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 25, 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, Project Manager Polly Boissevain SUBJECT: City of Modesto’s 2010 Water System Engineer’s Report Evaluation of the Existing Water System for the Contiguous Service Area (Existing System Evaluation TM) This technical memorandum (TM) presents an overview evaluation of the City of Modesto’s (City) existing contiguous water system service area and its ability to meet the City’s recommended performance and planning criteria under existing demand conditions. This evaluation includes an analysis of the existing water system’s storage capacity, pumping capacity, critical supply facilities, and distribution capabilities to meet the operational and design criteria under Maximum Day plus fire flow demand and Peak Hour demand conditions. West Yost Associates (WYA) conducted this evaluation by using the updated hydraulic model based on August 2009 operating conditions as provided by the City. The findings, cost estimates, and recommendations for addressing the identified existing system deficiencies are included in this TM. 1.0 EXISTING CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA WATER 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. Using the definition described above, the existing demands for the contiguous service area were spatially located based on land use information provided by the City. The 2006 Average Day, Maximum Day, and Peak Hour demand are listed in Table 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 2 West Yost Associates Table 1. 2006 Contiguous Service Area’s Demands Demand Demand Condition Gpm mgd Average Day(a) 46,625 67.1 Maximum Day(b) 81,594 117.5 Peak Hour(c) 114,698 165.2 Average Day demand was provided by City staff (2000-2006 Water System Summary by Year.xls) in December 2007 (as presented in the Demand Evaluation (Appendix B, Table Maximum Day demand is based on 2006 Average Day demand presented in the Demand TM and an adopted average peaking factor of 1.75 (Appendix B, Table Peak Hour demand is based on 2006 Average Day demand presented in the Demand TM and an adopted peaking factor of 2.46 (Appendix B, Table 2.0 EXISTING CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA SYSTEM EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 2.1 Water Storage Capacity Evaluation There are eight operational storage tanks in the contiguous service area, six are owned and operated by the City and two are owned and operated by Modesto Irrigation District (MID), as illustrated on Figure 1. The principal advantage that storage provides a water system is the ability to help equalize fluctuating demands otherwise placed on the supply source production and transmission facilities, along with meeting peak demands quickly (i.e. fighting fires, emergency source in case of supply failure, etc). Together, the storage must be sufficient to meet the water system’s operational, fire flow, and emergency 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. Because of the City’s available wells, groundwater storage can account for a portion of the recommended water storage and system peaking capacity in the form of a groundwater credit. However, sufficient transmission facilities must be available to distribute this water to the demand areas. Groundwater credit is defined as emergency groundwater storage credit. Emergency groundwater storage credit is equal to the production capacity of wells in service that have generators for back-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 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 3 West Yost Associates 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. The existing storage facilities and groundwater credit were evaluated to determine whether the contiguous service area’s water system has sufficient capacity to provide the required operational, fire flow, and emergency storage. Currently, the City has a water storage capacity deficit of 37.4 MG as indicated in Table 2. However, there are previously recommended facilities (see City of Modesto 2005 Hydraulic Model Update, by WYA), including but not limited to the North Tank (6 MG), West Tank (4 MG), Industrial Tank (4 MG), and Mildred Perkins Well (unknown at this time, but assumed to be 1,500 gpm or 2.2 MG), which will increase the available storage and storage credit by 16.2 MG when completed, reducing the City’s storage capacity deficiency to 21.2 MG. Table 3 summarizes the existing available storage capacity, and groundwater credit for the contiguous service area. Most of the well pumps are not currently equipped with backup power and thus, were not included in the existing storage available for Emergency Groundwater Storage Credit in Table 2. Based on the emergency storage credit criterion, only 22 active wells with a total pumping capacity of 29,895 gpm (43.0 mgd) can be considered for emergency groundwater credit. The addition of auxiliary power at 17 existing groundwater wells (Table A1), totaling a pumping capacity of approximately 21.7 MG1, will provide a solution for the water storage capacity deficit in the existing water system. These groundwater wells will be detailed in the recommended improvements portion of this TM. 2.2 Pumping Capacity Evaluation The City’s pumping capacity has been evaluated to assess its ability to deliver a firm, reliable water supply to the existing service area during high demand conditions. Therefore, pumping capacity was reduced to account for pumps that are out of service at any given time due to mechanical breakdowns, routine maintenance, water quality, or other operational issues. At each booster pump station, 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% 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. 1 Includes 16 wells providing 21.3 MG of credit in the contiguous service area and 1 well providing 0.4 MG credit in Walnut Manor. