Full Text
7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 110 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone [PHONE REDACTED] Fax [PHONE REDACTED] e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30, 2010 Project No: 418-02-07-22 TO: Jack Bond, City of Modesto CC: Rich Ulm, City of Modesto Jim Alves, City of Modesto Glenn Prasad, City of Modesto FROM: Charles Duncan Amy Kwong SUBJECT: City of Modesto’s 2010 Water System Engineer’s Report Evaluation of the Buildout Water System for the Contiguous Service Area – Option B (Buildout System Evaluation TM) This technical memorandum (TM) presents an overview evaluation of the City of Modesto’s (City) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) buildout water system for the contiguous service area and its ability to meet the City’s recommended performance and planning criteria under buildout demand conditions. This TM contains the following sections to describe the data and methodology utilized to evaluate the City’s buildout water system: Background Contiguous Service Area’s Water System Demands Contiguous Service Area’s Buildout System Evaluation Contiguous Service Area’s Buildout System Evaluation Results Contiguous Service Area’s Buildout System Summary of Recommended Improvements This TM does not evaluate any system facilities or system performance for the outlying service areas, such as Del Rio, Grayson, Hickman, Turlock, Waterford, and Ceres (specifically the Walnut Manor neighborhood). These outlying service areas are addressed in subsequent TMs, (Appendices F through J) with the exception of Walnut Manor neighborhood, which is assumed to be completely built out. 1.0 BACKGROUND West Yost Associates (WYA) conducted this evaluation after the Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix D) was completed, at which point, the improvements needed to eliminate the existing system deficiencies were incorporated into the model. Additional planned system ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 2 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK improvements were also incorporated into the model to provide sufficient water supply and distribution service to existing and future customers under buildout water system demand conditions. These system improvements include: Transmission pipeline grid for Capital Planning Development (CPD) areas, Infrastructure within development areas, New and replacement groundwater wells, Completion of Phase 2 at the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant and City-Side Improvements needed to utilize the increased flow from the completion of the Phase Two Expansion Project. It was assumed in this analysis that all of the recommended CIP improvements from the Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix projects currently in design or construction, and any additional recommended wells and facilities for proposed developments will be fully constructed and operational prior to the addition of the Buildout Water System infrastructure and facilities. 1.1 Buildout Water System The contiguous area buildout system evaluation includes an analysis of water storage capacity, pumping capacity and the buildout pipeline system’s ability to meet recommended performance and design criteria under Maximum Day demand plus fire flow and Peak Hour demand scenarios. The evaluations, findings, and recommendations for addressing the identified water system deficiencies during a buildout demand condition are included in this TM. In addition, a description of the recommended Buildout System CIP to implement the proposed improvements is also included, along with an estimate of probable construction costs. 2.0 CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA’S BUILDOUT SYSTEM DEMANDS As discussed in the Demand TM (Appendix there is no precise way to measure customer water use due to unaccounted for water and the City’s current billing procedure of having some residential flat-fee accounts, except to select and set a baseline demand equal to a production quantity at some specific point in time. Thus, throughout this TM (and the other related TM’s), by definition, the system wide baseline demand (“demand”) includes both customer water use (the amount actually measured and billed) and unaccounted for water (unmeasured system losses). For this analysis, the Average Day production of 2006 was set as the baseline demand from which future demand distributions were built. Since the baseline demand was established as equal to production, it was assumed that future projection of water demands would also equal production. Water system demands have been estimated and projected for the contiguous service area (not including the outlying areas of Del Rio, Grayson, Hickman, Turlock, Ceres [Walnut Manor] and Waterford) during a buildout scenario. All water system demands include a 15 percent estimation of unaccounted for water (UAFW), as defined above. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 3 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK The calculation of the peaking factors used to estimate the Maximum Day demand and the Peak Hour demand are documented in the Demand TM (Appendix B, Table The Maximum Day demand peaking factor is estimated to be 1.75 times the Average Day demand, and the Peak Hour peaking factor is estimated to be 2.46 times the Average Day demand. The projected buildout water demands are discussed below. 2.1 Buildout Water System Demands The system demands at buildout for the City were estimated based on the projected buildout land use information provided by City staff and the estimated unit water use factors as described in the Demand TM (Appendix The buildout demands include a 10 percent reduction in existing residential water use to account for anticipated water use reductions as the City implements its metering program. The projected buildout demands were allocated into the existing model using the model’s Demand Allocation/Pro and are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Projected Buildout (2038) System Demands for the Contiguous Service Area(a) Demand Demand Scenario gpm mgd Average Day 68,190 98.2 Maximum Day(b) 119,333 171.9 Peak Hour(c) 167,748 241.6 Demand includes the existing demand, interim demand, and accounts for demand increase due to UAFW. Demand does not include outlying service areas of Del Rio, Grayson, Hickman, Turlock, Ceres (Walnut Manor) and Waterford. Maximum Day demand is 1.75 times the Average Day demand. Peak Hour demand is 2.46 times the Average Day demand. 3.0 CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA’S BUILDOUT SYSTEM EVALUATION To meet the interim and buildout demands presented in the previous section, it is recommended that the City construct additional infrastructure, including storage tanks, booster pumps, and piping. In order to appropriately size the recommended facilities, analyses addressing the following system facilities were conducted: Future System Infrastructure Additions, Storage Capacity Evaluation, Pumping Capacity Evaluation, and Critical Supply Facilities. The results of the infrastructure analyses are discussed below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 4 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK 3.1 Future System Infrastructure Additions Additional transmission pipelines and water supply facilities are required to serve the increased demands under the buildout scenario. The phasing of these additional facilities is based on needs in the buildout system and is presented below. 3.1.1 Near-term Water System Improvements In addition to the Existing System CIP facilities recommended in the Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix specific pipeline grids and other recommended improvements were added to the existing system infrastructure to represent near-term developments, for which planning information is available, based on information provided by City staff and various developers (see Figure Some of the developments are in preliminary planning stages. Therefore, no infrastructure could be added to the hydraulic model for these specific developments. The developments, with associated pipeline infrastructure and detailed demands, that were added to the model include: Promenade Woodglen Pelandale-McHenry Martin (aka Rose Villas) Tivoli Kansas-Woodland (aka Kansas Avenue Business Park) Fairview Village (including Westport Landing and Bava Brothers) 9th and Carver Cornerstone Business Park Kiernan Business Park East Kiernan Business Park South Riverdale Water System Other facilities that were added to the existing system improvements to represent needed near- term system infrastructure included: Groundwater Well(s): FMC and Tivoli Pump(s): Additional booster pump at the MID’s Terminal Reservoir 3.1.2 Buildout System Improvements Since specific plans for some of the buildout developments are unavailable or currently do not exist, it was assumed that a pipeline grid with a minimum 12-inch diameter pipeline would be constructed along the outskirts of the existing contiguous service area to grid out the planned buildout land use. In addition to this pipeline grid, two additional groundwater wells, associated ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 5 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK with planned developments, were included to complete the proposed buildout water system improvements, as illustrated on Figure 2. 