrees that all plumbing installations which are done pursuant to this agreement shall be done in accordance with then current Uniform Plumbing Code and shall be subject to inspection by an employee of the Town. I 6 The TOWN shall bill the USER each month for all water used. The USER will then be responsible for payment of the bill in full, no later than the 25~day of each month. If USER shall fail to timely pay the bill for water service rendered, the TOWN may disconnect USER's water service and the amount owing shall become a lien on the real property owned by the USER and served by the water system. If USER'S water service is
Page 1 of 3 disconnected for non-payment of its bill, USER will be required to reapply to the Town Council for an out-of-town water user agreement.
7. USER agrees to abide by the Collection Policy Resolution adopted and enforced by the TOWN for all of its water service users. . . 8. The Agreement will be binding upon the heirs, devisees, administrators and assigns of USER, and may be altered or amended only by written amendment, approved by both TOWN and USER. Any and all Agreements entered into prior to the date of this Agreement will become null and void upon adoption and signing of this Agreement.
9. The USER acknowledges that the TOWN'S foremost responsibility lies in providing adequate water supply to the inhabitants of the Town of Baggs, Wyoming. The USER acknowledges that his service line is a part of and for the benefit of the Stanlen Housing Development private water line. The USER further agrees that should the TOWN encounter a situation involving a shortage or decline in water supply for its' water service system, the TOWN reserves the right to discontinue service to the USER until such time as the water supply has once again returned to a flow adequate to service the USER without endangering the availability of adequate water supply service to the inhabitants of the Town of Baggs, WY.
10. The USER agrees to abide by all pertinent Town of Baggs Ordinances within Municipal Code Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 - Water Service System, as do the inhabitants of the Town of Baggs and that by entering into this agreement that the TOWN may enforce any ordinance in Chapter 13.04 against USER and that USER shall be subject to the fines and penalties as provided in the Town of Baggs Municipal Ordinances for violation of the same. USER further agrees to comply with any and all applicable county, state or federal rules, regulations and laws. Failure to comply with any of the aforementioned shall grounds for immediate termination of this agreement by TOWN.
1 1 The term of this agreement shall be for a period of one year and may be automatically renewed for five (5) additional one-year periods, subject to the same terms and conditions as contained herein. Either party may terminate this agreement within thirty (30) days of the expiration of each term herein by providing the other party written notice of the party's intent to terminate this agreement. Notice shall be provided as set forth in paragraph 12 herein below. Both parties recognize the term of this agreement extends beyond the term of the current governing body of the TOWN.In accordance with current Wyoming law, each of the parties hereto specifically finds the extended term is of a particular benefit to the TOWN and is in the best interest of the public.
12. Any notice or tender required or permitted by this agreement may be delivered in person or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the party at the address hereinafter provided, and if sent by mail, is shall be effective upon the date of mailing:
Town of Baggs: Mayor-Town of Baggs C/O Municipal Clerk P.O.Box 300 Baggs, Wyoming 8232 1
With a copy to: Thomas A. Thompson Baggs Town Attorney P.O. Box 999 Rawlins, Wyoming 8230 1
User:
Notice of change of address shall be treated as any other notice.
Page 2 of 3 13. Nothing contained within this agreement shall waive the immunity granted to the Town under the laws of the State of Wyoming, and the Town specifically preserves any and all immunity granted to them pursuant to Wyoming law and the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (W. S. 5 1-39- 101 et. seq.).
14. Violation of any term or condition of this agreement by USER shall be deemed to be a default under the terms of this agreement, which shall allow TOWN to immediately terminate this agreement.
15. In the event that USER shall breach or default in any of their covenants herein, so as to require TOWN to commence legal or equitable action against the USER, including any action taken to enforce the terms of this agreement, USER agrees to pay all reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the TOWN.
USER v
Date: USER
Date: oz/9h/ Mayor
Date: 47/55
Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX B
Preliminq Engineering Report
Baggs, Wyoming Water System BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION REVIEW, .DRAFT ,q I;-jl /=II?? I
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion B&V File A July 27, 2004
To: Distribution
From: Lela Perkins, Bruce Creamer, Mark Maxwell
The Level 1 Water Supply Master Plan that was previously prepared by AVI and Black & Veatch (BBV) for the Town of Baggs (Town) identified alternatives for expanding capacity and enhancing performance at the water treatment plant (WTP) for a net production rate of 225 gallons per minute (gpm). Two alternatives were selected for further development. The followtng preliminary engineering report (PER) details and evaluates these alternatives.
* A. Alternative 1 - Conventional Treatment Plus Cartridge ' Filtration As schematically depicted on Figure 1, Alternative 1 involves increasing the raw water pumping capacity and re-routing the discharge to a new pretreatment basin. To accommodate a wide range of flows, two new 125-gpm submersible pumps will be installed in the existing raw water wetwell. The wetwell opening will need to be enlarged to accommodate the pump and rail system. The existing horizontal pump will serve as a backup to either submersible pump. The pumps will be provided with adjustable frequency drives (AFDs) to maintain a preset level in the pretreatment basin or preset flow rate to the WTP. A new level switch will be installed in the wetwell to prevent the pumps from running during low water level conditions. From the raw water wetwell, the Town will pump to a new pretreatment basin. A principal purpose of this basin is to provide sufficient contact time for potassium permanganate to oxidize the "mossy" taste and odor compounds that are present in the raw water in the summer, as well as organic compounds that can form undesirable disinfection by-products (DBPs). A secondary objective of BLACK (L VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 2
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 VVTP Expansion July 27, 2004
the new earthen basin is to help reduce the turbidity load on the WTP. When the infiltration gallery was installed in 2003, it was unclear how well it would reduce influent turbidity loads. Data suggests the gallery has become increasingly effective as a 'roughing filter, consistently reducing raw water turbidities to 5 to 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), even when values in the Little Snake River exceed 400 NTUs. At the same time, the hydraulic throughput of the gallery has been adequate to meet the daily demands of the Town. However, should the infiltration gallery ever fail to meet turbidity reduction or capacity requirements, or simply must be taken out of service for repairs, the pretreatment basin can also be used to settle larger solids and reduce the turbidity entering the WTP. During periods of the year when the raw water quality is good and oxidation with potassium permanganate is not required, the contact basin can be bypassed and the water from the gallery routed directly to the contact adsorption clarifier (CAC). Note that when the gallery is off-line for . vaintenance, the surface diversion pipes can he used to rol.lte streamflbw to the raw water pump station and thence to the pretreatment basin or the CAC unit, as desired by the operators. A new level sensor and switch will be installed in the pretreatment basin to monitor the water surface level. The raw water pumps will be set to maintain a constant level in the pretreatment basin. However, an emergency gravity spillway will still be provided to prevent damage to the embankment should an overflow occur. Two 125-gpm submersible transfer pumps with AFDs, and a "shelf spare" pump, will be provided to convey pretreated water to the CAC unit. The new potassium penanganate chemical feed system will be housed in the existing raw water pump station. A %-inch yard hydrant will be installed near the raw water pump station to provide washdown water. The pre-treated water will then be pumped to the CAC. A new flow meter will be installed on the influent to the CAC to control the flow from either the contact basin or the raw water pump station. The existing CAC media is 20 years old and is obsolete with respect to optimal size and shape. In addition, media has been found in the CAC influent conduit, which indicates that the inlet Sep-16-04 04: 22P
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 3
Town of Baggs, Wyoming 8&V Project 138091.200 VVTP Expansion July 27,2004