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 4 West Yost Associates Table 2. Comparison of Available and Required Storage Capacity for the Existing Contiguous Service Area(a) Storage Component Criteria Storage Required, MG Operational 0.25 x Max Day demand 29.4 Fire Flow 4,000 gpm for 4 hours plus 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 1.3 Emergency 1.00 x Average Day demand 67.1 Total Storage Requirement 97.8 Existing Tank Storage Available (18.1) Emergency Groundwater Storage Credit (43.0) Existing Storage Deficiency 36.7 Previously Proposed Storage (14.0) Emergency Groundwater Storage Credit from Previously Proposed Wells (2.2) Actual Existing Storage Deficiency 20.5 Information representative of only the Modesto contiguous service area and is based on the Demand TM, which includes Salida, Empire, South Modesto and North Ceres. Existing storage available (Table 2 of the Facilities Inventory TM) includes 10 MG in the MID owned Terminal Reservoirs and 0.7 MG in Tank 10 (the Galas Subdivision Tank which has recently become operational). Existing emergency groundwater storage credit is based on the total pumping capacity of the wells in service that have generators for backup power (Table Previously proposed storage available includes three new tanks proposed as part of the City-Side Improvements and groundwater wells currently under design and/or construction. The pumping capacity criterion for the City requires the system to have sufficient pumping capacity via booster pump stations and wells to meet the greater of a Maximum Day plus fire flow demand (126.9 mgd2 or 88,094 gpm) or a Peak Hour demand (165.2 mgd or 114,698 gpm - from Table The results of the pumping capacity evaluation are summarized in Table 4 and are based on the summary of pumping capacity of each facility detailed in Table 5. This analysis indicated that the Contiguous Service Area’s existing booster pump station and groundwater pumping capacity meets the pumping capacity criterion for a Maximum Day plus fire flow demand, but does not meet the pumping capacity criterion for a Peak Hour demand condition. However, the expected completion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant Phase Two Expansion project in early 2010 will increase the firm pumping capacity of the system by 20,833 gpm (an additional 30 mgd), which almost offsets the current 23,418 gpm deficit. Plus the previously recommended facilities discussed in the above subsection 2.1 regarding emergency groundwater storage credit, will provide the remaining 2,585 gpm to the system (i.e. including but not limited to the booster pump stations for the North Tank (12,500 gpm), West Tank (8,333 gpm), Industrial Tank (8,333 gpm), and Mildred Perkins Well 2 Requirement = Existing Maximum Day Demand (117.5 mgd) + 4,000 gpm (5.8 mgd) fire flow + 2500 gpm (3.6 mgd) fire flow, as summed from Tables 1 and 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- MID Terminal Reservoir Active Y 10.0 Tank 3 Active Y 1.3 Tank 4 Active Y 1.3 Tank 5 Active Y 1.3 Tank 6 Active Y 2.0 Tank 7 Active Y 0.5 Tank 8 Active Y 1.0 Tank 10 OOS - Repair Y 0.7 Well 001 Active Well 002 OOS - WQ Well 003 OOS - WQ Well 004 Active Well 006 Active Y Yes 950 1.4 Well 007 Active Well 008 OOS - WQ Well 010 Active Well 014 OOS - WQ Y Well 016 Active Well 017 Active Well 018 Active Well 019 OOS - WQ Well 021 OOS - WQ Well 022 OOS - WQ Well 024 OOS - WQ Well 025 Active Y Yes 1,500 2.2 Well 029 Tank Fill Well 030 Tank Fill Well 032 Active Well 033 Active Y Yes 1,800 2.6 Well 034 OOS - WQ Well 036 Active Well 037 OOS - WQ Well 038 Tank Fill Well 039 Active Y Yes 1,950 2.8 Well 040 Active Y Yes 1,400 2.0 Well 041 Active Y Yes 1,200 1.7 Well 042 Active Y Yes 1,800 2.6 Well 043 Active Y Yes 1,900 2.7 Well 044 OOS - WQ Y Well 045 Active Well 046 Active Well 047 Active Well 048 Active Well 049 OOS - WQ Y Yes 500 0.7 Well 050 Active Well 051 Active Well 052 Active Y Yes 1,600 2.3 Well 053 OOS - WQ Well 054 Tank Fill Y Well 055 OOS - WQ Well 056 Active Well 057 Active Y Yes 1,350 1.9 Well 058 Active Well 059 Active Well 061(f) Active Y Yes 1,575 2.3 Well 062 Active Y Yes 2,200 3.2 Well 064 Active Y Yes 1,800 2.6 Well 065 Tank Fill Y Well 066 Tank Fill Y Well 100 Active Well 204 Active Well 211 Active Well 212 Active Well 213 Active Well 214 OOS - WQ Well 216 Active Well 217 Active Well 223 Tank Fill Y Well 225 Active Y Yes 1,200 1.7 Well 226 OOS - WQ Well 229 Active Well 232 Active Well 236 OOS - WQ Well 237 Active Well 241 Active Well 247 Active Well 250 Active Well 259 Active Well 262 Active Well 264 Active Well 265 Active Well 267 Active Table 3. Summary of Existing Tank Storage and Groundwater Storage Credit Reservoir Capacity, MG Well Pump Capacity(a), gpm Groundwater Storage Credit(b), MG Station Status Backup Power Active w/ Backup Power West Yost Associates o\c\418\020722\wp\er\20091031ceD3T Last Revised:11/20/08 1 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 3. Summary of Existing Tank Storage and Groundwater Storage Credit Reservoir Capacity, MG Well Pump Capacity(a), gpm Groundwater Storage Credit(b), MG Station Status Backup Power Active w/ Backup Power Well 269 Active Well 277 Active Well 278 Active Well 279 Active Y Yes 800 1.2 Well 281 Active Well 283 OOS - WQ Well 284 Active Well 285 OOS - WQ Y Well 287 Active Well 288 Active Well 290 Active Well 291 Active Well 292 Active Well 293 OOS - WQ Y Well 294 Active Y Yes 1,325 1.9 Well 296 Active Y Yes 900 1.3 Well 297 Active Well 298 Active Y Yes 1,200 1.7 Well 299 Active Y Yes 450 0.6 Well 300 Active Well 301 Tank Fill Y Well 304 OOS - WQ Y Well 305 Tank Fill Y Well 307 Active Well 308 Active Well 310 Active Y Yes 1,320 1.9 Well 312 Active Well 313 Active Y Yes 1,175 1.7 18.1 29,895 43.0 Pump capacity of active wells with backup power. = Active well with backup power; used in computing emergency storage credit Equal to the sum of the total groundwater pumping capacity of active wells with backup power. Minimum credit is zero, and the maximum credit is the recommended emergency storage capacity (one day's worth of Average Day demand). Wells that pump to tanks are not included in the credit calculation. Well 49 is currently out of service but will be brought back into service and blended. Therefore, it is included in the existing well calculations. Total West Yost Associates o\c\418\020722\wp\er\20091031ceD3T Last Revised:11/20/08 2 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 7 West Yost Associates (1,500 gpm), which will increase the available system pumping capacity by 30,666 gpm when completed. Table 4. Evaluation of the Existing Contiguous Service Area’s Firm Pumping Capacity Supply and Storage Tank Booster Stations Supply Booster Stations Firm Pumping Capacity(a) or Demand Existing Peak Hour Demand, gpm(b) Existing Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow, gpm(b) Existing Maximum Day Demand, gpm(b) Demand 114,698 88,094 81,594 Booster Pump Station at the Terminal Reservoirs(c) (20,833) (20,833) (20,833) Booster Pump Stations at Tank Sites(d) (26,555) (26,555) Groundwater Wells (43,892) (43,892) (43,892) Deficiency (Surplus) 23,418 (3,186) 16,869 Defined as the total capacity of each individual booster pump station with its largest pump out of service or 60% 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). Maximum Day Demand based on 2006 water production data provided by City staff in December 2007. Actual firm pumping capacity based on existing pumps at MID’s Terminal Reservoir pump station is 41,700 gpm. However, due to the City/MID Supply Agreement, the City can only currently utilize 30 mgd (20,833 gpm) until the Phase Two Expansion (an additional 30 mgd) is complete. Booster pump station firm pumping capacity includes those at existing tanks and the completed, but currently inoperable Tank 10 in the Galas Subdivision. The City must also be able to provide firm supply