3.2 Storage Capacity Evaluation The principal advantage that storage provides to a water system is the ability to help equalize the fluctuating demands otherwise placed on supply source production and transmission facilities, along with meeting peak demands quickly (i.e. fighting fires, emergency source in case of supply failure, etc). The contiguous service area has two forms of available storage: at grade storage tanks and the groundwater basin. Together, these two types of storage must be sufficient to meet the water system’s operational, emergency, and fire flow storage criteria. The volumes required for each of these three storage components are detailed below: Operational Storage: 25 percent of Maximum Day demand; Emergency Storage: Average Day demand for one day; and Fire Flow Storage: the required maximum fire flow multiplied by the fire flow duration period, as required by the City of Modesto Fire Department. However, two simultaneous fire flow events were assumed for storage to provide a more conservative fire flow storage estimate (appropriate for a larger municipality like Modesto). The largest fire flow of 4,000 gpm for the duration of 4 hours and a smaller multi-family residential fire flow of 2,500 gpm for the duration of 2 hours were assumed for this evaluation. As illustrated on Figure 2, the proposed buildout water system will have twelve at grade storage tanks (9 existing, including 2 owned by MID, plus 3 proposed) in the contiguous service area. The groundwater basin will be used for a portion of the recommended storage volume and system pumping capacity. The recommended storage volume includes a groundwater credit which is described below. For the system pumping capacity, the groundwater basin can use the reliable firm groundwater pumping capacity (60 percent of the total operating well’s pumping capacity), and is further described in Subsection 3.2.1. Though these groundwater facilities are capable of being counted toward these system needs, sufficient water transmission facilities must be available from these supplies to distribute this water to demand areas. Credit for groundwater storage can be used to satisfy the emergency storage requirement; however, sufficient transmission facilities must be available to distribute this water to the demand areas. Emergency groundwater storage credit is equal to the production capacity of wells in service that have generators for backup-up power (wells that pump directly into storage tanks are not included). On a system-wide basis, the minimum credit is equal to zero, and the maximum credit is equal to the recommended emergency storage capacity (one day’s worth of Average Day demand). On an individual well basis that is equipped with back-up power, the minimum credit is zero and the maximum credit is equal to the pumping capacity of the well. It was assumed that all new groundwater facilities proposed in the interim and buildout systems would have auxiliary power installed. The calculation of the required storage volume, including the groundwater emergency storage credit, is discussed below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 6 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK 3.2.1 Buildout Water System Storage Capacity The buildout water system infrastructure was evaluated to determine whether there is sufficient capacity to provide the required operational, fire flow, and emergency storage to the contiguous service area at buildout (Year 2038) demand conditions. In order to determine the needed buildout storage facilities, this evaluation included the existing storage facilities, improvements recommended in the Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix and a groundwater credit determination; all of which are summarized in Table 2. With these existing and proposed facilities constructed and operational, the City has a projected buildout water storage capacity deficit of 46.0 MG, as shown in Table 2. If the emergency storage credit is maximized by adding additional auxiliary power to a number of existing and planned wells, the storage deficit drops to 12.2 MG. This would require the addition of auxiliary power at 25 existing and planned groundwater wells (Table B1). Table 2. Comparison of Available and Required Buildout System Storage Capacity for the Contiguous Service Area(a) Storage Component Criteria Storage Required, MG Operational 0.25 x Maximum Day demand 43.0 Fire Flow 4,000 gpm for 4 hours plus 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 1.3 Emergency 1.00 x Average Day demand 98.2 Total Storage Requirement 142.5 Existing Tank Storage Available(b) (18.1) Proposed Tank Storage(c) (14.0) Emergency Groundwater Storage Credit(d) (64.4) Storage Deficiency 46.0 Additional Emergency Groundwater Storage Credit(e) (33.8) Actual Storage Deficiency(f) 12.2 Information representative of only the Modesto contiguous service area and is based on the Demand TM (Appendix which includes Salida, Empire, South Modesto and North Ceres. Existing tank storage available includes 10.0 MG in the MID owned Terminal Reservoirs and 0.7 MG in Tank 10. Proposed Tank Storage includes City-Side Improvements previously identified in other TMs and related to the Phase Two Expansion (North Tank, Industrial Tank, and West Tank). Emergency groundwater storage credit is based on total pumping capacity of existing and proposed wells in service that have generators for backup power (see Appendix D, Table A-1). The maximum credit is equal to the recommended emergency storage capacity (one day’s worth of Average Day demand). Emergency groundwater storage credit based on wells proposed to have backup power installed (see Table B-1) to maximize the emergency groundwater storage credit. Of the 12.2 MG deficit, 7.2 MG is in South Modesto (See Appendix E, Table 5 for calculations). The installation of a one new 5.0 MG tank north of the existing MID Terminal Reservoirs will reduce the water storage capacity deficit in the buildout water system. If possible, this new tank should be connected to the suction side of the MID booster pump station to utilize the available ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 7 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK existing pumping capacity. Installation of this new tank will also provide the City with a more flexible operational scheme because it would allow the City to utilize the additional tank to equalize demands on the MID supply source and minimize new infrastructure and facility costs. To satisfy the remaining storage capacity deficit (7.2 MG), new storage is recommended in South Modesto. Storage should be configured to be supplied from the North Modesto system and boost to the South Modesto system, similar to existing storage tanks 3 and 6. 3.3 Pumping Capacity Evaluation The pumping capacity from wells and booster pumps associated with storage tanks within the contiguous service area was evaluated to assess their ability to deliver reliable firm capacity during high demand conditions for the buildout scenario. Therefore, the total pumping capacity was reduced to account for pumps that are expected to be out of service at any given time due to mechanical breakdowns, routine maintenance, water quality, or other operational issues. For each booster pump station associated with active storage tanks, firm booster pumping capacity is defined as the total booster pump station capacity with the largest pump out of service. For groundwater well pumps, the firm groundwater pumping capacity is defined (as presented in the 2005 Hydraulic Model Update) as equal to 60 percent of the total groundwater production capacity from all operational wells for one day. An operational well is defined as any well that has not been formally abandoned, including wells temporarily out of service due to mechanical breakdowns, routine maintenance, water quality or other operational issues, and wells that pump directly into tanks. As a result, a firm pumping capacity from the groundwater wells of approximately 48,392 gpm from the groundwater wells can be assumed available to meet peak demands under buildout system conditions. 3.3.1 Buildout System Pumping Capacity The two pumping capacity criteria for the City’s system are: To have sufficient reliable firm pumping capacity from supply sources and storage tanks to meet the greater of either a Maximum Day plus fire flow demand or a Peak Hour demand via all available wells and booster pump stations, and To have sufficient reliable firm pumping capacity from all supply sources Terminal Reservoirs supplemented by groundwater wells), to meet a Maximum Day demand. For the analysis of pumping capacity from supply sources and storage tanks, the Peak Hour demand is the larger of the two demand conditions. The projected buildout booster pump station and groundwater pumping capacity for the contiguous service area is 159,714 gpm, as detailed in Table 3, indicating a 8,034 gpm deficit. The installation of new supply wells, as discussed below, and new booster pump station capacity associated with new storage will provide a solution for the pumping capacity deficit in the buildout water system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 8 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK Table 3. Evaluation of the Contiguous Service Area’s Firm Pumping Capacity Under Buildout Demand Conditions Supply and Storage Tank Booster Stations Supply Booster Stations Demand or Firm Pumping Capacity Peak Hour Demand Condition, gpm Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow, gpm Maximum Day Demand Condition, gpm Buildout Demand(a) 167,748 125,733 119,333 Booster Pump Station at the Terminal Reservoirs(b) (55,600) (55,600) (55,600) Booster Pump Station at Tank Sites (55,722) (55,722) NA(c) Groundwater Wells (48,392) (48,392) (48,392) Total Firm Pumping Capacity(d) (159,714) (159,714) (103,992) Pumping Deficiency (Surplus) 8,034 (33,981) 15,341 Based on projected buildout demands and a Peak Hour and Maximum Day peaking factors of 2.46 and 1.75 times the Average Day demand, respectively. With the completion of the Phase Two Expansion, under the City/MID surface water supply agreement (Amended and Restated Treatment and Delivery Agreement), 60 mgd (41,666 gpm) will be available for City use. However, it is assumed that the City can use all available pumping capacity at the booster pump station for peaking. NA = not applicable Defined as the total capacity of the individual booster pump station with the largest unit in each of the booster pump station out of service or 60 percent of the total capacity of active/proposed wells, and excludes wells that pump into tanks or are currently out of service. To meet Maximum Day demand conditions for the contiguous service area, the City relies on the MID Terminal Reservoir supplies supplemented by groundwater wells, which have a total combined available firm pumping capacity of 103,992 gpm, which is insufficient for the 119,333 gpm buildout Maximum Day demand. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the water production deficit can be partially satisfied by using the pumping capacity of 7,270 gpm provided by groundwater wells that fill tanks in the system (60 percent of total capacity of 12,116 gpm that pumps to tanks). This assumption is based on the ability of the booster pump stations to pump out the same amount of water that the wells are supplying to the tanks. The remaining pumping capacity deficit of 8,071 gpm will need to be supplied by new groundwater wells or by adding wellhead treatment to existing wells currently out of service for water quality reasons. The combination of these pumping facilities discussed above will eliminate the City’s pumping capacity deficit during a Maximum Day demand scenario in the buildout system. Table 4 details the pumping capacity of each individual facility that was totaled for the calculations presented in Table 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Station Status(a) Backup Power Pump 1, gpm Pump 2, gpm Pump 3, gpm Pump 4, gpm Pump 5, gpm Pump 6, gpm Total Capacity, gpm Firm Capacity(a), gpm MID Terminal Reservoir(b) Active Y 13,900 13,900 6,950 6,950 13,900 13,900 69,500 55,600 Tank 3 Active Y 600 600 600 600 2,400 1,800 Tank 4 Active Y 950 950 950 910 3,760 2,810 Tank 5 Active Y 950 900 950 950 3,750 2,800 Tank 6 Active Y 2,475 2,460 2,515 7,450 4,935 Tank 7 Active Y 2,450 2,450 2,450 7,350 4,900 Tank 8 Active Y 2,570 2,570 2,570 7,710 5,140 Tank 10 (Galas) OOS-Repair Y 2,085 2,085 2,085 6,255 4,170 North Tank Proposed Y(c) 4,167 4,167 4,167 4,167 16,667 12,500 Industrial Tank Proposed Y(c) 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 11,111 8,333 West Tank Proposed Y(c) 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 11,111 8,333 South Modesto Terminal Tank Proposed Y(d) 2,662 2,662 2,662 2,662 10,648 7,986 Booster Station Capacity (excluding Terminal Tanks) 77,564 55,722 235,276 119,308 Well 001 Active Y(d) 950 950 Well 002 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 003 OOS - WQ 650 Well 004 Active Y(d) 950 950 Well 006 Active Y 950 950 Well 007 Active Y(d) 950 950 Well 008 OOS - WQ 775 Well 010 Active Y(e) 400 400 Well 014 OOS - WQ Y 1,500 Well 016 Active Y(d) 1,800 1,800 Well 017 Active Y(e) 1,450 1,450 Well 018 OOS - WQ 750 Well 019 OOS - WQ 600 Well 021 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 022 OOS - WQ 1,000 Well 024 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 025 Active Y 1,500 1,500 Well 029 Tank Fill 1,058 Well 030 Tank Fill 1,000 Well 032 OOS - WQ 800 Well 033 Active Y 1,800 1,800 Well 034 OOS - WQ 1,250 Well 036 Active Y(e) 1,050 1,050 Well 037 OOS - WQ 1,250 Well 038 Tank Fill 1,163 Well 039 Active Y 1,950 1,950 Well 040 Active Y 1,400 1,400 Well 041 Active Y 1,200 1,200 Well 042 Active Y 1,800 1,800 Well 043 Active Y 1,900 1,900 Well 044 OOS - WQ Y 1,250 Well 045 Active Y(e) 1,500 1,500 Well 046 Active 1,150 1,150 Well 047 Active Y(e) 1,600 1,600 Well 048 Active Y(e) 1,330 1,330 Well 049 OOS - WQ Y 500 Well 050 Active Y(d) 800 800 Well 051 Active 2,200 2,200 Well 052 Active Y 1,600 1,600 Well 053 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 054 Tank Fill Y 2,400 Well 055 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 056 Active Y(e) 650 650 Well 057 Active Y 1,350 1,350 Well 058 Active Y(d) 1,300 1,300 Well 059 Active 1,400 1,400 Well 061 Active Y 1,575 1,575 Well 062 Active Y 2,200 2,200 Well 064 Active Y 1,800 1,800 Well 065 Tank Fill Y 2,000 Well 066 Tank Fill Y 1,350 Well 100 Active Y(d) 650 650 Well 204 Active Y(e) 1,450 1,450 Well 211 Active Y(e) 1,450 1,450 Well 212 Active 1,000 1,000 Well 213 Active Y(d) Well 214 OOS - WQ 400 Well 216 Active Y(e) 550 550 Well 217 Active Y(d) 400 400 Well 223 Tank Fill Y 400 Well 225 Active Y 1,200 1,200 Well 226 OOS - WQ 675 Well 229 Active 425 425 Well 232 Active Y(d) 775 775 Well 236 OOS - WQ 750 Well 237 Active Y(d) 630 630 Well 241 Active Y(d) 350 350 Well 247 Active Y(e) 560 560 Well 250 Active Y(e) 835 835 Well 259 Active Y(e) 400 400 Well 262 Active Y(e) 350 350 Well 264 Active Y(e) 700 700 Well 265 Active Y(e) 500 500 Well 267 Active Y(d) 1,190 1,190 Well 269 Active 750 750 Well 277 Active 1,000 1,000 Well 278 Active Y(d) 800 800 Well 279 Active 800 800 Well 281 Active Y(e) 480 480 Well 283 OOS - WQ 800 Well 284 Active Y(d) 750 750 Well 285 OOS - WQ 1,000 Well 287 Active 750 750 Well 288 Active 650 650 Well 290 Active 633 633 Well 291 Active Y(e) 500 500 Well 292 Active Y(e) 850 850 Well 293 OOS - WQ Y 825 Well 294 Active Y 1,325 1,325 Well 296 Active Y 900 900 Well 297 Active 1,300 1,300 Well 298 Active Y 1,200 1,200 Well 299 Active Y 450 450 Well 300 Active Y(e) 700 700 Well 301 Tank Fill Y 500 Well 304 OOS - WQ Y 525 Well 305 Tank Fill Y 750 Well 307 Active Y(f) 1,050 1,050 Well 308 Active 850 850 Well 310 Active Y 1,320 1,320 Well 312 Active Y(d) 1,000 1,000 Well 313 Active Y 1,175 1,175 Well 063 Proposed Y(d) 1,500 1,500 Shelter Cove Well Proposed Y(e) 1,000 1,000 Tivoli Well Proposed Y(e) 1,500 1,500 Grogan Well Proposed Y(e) 1,500 1,500 FMC Well Proposed Y(e) 1,000 1,000 Plastipak Well Proposed Y(e) 1,000 1,000 80,653 48,392 315,929 167,700 = Existing or proposed well included in capacity calculations. Backup power is being proposed for this facility. Table 4. Summary of the Buildout System Contiguous Service Area's Pumping Facilities OOS = out of service due to water quality issues [during 2009] Total Tank Pumping Capacity Backup power has been proposed at this facility in the Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix Under the current MID Supply Agreement with the completion of Phase 2, 60 mgd (41,666 gpm) will be available for City use. 48,392 Well Pumping Capacity System Pumping Capacity Firm capacity is defined as the total booster pumping capacity with the largest pump out of service or 60 percent of the total active/proposed groundwater well pumping capacity from all operational wells for one day (an operational well is defined West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceE2AppE Last Revised: 12/02/08 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 10 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK 3.4 Critical Supply Facilities All critical supply facilities should be equipped with an on-site generator for backup-power. Critical supply facilities are defined as those facilities that provide service to local service area(s) without sufficient emergency storage and that meet at least one of the following criteria: The largest pumping facility that provides water; A pumping facility that provides water from a supply turnout (i.e. pumps); Valve facilities at key locations along the MID Transmission pipelines; A pumping facility that provides water from key groundwater supply wells (based on capacity, quality, location, and/or local pressure cluster); and All storage tank booster pump stations. Each of the critical supply facilities listed above will be equipped with generators for backup– power, if it does not already have an auxiliary power source, via the proposed buildout system capital improvement program (CIP) in order to provide reliable pumping capacity during an emergency power outage. 4.0 CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA’S BUILDOUT SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS This section of the TM discusses the performance criteria and results of the water distribution system analyses for the contiguous service area under the buildout scenario. 4.1 Distribution System Performance Criteria Steady state hydraulic analyses using the recently updated water system hydraulic model were conducted to identify areas of the buildout distribution system that do not meet the recommended performance criteria discussed in the Revised Design/System and Performance Criteria TM dated June 17, 2004 (WYA). The results of the evaluation are presented below for the following demand scenarios: Peak Hour Demand— A Peak Hour flow condition was simulated for the buildout distribution facilities to evaluate their capability to meet a Peak Hour demand scenario. Peak Hour demands are met by the combined flows from the Terminal Reservoirs, storage tanks, and groundwater wells. Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow — To evaluate the system under the Maximum Day demand plus fire flow condition, the model’s “Available Fire Flow Analysis” tool was used to determine the extend of improvements required to meet the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at demand locations within the buildout water system. The available residual pressures and flows at these demand locations were determined by assigning specific fire flow demand requirements based on land use categories. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 11 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK 4.1.1 Peak Hour Demand Scenario As discussed in the Water System Demand section discussed above (see Table the Peak Hour demand is 2.46 times the Average Day demand. The City’s system performance criteria require that during a Peak Hour demand condition, a minimum pressure of 40 psi must be maintained throughout the system. In addition, maximum head loss per thousand feet of distribution main should not exceed 7 ft/kft and maximum pipeline velocities should not exceed 7 fps. Details of system performance as simulated in the model under the Peak Hour demand condition are discussed below. 