piping is cracked. Since the performance of the CAC is vital to the overall success of the WTP, the original plastic media, inlet air scour piping, and screens will be replaced as part of this alternative. It is expected that the turbidity of the water leaving the CAC after these improvements are completed will be 0.5 to 1.0 NTUs. In addition, a new relay will be installed in the existing CAC panel to provide remote indication when a backwash cycle is initiated. In response, the raw water pumping will be temporarily increased during the backwash period to ensure an adequate Rushing water flow rate. From the CAC, clarified water will flow into the existing package flocculation/sedirnentation/filtration unit, which operates as two separate and parallel treatment trains. The existing flocculation equipment will be removed and new or modified bulkheads installed to create new filter area from the existing tankage. Two new dual-media (sand and anthracite) filters with plastic underdrain blocks will be constructed. A plenum cap cn the underdralns. rs!$er than gravel, will be used to support the media. In addition, sequential air-water backwash will be provided. The area of each new filter will match that of the existing ones so the same air and backwash water supply systems can be used for all four filters. Piping modifications will be made to allow water to flow directly to the two existing and two new filters. The existing filters are approximately 20 years old and are not performing optimally, most likely due to media degradation and loss. Therefore, the underdrains and media will be removed from the two existing filters and replaced with the same type of equipment (including sequential air-water backwash) and materials installed in the two new filters. To manage filter operations, the existing control panel will be replaced with a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system consisting of a programmable logic computer (PLC) and a desktop personal computer. The SCADA system will provide for complete automation of normal filter startup. shutdown and backwash cycles, without the need for human intervention. BLACK (L VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 4
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27.2004
From the granular media filters, treated water will flow into the existing clearwell. A new level sensor and low and high level alarms will be provided for the clearwell. Water will be pumped from the cleawell using the existing high service pumps. A new motor and AFD will be installed on the larger pumping unit, the output of which will be varied to maintain a preset level in the clearwell. In effect, the AFD will allow total high service pumping output to match that of the WTP, retaining the maximum possible volume in the clearwell for chlorine contact and backwash water storage. In addition, the City has a "shelf" spare pump and motor that can provide redundancy should the larger pump fail. One micron pore size cartridge filters will be installed on the discharge piping of the existing high service pumps. Three new filter canisters will be installed, which will provide 225 gpm of throughput capacity. A new pressure transducer will be installed on the discharge side of the cartridge filters to monitor for pressure drop. Continuous on-line turbidity monitoring will be provided for the combined filter effluent (CFE) from the cartridge filters. In addition. a new flow meter will be installed on the discharge piping of the cartridge filters and a new level sensor placed in the treated water storage tank. The scope of plant automation will be limited to the new process equipment and instrumentation devices as described above. The PLC will be wired to the raw water and transfer pumps, switches, and transmitters, which will allow plant personnel to maintain a flow set point, automatically initiate a filter backwash, and create level and pressure alarms. Alarms will be subdivided into major and minor importance, with the former triggering the SCADA system to automatically contact operations personnel in priority order. The PLC will be connected to a personal computer located in the WTP office that will display the status of the raw water flow control, CAC. and filter processes; allow the operators to change set points; and collect flow and turbidity data. Manual operation of all equipment will also be provided, should the PLC, computers, or SCADA system be off-line or out-of-service. BLACK 8 VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 5
Town of Baggs, Wyoming 6&V Project 13809 1-200 WTP Expansion July 27,2004
1. Constructabllity Issues The main issue that needs to be addressed is continuous operation of the WTP during construction. The Town has limited treated water storage volume (280,000 gallons) and the current maximum day demand is approximately 240,000 gallons per day (gpd). Therefore, construction-related shutdowns will need to be timed during periods of lower demand (i.e. not summer) and staged so that the WTP is not out of selvice for more than one or two days at a time. In order to allow for this, several provisions will be necessary. A new manhole and temporary pump will be installed between the infiltration gallery and the raw water pump station. This will allow the existing raw water wetwell opening to be enlarged and the new raw water pumps installed. By means of temporary piping, raw water will be pumped from the new manhole through new cartridge filters, chlorinated, and then discharged into the existing clearwell. During this portion of the construction effort, raw water will be routed directly from .. the infiltration gallery to the cartridge filters. without benefit of ths plant'seexisting coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration processes. Therefore, this work should be timed when the highest quality raw water and lowest demand conditions are present, which is likely to be during the fall. A total of four cartridge filter housings will be provided. Two cartridge filters will be utilized as roughing filters and the remaining filters will serve as polishing filters. Space will be reserved for the future addition of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, plus all required isolation valves, on the filtered water piping before the flow enters the cleannreil. Space will also be reserved for future ammonium sulfate feed equipment, should the Town need to switch from free chlorine to chloramines in order to meet the disinfection byproduct limits of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR). The general contractor will be required to hire a specialty subcontractor to provide all the materials, installation, training, startup, trouble shooting, and warranty services for the filter renovation and retrofit work. The general contractor will also be required to hire a specialty subcontractor to provide all the Sep-16-04 04:23P
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 6
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091 .ZOO WTP Expansion July 27,2004
hardware, software, programming, training, startup, debugging, and warranty sentices for the SCADA system.
2. Cost Oplnions for Alternative 1 Table 1 lists the capital cost opinion for Alternative 1.
.--I"------......
Table 1
Capltal Cost Oplnlon for Alternative 1 Conventional Treatment Plus Cartridge ~lltratlon(')
Y Item Cost -YI.--*- #-. .-,I. - - - Increase Raw Water Pumping Capacity $48,000 -- Pretreatment Basin $1 31,000 ."--I--I----.-,#,. **. Potassium Perrnanganate Feed System $0,000 -4- - CI--CC-.."I-. . _ - CAC Improvements $27,000 Y -- - Convert Flocculation Basins and Rehabilitate Existing Filters $1 92,000 Y"..YIW-. -..------.--.l., Finished Water System Modifications $6,000 -.-Cantidge Filter System $31,000 SCADA, Instrumentation, and Controls $36,000-'*' Maintenance of Service During Construction $18,000 --- . . Cost of Project Components $498,000 General Conditions (1 0%) $50,000
Subtotal $548-0 .' ..C. .---YI.-.- --I.-.. - . . Contingency (15%) $82,000 -LI. --. Total Construction Costs $630,000 -a. ..&-I---. Engineering and Contract Administration (20%) $1 26,000 ..&hll.Y--"U"I.*-C..ch . Total Project Cost $756,000
(''~asedon July 2004 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCl) of 7126.
--...... J Sep-16-04 04: 23P
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 7
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27,2004
The annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost increase associated
with Alternative 1 was developed for a 20-year operating period, as show in ' Table 2. The total represents the increase in annual O&M costs over that presently experienced at the existing WTP. The following assumptions were used in this determination:
I Mid-point (year 2014) average day demand of 75 gpm.
I No additional power requirement.
No increase in unit commodity costs over the 20-year period.
- No creation of an equipment replacement fund.
I Table 2 I Annual 08M Cost Increase fot Alternative I Conventlonal Treatment Plus Cartridge Filtration
-4- LL. -4- .-* - - - . Component Cost ---. --.rUYI-.-Y--O..*- .- Cartridge replacernent $9,900 -I*-.. Dredge and dispose of solids from pretreatment basin'" $2,900 SCADA maintenance $3,000 L. Total Annual Cost Increase $15.800 -'
I (''~onualiredcost of dredge and haul operation every 10 years.
3. Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 will require additional land on which to construct the pretreatment basin. It is proposed that this basin be constructed on available BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATlON
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 8
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
land at the WTP site. Since this land has been previously disturbed, the environmental impact will be negligible. The remainder of the components of Alternative 1 will be contained inside existing structures and therefore, the environmental impact of these improvements will also be negligible.
B. Alternative 2 - Membrane Filtration As illustrated on Figure 2, Alternative 2 has similar process components to Alternative 9 with respect to the raw water pumping, chemical feed. pretreatment, renovation of the CAC, and implementation of a SCADA system. However, for Alternative 2, the pretreated water will flow from the CAC to membrane filters located in the existing building. One option that was explored early on was to retrofit the existing flocculationlsedimentatiorrlfiltration tankage to house the membranes. However, this option was determined by the membrane system a manufacturers to *bea*impracticalsdue .to -the-age of the tank, as well as the logistics and cost involved in retrofitting the existing tank. Therefore, the existing tankage will be demolished and the membranes will be installed within the same footprint. To properly dispose of the spent sodium hypochlorite and citric acid solutions used to periodically clean the membranes, it is recommended that a sanitary sewer be extended to the WTP for Alternative 2. This extension will also enable the Town to install restroom facilities at the WTP at a future date. The spent solutions will be mixed together so the acid and base compounds will be pH-neutralized prior to discharge to the sewer.