capacity equal to Maximum Day demand. To meet Maximum Day demand conditions, the City relies on the Terminal Reservoir surface water supply supplemented by groundwater wells, which has a total available firm pumping capacity of 64,725 gpm (Table which is currently insufficient for the existing 81,594 gpm demand (Table Even though the contiguous service area has eight operational tanks that can be used as supply sources during a Maximum Day demand condition, these tanks would empty in approximately 4-6 hours (depending on the tank), thus, the tank booster pump stations cannot be assumed to be a consistent supply source and are not included in this portion of the analysis. The deficient 16,869 gpm will be supplied when the Phase Two Expansion is completed by 2010, which will add a firm pumping capacity of 20,833 gpm. 2.3 Critical Supply Facility Definition All critical supply facilities should be equipped with an on-site generator for back-up power. Critical supply facilities are defined as those facilities that provide service to local service area(s) without sufficient emergency storage and that meet one of the following criteria: ---PAGE BREAK--- Station Status(a) Backup Power Pump 1, gpm Pump 2, gpm Pump 3, gpm Pump 4, gpm Pump 5, gpm Total Capacity, gpm Firm Capacity(b), gpm MID Terminal Reservoir(c) Active Y 13,900 13,900 6,950 6,950 13,900 55,600 20,833 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 Active Y 2,085 2,085 2,085 6,255 4,170 94,275 47,388 Well 001 Active 950 950 Well 002 OOS - WQ 1,500 Well 003 OOS - WQ 650 Well 004 Active 950 950 Well 006 Active Y 950 950 Well 007 Active 950 950 Well 008 OOS - WQ 775 Well 010 Active 400 400 Well 014 OOS - WQ Y 1,500 Well 016 Active 1,800 1,800 Well 017 Active 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 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 1,500 1,500 Well 046 Active 1,150 1,150 Well 047 Active 1,600 1,600 Well 048 Active 1,330 1,330 Well 049 OOS - WQ Y 500 Well 050 Active 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 650 650 Well 057 Active Y 1,350 1,350 Well 058 Active 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 650 650 Well 204 Active 1,450 1,450 Well 211 Active 1,450 1,450 Well 212 Active 1,000 1,000 Well 213(d) Active 0 Well 214 OOS - WQ 400 Well 216 Active 550 550 Well 217 Active 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 775 775 Well 236 OOS - WQ 750 Well 237 Active 630 630 Well 241 Active 350 350 Well 247 Active 560 560 Well 250 Active 835 835 Well 259 Active 400 400 Well 262 Active 350 350 Well 264 Active 700 700 Well 265 Active 500 500 Well 267 Active 1,190 1,190 Table 5. Summary of the Existing Contiguous Service Area Pumping Facilities Tank Pumping Capacity West Yost Associates o\c\418020722\w\er\20091031ceD3 Last Revised:10/07/09 1 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Station Status(a) Backup Power Pump 1, gpm Pump 2, gpm Pump 3, gpm Pump 4, gpm Pump 5, gpm Total Capacity, gpm Firm Capacity(b), gpm Table 5. Summary of the Existing Contiguous Service Area Pumping Facilities Well 269 Active 750 750 Well 277 Active 1,000 1,000 Well 278 Active 800 800 Well 279 Active Y 800 800 Well 281 Active 480 480 Well 283 OOS - WQ 800 Well 284 Active 750 750 Well 285 OOS - WQ Y 1,000 Well 287 Active 750 750 Well 288 Active 650 650 Well 290 Active 633 633 Well 291 Active 500 500 Well 292 Active 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 700 700 Well 301 Tank Fill Y 500 Well 304 OOS - WQ Y 525 Well 305 Tank Fill Y 750 Well 307 Active 1,050 1,050 Well 308 Active 850 850 Well 310 Active Y 1,320 1,320 Well 312 Active 1,000 1,000 Well 313 Active Y 1,175 1,175 73,153 43,892 167,428 91,280 = Active well; used in computing total pumping capacity . System Pumping Capacity (Booster Pumping Capacity + Well Pumping Capacity) OOS-WQ = out of service due to water quality issues [as of August 2009] Well Pumping Capacity Excludes wells that pump to tanks. Firm capacity is defined as the total booster pumping capacity with the largest pump out of service or 60 percent of the total groundwater well pumping capacity from all operational wells for one day (an operational well is defined as any well that has not been formally abandoned). Well 213 capacity not included in total well pumping capacity because it is located in Walnut Manor and not a part of the contiguous service area. Under the current MID Supply Agreement, only 30 mgd (20,833 gpm) is available for City use until the Phase Two Expansion (an additional 30 mgd) is complete. West Yost Associates o\c\418020722\w\er\20091031ceD3 Last Revised:10/07/09 2 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 10 West Yost Associates The largest pumping facility that provides water; A pumping facility that provides water from a supply turnout (i.e. MID pumps); A valve facility at a key location along the MID owned Transmission pipeline; 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 back-up power, if it does not already have an auxiliary power source, via the proposed existing system capital improvement program (CIP) in order to provide sufficient reliable pumping capacity during an emergency power outage. 2.4 Water Distribution System Analysis Steady state hydraulic analyses using the recently updated model were conducted to identify areas of the existing distribution system that do not meet the recommended system performance criteria. The results of the evaluation of the water distribution system are presented below for the following demand scenarios: Peak Hour Demand—A Peak Hour flow condition was simulated for the existing distribution facilities to evaluate their capability to meet a Peak Hour demand condition. Peak Hour demands are met by the combined flows from the Terminal Reservoirs, storage tanks, and groundwater wells. Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand —To evaluate the system under the Maximum Day plus fire flow demand condition, the model’s “Available Fire Flow Analysis” option was used to determine the required improvements to meet the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at 35 specific locations within the existing system. As shown in Table 1, the Peak Hour demand for the existing contiguous service area was calculated to be 114,698 gpm (165.2 mgd). This Peak Hour demand represents a peaking factor of 2.46 times the Average Day demand. 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 velocities should not exceed 7 fps. Likewise, Table 1 shows the Maximum Day demand to be 81,594 gpm (117.5 mgd). This demand represents a peaking factor of 1.75 times the Average Day demand. In order to analyze an additional demand condition on the distribution system, 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. 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. Table 6 presents the fire flow demand requirements based on land use categories. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 11 West Yost Associates Table 6. 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 the 2005 Hydraulic Model Update, under the Revised Design / System Performance Criteria TM, dated June 17, 2004. The cited fire flows and durations assume that approved automatic sprinkler systems are installed for the commercial, institutional, industrial, and business park land use buildings. Pipelines need to deliver enough water to meet Peak Hour demands and Maximum Day plus fire flow demands within the acceptable pressure, velocity, and head loss ranges as defined by the performance criteria previously established in the 2005 Hydraulic Model Update, but the existing distribution system will be evaluated using pressure as the primary criterion. Details of system pressures, as simulated in the model, are discussed below with recommended improvements needed for the existing distribution system to comply with the performance criteria. 3.0 EXISTING CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS 3.1 Peak Hour Demand During a Peak Hour demand condition, results indicate that the existing 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 potential wells which could be offline for repair or routine maintenance, as illustrated in Figure 2. System pressures ranged from 25 to 60 psi. Major areas of low pressure identified during the simulation included: the Blue Gum area, around Tank 6, parts of Empire, and specific regions in South Modesto. These pressure deficiencies were mainly based on one of two sources: insufficient supply or insufficient distribution system infrastructure. To remedy the pressure deficiencies shown on Figure 2, the following system improvements, illustrated on Figure 3, are necessary: Construction of the proposed West Tank and booster pump station that is a part of the City-Side Improvements related to the Phase Two Expansion project, Construction of the 14 control valves at specific MID turnout locations that are a part of the City-Side Improvements Tier 1 Facilities, Construction of the Orangeburg Transmission pipeline that is a part of the City-Side Improvements, Tier 1 Facilities, ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 12 West Yost Associates Localized pipeline improvements (also illustrated on Figures 5 and 7 through 9) and listed in Table A2 of Attachment A under Improvements for Peak Hour Pressures. On Figures 7 through 9, projects are indicated as “Localized Projects”, shown in red, and designated with a PH prefix that corresponds to the Project Identifier shown on Table A2. Also illustrated in Figure 2 are the pipelines in the water system that exceeded the maximum velocity and head loss criteria for a Peak Hour demand condition. The following list details those specific pipelines, with numbers below cross-referenced to locations indicated on the figure: The 10-inch diameter pipeline distributing flow from Well 43 had a head loss of 18 ft/kft and velocity of 8 fps. The 6-inch diameter pipeline distributing flow from Well 264 had a head loss of 41 ft/kft and velocity of 7 fps. The 10-inch diameter pipeline distributing flow from Well 62 had a head loss of 24 ft/kft and a velocity of 9 fps. The 10-inch diameter pipelines distributing flow from Well 33 had a head loss of 28 ft/kft and a velocity of 8 fps. The 8-inch diameter pipeline distributing flow from Well 7 had a head loss of 54 ft/kft and velocity of 7 fps. The 10-inch diameter pipeline along Claus Road near Orangeburg Avenue had a head loss of 28 ft/kft and velocity of 8 fps. The 8-inch diameter pipeline along Carpenter Road between Kansas Avenue and Elm Avenue had a head loss of 25 ft/kft and velocity of 8 fps. The 4-inch diameter pipeline located near Encina Avenue and Well 211 had a head loss of 340 ft/kft and velocity of 11 fps. The 4-inch diameter pipelines distributing flow from Well 312 had head losses ranging from 111 to 716 ft/kft and velocities ranging from 15 to 31 fps. The 6-inch diameter pipeline distributing flow from Well 287 had a head loss of 122 ft/kft and velocity of 11 fps. The 16-inch diameter pipelines distributing flow from Tank 8 had a head loss of 13 ft/kft and velocity of 7 fps. Because pipeline velocity and head loss are secondary criteria, no improvements for pipelines exceeding the velocity and head loss criteria in the existing system are recommended unless the primary criterion (pressure) is not met. Based on results of the Peak Hour simulation, only the 8- inch diameter pipeline along Carpenter Road (location 7 on Figure 3) is in the vicinity of a low pressure area. However, the previously recommended improvements mitigate the pressure deficiency in that region, so no additional improvements are recommended at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 13 West Yost Associates 3.2 Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand Using the hydraulic model’s “Available Fire Flow Analysis” option, the available fire flow at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi within the existing system was simulated under a Maximum Day plus fire flow demand condition. As shown in Figure 4, results indicate that 22 of the 34 specified fire flow locations could not meet the minimum required residual pressure of 20 psi. Table 7 summarizes the results of the Maximum Day plus fire flow demand analysis. The improvements required to remedy the pressure deficiencies under both conditions discussed above (Sec. 3.1 Peak Hour Demand and Sec. 3.2 Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand) are mainly localized pipeline upsizing and looping as shown on Figures 5 through 10. Recommendations are detailed with associated cost estimates in Table A2, under the category Improvements for Fire Flow. On Figures 6 through 10, these projects are shown as “Localized Projects” and are indicated with a FF prefix and project identifier that corresponds to projects listed in Table A2. 3.3 Distribution Main Grid Upsizing In addition to the system-wide facilities and localized pipeline improvements recommended to mitigate pressure deficiencies under existing Peak Hour and Maximum Day plus fire flow demand conditions, it is recommended that the City create an appropriately configured distribution main grid, as illustrated on Figure 5 as the “Recommended Additional Upsize” pipelines (equaling approximately 28 miles), by upsizing certain pipelines to efficiently move supply through the contiguous service area’s distribution system. Currently, the City does have a well-looped network of distribution mains that are generally 8 and 10 inches in diameter (Figure However, with the Phase Two Expansion project, a minimum 12-inch diameter distribution grid system is recommended to better integrate, distribute, and conjunctively use available treated surface water and groundwater supplies. In addition to helping move supply to the service area extremities, these 28 miles of upsized pipeline will also help alleviate some of the City’s circulation problems. These projects are detailed in Table A2, under the category “Improvements to Reinforce Distribution Grid.” On Figures 6 through 10, these projects are shown as “Recommended Pipeline Upsize” and are indicated with a TR prefix and project identifier that corresponds to projects listed in Table A2. 