4.1.2 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Scenario Fire flow demands were simulated at various locations within the City’s service area to determine if the minimum residual pressure criterion of 20 psi could be met during Maximum Day plus fire flow demand. As shown in Table 3, the Maximum Day demand is 1.75 times the Average Day demand. During a Maximum Day plus concurrent fire flow demand condition, a minimum pressure of 20 psi must be maintained throughout the system. In addition, maximum head loss per thousand feet of distribution main should not exceed 10 ft/kft and maximum velocities should not exceed 12 fps. These fire flow demands, which are the standard for the buildout water system, were determined based on land use categories and are listed below in Table 5. Table 5. City’s Fire Flow Demand Requirements(a) Land Use Fire Flow, gpm Duration, hours Single Family Residential 1,500 2 Multi Family Residential 2,500 2 Commercial 4,000 2 Institutional 4,000 4 Industrial / Business Park 4,000 4 Specific fire flows were based on the City’s previously defined Water System Planning and Design Performance Criteria documented in 2005 Hydraulic Model Update, under the Revised Design / System Performance Criteria TM dated June 17, 2004. The cited flow durations assume that approved automatic sprinkler systems are installed for commercial, institutional, industrial and business park land use buildings. 4.1.3 Recommended Improvements Criteria Pipelines need to deliver water that meets Peak Hour demands and Maximum Day plus fire flow demands within the acceptable pressure, velocity, and head loss ranges as identified in the performance criteria previously established in the 2005 Hydraulic Model Update, but the distribution system will be evaluated using pressure as the primary criterion. Recommended improvements needed to comply with the performance criteria were added to the buildout system to fix any deficiencies found and are also described below in the Buildout System Evaluation Results section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 12 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK However, as discussed under the System Evaluation Results section, a large fraction of the junctions within the model failed to meet the Maximum Day plus fire flow demand performance criteria. Recommended improvements to meet the residual pressure requirement of 20 psi during a Maximum Day plus fire flow demand scenario would require the replacement of a substantial amount of the water distribution system. Therefore, their improvements are not individually identified by pipe segment, but rather accounted for on a planning level as part of the City’s Strengthen and Replace Pipelines CIP presented in the Engineer’s Report. The performance criteria described above will be used to evaluate the buildout systems during a Peak Hour demand and Maximum Day plus fire flow demand scenarios. The evaluation results are discussed below. 4.2 Buildout System Evaluation Results This section addresses the results of the Peak Hour demand and Maximum Day plus fire flow demand analyses under the buildout system condition with the addition of planned near-term and proposed buildout facilities (see Figure 4.3.1 Peak Hour Demand Scenario During a Peak Hour demand condition, results indicate that the buildout system could not adequately deliver peak hour flows to meet the City’s minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi, even with the added use of all previously and newly proposed facilities for storage and pumping capacity. As shown on Figure 3, system pressures ranged from 35 to 79 psi. Areas of low pressure identified during the simulation included: around Tank 6, and in the northeast. These pressure deficiencies were mainly due to insufficient supply. To remedy the pressure deficiencies during a Peak Hour demand scenario, the following Buildout System CIP improvements are necessary: Construction of Well SOI 1, Construction of new storage and associated booster pumping capacity in North Modesto, assumed to be located adjacent to the MID terminal storage reservoirs. Transmission improvements to reinforce the system on the west side. Rehabilitation of Well 53. These proposed Buildout System CIP improvements provide a solution to the pressure deficiencies in the buildout system; the system pressures now range from 40 to 80 psi. However, the simulated operation in the model for a Peak Hour demand scenario does not reduce the groundwater pumping capacity to account for pumps that are out of service at any given time due to mechanical breakdowns, maintenance, water quality, or other operational issues because it would be difficult to predict where these problems would occur. Therefore, the City would need to construct the recommended pumping facilities proposed previously in the Pumping Capacity Evaluation to account for pumps that may be out of service during a Peak Hour demand scenario. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 13 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK There are also pipelines in the water system that did not meet maximum velocity and head loss criteria for a peak hour demand scenario as illustrated on Figure 3. The following list details those pipelines that exceeded the maximum velocity and head loss criteria, but are not near a pumping facility or control valve, with numbers below cross-referenced to locations indicated on the figure: 1. The 12-inch diameter pipeline at the intersection of Bangs Avenue and Tully Road had a velocity of 8 fps and a head loss of 16 ft/kft. This pipeline connects 20-inch diameter pipelines to 10-inch diameter pipelines. 2. The 10-inch diameter pipeline at the intersection of Merle Avenue and Oakdale Road had a velocity of 9 fps and a head loss of 22 ft/kft. 3. The 10-inch diameter pipeline at the intersection of Merle Avenue and Walnut Tree Drive had a velocity of 7 fps and a head loss of 17 ft/kft 4. The 16-inch diameter pipeline on Claus Road between Briggsmore Avenue and Merle Avenue had a velocity of 7 fps and a head loss of 11 ft/kft 5. The 12-inch diameter pipeline at the intersection of E. Orangeburg Avenue and Claus Road had a velocity of 8 fps and a head loss of 17 ft/kft. 6. The 12-inch diameter pipeline on Ironside Drive, west of Galas Tank, had a velocity of 7 fps and a head loss of 14 ft/kft. 7. The 8-inch diameter pipeline on Pecos Avenue, east of S. 7th Street had a velocity of 8 fps and a head loss of 27 ft/kft. 8. The 4-inch diameter pipeline on Encina Avenue, west of Wilson Avenue had a velocity of 9 fps and a head loss of 267 ft/kft. 9. The 16-inch diameter pipeline at the intersection of Leckron Road and Codini Avenue had a velocity of 7 fps and a head loss of 18 ft/kft. Because pipeline velocity and head loss are secondary criteria, no improvements for pipelines exceeding the velocity and head loss criteria are recommended unless the primary criterion (pressure) is not met. Based on results of the Peak Hour simulation, none of these listed pipelines require upsizing to mitigate pressure deficiencies. Therefore, no additional improvements are recommended at this time. As the City replaces pipelines as a part of its Strengthen and Replace Water System CIP, it should consider replacing the pipelines listed above with a larger diameter pipeline. 4.2.2 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Scenario Using the model’s “Available Fire Flow Analysis” tool, the available residual pressure within the buildout system was determined by assigning specific fire flow demand requirements based on land use categories. As shown on Figure 4, results indicate that 490 (9 percent) out of 5,375 specified fire flow locations could not meet the minimum required residual pressure of 20 psi. However, 379 out of 490 failed fire flow locations may be able to meet the minimum required residual pressure of 20 psi if the fire flow demand was split between two adjacent hydrants as shown on Figure 4. This result indicates that splitting the fire flow may be an option to address ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 14 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK these fire flow issues. WYA recommends that additional field testing should be conducted by the City’s Fire Department to confirm the available fire flow in the various areas. Figure 4 also shows the remaining 111 locations that were not able to meet the minimum required residual pressure of 20 psi even at half the required fire flow. Further inspections into these areas indicate that in most cases, the pipelines were undersized and would need to be replaced by larger diameter pipelines to supply the required fire flow demand. Due to the large number of failed fire flow locations (almost 500), necessary improvements are not individually identified in the CIP. However, it is recommended that City staff should consider these fire flow deficiencies as a factor when prioritizing future main replacement projects under the City’s Strengthen and Replace Water System CIP. Table A1 of Attachment A lists the fire flow requirement and simulated available fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi for each junction within the buildout system that could not meet the minimum required residual pressure. 5.0 CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA’S BUILDOUT SYSTEM SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The recommended system improvements for interim and buildout system conditions include facilities that are proposed as part of the City’s continued growth, and improvements that eliminate system deficiencies identified in the analyses described above. The recommended system improvements with associated costs are presented in the discussion below. 