1. Constructability Issues As with Alternative 1, the main constructability issue associated with Alternative 2 is providing continuous operation of the WTP during construction. Therefore, construction should be timed during periods of lower demand (i.e. not summer) and staged so that the WTP is not out of sewice for more than one or BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 9
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138001.200 VVTP Expansion July 27, 2004 two days at a time. A similar type of temporary cartridge filter bypass system, as described for Alternative 1, can be utilized if Alternative 2 is selected. Once this system is on-line, the existing flocculationlsedimentation/filtration tankage can be demolished and removed. The membrane equipment package can then be placed inside the building. The general contractor will be required to hire a specialty subcontractor to provide all the materials, installation, training, startup, trouble shooting, and warranty services for the membrane work. The general contractor will also be required to hire a specialty subcontractor to provide all the hardware. software, programming, training, startup, troubleshooting, and warranty services for the SCADA system.
2. Cost Opinions for Alternative 2 Table 3 lists the capital cost opinions for Alternative 2. The annual OBM cost increase associated with Alternative 2 was developed for 8 20-year operating period, and is shown in Table 4. The total represents the increase in annual O&M costs over that presently experienced at the existing WTP. The following assumptions were used in this determination:
w Membrane life of 10 years.
I No additional power requirement.
No increase in unit commodity costs over the 20-year period.
I Creation of an equipment replacement fund. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 10
Town of Baggs. Wyoming B&V Project I 38091.200 WTP Expansfon July 27, 2004
fable 3
Capltal Cost Opinion for Alternative 2 Membrane ~iltration(')
. .YYC . - Item Cost lncrease Raw waterPurnping Capacity $48,000 Pretreatment Basin $131,000 Potassium Permanganate Feed System $9,000 CIU - - CAC Improvements $27,000 Demolition of the Existing Flocculation/Sedimentatlon/FiltralionTankage Membrane Equipment Package -nIU---.. -nIU---.. - Finished Water System Modifications 6-inch Sewer Line Extensiorl to WTP -.. .. SCADA, Instrumentation, and Controls Maintenance of Service During Construction $27,000 - - .. ,..(.. - -.-.., W* - Cost of Project $851,000 ma-. .L - - General Conditions (I0%) $85,000 Subtotal $936,000 . .-d Contingency (I5%) $140,000 Total Construction Costs $1,076,000 "-- .--VHYII Engineering and contract Administration (20%) $215,000 Total Project Cost $1,290,000 4--"-I - - -
(')eased on July 2004 ENR CCI of 71 26. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 11
Town of Baggs. Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
&.-"- C.cIu.-
Table 4
Annual OhM Cost lnctease for Alternative 2 Membrane Filtration
Component Cost Membrane repla~ernent''~ $7,300 -I-* Mern brane cleaning chemicals $1,000 .- 2--- Dredge and dispose of solids from pretreatment basin''] $2,900 IT. SCADA maintenance $3,000 *h-n- - Total Annual Cost Increase f 14,200
(''~nnualizedcost of membrane replacement every 10 years. '''~nnualized cost of dredge and haul operation every 10 years.
t
3. Environmental Impacts Alternative 2 will have the same environmental impacts as Alternative 1, with the exception of the sewer line extension to the WTP. The proposed alignment for the sewer system extension traverses previously disturbed land and as such, the environmental impact will also be negligible.
C. Regulatory Requirements The Level 1 Water Master Plan identified newly promulgated and proposed regulations that may affect the Baggs WTP. These regulations have associated monitoring requirements. The fallowing is a discussion of how these requirements will affect each of the potential alternatives. Note that in the following discussian, both cartridge and membrane filters (Alternatives 1 and 2) are defined by EPA as alternative filtration technologies and not conventional treatment. Accordingly, any and all processes prior to the cartridge or membrane filters (i.e. permanganate oxidation, pre-sedimentation, BLACK 8 VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 12
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
CAC) are deemed to be 'pre-treatment". As such, a number of reporting requirements would not apply. Monitoring requirements for radionuclides will be phased-in between December 8, 2003 and December 31, 2007. Both Alternatives 1 and 2 will be subject to the monitoring requirements of this regulation. The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) applies to all community water systems (CWSs) that utilize direct or conventional filtration processes and recycle spent filter backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes. The Town should have submitted recycle information for thelr existing treatment processes to the State by December 8, 2003. Since both Alternatives 1 and 2 are considered alternative filtration technologies, the Town will not be required to re-submit this information in the future after it implements one of these options. Under the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), the Town must sample for total trihalornethanes (TTHMs), five haloacetic acids (HA&), and total organic carbon (TOC) beginning January 2004. Sampling for and compliance with the regulatory limits for these parameters, and maximum disinfectant residual levels (MRDLs) for chlorine, will be required for both alternatives. Enhanced coagulation for TOC removal is only required under the Stage 1 DBPR for CWSs that utilize conventional treatment. Therefore, this component would not apply to Alternatives 1 or 2. Effective January 2005, the Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTI ESWTR) extends the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) to CWSs serving less than 10,000 people. The combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity and individual filter performance monitoring requirements would not be applicable to Alternatives 1 or 2. In fact, the CFE turbidity requirement for 95 percent of the samples would increase from 0.3 to 1.0 NTUs for Alternatives Iand 2. The revised arsenic standard, Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTZESWTR), and Stage 2 DBPR apply to all CWSs. Therefore. requirements associated with these regulations will apply to Alternatives 'l and 2. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 13
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
In terms of disinfection requirements, the following is pertinent:
Alternative I - The water coming out of the granular media filters (pre-treatment facilities) should meet the CFE requirements of the LT1 ESWTR (i.e.95 percent of the samples will have turbidities less than 0.3 NTUs). Meeting this criterion will give the Town a 2.5-109 Giardia removal credit. Othewise, a 2.0-log Giardia removal credit will be awarded by EPA for the I-micron absolute pore size cartridge filters. With a 1.0 mglL chlorine residual, the existing pipe contactor can provide greater than l.O-log of Giardia inactivation. Therefore, no additional disinfection is required to meet the LT1 ESWTR.
Since the cartridges are a total physical barrier to Giardia and Cryptosporidium transmission, the Town should receive additional protozoan cyst removal credits and be able to comply with the LT2ESWTR. However, it would be prudent to configure Alternative 1 fcr the.future-additionof VV for supplemental c!isinfec!icn; sk3uld it be required under the LT2ESWTR.
Alternative 2 - The membranes would have an absolute pore size of 0.1 microns and would also act as a total barrier to Giardia and Cryptosporidiurn transmission. Therefore, it is anticipated that an additional 2.5-log or greater removal credit will be awarded by EPA for both Giardia and Cryptosporidium and it is not anticipated that supplemental UV disinfection will be necessary under the LT2ESWTR.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established a point system to determine the level of operator certification level required at a specific WTP. Points are assessed for each unit process. Table 5 lists for the anticipated required operator certification level for each alternative. BLACK 8 VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 14
Town of Baggs. Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
Table 5
Antlclpated Operator Certification Requirements for Each Alternative
111- Alternative 3 - Conventional Treatment Alternative 2 Membrane Filtration Plus Cartridge Filtration - LII.. . W-w-8 Assessed Assessed Unit Process Un It Process Point Value Point Value
p- --9.-- Population less than 7,500 1 Population less than 7,500 1 _.a . ---.. 5- Coagulation (CAC) I 2 Coagulation (CAC) 2 Granular media filtration 2 Microfiltration membranes 2 Chlorine gas 2 Chlorlne gas 2 ----. ------.-.-- Cartridge filters 2 *.. .- Total I 9 Totat 7
Based on the State's current operator certification rules, [Section 6 of Chapter 5 Wyoming Statutes 35-1 1-302(a)(iv)], it is anticipated that Alternative 1 will require at Class IV certified operator and Alternative 2 will require a Class Ill certified operator.