4.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE EXISTING CONTIGUOUS SERVICE AREA WATER SYSTEM The recommended improvements needed to eliminate deficiencies identified in the analysis of the contiguous service area’s existing distribution system are summarized below. 4.1 Storage Facilities To alleviate the storage capacity deficit and low pressures during a Peak Hour demand condition, the proposed West Tank, along with its associated booster pump station, needs to be fully constructed and operational. ---PAGE BREAK--- West Yost Associates City of Modesto o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceD2T-7 Engineer’s Report Last Revised: 10-31-09 Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM Table 7. Summary of Existing Contiguous Service Area’s Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand Results Location Model Junction Tested Required Fire Flow, gpm Available Flow w/ Fixes, gpm Pass/Fail Failure Reason Recommendation(s)(a) 1 10286 4,000 1,390 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF10096) 2 10296 1,500 460 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Add looping (Project FF10106) and wellhead treatment to nearby well 3 10302 2,500 1,100 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) and bring nearby well back online (Project FF10112) 4 10400 1,500 1,340 Fail Insufficient Supply Add supply source (i.e. West Tank) 5 10504 4,000 1,080 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) and add looping (Project FF10324) 6 11472 4,000 4,020 Pass 7 11930 1,500 900 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) and add looping (Project FF11838) 8 12116 4,000 1,990 Fail Constricted Supply Upsize transmission grid 9 12336 2,500 1,610 Fail Constricted Supply Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF12248) 10 12516 1,500 2,260 Pass 11 12776 2,500 3,650 Pass 12 13134 1,500 1,270 Fail Insufficient Supply Add supply source (i.e. Galas Tank) 13 13198 4,000 4,200 Pass 14 13354 1,500 160 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) and add looping (Project FF13272) 15 13534 1,500 850 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF13452) 16 13818 4,000 1,490 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Available flow not enough to meet fire flow requirement. City should consider upsizing neighborhood pipelines to 8-inch diameter as part of ongoing system improvements 17 14166 4,000 1,640 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF14096) 18 14294 4,000 760 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) and add looping (Project 14224) 19 14364 4,000 1,250 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Available flow not enough to meet fire flow requirement. City should consider upsizing neighborhood pipelines to 8-inch diameter as part of ongoing system improvements 20 14960 2,500 770 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF14894) 21 15450 1,500 3,200 Pass 22 15682 4,000 2,510 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF15618) 23 16094 1,500 5,820 Pass 24 16114 4,000 7,970 Pass 25 16292 3,000 2,750 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF16226) 26 16564 1,500 1,530 Pass 27 17798 4,000 3,770 Fail Insufficient Supply Add supply source (i.e. North Tank) 28 18000 1,500 3,140 Pass 29 18884 2,500 830 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF18876) and bring Well 49 back online 30 19458 2,500 1,500 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF19370) 31 19460 1,500 1,480 Fail Small Pipeline Diameter Upsize pipeline(s) (Project FF19372) 32 19894 2,500 6,390 Pass 33 2168 1,500 2,530 Pass 34 2342 1,500 2,270 Pass For project locations indicated in parentheses, see Figures 6 through 10 and Attachment A, Table A2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 15 West Yost Associates To assist with the City’s storage deficiency, the proposed North and Industrial Tanks should be constructed. It is recommended, due to the existing system pressure issues presented in this evaluation, that the North Tank be constructed prior to the Industrial Tank. 4.2 Pumping Facilities Installation of generators at specific well sites, as detailed on Table A1, should be performed to increase the reliable pumping capacity and available emergency groundwater credit, to help alleviate the existing system storage capacity deficit. 4.3 Control Valve Facilities Installation of the previously identified 14 control valves at specific locations along the MID transmission main are required to assist in alleviating the pressure deficiencies under the existing Peak Hour demand condition. 4.4 Pipelines To alleviate the pressure deficit under Peak Hour demand conditions indicated in Figure 2, the proposed Orangeburg transmission pipeline and additional looping pipelines shown on Figure 3 and Table A2, should be constructed. As a remedy for the Maximum Day plus fire flow pressure deficiencies indicated in Figure 4, the localized pipeline upsizing, detailed on Table 7, and looping shown on Table A2, should be completed. To more efficiently integrate and distribute the upcoming Phase Two Expansion, approximately 28 miles of pipelines should be upsized from 8 or 10-inch diameter to 12-inch diameter pipelines, illustrated on Figure 5 as the “Recommended Additional Upsize” pipelines, and listed in Table A2 under the category Improvements to Reinforce the Transmission Grid. 4.5 Estimated Capital Cost for Recommended Improvements The estimated probable capital costs for the recommended water system improvements to reliably serve the existing condition of the contiguous service area are presented in Table 8. The capital costs are presented in March 2010 dollars at an Engineering News Record (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 City-Side Improvements related to the MID Expansion are not included in these cost estimates because they have already been accounted for elsewhere in the development of the overall CIP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 16 West Yost Associates 4.6 Required On-going Rehabilitation Improvements In addition to the improvements listed in Table 8, the City should also plan to repair and replace (R & R) aging water system infrastructure. The decision to repair or replace existing facilities should be based primarily on the condition of the facility. Corroding pipelines with reasonable structural integrity may often be repaired (instead of replaced), as it is more cost effective and less disruptive than replacement and usually provides a comparable useful life of the pipeline. Extremely deteriorated pipelines must be replaced, as these facilities cannot be repaired in a cost effective manner. As these on-going rehabilitation improvements are made, existing 4-inch and 6-inch pipelines should be replaced with 8-inch diameter pipelines to assist in better looping the City’s distribution system. The funding for these on-going rehabilitation improvements are included in the City’s Strengthen and Replace Pipelines costs presented in the Engineer’s Report. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Jack Bond March 25, 2010 Page 17 West Yost Associates Table 8. Summary of the Existing Contiguous Service Area’s Recommended CIP Cost Estimates Recommendation Cost Estimate(a) Storage 6 MG North Tank NA(b) 4 MG West Tank NA(b) 4 MG Industrial Tank NA(b) Pump Station Well Backup Generators(c) $2,133,000 North Tank 18 mgd Booster Pump Station NA(b, d) West Tank 12 mgd Booster Pump Station NA(b, d) Industrial Tank 12 mgd Booster Pump Station NA(b, d) Well 63 (Mildred Perkins Well) $821,000(g) Pipeline Transmission Improvements(e) $17,071,000 Localized Improvements for Peak Hour(e) $415,000 Localized Improvements for Max Day + Fire Flow(e) $4,053,000 Virginia Corridor Transmission Main NA(b) Orangeburg Transmission Main NA(b) Yosemite Boulevard Transmission Main NA(b) Other Improvements Installation of Control Valves at MID Turnouts NA(b) Total CIP Recommendation Subtotal $24,493,000 Soft Costs and Contingencies(f) $12,247,000 Total CIP Cost Estimate $36,740,000 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. Part of the City-Side Improvement Project. Costs are accounted for elsewhere in the development of the overall CIP. Capital costs detailed in Table A1. Cost includes backup generator. Capital costs detailed in Table A2. Soft cost and contingency mark-ups include: construction contingency engineering construction management and program implementation Project is already underway. Cost is cost to complete project. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT A Detailed Cost Tables ---PAGE BREAK--- Pump Total Capacity Firm Capacity Backup Power Backup Power Existing Backup Backup Power Status(f) HP [gpm](a) [gpm](b) Required(c) Recommended(c) Power(d) Cost(e) 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 Active 6,255 4,170 Y Yes $0 MID Terminal Reservoir Active 55,600 20,833 Y Yes $0 Well Pump Stations Well 001 Active 60 950 950 Y Y $133,000 1.37 Well 002 OOS - WQ 150 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 003 OOS - WQ 60 650 650 $0 Well 004 Active 100 950 950 Y Y $133,000 1.37 Well 006 Active 75 950 950 Y Yes Y $0 1.37 Well 007 Active 75 950 950 Y Y $133,000 1.37 Well 008 OOS - WQ 50 775 775 $0 Well 010 Active 60 400 400 $0 Well 014 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 1,500 Yes Y $0 Well 016 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y Y $133,333 2.59 Well 017 Active 100 1,450 1,450 $0 Well 018 OOS - WQ 100 750 750 $0 Well 019 OOS - WQ 40 600 600 $0 Well 021 OOS - WQ 125 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 022 OOS - WQ 125 1,000 1,000 $0 Well 024 OOS - WQ 150 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 025 Active 125 1,500 1,500 Y Yes Y $0 2.16 Well 029 Tank Fill 75 1,058 1,058 $0 Well 030 Tank Fill 75 1,000 1,000 $0 Well 032 OOS - WQ 75 800 800 $0 Well 033 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y Yes Y $0 2.59 Well 034 OOS - WQ 100 1,250 1,250 $0 Well 036 Active 100 1,050 1,050 $0 Well 037 OOS - WQ 125 1,250 1,250 $0 Well 038 Tank Fill 100 1,163 1,163 $0 Well 039 Active 150 1,950 1,950 Y Yes Y $0 2.81 Well 040 Active 150 1,400 1,400 Y Yes Y $0 2.02 Well 041 Active 150 1,200 1,200 Y Yes Y $0 1.73 Well 042 Active 150 1,800 1,800 Y Yes Y $0 2.59 Well 043 Active 150 1,900 1,900 Y Yes Y $0 2.74 Well 044 OOS - WQ 100 1,250 1,250 Yes Y $0 Well 045 Active 100 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 046 Active 100 1,150 1,150 $0 Well 047 Active 150 1,600 1,600 $0 Well 048 Active 125 1,330 1,330 $0 Well 049 OOS - WQ 75 500 500 Y Yes Y $0 0.72 Well 050 Active 100 800 800 Y Y $133,333 1.15 Well 051 Active 250 2,200 2,200 $0 Well 052 Active 150 1,600 1,600 Y Yes Y $0 2.30 Well 053 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 054 Tank Fill 200 2,400 2,400 Yes Y $0 Well 055 OOS - WQ 100 1,500 1,500 $0 Well 056 Active 75 650 650 $0 Well 057 Active 100 1,350 1,350 Y Yes Y $0 1.94 Well 058 Active 100 1,300 1,300 Y Y $133,333 1.87 Well 059 Active 125 1,400 1,400 $0 Well 061 Active 1,575 1,575 Y Yes Y $0 2.27 Well 062 Active 2,200 2,200 Y Yes Y $0 3.17 Well 063 Under construction 1,500 1,500 Y Y Yes $0 2.16 Capacity is estimated Well 064 Active 40 1,800 1,800 Y Yes Y $0 2.59 Well 065 Tank Fill 100 2,000 2,000 Yes Y $0 Well 066 Tank Fill 100 1,350 1,350 Yes Y $0 Well 100 Active 100 650 650 Y Y $133,333 0.94 Well 204 Active 25 1,450 1,450 $0 Well 211 Active 40 1,450 1,450 $0 Well 212 Active 40 1,000 1,000 $0 Well 213 Active 40 240 240 Y Y $133,333 0.35 located in Walnut Manor Well 214 OOS - WQ 30 400 400 $0 Well 216 Active 150 550 550 $0 Well 217 Active 40 400 400 Y Y $133,333 0.58 Well 223 Tank Fill 50 400 400 Yes Y $0 Well 225 Active 75 1,200 1,200 Y Yes Y $0 1.73 Well 226 OOS - WQ 75 675 675 $0 Well 229 Active 20 425 425 $0 Well 232 Active 15 775 775 Y Y $133,333 1.12 Well 236 OOS - WQ 40 750 750 $0 Well 237 Active 75 630 630 Y Y $133,333 0.91 Well 241 Active 40 350 350 Y Y $133,333 0.50 Well 247 Active 20 560 560 $0 Well 250 Active 20 835 835 $0 Well 259 Active 40 400 400 $0 Well 262 Active 100 350 350 $0 Well 264 Active 50 700 700 $0 Well 265 Active 100 500 500 $0 Well 267 Active 150 1,190 1,190 Y Y $133,333 1.71 Well 269 Active 100 750 750 $0 Well 277 Active 100 1,000 1,000 $0 Well 278 Active 75 800 800 Y Y $133,333 1.15 Well 279 Active 75 800 800 Y Yes Y $0 1.15 Well 281 Active 100 480 480 $0 Well 283 OOS - WQ 75 800 800 $0 Remarks Table A1. Existing Contiguous Service Area Recommended Backup Power Improvements Pump Station GW Storage Credit (MG) West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceD3Tables Last Revised: 11-11-09 1 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Reporrt Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Pump Total Capacity Firm Capacity Backup Power Backup Power Existing Backup Backup Power Status(f) HP [gpm](a) [gpm](b) Required(c) Recommended(c) Power(d) Cost(e) Remarks Table A1. Existing Contiguous Service Area Recommended Backup Power Improvements Pump Station GW Storage Credit (MG) Well 284 Active 50 750 750 Y Y $133,333 1.08 Well 285 OOS - WQ 50 1,000 1,000 Yes Y $0 Well 287 Active 75 750 750 $0 Well 288 Active 75 650 650 $0 Well 290 Active 100 633 633 $0 Well 291 Active 100 500 500 $0 Well 292 Active 75 850 850 $0 Well 293 OOS - WQ 100 825 825 Yes Y $0 Well 294 Active 100 1,325 1,325 Y Yes Y $0 1.91 Well 296 Active 100 900 900 Y Yes Y $0 1.30 Well 297 Active 75 1,300 1,300 $0 Well 298 Active 40 1,200 1,200 