5.1 Estimated Capital Cost for Recommended Improvements The estimated probable capital costs for the recommended water system improvements to reliably serve the buildout demands of the contiguous service area are presented in Table 6. The capital costs are presented in March 2010 dollars at an Engineering News Records (ENR) construction cost index (CCI) of 9728.17 for the San Francisco Average. The costs include a total markup of 50 percent (see Attachment A of the Engineer’s Report for more detail) on the estimated construction cost to account for administration, planning, design, construction management, and other soft-costs appropriate for this level of planning. The costs for the facilities do not include costs for the purchase of raw water, annual operation and maintenance, or costs for acquisition of rights-of-way. Costs for the facilities and pipelines associated with proposed developments are also not included in these cost estimates. Also, costs related to the City’s Improvement Project related to the Phase Two Expansion are not included in these cost estimates; these costs have been accounted for elsewhere in the development of the overall CIP. 5.2 Buildout System Recommendations The recommended improvements needed to address continued City growth and eliminate deficiencies identified in the analysis of the buildout distribution system are summarized below. Detailed improvements are summarized with costs in Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 15 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK Table 6. Summary of Recommended CIP Cost Estimates to Serve the Buildout System of the Contiguous Service Area Recommendation Cost Estimate(a) Storage 5.0 MG Storage Tank, North Modesto $6,880,000 Two 3.5 MG Storage Tanks, South Modesto $9,640,000 Pump Stations Well Backup Generators(b) $2,667,000 Booster Pump Station – 10 mgd (North Modesto) $1,940,000 Booster Pump Station – 11.5 mgd (South Modesto) $2,028,000 Pipelines Tuolumne River Crossing $1,000,000 Tuolumne River Crossing and Transmission to South Modesto Tank $3,333,000 New Transmission from South Modesto Tank $3,733,000 Proposed Buildout System Pipelines(c) $34,170,000 South Modesto System Improvements(d) $9,392,000 Localized Pipeline Improvements(c) $449,000 Other Improvements Tivoli Well w/ 1,500 gpm capacity NA(e) FMC Well w/ 1,000 gpm capacity NA(e) Shelter Cove Well w/ 1,000 gpm capacity NA(e) Grogan Well NA(e) Plastipak Well NA(e) Well #1 w/ 1,500 gpm capacity $1,333,000 Wellhead Treatment (nine locations assumed) 6,000,000 Total CIP Recommendation Subtotal $82,565,000 Soft Costs and Contingencies(f) $41,282,500 Total Buildout CIP Cost Estimate $123,847,500 Capital costs presented in March 2010 dollars at an Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index (CCI) of 9728.17 for the San Francisco Average. Capital costs detailed in Table B1 (see Attachment Capital costs detailed in Table B2 (see Attachment Includes existing localized recommendations detailed in Table 7 of South Modesto Interim Water Supply Study TM. Funding is assumed to be provided by developer associated with each facility. Soft cost and contingency mark-ups include: construction contingency engineering construction management and program implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 16 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK Storage Facilities Construct a new 5.0 MG tank north of the existing Terminal Reservoirs to alleviate the storage capacity deficit. Construct a new 7.0 MG tank (or two 3.5 MG tanks) in South Modesto. Pumping Facilities To provide additional supply needed to meet the increasing demands under the buildout condition for future developments, five new developer-funded groundwater wells area planned as part of the future infrastructure. These groundwater wells are: — Tivoli Well: 1,500 gpm — FMC Well: 1,000 gpm — Grogan Well: 1,500 gpm — Plastipak Well: 1,000 gpm — Shelter Cove: 1,000 gpm Construct Well SOI 01 (1,500 gpm) to alleviate the pumping capacity deficit and low pressures during a peak hour demand scenario. Provide new supply capacity by providing wellhead treatment at wells currently out of service for water quality. Up to 8,100 gpm of firm capacity is needed (13,500 gpm of total capacity, assuming firm capacity is 60 percent of total capacity). All of the currently out of service wells in South Modesto should be rehabilitated as part of this program. Construct additional booster pumping capacity associated with new storage in North and South Modesto. Install generators at several existing and proposed groundwater wells as shown in Table 2, and detailed in Table B1, to increase the available emergency groundwater credit and alleviate the storage capacity deficit. Backup generator costs are not calculated for the proposed wells, since these costs are assumed to be part of the well installation cost. Install generators at all new pumping facilities to increase the reliable pumping capacity in the City’s water system. Generators at new groundwater wells will also increase the available emergency groundwater credit and alleviate the storage capacity deficit. Pipelines Install new 16-inch diameter Tuolumne River pipeline crossings to reinforce the existing transmission pipelines to South Modesto. Install new 16-inch diameter transmission main and river crossing from Modesto to new South Modesto tank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 30, 2010 Page 17 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK1AppK Install new transmission from new South Modesto tank to South Modesto system. Install proposed pipelines of various diameters and as shown on Figure 5 and as summarized in Table B2. Examine the need for pipeline improvements in areas where the available fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi is below the recommended fire flow requirements as shown in Table 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T 8C 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 8A 07 06 05 04 21 03 01 2B 11B 23B 17A 19A 18A 16A 14A 11A 23A 9.5B 9.5A Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 6 Tank 4 Tank 3 Tank 5 Tank 10 West Tank North Tank Industrial Tank MID Terminal Tank 65 61 64 63 TW SC 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 8B 66 65 61 64 63 66 TW 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 FIGURE 1 City of Modesto PROPOSED NEAR-TERM CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA SYSTEM FACILITIES NOTES: LEGEND: O\C\418\020722\GIS\Figures\MID TM\Dec 2008\Fig1_InterimSys.mxd Contiguous Service Area City Limits Street U T Existing Tank & Pump Station Existing Active Well Existing Inactive Well Existing Blending Well Proposed Near-term Well MID Turnout Connection Existing MID Transmission Main Existing Pipeline Proposed Near-term Pipeline 0 3,500 7,000 1,750 Scale in Feet - Inactive wells based on City's August 2009 Out of Service Well Report - Near-term pipeline alignments based on information provided by City and developers - MID supply is expected to increase to 60 MGD after the completion of Phase 2 - Existing facilities include recommended Existing System CIP detailed in Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix D) ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T 8C 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 8A 07 06 05 04 21 03 01 2B 11B 23B 17A 19A 18A 16A 14A 11A 23A 9.5B 9.5A Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 6 Tank 4 Tank 3 Tank 5 Tank 10 West Tank North Tank Industrial Tank MID Terminal Tank 65 PL GW 61 64 63 TW SC 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 8B 66 FIGURE 2 City of Modesto PROPOSED BUILDOUT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA SYSTEM FACILITIES NOTES: LEGEND: O\C\418\020722\GIS\Figures\MID TM\Dec 2008\Fig2_BOSys.mxd Contiguous Service Area City Limits Street U T Existing Tank & Pump Station Existing Active Well Existing Inactive Well Existing Blending Well Proposed Near-term Well Proposed Buildout Well MID Turnout Connection Existing MID Transmission Main Existing Pipeline Proposed Near-term Pipeline Proposed Buildout Pipeline 0 3,500 7,000 1,750 Scale in Feet - Inactive wells based on City's August 2009 Out of Service Well Report - Near-term pipeline alignments based on information provided by City and developers - MID supply is expected to increase to 60 MGD after the completion of Phase 2 - Existing facilities include recommended Existing System CIP facilities detailed in Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix D) ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 6 Tank 4 Tank 3 Tank 5 Tank 10 West Tank North Tank Industrial Tank MID Terminal Tank 65 PL GW 61 64 63 TW SC 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 66 FIGURE 3 City of Modesto BUILDOUT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA PEAK HOUR SYSTEM PRESSURES NOTES: LEGEND: O\C\418\020722\GIS\Figures\MID TM\Dec 2008\Fig6_BOPH.mxd Contiguous Service Area City Limits Street U T Active Tank & Pump Station Active Well Inactive Well Blending Well ! Pressure < 40 psi ! 40 psi ≤ Pressure < 45 psi ! 45 psi ≤ Pressure < 50 psi ! 50 psi ≤ Pressure < 55 psi ! 55 psi ≤ Pressure < 60 psi ! 60 psi ≤ Pressure < 65 psi ! 