D. Alternative Selection In order to compare the two alternatives, a more detailed cost evaluation was developed, as shown in Table 6. Specific aspects of the present worth life cycle cost evaluation included:
A 20-year cost recovery period.
A 20-year federal discount rate of 3.2 percent interpolated from the 10 and 30-year rates published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Appendix C of Circular A-94. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 15
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
Determination of the remaining value of the proposed improvements at the end of the 20-year cost recovery period.
Use of the projected 08M expenses at the mid-point (year 2014) of the cost recovery period.
Table 6
PO-Year Present Worth Life Cycle Cost Comparison
2 Present Worth Cost Component Alternative I Alternative 2 ------a.111- Capital Cost -..,,.- $758,000 $1,290,000 - Total O&M Cost''' $231,000 $20m - --.__ L*. I-. - -- - Remaining Value[lJ -$48,000 -$108,000 *-_I-. - - Life Cycle Cost ...... S939,OOO . $139iO,ncr.r3 -- --- ll'~asedon a 20-year federal discount rate of 3.2 percent interpolated from the 10 and 30- year rates published for 2004 by the OMB in Appendix C of Circular A-94.
E. Recommended Plan Since the 20-year life cycle cost difference between the two alternatives is greater than 15 percent, no evaluation of non-economic factors was performed and it is recommended that the Town implement Alternative 1. Table 7 provides a summary of the major milestones that must be completed and a preliminary estimation of project completion. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Page 16
Town of Baggs, Wyoming B&V Project 138091.200 WTP Expansion July 27, 2004
Table 7
Estimated Project Schedule for Alternative I
-.L - Milestone Completion Date Distribution final PER to Town, EPA, DEQ and RUS August 2004 Submit plans and specifications to DEQ December 2004 Receive approval from DEQ and advertise for bids January 2004 Receive bids and award construction contract February 2005 Commence construction of WTP expansion Merch 2005 ]
Distribution: Casey Jensen, Town of Baggs Jim Murphy. AVI Mindy Mohr, EPA Roy Pryor, RUS Lou Harmon, DEQ Brian Mark, DEQ Lela Petkins, BBV Bruce Creamer, B&V Mark Maxwell, B&V Preliminary Engineering Report Baggs, Wyoming Water System
I. GENERAL The Town of Baggs, Wyoming is located six miles north of the Colorado-Wyoming border along Highway 113 in the southwestern part of Wyoming. The town is situated in the river plain of the Little Snake River and has an incorporated area of approximately 640 acres. The system currently is serving an area of 250 acres and a population of 540 people. Table I shows the population projections and estimated water needs for the Town of Baggs and Exhibit I shows the service area during various phases. The design period used was twenty years or until the year 2000.
TABLE I 2 Year Population Maximum- Daily erna-- and' Required Storage-- 49 ,s', , iso 1' 3 ,LL~ 1980 540 190,000 gal. 142,500 gal. ' 1990 925 325,000 gal. - 243,750 gal. 2000 1,250 440,000 gal. 330,000 gal.
1 Per capita consumption for maximum day 350 gpcd.
2 Required storage based bn 1/2 day emergency supply plus equalizing volume 1/4 day supply. These population forecasts represent a medium growth scenerio with the town experiencing some impact due to the increased oil and gas activity and resulting secondary employment increases. An average per capita water usage of 205 gallons per capita per day was used for the average day at the end of the twenty year design period. This represents a twelve percent drop from the present average day usage of 230 gpcd. A lower per capita usage was used because it was felt that new distribution line construction would result in lower per capita losses and it was felt that as the town grows non-residential consumption gets allocated to a larger population base, thus effectively lowering the per capita consumption. The water system improvements have been sized for the maximum day usage which was 1.75 times the average day or 350 gpm. These population and consumption figures represent a best estimate of anticipated need. It is realized that many factors such as employment patterns, appliance water consumption rates and usage characteristics may change and greatly alter the required treatment capacity. As a result of this uncertainty, a modular treatment unit design will be utilized which will enable easy expansion of the plant. By using this approach, it is possible! to avoid unnecessary operating cost and high initial cost. In general, the Baggs water system is inadequate for the following reasons:
A. The existing perforated pipe is extended under the river and has very little alluvium above it which can filter the water before it enters the system. Therefore, changes in the river condition which disturb the river bed and create high turbulence cause the turbidity of the town's water and render it unacceptable. B. Due to the high turbidity levels and contamination associated with that high turbidity, the chlorine demand is high. The existing chlorination system is not able to maintain an acceptable chlorine residual such that adequate disenfection can be assured. Even if a greater amount of chlorine could be supplied, there would be a concern about the formation of chlorinated organics with so high a turbidity level. The existing chlorination system is also inadequate in that uniform mixing and sufficient contact time cannot be assured due to the injection of the chlorine solution into the wet well.
C. During periods of high demand, the existing system cannot supply-- - sufficient quantities of water. The gravel surrounding the existing 18 inch diameter pipe appears to have become clogged with silt. This results in a higher percentage of water being drawn from the section of pipe underneath the river where the inflow rate per foot of pipe is greater. Consequently more turbidity is drawn into the system since this area has little filtering capacity. Another aspect of the supply problem is the fact that a uniform pumping rate cannot be maintained throughout the day due to inadequate storage tank and pumping controls. As a result, the system operates as a peaking system whereby the supply system operates at a rate substantially higher than the daily average for short periods throughout the day. These higher withdraw1 rates mean increased velocities through the alluvium which tends to pull silt and colloidal particles through the material. This action leads to the increased turbidity levels and also tends to TfblindT1the filter area surounding the perf orated pipe.
The Town of Baggs has become aware of the fact that they will have to actively particpate in funding the improvements to their water system and as a result have developed an escrow account to accumulate monies. In addition, they have assessed their water charge rates, tap fees and development procedures so that the town and the people pay appropriate fees for providing water services. A current status report showing account balances, number of service taps, charge rates and development agreements is shown in Exhibit 11. The town is currently unmetered with users assessed a flat monthly rate as determined by the expenses of operating the water system. There are no plans to install meters at this time. The reasons for this are: (1) the large initial cost of installing meters, (2) the high cost would in part be due to construction problems associated with installing meters in an area with a high water table and extensive frost penetration, and (3) the fact that there are very few non-residential services which means water use characteristics are similar and an equitable distribution of cost is possible. 11. EXISTING SYSTEM
The existing .system includes approximately 20,000 feet of four (4") and six (6") inch asbestos cement and PVC pressure pipe which serve as distribution lines throughout the Baggs residential area. A six (6") inch line ties the distribution system to the raw water intake sump and high service pump where the water is collected and chlorinated. Service connections are non-metered. The water is pumped through the distribution system and then through a six (6") inch asbestos cement line to a 225,000 gallon bolted steel storage tank. The operating level of the tank is currently limited to 6,295 due to inadequate level controls on the tank. The maximum possible water service elevation is 6,310 which will correspond to a full tank. The elevation of the town is approximately 6,220 throughout. The resulting static pressure will be approximately 38 psi throughout the town. Level controls are currently on order and should be installed by the beginning of the year. The tank has adequate storage capacity to serve the town until basically the year 1990 when the population reaches 925 people.
The existing supply system consists of an 18 inch diameter perforated pipe with a 3/811 - 3/4" gravel pack which extends 250 1.f. from an intake sump to the Little Snake River. The pipe is buried approximately fifteen feet below the ground surface which is directly above an impermeable strata of clay stone. The material surrounding the site is a very silty sand-gravel alluvium. The water table throughout the site is approximately five (5) below the surface and varies directly with water surface of the Little Snake River. The town has permits for diverting 350 gpm through the gallery and has applied for a change of use and point of diversion on irrigation rights totaling 100 gpm deeded to the town as part of development requirements. In addition to the 18 inch pipe, an old 4 inch diameter pipe contributes a small amount of flow to the system. However, due to the deteriorating condition of the pipe and the river gravel where the inlet is located, poor quality water is admitted to the system. This pipe is due to be abandoned.