Y Yes Y $0 1.73 Well 299 Active 40 450 450 Y Yes Y $0 0.65 Well 300 Active 700 700 $0 Well 301 Tank Fill 100 500 500 Yes Y $0 Well 304 OOS - WQ 75 525 525 Yes Y $0 Well 305 Tank Fill 150 750 750 Yes Y $0 Well 307 Active 40 1,050 1,050 $0 Well 308 Active 850 850 $0 Well 310 Active 1,320 1,320 Y Yes Y $0 1.90 Well 312 Active 1,000 1,000 Y Y $133,333 1.44 Well 313 Active 1,175 1,175 Y Yes Y $0 1.69 Storage Credit, Proposed Wells Only: 17 $2,132,329 21.7 MG gpm Contiguous System: 21.31 14,795 Ceres (Walnut Manor): 0.35 240 21.65 15,035 Storage Credit, all Wells: 64.70 Contiguous System: 64.3 44,621 Ceres (Walnut Manor): 0.4 309 64.7 44,930 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 actual storage capacity deficiency of 21.2 MG (see Table City-provided cost for generator Backup power information provided by City. Backup generator cost based on March 2010 San Francisco ENR Index (9728.17). OOS = Out of Service [as of Summer 2007] = Well proposed for backup generation West Yost Associates o:\c\418\02-07-22\wp\er\20091031ceD3Tables Last Revised: 11-11-09 2 of 2 City of Modesto Engineer's Reporrt Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM ---PAGE BREAK--- Analysis Demand CIP Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quadrant Condition Reason(a) Existing Proposed [lf] o TR01 TR01EX E2 Dist Grid 10 12 Veneman Avenue between Covenant Avenue and Sash Court 830 136 $113,000 E2 / E3 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Standiford Avenue between Carver Avenue and McHenry Avenue 1,540 136 $210,000 E2 / E3 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Standiford Avenue between Carver Avenue and McHenry Avenue 11,630 136 $1,586,000 E2 / E3 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Sylvan Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Coffee Road 4,970 136 $678,000 TR03 TR03EX A1 Dist Grid 8 12 Sylvan Avenue between Palmwood Drive and Oakdale Road 1,990 136 $271,000 TR04 TR04EX D2 / E4 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Sisk Road between Rumble Road and Orangeburg Avenue 14,100 136 $1,922,000 TR05 TR05EX D2 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Orangeburg Avenue between Sisk Road and Carver Avenue 1,050 136 $143,000 TR06 TR06EX D2 / E4 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Carver Avenue between Standiford Avenue and Orangeburg Avenue 9,210 136 $1,256,000 A1 / B1 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Coffee Road between Standiford Avenue and Scenic Drive 10 136 $1,000 A1 / B1 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Coffee Road between Standiford Avenue and Scenic Drive 12,720 136 $1,734,000 B1 / B2 / B3 Dist Grid 12 Along Scenic Drive between Coffee Road and Claus Road 200 136 $27,000 B1 / B2 / B3 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Scenic Drive between Coffee Road and Claus Road 5,000 136 $682,000 B1 / B2 / B3 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Scenic Drive between Coffee Road and Claus Road 12,010 136 $1,637,000 TR09 TR09EX B3 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Claus Road between Briggsmore Avenue and Scenic Drive 3,340 136 $455,000 TR10 TR10EX A2 / B2 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Roselle Avenue between Floyd Avenue and Scenic Drive 8,440 136 $1,151,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 12 Along Morris Avenue between Coffee Road and Bodem Street 50 136 $7,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 6 12 Along Morris Avenue between Coffee Road and Bodem Street 1,070 136 $146,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Morris Avenue between Coffee Road and Bodem Street 1,780 136 $243,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Scenic Drive between Burney Street and Bodem Street 1,150 136 $157,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Bodem Street between Morris Avenue and Scenic Avenue 1,500 136 $205,000 D3 / D5 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Burney Street between Downey Avenue and G Street 670 136 $91,000 D5 / D6 Dist Grid 12 Along Paradise Road between Chicago Avenue and Sutter Avenue 1,260 136 $172,000 D5 / D6 Dist Grid 6 12 Along Paradise Road between Chicago Avenue and 1st Street 100 136 $14,000 D5 / D6 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Paradise Road between Chicago Avenue and 1st Street 1,580 136 $215,000 D5 / D6 Dist Grid 8 12 Along H Street between 1st Street and 8th Street 2,490 136 $339,000 TR13 TR13EX D6 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Robertson Road between Vernon Avenue and Sutter Avenue 4,700 136 $641,000 D1 / D2 Dist Grid 6 12 Along Kansas Avenue between Carpenter Road and 9th Street 1,160 136 $158,000 D1 / D2 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Kansas Avenue between Carpenter Road and 9th Street 3,380 136 $461,000 D1 / D2 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Kansas Avenue between Carpenter Road and 9th Street 3,950 136 $539,000 D1 / D4 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Carpenter Road between Blue Gum Avenue and California Avenue 6,440 136 $878,000 D1 / D4 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Carpenter Road between Blue Gum Avenue and California Avenue 4,210 136 $574,000 C1 Dist Grid 8 12 Along Ustick Road between Hatch Road and Boise Avenue 1,080 136 $147,000 C1 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Ustick Road between Hatch Road and Boise Avenue 250 136 $34,000 TR17 TR17EX C1 Dist Grid 10 12 Along Ustick Road between Lassen Avenue and Whitmore Avenue 1,350 136 $184,000 Distribution Grid Recommendation Subtotal 125,210 $17,071,000 Improvements for Peak Hour Pressures B4 Peak Hour Pressure 4 8 Santa Rosa Avenue between Mono Drive and Oregon Drive 1,670 101 $168,000 B4 Peak Hour Pressure 4 8 Oregon Drive between Santa Rosa Avenue and Santa Rita Avenue 510 101 $51,000 D6 Peak Hour Pressure 4 8 Beverly Drive between Victoria Drive and Picardy Drive 450 101 $45,000 D6 Peak Hour Pressure 4 8 Alley between Victoria Drive and Vernon Avenue between Victoria Drive and Beverly Drive 870 101 $87,000 PH03 PH03EX D6 Peak Hour Pressure 8 Paradise Road between Alturas Avenue and Sutter Avenue 510 101 $51,000 PH04 PH04EX D6 Peak Hour Pressure 8 Along Paradise Road east of Vernon Avenue 130 101 $13,000 Peak Hour Recommendation Subtotal 4,140 $415,000 Improvements for Fire Flow B1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Along Wylie Drive east of Brighton Avenue 90 101 $9,000 B1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Along Brighton Avenue between Wylie Drive and Scenic Drive (East Side of Street) 2,990 101 $301,000 B1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 County Center 3 Court north of Scenic Drive 1,010 101 $102,000 B1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Vista Drive between Dorchester Avenue and Rio Vista Drive 590 101 $59,000 B1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Dorchester