65 psi ≤ Pressure < 70 psi ! Pressure > 70 psi Velocity ≤ 7 fps Velocity > 7 fps 0 3,500 7,000 1,750 Scale in Feet - Inactive wells based on City's August 2009 Out of Service Well Report - Active facilities include Existing System, Existing CIP, proposed Near-term System, and proposed Buildout System 4 9 7 5 2 3 1 6 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 6 Tank 4 Tank 3 Tank 5 Tank 10 West Tank North Tank Industrial Tank MID Terminal Tank 65 PL GW 61 64 63 TW SC 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 66 FIGURE 4 City of Modesto BUILDOUT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA MAXIMUM DAY PLUS FIRE FLOW (Failed Fire Flow Locations) NOTES: LEGEND: O\C\418\020722\GIS\Figures\MID TM\Dec 2008\Fig7_BOFF.mxd Contiguous Service Area City Limits Street U T Active Tank & Pump Station Active Well Inactive Well Blending Well Pipeline Fire Flow Demand = 1,500 gpm Fire Flow Demand = 4,000 gpm ! Residual Pressure ≥ 20 psi at half required fire flow ! Residual Pressure < 20 psi at half required fire flow 0 3,500 7,000 1,750 Scale in Feet - Inactive wells based on City's August 2009 Out of Service Well Report - Active facilities include Existing System, Existing CIP, proposed Near-term System, and proposed Buildout System - Fire flow junctions do not include nodes and dead-end junctions ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T U T [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú TR04SOI TR05SOI 4IN-UPSIZE TR06SOI FF19366 FF18472 PH01 FF13452 FF19598 FF13686 PH02 FF10728 FF10712 FF13602 FF10718 4IN-UPSIZE PH02 4IN-UPSIZE 4IN-UPSIZE 4IN-UPSIZE 4IN-UPSIZE 4IN-UPSIZE PH02 SM03SOI - SM07SOI SB11SOI SB13SOI SB14SOI SB16SOI SB09SOI SB07SOI SB03SOI SB15SOI SB10SOI SB20SOI SB17SOI SB05SOI SB08SOI TR01SOI SB04SOI SB06SOI SB01SOI SM01SOI DV-FV SB19SOI SB12SOI DV-NC MID02WT01 DV-MH SM02SOI TR07SOI DV-PL DV-KBPE DV-WP DV-KBPS DV-MR DV-PM DV-WG DV-KMC DV-PR SB21SOI DV-TV DV-KW DV-KMC SB07SOI SB21SOI SB01SOI SB03SOI DV-TV DV-TV DV-KBPE TR07SOI DV-TV DV-FV DV-TV SB21SOI DV-WP SB10SOI SB08SOI SB20SOI SB07SOI SB11SOI SB08SOI SB03SOI SB08SOI SB07SOI SB20SOI SB21SOI SB06SOI DV-WP DV-KBPS SB07SOI DV-TV DV-PR DV-KBPS SB07SOI SB07SOI DV-WP DV-TV SB03SOI SB21SOI SB06SOI DV-PM SB21SOI DV-KMC DV-TV SB20SOI DV-TV SB03SOI DV-TV SB21SOI SB07SOI DV-KW DV-KMC DV-TV DV-TV SB20SOI SB21SOI DV-NC DV-PM SB11SOI SB01SOI SB21SOI SB03SOI DV-KBPE SB20SOI SB10SOI SB08SOI SB01SOI DV-FV DV-WG DV-PM SB08SOI SB20SOI SB11SOI SB07SOI SB07SOI SB13SOI SB12SOI SB03SOI DV-TV SB20SOI SB07SOI SB03SOI SM02SOI SB16SOI DV-WG DV-TV DV-WP SB03SOI DV-KMC SB13SOI SB03SOI SB03SOI SB21SOI SB17SOI SB03SOI SB13SOI SB13SOI SB20SOI DV-WG DV-TV SB21SOI SB12SOI SB08SOI SB20SOI DV-TV PH01BO PH03BO Tank 7 Tank 8 Tank 6 Tank 4 Tank 3 Tank 5 Tank 10 West Tank North Tank Industrial Tank MID Terminal Tank 65 PL GW 61 64 63 TW SC 62 55 38 19 49 53 50 44 24 21 08 59 58 57 56 54 52 51 48 47 46 45 43 42 41 39 40 37 36 34 33 32 30 29 25 22 18 17 16 14 10 07 06 04 03 02 01 FMC 305 287 284 223 217 216 214 100 236 313 312 310 308 307 304 301 300 299 298 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 288 285 283 281 279 278 277 269 267 265 264 262 260 259 250 247 241 237 232 229 226 225 212 211 204 SOI 01 PH02BO 66 FIGURE 5 City of Modesto RECOMMENDED BUILDOUT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA SYSTEM CIP NOTES: LEGEND: O\C\418\020722\GIS\Figures\MID TM\Dec 2008\Fig8_BOCIP.mxd Contiguous Service Area City Limits Street U T Existing Tank & Pump Station U T Recommended Buildout Tank [ Ú Recommended Buildout Booster Pump Existing Active Well Existing Inactive Well Existing Blending Well Proposed Near-term Well Proposed Buildout Well Recommended Buildout Well Existing MID Transmission Main Existing Pipeline Proposed Near-term Pipeline Proposed Buildout Pipeline Recommended Buildout Pipeline 0 3,600 7,200 1,800 Scale in Feet - Inactive wells based on City's August 2009 Out of Service Well Report - MID supply is expected to increase to 60 MGD after the completion of Phase 2 - Existing facilities include recommended Existing System CIP facilities detailed in Existing System Evaluation TM (Appendix D) - Near-term pipeline alignments based on information provided by City and developers ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT A Available Fire Flows ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 10732 4,000 1,961 10990 4,000 3,131 YES 11002 4,000 2,309 YES 19838 4,000 1,970 19840 4,000 2,419 YES 20016 4,000 2,920 YES 11046 4,000 3,774 YES 11372 4,000 3,571 YES 11378 4,000 3,653 YES 2024 4,000 3,417 YES 2026 4,000 3,590 YES 2028 4,000 3,015 YES 20020 4,000 2,474 YES 20022 4,000 3,117 YES 11410 4,000 1,644 11414 4,000 2,809 YES 11416 4,000 2,346 YES 11422 4,000 973 11428 4,000 3,637 YES 11430 4,000 3,748 YES 11434 4,000 2,959 YES 11436 4,000 1,998 11438 4,000 2,375 YES 11466 4,000 2,826 YES 11470 4,000 3,701 YES 11474 4,000 3,471 YES 11480 4,000 1,132 11488 4,000 2,151 YES 11492 4,000 1,431 11496 4,000 3,962 YES 11506 4,000 2,149 YES 11510 4,000 3,577 YES 11528 4,000 3,369 YES 11536 4,000 2,363 YES 11554 4,000 2,391 YES 11562 4,000 2,770 YES 11564 4,000 3,448 YES 11580 4,000 3,717 YES 11582 4,000 2,560 YES 11586 4,000 3,342 YES 11590 4,000 3,137 YES 11606 4,000 3,661 YES 11608 4,000 1,807 11614 4,000 3,960 YES 11622 4,000 3,908 YES 11624 4,000 3,349 YES 11626 4,000 3,561 YES 11632 4,000 1,865 11714 4,000 3,706 YES 11804 4,000 3,355 YES 11806 4,000 1,948 11812 4,000 3,697 YES 11816 4,000 3,715 YES 11822 4,000 2,402 YES 11824 4,000 2,877 YES 11842 4,000 2,045 YES 11844 4,000 979 11846 4,000 2,913 YES 11854 4,000 3,438 YES 11858 4,000 3,581 YES 11866 4,000 3,445 YES 11868 4,000 3,411 YES 11958 4,000 2,243 YES 11960 4,000 2,680 YES 11968 1,500 1,439 YES 11974 1,500 916 YES 11978 4,000 3,943 YES 11988 4,000 2,092 YES 11990 4,000 1,785 11996 4,000 2,091 YES 11998 4,000 1,684 12000 4,000 3,678 YES 12002 4,000 3,027 YES 12010 4,000 1,457 12012 4,000 1,641 12014 4,000 1,320 12018 4,000 2,167 YES 12026 4,000 1,598 12066 1,500 1,292 YES 12078 1,500 1,015 YES 12080 1,500 1,220 YES 12090 1,500 870 YES 12096 1,500 869 YES 12100 1,500 1,455 YES 12108 4,000 2,984 YES 12112 4,000 3,399 YES West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 1 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 12114 4,000 2,474 YES 12118 4,000 2,450 YES 12124 4,000 3,535 YES 12132 1,500 1,423 YES 12144 4,000 3,731 YES 12148 4,000 2,975 YES 12156 1,500 1,170 YES 12158 1,500 901 YES 12208 4,000 2,297 YES 12212 4,000 2,388 YES 12216 4,000 1,693 12222 4,000 828 12224 4,000 812 12226 1,500 1,478 YES 12228 4,000 2,291 YES 12230 1,500 1,354 YES 12234 1,500 1,118 YES 12238 1,500 1,485 YES 12316 1,500 1,254 YES 12318 1,500 1,485 YES 12322 1,500 1,362 YES 12334 4,000 3,537 YES 12336 4,000 2,937 YES 12342 1,500 421 12350 1,500 1,242 YES 12352 1,500 837 YES 12354 1,500 1,061 YES 12356 1,500 653 12358 1,500 912 YES 12360 1,500 1,391 YES 12370 4,000 2,107 YES 12372 4,000 2,125 YES 12374 4,000 1,806 12376 4,000 1,724 12378 4,000 1,720 12380 4,000 3,593 YES 12382 4,000 3,552 YES 12384 4,000 3,802 YES 12390 4,000 2,061 YES 12392 4,000 1,534 12394 1,500 1,227 YES 12396 1,500 1,250 YES 12398 1,500 1,209 YES 12428 1,500 1,123 YES 12436 1,500 1,419 YES 12438 1,500 973 YES 12440 1,500 1,245 YES 12442 1,500 1,385 YES 12464 4,000 3,687 YES 12472 4,000 3,663 YES 12480 4,000 3,885 YES 12488 1,500 1,294 YES 12636 1,500 1,314 YES 12640 4,000 1,640 12646 4,000 1,544 12656 4,000 1,852 12662 4,000 1,881 12664 4,000 1,997 12678 1,500 693 12680 1,500 1,137 YES 12688 1,500 1,063 YES 12694 1,500 704 12698 1,500 542 12700 1,500 604 12706 1,500 851 YES 12710 1,500 949 YES 12712 1,500 830 YES 12716 1,500 1,254 YES 12718 4,000 1,725 12728 1,500 1,363 YES 12744 4,000 1,635 12764 4,000 2,081 YES 12768 4,000 1,875 12778 4,000 3,113 YES 12782 4,000 2,009 YES 12784 1,500 1,101 YES 12786 1,500 796 YES 12788 1,500 1,458 YES 12808 1,500 863 YES 12824 4,000 3,629 YES 12826 1,500 455 12828 4,000 2,714 YES 12830 1,500 858 YES 12836 1,500 1,471 YES 12838 4,000 3,524 YES 12840 4,000 3,591 YES West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 2 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 12844 4,000 3,576 YES 12846 4,000 1,789 12848 4,000 2,889 YES 12850 4,000 1,090 12890 4,000 2,881 YES 12892 4,000 3,259 YES 13074 4,000 2,869 YES 13094 4,000 3,048 YES 13096 4,000 2,700 YES 13108 1,500 1,453 YES 13110 1,500 976 YES 13112 1,500 1,240 YES 13116 1,500 1,322 YES 13118 1,500 1,267 YES 13120 1,500 723 13122 1,500 1,371 YES 13126 1,500 1,107 YES 13138 1,500 1,029 YES 13192 1,500 1,191 YES 13202 4,000 3,328 YES 13242 4,000 4,009 YES 13248 4,000 3,607 YES 13250 4,000 3,072 YES 13252 4,000 3,339 YES 13272 4,000 2,995 YES 13278 4,000 3,450 YES 13280 4,000 3,473 YES 13340 1,500 1,307 YES 13342 1,500 1,298 YES 13350 1,500 1,061 YES 13356 1,500 1,284 YES 13358 1,500 1,388 YES 13360 1,500 1,332 YES 13362 1,500 1,330 YES 13370 1,500 1,082 YES 13380 1,500 1,053 YES 13400 4,000 3,771 YES 13402 1,500 946 YES 13420 1,500 1,304 YES 13422 1,500 715 13434 1,500 1,241 YES 13512 4,000 2,659 YES 13514 4,000 2,999 YES 13780 4,000 1,695 13794 4,000 3,631 YES 13796 4,000 3,151 YES 13798 4,000 3,608 YES 13800 4,000 3,613 YES 13802 4,000 3,669 YES 13806 4,000 2,930 YES 13808 4,000 1,592 13812 4,000 3,790 YES 13820 4,000 1,737 13830 4,000 3,898 YES 13956 1,500 1,280 YES 13972 4,000 1,986 13982 4,000 1,019 13984 4,000 588 13992 4,000 1,784 13994 4,000 1,699 14030 1,500 1,301 YES 14052 4,000 2,807 YES 14054 4,000 2,725 YES 14056 4,000 2,790 YES 14060 4,000 3,231 YES 14064 4,000 2,728 YES 14068 4,000 3,585 YES 14098 4,000 3,295 YES 14118 1,500 1,420 YES 14122 4,000 2,018 YES 14124 1,500 1,060 YES 14158 4,000 3,070 YES 14200 4,000 3,793 YES 14202 4,000 3,477 YES 14276 4,000 3,610 YES 14278 4,000 652 14280 4,000 906 14288 4,000 1,522 14290 4,000 1,838 14292 4,000 3,953 YES 14298 4,000 3,179 YES 14300 4,000 1,722 14302 4,000 2,035 YES 14308 1,500 1,181 YES 14310 1,500 1,282 YES 14312 1,500 639 West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 3 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 14316 4,000 2,863 YES 14318 4,000 2,892 YES 14320 4,000 258 14324 4,000 774 14338 4,000 1,678 14354 4,000 2,997 YES 14358 1,500 717 14392 4,000 3,958 YES 14434 4,000 2,469 YES 14454 4,000 1,958 14460 4,000 3,632 YES 14476 4,000 3,862 YES 14492 4,000 2,755 YES 14504 4,000 2,598 YES 14540 4,000 