From the intake sump the water flows to the pump wet well where it is chlorinated and pumped into the distribution system with a vertical turbine pump which is rated at 225 gpm. The chlorinator is a solution feed gas chlorinator which utilizes high pressure water from the discharge side of the pump to create a vacuum in a venturi ejector. The resulting chlorine solution is fed back to the pump wet well which then serves as a contact chamber. The quality of water the town achieves from the system is poor. The main problem has been high turbidity which averages 9 - 11 turbidity units during normal river flows and increased to an average of between 20 - 30 and to as high as 50 turbidity units when the river flow rate is extremely high and there is a high level of suspended material. The chemical quality of the water is acceptable although the total dissolved solids (TDS) sometimes approaches 500 mg/l which is a suggested upper limit. All other chemical constituents are well below the mandatory limits of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.) and the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) of the U.S. EPA.
Some previous water samples (197 9) showed mercury concentrations exceeding the 0.002 mg/l mandatory limit. No subsequent samples have shown any measurable mercury concentration. The U.S. EPA have been investigating this problem and have established a monitering program for the Towns of Baggs and Dixon, Wyoming. As of the writing of this report, no samples have had measurable mercury levels.
--Hole 1 Hole 2 I Hole 3 Hole 4 Hole 5 Hole 6 ET.,=I> 6.9 EL=97.3 EI,=97.3 .. EL=98.0 EL=96.0 EL=97.5
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY HOLES Fig. 2
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed water treatment building and wet well structures should be founded with spread footings placed on compacted structural fill and the lower natural granular soils desfgned for a maximum soil pressure of 3,000 psf with design details and precautions given in the body of the report.
I SCOPE
This report presents rhe results of a soil and foundation investi- gation for the proposed water treatment building, wet well structure, and backwash ponds at the Town of Baggs water treatment facility in the
NE%, SE~,Section 5, T12N, R91W., Carbon County, Wyoming. The report presents the most desirable and safe type foundation for the wet well
and water treatment building, allowable soil pressures, subsoil profile, . . water table conditions, and other soil related.design and construc.tion
details.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
A groundwater investigation was previously conducted at the site by
WM. Curtis Wells and Company as reported under their Job No. 675 dated
July 18, 1980. The results of that investigation were. used in the
preparation of this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our investigation, the site was in use as a gallery
type water collectibn and distribution system. The site is situated on
a flood plain terrace which drains into the Little Snake River located w approximately 400 feet north of the proposed construction area. The
ground surface slopes slightly downward towards the north with an elevation difference on the order of 2 feet across the area investigated.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
. It is proposed to construct a wet well, water treatment building, and backwash ponds with approximate plan dimensions and locations as
sho'wn on Fig. 1. The p.roposed water treatment building will be a
pre-engineered metal building founded approximately 8 feet above the
existing ground surface elevation w2th a concreteslab-on-grade for the ground floor placed approximately 10 feet above the existing ground
surface elevation. Housed within the water treatment building will be a
cast-in-place concrete wet well structure founded approximately 5 feet
below the existing ground surface elevation. In addition, three
backwash ponds will be constructed of earthen embankments surrounding
the water treatment building and wet well structure.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Subsoil conditions in the water treatment building and wet well
area were explored by Test Holes 1 through 3. The subsoils consisted of
2.5 to 3 feet of soft to stiff, sandy to very sandy clay; 0 to 4 feet of
loose to medium dense, slightly silty to very silty sand with occasional
gravel lenses; and 11 to 11.5 feet of medium dense to very dense, clean
to slightly silty sand and gravel overlying hard to very hard siltstone
bedrock to the depth investigated, 20 feet. Approximately 6 inches of
gravel fill was encountered in Test Hole 2 at the existing ground
surface. Subsoil conditions in the backwash pond area were explored by
Test Holes 4 through 6. Subsoil conditions in the area consisted of 0
to 1.5 feet of soft to stiff, sandy to very sandy clay; 2.5 to 7 feet of loose to medium dense, slightly silty to very silty sand; and 11 to 14 feet of medium dense to very dense, clean to slightly silty sand and gravel overlying a hard to very hard siltstone or sandstone bedrock to the depth investigated, 23 feet. The upper clay ranges from settling moderately to excessively under load and when wetted as indicated by the
Swell-Consolidation Test Results presented on Figs. 6 and 7. The gradations for typical samples of the upper clays are presented on Figs.
8, 10, and 11. The silty sand settles excessively under load and when wetted as indicated by the Swell-Consolidation Test Results presented on
Fig. 5. The gradations for typical samples of the upper silty sands are presented on Figs. 8, 11, 12, and 13. The gradations for typical samples of the lower clean to slightly silty sand and gravel are presented on Figs. 9 and 13. The lower siltstone bedrock settles moderately under load and when wetted as indicated by the
Swell-Consolidation Test Results presented on Fig. 6. The gradation for a typical sample ofthe siltstone bedrock is presented. on Fig.10. The moisture-density relationships for typical samples of the upper clay and the silty sand were determined in accordance with ASTM D698-78 and are presented on Figs. 14 and 15.
Free water was encountered in all of the exploratory holes at depths of 6.5 to 11 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of drilling.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Approximately 10 feet of fill will be required to achieve the
desired finish floor elevation of the proposed water treatment building.
This wilL place the building foundation on compacted structural fill.
The structural fill'should consist of the on-site granular soiis or similar soils placed compacted least standard Proctor
density (ASTM D698-78) at optimum moisture content. The wet well
, foundation will be placed approximately 5 feet below the existing ground
surface elevation and will bear on the upper natural silty sands or the
lower sand and gravel stratum. We believe the most desirable and safe
type foundation for both structures is spread footings placed on the
compacted structural fill and the lower natural granular soils. The
following design and construction details sh.ould be observed:
(1) Footings placed on compacted structural fill or the natural
granular soils should be designed for a maximum soil pressure of
3,000 psf. Under this pressure we estimate that total settlement
will be on the order of 1& inches and maximum differential
settlement across the individual structures will be less than 3/4
of an inch.
(2) Compacted structural fill should extend a minimum. of 10 feet beyond
the building and be constructed to a 2.5 horizontal to 1
vertical slope or flatter.
Provisions should made to structurally separate the wet well
' structure and the floor slab of the water treat.ment building to
allow for up to I inch of differential movement between the two
structures.
(4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to
span an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
(3) Local soft pockets of soil found within the loaded depth of the
footings in the wet well structure should,be removed and the
footings extended to the lower firm soils. (4) Exterior footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above
their bearing elevation for frost protection. We recommend that at
least 4 feet of soil cover be used at this site.
FOUNDATION CONCRETE
The water soluble sulfate content was found to be 0.01 percent for the upper clays and 0.01 percent for the lower si1ts;tone bedrock. These values indicate that the conditions are negligible for the potential sulfate attack of concrete. No special type of cement will be required for concrete which will be in contact-with the ground.
GROUND FLOORS
1 The on-site soils to be exposed at the wet well floor slab elevation are suitable to support slab-on-grade construction. Should the natural soils become disturbed during construction procedures, they should be replaced compacted to not less than 95% of standard Proctor density (ASTM 0698-78) at optimum moisture content. Any new fill required to achieve the desired finish floor elevation of the water treatment building above foundation bearing elevation should consist of the on-site granular soils or similar soils compacted to the same requirements. Slabs should be separated from a11 bearing members with a positive expansion joint and adequately reinforced.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the structures have been completed:
(1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavation should be
avoided during construction. (2) Backfill around the structures should be moistened and compacted to
at least 95% standard Proctor density.
I (3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the structures
should be sloped to drain away from the structures in all
directions.
(4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits
of all backfill.
MISCELLANEOUS
Our exploratory borings were spaced as closely as feasible in order
to obtain a comprehensive picture of the. subsoil conditions; however,
erratic soil conditions may occur between test holes. If such
conditions are found in the exposed excavation, it is advisable that we
'be notified to inspect the foundation excavation.
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
, * II& Daniel W. Holmes
REVIEWED Le gend :
Fill, silty sand and gravel, medium dense, brown, moist.
El Clay (CL), sandy to very sandy, soft to stiff, brown, moist.