Avenue between Vista Drive and Devonshire Avenue 1,120 101 $113,000 B3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Havasu Drive between Wild Palms Drive and East Orangeburg Avenue 1,010 101 $102,000 B3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Wild Palms Drive between Fransen Lane and Havasu Drive 1,210 101 $122,000 B3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Palmdale Drive between Wild Palms Drive and East Orangeburg Avenue 1,010 101 $102,000 B3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Fransen Lane between Wild Palms Drive and East Orangeburg Avenue 1,020 101 $103,000 FF04 FF19372 B3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Wycliffe Drive south of Scenic Drive 1,200 101 $121,000 B4 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 10 La Loma Avenue between Rowland Avenue and Covena Avenue 400 123 $49,000 B4 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 La Loma Avenue between Santa Barbara Avenue and Rowland Avenue 1,150 101 $116,000 B5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Pirinen Lane between Pamplona Way and Penny Lane 1,010 101 $102,000 B5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Pamplona Way between Capistrano Drive and Pirinen Lane 700 101 $70,000 B5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Capistrano Drive between Pamplona Way and Penny Lane 660 101 $66,000 B6 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Tyson Street between Church Street and Downing Lane 870 101 $87,000 B6 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Intertie at Intersection of Tyson Street and Church Street between Pipelines along Church Street 20 101 $2,000 B6 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Along McCoy Avenue east of Church Street (Connect Pipelines along Church Street) 10 101 $1,000 B6 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Along Third Street west of Church Street (Connect Pipelines along Church Street) 30 101 $3,000 FF08 FF13452 C1 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Alley between Imperial Avenue and Inyo Avenue between Tucson Avenue and Rutherford Street 1,650 101 $166,000 C2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Avenue between Crater Avenue and Hatch Road 1,810 101 $182,000 C2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Avenue between Crater Avenue and Hatch Road 1,150 101 $116,000 C2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Along Imperial Avenue immediately west of Crows Landing Avenue 350 101 $35,000 C2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 West of Crows Landing Avenue between Glenn Avenue and Imperial Avenue 480 101 $48,000 FF11 FF10106 C3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 10 Herndon Road between Eugene Avenue and Joyce Avenue 1,000 123 $123,000 D2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Alley between Concord Avenue and College Avenue between Granger Avenue and Pearl Street 620 101 $62,000 D2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Pearl Street between Concord Avenue and Bronson Avenue 940 101 $94,000 FF13 FF14096 D2 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Stoddard Avenue between Orange Avenue and Virginia Avenue 190 101 $19,000 FF14 FF12248 D4 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Bennett Avenue between Elm Avenue and Laurel Avenue 510 101 $51,000 FF15 FF12024 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Alley between 4th and 5th Street between Washington Street and Sierra Lane 3,560 101 $358,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Loma Vista Way between Morton Boulevard and Kelley Street 650 101 $65,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Kelley Street between James Street and Loma Vista Way 160 101 $16,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Kelley Street between James Street and Loma Vista Way 280 101 $28,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Pleasant Street between Kelley Street and Jennie Street 790 101 $79,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Pleasant Street between Kelley Street and Jennie Street 870 101 $87,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 10 Along Roseburg Avenue east of McHenry Avenue to Existing Pipeline 120 123 $15,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Along Palm Avenue east of McHenry Avenue to Existing Pipeline 30 101 $3,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Along Corson Avenue east of McHenry Avenue to Existing Pipeline 100 101 $10,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Along Fairmont Avenue east of McHenry Avenue to Existing Pipeline 330 101 $33,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Palm Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Ila Way 680 101 $68,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Ila Way between Palm Avenue and Corson Avenue 320 101 $32,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Rose Avenue between Palm Avenue and Corson Avenue 340 101 $34,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Corson Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Melrose Avenue 850 101 $85,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Corson Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Melrose Avenue 1,360 101 $137,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Kimble Street between Corson Avenue and Fairmont Avenue 570 101 $57,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Fairmont Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Patricia Lane 1,210 101 $122,000 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 8 Patricia Lane between Fairmont Avenue and Hintze Avenue 690 101 $69,000 FF18 FF13748 D5 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 4 8 Vecino Avenue between Fairmont Avenue and Morris Avenue 1,860 101 $187,000 E3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Claremont Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Dyer Lane 180 101 $18,000 E3 Max Day + Fire Fireflow 6 8 Dyer Lane between Norton Avenue and Claremont Avenue 240 101 $24,000 Max Day + Fire Flow Recommendation Subtotal 39,990 $4,053,000 Existing System CIP Pipeline Recommendation Total 169,340 $21,539,000 Trans Grid = Transmission Grid Pipe cost based on March 2010 San Francisco ENR Index (9728.17). TR15EX TR16EX TR08EX TR11EX TR12EX TR14EX FF16226 FF14224 PH01EX PH02EX FF10096 FF10112 FF18776 FF19370 FF13272 FF10324 Project ID Improvements to Reinforce the Distribution Grid TR02 TR07 Diameter (in) Address CIP ID TR02EX TR07EX TR08 TR11 TR12 TR14 FF19 FF09 FF10 FF12 FF16 Table A2. Existing Contiguous Service Area Recommended Pipeline Improvements FF01 FF02 FF17 FF03 FF05 FF14294 FF14894 FF15618 FF11838 FF06 FF07 PH02 TR15 TR16 PH01 West Yost Associates o:\c\418\020722\wp\er\20091031ceD3Tables Last Revised: 12/01/08 City of Modesto Engineer's Report Appendix D Existing System Evaluation TM