3,658 YES 14584 4,000 3,748 YES 14590 4,000 3,898 YES 14594 1,500 1,286 YES 14596 4,000 3,716 YES 14628 1,500 1,085 YES 14632 4,000 2,101 YES 14662 1,500 1,524 YES 14664 4,000 3,349 YES 14666 4,000 2,130 YES 14668 4,000 1,823 14674 4,000 874 14676 4,000 2,698 YES 14678 4,000 2,692 YES 14682 4,000 3,134 YES 14684 4,000 2,025 YES 14688 4,000 3,454 YES 14690 4,000 1,031 14698 4,000 3,600 YES 14700 4,000 3,992 YES 14704 4,000 3,627 YES 14706 4,000 1,495 14708 4,000 2,292 YES 14712 4,000 1,836 14714 4,000 3,577 YES 14716 4,000 3,476 YES 14718 4,000 1,544 14720 4,000 2,305 YES 14952 4,000 2,297 YES 14960 4,000 3,753 YES 14998 4,000 3,853 YES 15028 4,000 3,445 YES 15030 4,000 3,779 YES 15034 4,000 2,997 YES 15038 4,000 2,733 YES 15040 4,000 3,307 YES 15068 4,000 4,039 YES 15190 4,000 2,579 YES 15192 4,000 2,389 YES 15270 4,000 3,600 YES 15290 4,000 3,180 YES 15340 4,000 3,685 YES 15510 4,000 3,504 YES 15514 4,000 2,290 YES 15770 4,000 2,764 YES 15828 1,500 1,046 YES 15994 4,000 2,711 YES 16000 4,000 3,360 YES 16042 4,000 3,208 YES 16044 4,000 2,967 YES 16224 4,000 3,663 YES 16232 4,000 2,687 YES 16234 4,000 3,788 YES 16240 4,000 3,814 YES 16496 1,500 857 YES 16562 1,500 1,486 YES 16976 1,500 1,280 YES 17048 4,000 3,561 YES 17100 1,500 1,374 YES 17102 1,500 1,284 YES 17104 1,500 1,374 YES 17146 4,000 2,601 YES 17644 4,000 3,906 YES 17826 1,500 1,128 YES 17828 1,500 1,228 YES 17830 1,500 1,122 YES 17916 1,500 1,432 YES 17918 1,500 1,053 YES 17920 1,500 1,064 YES 17922 1,500 1,432 YES 17924 1,500 1,400 YES 17926 4,000 1,932 West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 4 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 2168 4,000 3,669 YES 2174 4,000 2,416 YES 2250 4,000 3,594 YES 2284 4,000 2,816 YES 18200 1,500 1,215 YES 15790 1,500 1,495 YES 10190 4,000 1,682 10212 4,000 3,713 YES 10238 4,000 3,648 YES 10244 1,500 1,259 YES 10246 1,500 1,113 YES 10248 4,000 1,588 10254 4,000 860 10256 4,000 878 10258 4,000 274 10260 1,500 1,489 YES 10262 4,000 3,254 YES 10266 4,000 2,972 YES 10268 4,000 1,455 10270 4,000 1,641 10274 4,000 3,825 YES 10276 4,000 3,205 YES 10280 4,000 2,101 YES 10284 4,000 3,573 YES 10288 4,000 2,236 YES 10290 4,000 3,360 YES 10320 1,500 1,198 YES 10336 4,000 3,953 YES 10340 4,000 2,274 YES 10342 4,000 2,252 YES 10344 4,000 3,564 YES 10346 4,000 3,364 YES 10348 4,000 1,520 10360 1,500 1,114 YES 10362 1,500 970 YES 10364 1,500 1,172 YES 10382 4,000 2,650 YES 10402 1,500 1,117 YES 10410 4,000 3,631 YES 10412 4,000 928 10428 4,000 926 10442 1,500 939 YES 10506 4,000 3,317 YES 10508 4,000 1,874 10510 1,500 1,416 YES 10518 4,000 1,833 10502 1,500 1,406 YES 10552 1,500 1,047 YES 10572 4,000 1,974 18610 4,000 915 18616 1,500 1,191 YES 18658 4,000 3,225 YES 18728 4,000 3,510 YES 18770 4,000 3,276 YES 18792 1,500 671 18818 1,500 1,446 YES 2438 4,000 3,696 YES 18824 4,000 1,933 18832 4,000 3,721 YES 18838 1,500 1,200 YES 18840 1,500 1,018 YES 19242 4,000 3,113 YES 19330 1,500 1,425 YES 19358 1,500 1,445 YES 19376 4,000 2,120 YES 19378 4,000 2,415 YES 19394 1,500 661 19396 1,500 864 YES 19408 1,[PHONE REDACTED] 4,000 3,843 YES 2336 4,000 3,645 YES 2338 4,000 3,924 YES 2340 4,000 3,521 YES 2342 4,000 3,403 YES 2344 4,000 3,470 YES 2346 4,000 3,699 YES 19634 1,500 725 19638 4,000 3,529 YES 19684 4,000 3,502 YES 19690 1,500 1,255 YES 19692 1,500 1,086 YES 13620 4,000 3,364 YES 19610 4,000 1,628 19748 4,000 2,088 YES 19750 1,500 927 YES 19754 4,000 2,839 YES West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 5 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Table A1. Available Fire Flow at 20 psi for Buildout System at Failed Fire Flow Locations Model ID Fire-Flow Demand, gpm Available Flow, gpm Split Flow Available 10468 1,500 1,265 YES 10470 1,500 1,301 YES 10484 4,000 266 10488 1,500 612 10526 4,000 1,436 10536 4,000 1,433 10540 4,000 1,387 10592 4,000 1,506 10594 4,000 1,417 10528 4,000 1,443 10538 4,000 1,428 10546 4,000 1,384 10600 4,000 3,528 YES 10618 1,500 799 YES 10628 1,500 1,039 YES 10634 4,000 568 10636 4,000 570 10640 4,000 574 10644 1,500 577 10646 4,000 3,196 YES 10664 1,500 904 YES 10670 4,000 1,528 10682 1,500 686 10688 1,[PHONE REDACTED] 4,000 2,497 YES 10978 1,500 555 80026 4,000 3,829 YES 80028 4,000 3,776 YES 20384 1,500 1,388 YES 20388 1,500 1,476 YES 20106 1,500 791 YES 20086 1,500 818 YES 20124 1,500 1,117 YES 20126 1,500 987 YES 20130 1,500 771 YES 20136 4,000 3,319 YES 20138 4,000 1,655 20140 4,000 1,121 20246 4,000 3,863 YES 20736 4,000 2,970 YES 20738 4,000 2,280 YES 20740 4,000 2,380 YES 20832 4,000 1,993 20930 4,000 4,126 YES 20952 4,000 3,037 YES 20954 4,000 3,144 YES 21056 4,000 3,106 YES 21060 4,000 1,628 21062 4,000 2,036 YES 21064 4,000 2,085 YES 21066 4,000 2,598 YES 21068 4,000 2,533 YES 21070 4,000 3,146 YES 21114 4,000 3,431 YES 21116 4,000 3,195 YES 21118 4,000 2,443 YES 21120 4,000 2,816 YES 21122 4,000 3,656 YES 21138 4,000 3,661 YES 21140 4,000 3,656 YES West Yost Associates 418\020722\wp\er\20091031ce3K Last Revised: 4-26-08 6 of 6 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT B Detailed Cost Tables ---PAGE BREAK--- Pump Total Capacity Firm Capacity Backup Power Backup Power Existing Backup Backup Status(g) HP [gpm](b) [gpm](c) Required(d) Recommended(d) Power(e) Cost(f) Booster Pump Stations Tank 3 Active 2,400 1,800 Y Yes $0 Tank 4 Active 3,760 2,810 Y Yes $0 Tank 5 Active 3,750 2,800 Y Yes $0 Tank 6 Active 7,450 4,935 Y Yes $0 Tank 7 Active 7,350 4,900 Y Yes $0 Tank 8 Active 7,710 5,140 Y Yes $0 Tank 10 OOS - Repair 6,255 4,170 Yes $0 MID Terminal Reservoir Active 55,600 20,833 Y Yes $0 Well Pump Stations Well 001 Active 60 950 950 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 002 OOS - WQ 150 1,500 $0 Well 003 OOS - WQ 60 800 $0 Well 004 Active 100 950 950 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 006 Active 75 950 950 Y Yes $0 Well 007 Active 75 950 950 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 008 OOS - WQ 50 775 $0 Well 010 Active 60 400 400 Y Y $133,333 0.58 Well 014 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 Yes $0 Well 016 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 017 Active 100 1,450 1,450 Y Y $133,333 2.09 Well 018 OOS -WQ 100 750 $0 Well 019 OOS - WQ 40 600 $0 Well 021 OOS - WQ 125 1,500 $0 Well 022 OOS - WQ 125 1,000 $0 Well 024 OOS - WQ 150 1,500 $0 Well 025 Active 125 1,500 1,500 Y Yes $0 Well 029 Active 75 1,058 $0 Well 030 Active 75 1,000 $0 Well 032 OOS - WQ 75 800 $0 Well 033 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y Yes $0 Well 034 OOS - WQ 100 1,250 $0 Well 036 Active 100 1,050 1,050 Y Y $133,333 1.51 Well 037 OOS - WQ 125 1,250 $0 Well 038 Active 100 1,163 $0 Well 039 Active 150 1,950 1,950 Y Yes $0 Well 040 Active 150 1,400 1,400 Y Yes $0 Well 041 Active 150 1,200 1,200 Y Yes $0 Well 042 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y Yes $0 Well 043 Active 150 1,900 1,900 Y Yes $0 Well 044 OOS - WQ 100 1,250 Yes $0 Well 045 Active 100 1,500 1,500 Y Y $133,333 2.16 Well 046 Active 100 1,150 $0 Well 047 Active 150 1,600 1,600 Y Y $133,333 2.3 Well 048 Active 125 1,330 1,330 Y Y $133,333 1.92 Well 049 OOS - WQ 75 500 Yes $0 To be returned to service Well 050 Active 100 800 800 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 051 Active 250 2,200 $0 Well 052 Active 150 1,600 1,600 Y Yes $0 Well 053 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 $0 Well 054 Active 200 2,400 2,400 Y Yes $0 Well 055 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 $0 Well 056 Active 75 650 650 Y Y $133,333 0.94 Well 057 Active 100 1,350 1,350 Y Yes $0 Well 058 Active 100 1,300 1,300 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 059 Active 125 1,400 $0 Well 061 Active 200 1,575 1,575 Y Yes Well 062 Active 2,200 2,200 Y Yes $0 Well 063 Proposed 1,500 1,500 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 064 Active 40 2,250 2,250 Y Yes $0 Well 065 Active 100 2,600 2,600 Y Yes $0 Well 066 Active 100 1,590 1,590 Y Yes $0 Well 100 Active 100 650 650 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 204 Active 25 1,450 1,450 Y Y $133,333 2.09 Well 211 Active 40 1,450 1,450 Y Y $133,333 2.09 Well 212 Active 40 1,000 $0 Well 213 Active 40 240 240 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 214 OOS - WQ 30 400 $0 Well 216 Active 150 550 550 Y Y $133,333 0.79 Well 217 Active 40 400 400 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 223 Active 50 340 340 Y Yes $0 Well 225 Active 75 1,200 1,200 Y Yes $0 Well 226 OOS - WQ 75 675 $0 Well 229 Active 20 425 $0 Well 232 Active 15 775 775 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 236 OOS - WQ 40 750 $0 Well 237 Active 75 630 630 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 241 Active 40 350 350 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 247 Active 20 560 560 Y Y $133,333 0.81 Well 250 Active 20 835 835 Y Y $133,333 1.2 Well 259 Active 40 400 400 Y Y $133,333 0.58 Well 262 Active 100 350 350 Y Y $133,333 0.5 Well 264 Active 50 700 700 Y Y $133,333 1.01 Well 265 Active 100 500 500 Y Y $133,333 0.72 Well 267 Active 150 1,190 1,190 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 269 Active 100 750 $0 Well 277 Active 100 1,000 $0 Well 278 Active 75 800 800 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 279 Active 75 800 800 Y Yes $0 Well 281 Active 100 480 480 Y Y $133,333 0.69 Well 283 OOS - WQ 75 800 $0 Well 284 Active 50 750 750 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 285 OOS - WQ 50 1,000 Yes $0 Well 287 Active 75 825 $0 Well 288 Active 75 650 $0 Well 290 Active 100 633 $0 Well 291 Active 100 500 500 Y Y $133,333 0.72 Well 292 Active 75 850 850 Y Y $133,333 1.22 Well 293 OOS - WQ 100 825 Yes $0 Well 294 Active 100 1,325 1,325 Y Yes $0 Well 296 Active 100 900 900 Y Yes $0 Well 297 Active 75 1,300 $0 Well 298 Active 40 1,200 1,200 Y Yes $0 Well 299 Active 40 450 450 Y Yes $0 Well 300 Active 700 $0 Well 301 Active 100 500 500 Y Yes $0 Well 304 