Sand (SM), slightly silty to very silty, occasional gravel lenses, 3.. loose to medium dense, brown, moist to wet.
Sand and Gravel (SF-GP), clean to slightly silty, medium dense to very dense, brown, moist to wet.
Siltstone Bedrock, hard to very hard, blue to green, moist.
a&$: Sandstone Bedrock, very hard, blue, moist.
Undisturbed drive sample. The symbol 15/12 indicates that 16 blows of 16/12 a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the sampler P 12 inches. Standard drive sample. The symbol 55/12 indicates that 55 blows of a 55/12 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a standard 2-inch O.D. split spoon sampler 12 inches.
Indicates depth interval from which a disturbed sample was obtained from auger cuttings.
-- Indicates free water level measured at the time of drilling.
Indicates depth at which hole caved immediately after drilling.
LEGEND Fig. 3 Notes :
(1) Exploratory holes were drilled on December 15.and December 24, 1981 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight .power auger. i (2) Elevations of exploratory holes refer to the top of the manhole cover on Baggs Well No. 1, EL = 100.0' (assumed).
(3) Ten feet of perfbrated 2-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe was installed in Test Hole 3 to allow monitoring of the groundwater table.
(4) WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) LL = Liquid Limit (%) PI = Plasticity Index (%) NP = Non-plastic -200 = Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) WSS = Water Soluble Sulfate Content (%) SG = Specific Gravity
NOTES Fig. 4 CHEN AND ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS f 4 WATER NATURAL NATURALDRY ATTERBERG LIMITS GRADATION ANALYSIS DEPTH SPECIFIC :'OLUBLE HOLE ~~lsf"RE DENSITY ' LIOVI D PLASTI,CI~ - - SOIL TYPE (FE ET) LIMIT IHDEX GRAVITY SULFATE -#200 (v. 1 (PCF) +#4 44 (%I (*/*I (XI +#200(X) (XI -4 1 4.0 2.0 105.0 NP 74 23 3 Sandy Gravel
2 - Q--- 43 23 2.63 0 25 75 . Very Sandy Clay 4.0 3.1 NP 76 19 5 Sandy Gravel
, 9.0 7.5 15 NP 74 20 6 Slightly Silty, Sandv Gravel 19.0 12.0 102.9 23 4 0.01 0 37 63 Siltstone Bedrock
-- 3 1.0 24.3 16 84 Sandy Clav 7.5 40 60 Vsv Sadv Clav 3.0 - 0 3.3 21 NP 2.65 0 66 34 Verv Siltv Sand
4 5.0 2.7 99.2 NP 1 90 9 Slightlv Siltv Sand ,
I r 5 2.5 13.2 NP 0 71 29 Very Silty Sand 15.0 7.5 58 35 7 Slightly Silty Sand . and Gravel
7.0 9 58 33 Very Silty Sand I 6 7e~5
I
- - - -- t ---. -. APPENDIX C
EPANET and WATERCAD MODEL RESULTS WaterCAD Model Results Scenario: Peak Day
Ti:BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\.. .\models\watercadmodelsWisthlpgrades.wcd WaterCAI3 v6.5 [6.5120n] 12/23/04 04:37:51 PM 0 Haestad Methods, lnc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1666 Page I of I Existing System, Tank Level Down lo', 750gpm at Jebens Park. Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report
Label. Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (Psi) (gpm) (fi) J-6 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,339.66 40.09 J-10 6,251.20 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.65 38.70 J-1 1 6,249.50 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.64 39.43 J-12 6,247.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.64 40.21 J-13 6,250.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.65 39.09 J-15 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.23 40.33 J-17 6,246.60 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.62 40.68 3-20 6,247.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.76 44.16 5-22 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,337.34 39.08 J-23 6,246.80 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.77 44.55 J-25 6,274.10 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,368.1 5 40.69 J-29 6,244.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.25 51.03 J-30 6,243.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.25 51.59 J-31 6,243.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.25 51.46 J-33 6,242.90 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.25 51.64 J-34 6,246.40 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,339.47 40.27 J-35 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,330.14 35.97 J-36 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,323.57 33.13 J-40 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,314.70 29.29 J-43 6,244.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,310.05 28.27 J-44 6,246.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,318.22 31.25 J-49 6,242.80 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,263.35 8.89 J-50 6,243.30 Demand 750.00 750.00 6,235.30 -3.46 J-52 6,242.50 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,272.22 12.86 J-53 6,244.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,277.75 14.60 J-57 6,242.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,348.72 45.87 J-58 6,244.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.76 45.63 J-59 6,245.60 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.76 45.06 5-64 6,246.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.76 44.59 J-67 6,254.90 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,341 .I1 37.30 J-78 6,243.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.25 51.46 J-8 1 6,252.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,341.I 1 38.55 5-83 6,246.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,340.95 41.08 J-85 6,255.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,341.30 37.34 J-89 6,255.00 Inflow 167.00 -1 67.00 6,212.14 -1 8.55 J-91 6,243.30 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,362.25 51.47 J-92 6,255.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,339.1 7 36.42 J-93 6,256.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,360.49 45.21 5-94 8,243.30 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,362.25 51.46 5-95 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,349.76 44.46 J-96 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,335.73 38.39 J-97 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,339.1 8 39.88 J-98 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,340.60 40.49 J-99 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,340.54 40.47 J-100 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,322.67 32.74 J-1 01 6,250.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,340.67 39.23 J-102 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,362.25 38.1 8 J-103 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,366.20 39.89 J-104 6,251 .OO Demand 0.00 0.00 6,377.00 54.51 J-105 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,377.00 56.24 J-106 6,244.30 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,377.00 57.41
Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\. ..\report\models\baggsexisting.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120fj 10/14/04 06:06:42 PM Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1 666 Page 1 of 2 Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report
Label Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (psi) (gpm) (fi) J-107 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,377.00 56.24
Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\...\report\models\baggsexisting.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120fl 10/14/04 06:06:42 PM @ Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1 666 Page 2 of 2 Existing System with New Transmission Line, Tank Full, 750gpm at Park, Valve open feeding west from end of 36" line.
Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report
Label Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (psi) (gpm) (fi) J-6 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,373.83 54.87 J-10 6,251.20 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,376.51 54.21 J-I 1 6,249.50 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,376.20 54.82 J-12 6,247.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,376.20 55.59 J-13 6,250.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,376.59 54.64 J-15 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,372.57 54.33 J-17 6,246.60 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,372.63 54.53 J-20 6,247.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,376.10 55.55 J-22 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,369.40 52.96 J-23 6,246.80 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,375.73 55.78 J-25 6,274.1 0 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,383.24 47.22 J-29 6,244.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.02 5-30 6,243.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.58 J-31 6,243.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.45 J-33 6,242.90 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.63 J-34 6,246.40 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,372.38 54.51 5-35 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,362.67 50.05 J-36 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,355.58 46.98 J-40 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,345.55 42.64 J-43 6,244.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,341.29 41.79 J-44 6,246.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,349.78 44.90 5-49 6,242.80 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,294.37 22.31 J-50 6,243.30 Demand 750.00 750.00 6,266.35 9.97 J-52 6,242.50 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,303.29 26.30 J-53 6,244.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,308.75 28.01 J-57 6,242.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,374.83 57.1 7 J-58 6,244.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,375.81 56.90 J-59 6,245.60 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,375.86 56.36 J-64 6,246.70 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,375.81 55.86 J-67 6,254.90 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,379.86 54.07 J-78 6,243.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.45 J-8 1 6,252.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,379.86 55.32 J-83 6,246.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,372.63 54.79 J-85 6,255.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,380.06 54.1 1 J-89 6,255.00 Inflow 167.00 -167.00 6,250.89 -1.78 J-9 1 6,243.30 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,380.72 59.46 J-92 6,255.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,373.16 51.12 J-93 6,256.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.03 53.66 5-94 6,243.30 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,380.72 59.45 5-95 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,375.86 55.75 J-96 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,368.71 52.66 J-97 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,373.1 6 54.59 J-98 6,247.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,372.67 54.37 J-99 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,372.76 54.41 J-100 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,354.09 46.33 J-101 6,250.00 Demand 3.00 3.00 6,377.22 55.04 5-1 02 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,380.72 46.17 J-103 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,382.41 46.90 J-104 6,251 .OO Demand 0.00 0.00 6,380.75 56.14 J-105 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,382.22 58.50 J-106 6,244.30 Demand 0.00 - 0.00 6,382.91 59.97 Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\...\report\rnodeIs\baggsexisting.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120fl 10115/04 12:03:49 PM B Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1 666 Page 1 of 2 - Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report
Label Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (Psi) (gpm) (fi) J-107 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,383.90 59.23
Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\...\report\model,s\baggsexisting.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120fJ 10/15/04 12:00:58 PM Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Upgraded System, Tank Full, 9gpm/Junction + lOOOgpm Fire! Scenario: Peak Day Steady State Analysis Junction Report
7 Label Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (Psi) (gpm) (fi) J-6 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,324.25 33.42 J-10 6,251.20 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.85 32.30 J-1 1 6,249.50 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,326.28 33.22 J-I 2 6,247.70 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,326.08 33.91 J-13 6,250.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.76 32.65 J-15 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.21 33.84 J-17 6,246.60 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.76 34.25 J-20 6,247.70 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,327.29 34.43 J-22 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,324.17 33.39 J-23 6,246.80 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,333.91 37.69 J-25 6,274.10 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,349.88 32.79 J-29 6,244.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.22 41.07 J-30 6,243.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,337.26 40.78 J-3 1 6,243.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.28 41.53 J-33 6,242.90 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,338.54 41.38 J-34 6,246.40 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,324.23 33.67 J-35 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,323.02 32.89 J-36 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,322.27 32.56 J-40 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,323.66 33.17 J-43 6,244.70 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,321.01 33.02 J-44 6,246.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,321.70 32.75 J-49 6,242.80 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,320.77 33.73 J-50 6,243.30 Demand 1,000.00 1,000.00 6,302.20 25.48 J-52 6,242.50 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,314.47 31 .I4 J-53 6,244.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,321.09 33.35 J-57 6,242.70 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,331.08 38.24 J-58 6,244.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,331.66 37.80 J-59 6,245.60 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,330.99 36.94 J-64 6,246.70 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,331.39 36.64 J-67 6,254.90 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,389.98 58.44 J-78 6,243.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.03 41.42 J-8 1 6,252.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,389.98 59.70 J-83 6,246.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,326.25 34.72 J-85 6,255.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,390.18 58.48 J-89 6,255.00 Inflow 167.00 -1 67.00 6,261.01 2.60 J-9 1 6,243.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.83 41.77 J-92 6,255.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,324.15 29.92 J-93 6,256.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.72 36.22 J-94 6,243.30 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,339.44 41.60 5-95 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,331.06 36.37 J-96 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,323.71 33.1 9 J-97 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,324.16 33.38 J-98 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.71 34.06 J-99 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.65 34.03 J-100 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,323.84 33.25 J-I 01 6,250.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,325.26 32.56 J-102 6,274.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,337.22 27.35 J-103 6,274.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,346.44 31.34 J-104 6,251 .OO Demand 0.00 0.00 6,389.58 59.96 J-105 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,388.99 61.43 J-106 6,244.30 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,388.69 62.47
Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\ ...\2004 models\distr-upgrades8-13-04.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120f] 10114/04 05:21:35 PM Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1 666 Page 1 of 2 Scenario: Peak Day Steady State Analysis Junction Report
Label Elevation Type Base Flow Demand Calculated Pressure (fi) (gpm) (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (psi) (gpm) (ft) J-107 6,247.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,388.38 61.17 J-108 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,387.78 49.23 J-109 6,247.00 Demand 9.00 9.00 6,331.21 36.43 J-110 6,274.00 Demand 0.00 0.00 6,387.69 49.19
Title: BAGGS WATER LINES Project Engineer: Mike Donnell, P.E. s:\ ...\2004 models\distr-upgrades8-I 3-04.wcd WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120fl 10/14/04 0521:35 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1 666 Page 2 of 2 EPANET Model Results --II p--, ,-- I--- Sys~emwlrh New Trh~~~misalon,1 a~rk Full
Donne11 & Allred, Inc. Existing System with New Transmission, Tank Full Network Table - Nodes at 0:00 Hrs
Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc J-6 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.88 60.49 Junc J- 10 625 1.2 3 .OO 63 87.04 58.74 Junc J- 11 6249.5 3 .OO 6387.03 59.47 Junc J- 12 6247.7 3 .OO 6387.03 60.25 Junc 5-13 6250.3 3 .OO 63 87.05 59.14 Junc J- 15 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.79 60.45 Junc J- 17 6246.6 3 .OO 6386.77 60.62 Junc 5-20 6247.7 3 .OO 63 86.72 60.12 Junc 5-22 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.76 60.44 Junc 5-23 6246.8 3 .OO 63 86.73 60.5 1 Junc J-25 6274.1 3 .OO 63 86.76 48.72 Junc 5-29 6244.3 3 .OO 63 86.72 61.59 Junc J-30 6243 .O 3 .OO 6386.72 62.15 Junc 5-3 1 6243.3 3 .OO 63 86.72 62.02 Junc J-3 3 6242.9 3 .OO 63 86.72 62.19 Junc 5-34 6246.4 3 .OO 6386.80 60.71 Junc 5-3 5 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.75 60.43 Junc J-3 6 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.72 60.42 Junc 5-40 6247.0 3 .OO 63 86.7 1 60.42 Junc J-43 6244.7 3 .OO 63 86.7 1 61.41 Junc 5-44 6246.0 3 .OO 63 86.7 1 60.85 Junc J-49 6242.8 3 .OO 63 86.69 62.22 Junc J-50 6243.3 3 .OO 63 86.69 62.01 Junc 5-52 6242.5 3 .OO 6386.69 62.35 Junc J- 53 6244.0 3 .OO 63 86.69 61.71 Junc 5-57 6242.7 3 .OO 6386.73 62.28 Junc J-5 8 6244.3 3 .OO 6386.72 61.59 Junc J-5 9 6245.6 3 .OO 6386.72 61.02 Junc 5-64 6246.7 3 .OO 6386.72 60.55 Junc J-67 6254.9 3 .OO 63 87.26 57.24
Donne11 & Allred, Inc. Existing System with New Transmission, Tank Full Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc 5-78 6243.3 3 .OO 6386.72 62.02 Iunc 5-8 1 6252.0 3 .OO 63 87.26 58.49 Junc 5-83 I 6246.0 1 3.001 6386.76 1 60.87 Junc 5-85
- - Junc 5-89 I 6255.07 -167.04 6258115 ( 1.36 Junc 5-92 6255.0 3 .OO 6386.86 57.02 Junc J-9 1 6243.3 3 .OO 6386.73 62.02 Junc 5-93 6256.0 3 .OO 63 86.73 56.53 Junc 5-94 6243.3 3 .OO 6386.73 62.02 Junc J-95 1 6247.0 1 3.00 1 6386.72 1 60.42 Junc 5-96 6247.0 1 3.00 1 6386.78 1 60.45 Junc 5-97 6247.0 1 3.00 1 6386.86 1 60.48 Junc 5-98 6247 .O 3 -00 6386.78 60.44 Junc J-99 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.79 60.45 Junc J- 100 6247.0 3 .OO 6386.72 60.42 Junc 5-101 I 6250.0 1 3.001 6387.091 59.28 Junc J- 102 6274.0 3 .OO 6386.72 48.74 Junc J- 103 6274.0 3 .OO 6386.74 48.75 Junc 1 625 1 0.00 6387.17 58.88 Junc 2 Junc 3 6244.3 0.00 6386.98 61.70 Junc 4 6247 0.00 6386.89 60.49 Tank T- 1 6355.8 26.00 63 86.80 13.4 1
Donne11 & Allred, lnc. Donne11 & Allred, Inc. Project: BAGGS EXISTING SYSTEM Network Table - Nodes at 0:00 Hrs
Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc 5-6 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.37 46.86 Junc J-10 625 1.2 3 .OO 6355.70 45.19 Junc J- 11 6249.5 3 .OO 6355.68 45.91 Junc J- 12 6247.7 3 .OO 63 55.67 46.69 Junc J- 13 6250.3 3 .OO 6355.71 45.58 Junc J- 15 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.15 46.77 Junc J- 17 6246.6 3 .OO 6355.12 46.93 Junc 5-20 6247.7 3 .OO 6354.9 1 46.36 Junc 5-22 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.08 46.74 Junc 5-23 6246.8 3 .OO 6354.93 46.76 Junc 5-25 6274.1 3 .OO 6354.88 34.93 Junc J-29 6244.3 3 .OO 6354.87 47.8 1 Junc 5-3 0 6243 .O 3 .OO 6354.87 48.3 8 Junc 5-3 1 6243.3 3 .OO 6354.87 48.25 Junc J-3 3 6242.9 3 .OO 63 54.87 48.42 Junc 5-34 6246.4 3 .OO 6355.17 47.04 Junc 5-35 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.09 46.74 Junc 5-36 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.04 46.72 Junc 5-40 6247.0 3 .OO 6354.98 46.70 Junc 5-43 6244.7 3 .OO 6354.99 47.69 Junc 5-44 6246.0 3 .OO 6355.01 47.14 Junc J-49 6242.8 3 .OO 6354.96 48.50 Junc J-5 0 6243.3 3 .OO 6354.96 48.29 Junc J-52 6242.5 3 .OO 6354.97 48.63 Junc 5-53 6244.0 3 .OO 6354.97 47.99 Junc 5-57 6242.7 3 .OO 6354.93 48.53 Junc 5-58 6244.3 3 .OO 6354.92 47.83 Junc J-59 6245.6 3 .OO 63 54.92 47.27 Junc 5-64 6246.7 3 .OO 6354.92 46.80 Junc J-67 6254.9 3 .OO 6356.09 43.76
EPANET 2 Page 1 Project: BAGGS EXISTING SYSTEM Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi Junc 5-78 6243.3 3 .OO 6354.87 48.25 Junc 5-8 1 6252.0 3 .OO 6356.09 45.01 Junc J-83 6246.0 3 .OO 63 55.08 47.17 Junc 5-85 6255.0 3 .OO 6356.29 43.80 Junc 5-89 6255 .O - 167.00 6226.98 -12.12 Junc J-92 6255.0 3 .OO 6355.33 43.3 8 Junc J-9 1 6243.3 3 .OO 6354.87 48.25 Junc J-93 6256.0 3 .OO 6354.89 42.76 Junc 5-94 6243.3 3 .OO 6354.87 48.25 Junc J-95 6247.0 3 .OO 6354.92 46.67 Junc J-96 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.16 46.77 Junc 5-97 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.33 46.84 Junc 5-98 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.13 46.76 Junc J-99 6247.0 3 -00 6355.15 46.77 Junc J- 100 6247.0 3 .OO 6355.01 46.71 Junc J- 101 6250.0 3 .OO 6355.78 45.74 Junc J- 102 6274.0 3 .OO 6354.86 34.97 Junc J- 103 6274.0 3 .OO 6354.88 34.97 Junc 1 625 1 0.00 6356.07 45.44 Junc 2 6247 0.00 6356.05 47.16 Junc 3 6244.3 0.00 6356.03 48.32 Junc 4 6247 0.00 6356.02 47.14 Tank T- 1 6355.8 26.00 6356.00 0.09
EPANET 2 Page 2 APPENDIX D
Raw Water System - WaterCAD Model Results Scenario: Base
Titk Baggs. Lwd II Project Engineer. C.M. Jones WaterCAD vB.5 [8.512Ojj I:~d.lOl\untemd\rs~~.ter\bsg~srew.wcd Lbhtornmtd~ Page 1 of 1 081W104 M:22:19 PM Q Haeatad Methods. lnc. 37 Brookaide Road Waterbury. CT 06706 USA +1-203-755-1666 Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Pipe Report
Label Hazen- Minor Control Discharge Upstream Structur ownstream Structur Pressure Headloss Williams LOSS I Status1 (gpm) Hydraulic Grade Hydraulic Grade Pipe Gradient C C (fi) ( 1Head? (WlOOOft) - P-1 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.15 Open P-2 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-3 4.0 PVC 150.0 1.63 Open P4 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.22 Open P-5 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-6 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open P-7 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.22 Open P-8 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.20 Open P-9 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.20 Open P-10 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-12 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.70 Open P-13 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open P-14 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open P-15 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.44 Open P-16 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open P-18 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open P-17 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open P-19 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open P-23 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.63 Open P-24 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-26 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-27 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.44 Open P-28 4.0 PVC 150.0 1.50 Open P-29 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.22 Open P-30 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open P-31 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 1 Open I P-32 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 1 Open I P-34 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 open 1 P-35 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 open 1 P-36 4.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 1 Open I P-37 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P-38 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P-39 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.221 open I P40 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.50 1 Open I P-42 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.70 1 Open I P43 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.22 1 Open I P45 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P48 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P49 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35) open I P-52 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.70 1 Open I P-53 6.0 PVC 150.0 2.56 1 Open I P-54 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 1 Open I P-55 6.0 PVC 150.0 P-56 4.0 PVC 150.0 :::;I :;:: 1 P-59 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.72 Open P-60 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P-61 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 1 Open I P-62 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 1 Open I P-63 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 1 Open I P-65 4.0 PVC 150.0 P-66 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.~~10.00 Open I Title: Baggs, Level II Project Engineer: C.M. Jones I:\wydal 01\watercad\rawwater\baggsraw.wcd Lidstone and Associates WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120j] 09/24/04 03:35:03 PM Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +I-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Pipe Report v Label Length Diameter Material Hazen- Minor Control Discharge Upstream Structure3ownstreamStructure Pressure Headloss (fi) (in) Williams Loss Status (gpm) Hydraulic Grade Hydraulic Grade Pipe Gradient C Coefficient (ft) (ft Headloss (fV1000ft) (ft) P-67 179.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 - 0.00 Open -1 5.00 6,299.83 6,299.87 0.03 0.17 P-68 386.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open -1 5.01 6,299.87 6,299.93 0.07 0.17 P-69 377.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.25 Open -6.07 6,299.93 6,299.93 0.00 0.01 P-70 165.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.63 Open -6.07 6,299.93 6,299.93 0.00 0.00 P-71 382.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.75 Open -32.86 6,299.95 6,299.99 0.04 0.1 1 P-72' 331.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 1.63 Open -32.87 6,299.99 6,300.02 0.04 0.1 1 P-73 285.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open 0.00 6,299.99 6,299.99 0.00 0.00 P-74 301.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 1.28 Open 0.00 6,299.93 6,299.93 0.00 0.00 P-75 304.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open 0.00 6,299.88 6,299.88 0.00 0.00 P-76 310.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open 0.00 6,299.87 6,299.87 0.00 0.00 P-78 182.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.35 Open -9.47 6,299.94 6,299.95 0.00 0.01 P-79 341.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.20 Open -2.44 6,299.94 6,299.94 0.00 0.01 P-80 310.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.10 Open -2.44 6,299.94 6,299.94 0.00 0.01 P-81 181.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open -2.44 6,299.94 6,299.94 0.00 0.01 P-82 135.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open -9.47 6,299.94 6,299.94 0.00 0.01 P-83 687.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.75 Open 2.03 6,299.94 6,299.94 0.00 0.00 P-86 624.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.00 Open 81.42 6,300.65 6,300.31 0.34 0.55 P-87 644.00 6.0 PVC 150.0 0.50 Open 71.42 6,300.31 6,300.03 0.28 0.44 P-88 651.00 4.0 PVC 150.0 0.22 Open -21.26 6,300.08 6,300.30 0.21 0.33 t
Title: Baggs, Level II Project Engineer: C.M. Jones I:\wydal 01\watercad\rawwater\baggsraw.wcd Lidstone and Associates WaterCAD v6.5 [6.5120j] 09/24/04 03:35:03 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2