OOS - WQ 75 525 Yes $0 Well 305 Active 150 560 560 Y Yes $0 Well 307 Active 40 1,050 1,050 Y Y $133,333 1.51 Well 308 Active 850 $0 Well 310 Active 1,320 1,320 Y Yes $0 Well 312 Active 1,040 1,040 Y $0 Recommended in Existing System CIP Well 313 Active 1,020 1,020 Y Yes $0 Shelter Cove Well Proposed 1,000 1,000 Y Y 1.44 Tivoli Well Proposed 1,500 1,500 Y Y 2.16 Grogan Well Proposed 1,500 1,500 Y Y 2.16 FMC Well Proposed 1,000 1,000 Y Y 1.44 Plastipak Well Proposed 1,000 1,000 Y Y 1.44 GRAND Total 25 $2,667,000 34.1 Table includes existing facilities and proposed developer wells. Pump capacity based on information provided by City staff. Firm capacity (Pumping capacity with largest pump out of service or single pump with available backup power supply) with the installation of additional pumps or backup power supply as described in recommended CIP. Based on need to satisfy required buildout system storage capacity deficiency. Backup power information provided by City. Backup generator cost provided by City. March 2010 (ENR 9728.17) costs. OOS = Out of Service [as of August 2009] The cost of backup power for proposed wells is included in the well construction cost. = Recommended location for installation of backup powe Remarks Table B1. Summary of CIP Recommendation Cost Estimate for Pumping Facility Backup Power for Buildout Contiguous Service Area Pump Station GW Storage Credit West Yost Associates o\c\418\020722\wp\er\20091031ceE2AppETables Last Revised:12/02/08 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- CIP Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Reason(a) Existing Proposed [lf] DV-KBPE Development KBPE Water Capacity Study 12 Kiernan Business Park East Development 10,370 136 $1,414,000 DV-PR Development Promenade Water Capacity Study 12 Promenade Development 6,680 136 $911,000 DV-KMC Development 12 Kaiser Medical Center Development 6,710 136 $915,000 Development 16 Kaiser Medical Center Development 3,700 163 $601,000 DV-KBPS Development KBPS Water Capacity Study 12 4,920 136 $671,000 DV-WG Development Woodglen Water Capacity Study 8 Woodglen Development 20,840 101 $2,095,000 Development Woodglen Water Capacity Study 10 Woodglen Development 80 123 $10,000 Development Woodglen Water Capacity Study 12 Woodglen Development 690 136 $94,000 DV-PM Development Pelandale-McHenry Water Capac 8 Pelandale-McHenry Development 4,740 101 $477,000 Development Pelandale-McHenry Water Capac 10 Pelandale-McHenry Development 4,950 123 $607,000 DV-MAR Development Martin Water Capacity Study 8 Martin Development 1,870 101 $188,000 Development Martin Water Capacity Study 10 Martin Development 3,630 123 $445,000 Development Martin Water Capacity Study 12 Martin Development 100 136 $14,000 Development Martin Water Capacity Study 16 Martin Development 960 163 $156,000 DV-TIV Development Tivoli Water Capacity Study 12 Tivoli Development 21,290 136 $2,903,000 Development Tivoli Water Capacity Study 16 Tivoli Development 10,710 163 $1,740,000 DV-NC Development Ninth and Carver Water Capacity 10 Ninth and Carver Development 4,140 123 $507,000 DV-KW Development Kansas-Woodland Water Capacity 10 Kansas-Woodland Development 1,630 123 $200,000 Development 12 Kansas-Woodland Development 3,330 136 $454,000 DV-RD Development 8 Riverdale Water System 7,150 101 $719,000 Development 12 Riverdale Water System 8,350 136 $1,138,000 DV-WP Development 8 Westport Landing Development 13,900 101 $1,397,000 Development 12 Westport Landing Development 12,710 136 $1,733,000 DV-BB Development 8 Bava Brothers Development 5,920 101 $595,000 Development 12 Bava Brothers Development 1,850 136 $252,000 $20,236,000 MID02WT01 MID P2 16 Rosemore Avenue between Maze Boulevard and Elm Avenue 1,330 163 $216,000 TR01SOI Grid KBPE Water Capacity Study 16 Kiernan Avenue between Dale Avenue and American Avenue 1,280 163 $208,000 TR02SOI Grid Tivoli Water Capacity Study 16 Roselle Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue 4,000 163 $650,000 TR04SOI Grid 10 12 Morse Road between McDonald Avenue and Kansas Avenue 6,110 136 $833,000 TR05SOI Grid 10 12 Woodland Avenue between Morse Road and Carpenter Road 5,300 136 $723,000 TR06SOI Grid 10 12 Grimes Avenue between Chicago Avenue and Paradise Road 2,950 136 $402,000 Grid 10 12 Paradise Road between Grimes Avenue and Ohio Avenue 2,740 136 $374,000 Grid 10 12 Ohio Avenue between Chicago Avenue and Paradise Road 2,560 136 $349,000 TR07SOI Grid 12 Bangs Avenue between American Avenue and Carver Avenue 5,240 136 $714,000 SB01SOI Trans 16 Kiernan Avenue between Stoddard Road and Dale Road 5,320 163 $865,000 Trans 12 Technology Drive between Stoddard Road and Dale Road 3,630 136 $495,000 Trans 12 Bangs Avenue between Stoddard Road and Chapman Road 1,690 136 $230,000 Trans 12 Chapman Road between Bangs Avenue and Kiernan Avenue 2,580 136 $352,000 SB02SOI Trans 12 Dale Road south of Kiernan Avenue 150 136 $20,000 SB03SOI Trans 12 Kiernan Avenue between American Avenue and Terminal Avenue 34,980 136 $4,769,000 SB04SOI Grid 12 East of Morrow Road between Kiernan Avenue and Avignon Lane 2,520 136 $344,000 SB05SOI Grid 12 Carver Road between Kiernan Avenue and Avignon Lane 2,630 136 $359,000 SB06SOI Grid 12 Tully Road between Kiernan Avenue and Avignon Lane 3,050 136 $416,000 Grid 12 East of Tully Road between Kiernan Avenue and Avignon Lane 2,700 136 $368,000 Grid 12 Henry Avenue between Claribel Avenue and Bangs Avenue 1,240 136 $169,000 SB07SOI Grid 12 East of Henry Avenue between Claribel Avenue and Claratina Avenue 2,600 136 $354,000 Grid 12 Coffee Road between Claribel Avenue and Claratina Avenue 2,640 136 $360,000 Grid 12 Coffee Road between Claribel Avenue and Bangs Avenue 1,300 136 $177,000 Grid 12 Oakdale Road between Claribel Avenue and Claratina Avenue 3,930 136 $536,000 Grid 12 East of Oakdale Road between Claribel Avenue and Claratina Avenue 3,970 136 $541,000 Grid 12 Roselle Avenue between Claribel Avenue and Plainview Road 670 136 $91,000 Grid 16 Roselle Avenue south of Plainview Road 2,630 163 $427,000 SB08SOI Grid 12 Plainview Road between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road 10,520 136 $1,434,000 Grid 16 Plainview Road between Oakdale Road and Litt Road 7,930 163 $1,289,000 SB09SOI Grid 12 Mabel Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Litt Road 2,890 136 $394,000 SB10SOI Grid 12 Litt Road between Claribel Avenue and Sylvan Avenue 6,840 136 $933,000 SB11SOI Grid 12 Terminal Avenue between Parker Road and Plainview Avenue 14,210 136 $1,937,000 SB12SOI Grid 10 Hillglen Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Esta Avenue 1,320 123 $162,000 Grid 12 Floyd Avenue between Claus Road and Santa Fe Avenue 1,150 136 $157,000 Grid 12 Meryl Avenue between Claus Road and Santa Fe Avenue 1,910 136 $260,000 SB13SOI Grid 12 Morse Avenue between McDonald Avenue and Brink Avenue 6,080 136 $829,000 Grid 12 Shoemaker Avenue between Morse Avenue and Brink Avenue 2,990 136 $408,000 Grid 16 Brink Avenue between Shoemake Avenue and north of North Avenue 5,680 163 $923,000 SB14SOI Grid 16 Nebraska Avenue between Kansas Avenue and Maze Boulevard 2,670 163 $434,000 SB15SOI Grid 12 Maze Boulevard between Rosemore Avenue and Carpenter Road 2,710 136 $369,000 Grid 16 Maze Boulevard between Rosemore Avenue and Carpenter Road 2,660 163 $432,000 SB16SOI Grid 12 Grimes Avenue between Maze Boulevard and California Avenue 5,610 136 $765,000 SB17SOI Grid 12 California Avenue between Grimes Avenue and Carpenter Road 4,010 136 $547,000 SB18SOI Grid 12 Ohio Avenue between Chicago Avenue and California Avenue 2,580 136 $352,000 SB19SOI Grid 12 Houser Lane between Ohio Avenue and Carpenter Road 1,370 136 $187,000 SB20SOI Grid 12 Parkdale Drive 1,130 136 $154,000 Grid 12 Vivian Road between Whitmore Avenue and Hatch Road 4,900 136 $668,000 Grid 12 Whitmore Avenue between Vivian Road and Carpenter Road 5,290 136 $721,000 Grid 12 Carpenter Road north of Whitmore Avenue 2,190 136 $299,000 Grid 12 Whitmore-Carpenter Development 11,710 136 $1,596,000 Dist 8 North of Hatch Road and west of Carpenter Road(c) 7,150 0 $0 Dist 10 North of Hatch Road and west of Carpenter Road(c) 8,350 0 $0 SB21SOI Grid 12 SOI Buildout Pipelines for Empire Region 27,830 136 $3,794,000 Total $34,170,000 Improvements to Reinforce Transmission System to South Modesto SM01SOI Grid 16 New River Crossing - Ninth Street Bridge $1,000,000 SM02SOI Grid 16 New Transmission and Connection to South Modesto Tank $3,333,000 SM03SOI Grid 24 Whitmore Avenue between Morgan Road and Crows Landing Road 5,540 218 $1,205,000 SM04SOI Grid 16 Whitmore Avenue between Crows Landing Road and Carpenter Road 10,630 163 $1,727,000 SM05SOI Grid 16 Carpenter Road between Hatch Road and Whitmore Avenue 4,710 163 $765,000 SM06SOI Grid 16 South Modesto Tank Connection to Distribution 60 163 $10,000 SM07SOI Grid 12 South Modesto Tank Connection to Distribution 190 136 $26,000 $8,066,000 PH01BO Grid 4 6 Beverly Drive between Vernon Avenue and Normandy Drive 640 76 $48,000 PH02BO Grid 10 Hosmer Avenue between S. 7th Street and Ansul Avenue 1,110 123 $136,000 PH03BO Grid 16 North Tank 1,630 163 $265,000 $449,000 Table B2. Buildout Contiguous Service Area System CIP Pipeline Recommendations Grid = Recommended City-Wide System Grid Pipe cost based on March 2010 San Francisco ENR Index (9728.17). Diameter (in) Address CIP ID MID P2 = MID Phase 2 Improvement Infrastructure. Funding included in previous Engineer's Report. Dist = Distribution pipelines to add to City-Wide System Recommendations/ Reference Source Developer-Funded Improvements Proposed Buildout System Pipelines Total Localized Improvements Total Total Previously Funded MID Phase 2 Improvement Infrastructure West Yost Associates o:\c\4185\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceK2AppKtables Last Revised: 04/30/08 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix K Buildout System Evaluation TM