Document Moscow_doc_5b19b659ad

CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ADDENDUM TO 1998 FPS ADOPTED OCTOBER 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW T0C - 1 209088/3/11-113 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.0 – Introduction and Basis of Planning 1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Goals of Plan 1-1 1.2 Background and System History 1-1 1.3 Use of Available Data 1-2 1.4 Assessment 1-2 Chapter 2.0 – Sewer System Description 2.1 Ownership and Management 2-1 2.2 Collection System 2-2 2.3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2-6 2.4 Service Agreements 2-7 Chapter 3.0 – Service Area Policies, Plans, and Agreements 3.1 Study Area 3-1 3.2 Existing Sewer Ordinances and Standards 3-1 Chapter 4.0 – System Flow Projections 4.1 Demographic Projections 4-1 4.2 Flow Characteristics 4-1 4.3 Flows Used for Modeling 4-5 4.4 Flow Projections and Distribution 4-6 Chapter 5.0 – Water Recycling Options 5.1 Water Recycling History 5-1 5.2 Potential for Water Recycling 5-3 5.3 Alternatives for Expanding Recycling 5-7 5.4 Recommended Capital Improvements 5-13 Chapter 6.0 – System Analysis and Recommendations 6.1 Model Acquisition and Calibration 6-1 6.2 System Physical Capacity Analysis 6-5 6.3 Lift Stations Capacity Analysis 6-11 6.4 Diversion Manhole Analysis 6-13 6.5 Other Operation and Maintenance Improvements 6-14 6.6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Considerations 6-14 Chapter 7.0 – Capital Improvement Plan 7.1 Recommended Improvements 7-1 7.2 Cost Methodology 7-1 Chapter 8.0 – Financial Assessment 8.1 Past and Present Financial Condition 8-1 8.2 Capital Financing Alternatives and Approaches 8-1 8.3 Recommended Financial Strategy 8-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW T0C - 2 209088/3/11-113 Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – System Management Appendix C – Existing System Evaluations Appendix D – Agreements Appendix E – Flow Analysis Appendix F – Model Construction Appendix G – Model Results Appendix H – Cost Estimates Appendix I – Financing Tables: Table 2.1 Moscow Pipe Size and Material Summary 2-2 Table 2.2 Diversion Manholes 2-4 Table 2.3 Lift Station Inventory 2-5 Table 4.1 Moscow Demographic Projections 4-1 Table 4.2 Summary of Historical Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent (MGD) 4-2 Table 4.3 Probability of Exceedance for WWTP Inflows (2002-2009) 4-2 Table 4.4 Existing System Flows 4-5 Table 4.5 Distribution of UI Wastewater Flows by Basin 4-7 Table 4.6 WWTP Influent Flow Projections 4-8 Table 5.1 Moscow WWTP Effluent Reused at University of Idaho (UI) 5-2 Table 5.2 Irrigation Rates in Moscow 5-5 Table 5.3 Potential Water Reclamation Demand 5-6 Table 5.4 Potential Scalping Plant Recycling Demand 5-8 Table 5.5 Reclaimed Water Availability 5-9 Table 5.6 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost 5-13 Table 6.1 Future Average Day Design Flows by Land Use 6-5 Table 6.2 Maintenance Pipes – Candidates for Replacement 6-7 Table 6.3 Development Levels Triggering Improvements 6-10 Table 6.4 Lift Station Influent Flows vs. Existing Pumping Capacity 6-11 Table 6.5 Diversion Manhole Operational Improvements 6-13 Table 7.1 Estimated Capital Improvement Plan Project Costs 7-2 Table 7.2 Growth Apportionment of CIP Costs 7-4 Charts: Chart 4.1 Probability of Exceedance for WWTP Inflows (2002-2009) 4-3 Chart 4.2 Average Annual Inflow and Average Annual Rain 4-4 Chart 4.3 Moscow Daily WWTP Influent vs. Precipitation and Snow Melt 4-4 Chart 6.1 Residential Flow Unit Curve 6-2 Chart 6.2 Commercial Flow Unit Curve 6-2 Chart 6.3 Dry Calibration Modeled vs. Observed Flows – Manhole F16-15 6-3 Chart 6.4 Wet Calibration Modeled vs. Observed Flows – Manhole F16-15 6-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 1 - 1 209088/3/11-113 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BASIS OF PLANNING Keller Associates was authorized to prepare a comprehensive sewer collection system master plan (CSSP) for the City of Moscow. The purpose of this master plan is to provide an assessment of existing conditions and guidance for future upgrades and expansion. This chapter establishes the planning constraints, clarifies issues that impact planning decisions, and provides a foundation for the development of the conveyance and capacity alternatives for the City. Data used to define drainage basins and existing system conditions are presented. Assessment methodologies utilized in the development and analysis of the collection system model are also documented. 1.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND GOALS OF PLAN The Moscow wastewater collection system has not been comprehensively evaluated in more than 15 years. The purpose of the Moscow CSSP is to identify existing collection system deficiencies, determine future needs, and develop a vision of the future collection system with an implementation strategy. The plan is to be consistent with the 2009 Moscow Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which calls for “the orderly and efficient collection and treatment of wastewater services to the community into the future while minimizing adverse impacts to the surrounding natural environment” (Section 1.7). The plan should further “identify any limitations in the current system and set out a strategy to prepare for future growth” and prioritize the resolution of known constraints so that “growth is not limited by bottlenecks” in the system (Section 5.10). The scope of the study involves the basic elements below. More detailed descriptions of each of these tasks can be found in the body of this report.  Developing the basis of planning  Data collection  Sewer system description  Evaluation of service area policies, plans, and agreements  System flow projections  Evaluation of satellite water reclamation and reuse options  System analysis including hydraulic computer modeling and a lift station capacity analysis  Capital Improvement and financing plans  Environmental Information Document 1.2 BACKGROUND AND SYSTEM HISTORY The Moscow sanitary sewer collection system is made up of approximately 81 miles of pipelines, approximately 1820 manholes, and four lift stations. The collection system services all of the City of Moscow, the Southeast Moscow Water and Sewer District (District), and the University of Idaho (UI). While all flow from UI is ultimately conveyed through Moscow’s interceptor system, UI owns and operates its own collection system on campus. Wastewater is conveyed through a series of interceptors to a wastewater treatment plant located on the west end of the City. Treated effluent is currently discharged to Paradise Creek and/or land applied via a reuse system owned and operated by UI. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 1 - 2 209088/3/11-113 Parts of the collection system date back to the 1890s, pre-dating any treatment facilities. Some of the earliest sewer pipelines (1903) served the UI campus and included siphons under Paradise Creek. Original sections of pipe included vitrified clay pipe. Most of the more established areas are served with 6-inch diameter pipelines. Growth of the collection system is believed to have closely followed the historical growth of the City. In more recent years, the City has undertaken efforts to rehabilitate or replace some older pipeline sections. 1.3 USE OF AVAILABLE DATA The planning was completed using available topographic, base mapping, precipitation, and demographic data. City staff experience was used to identify areas of known soil, geography, and ground water challenges in the evaluation of improvement alternatives and in developing opinions of probable cost. Electronic data that included contour data and base mapping was used to define basin boundaries. Written TV logs were also used to provide a general sense of system conditions. Other data used in the evaluation of the collection system included City-provided record drawings, operations and maintenance manuals, previous reports, TV logs, manhole cards, and base mapping. This study was also coordinated with the Comprehensive Water System Plan for land use assumptions, demand (wastewater flow) allocations, and system demographics. 1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES What is a capacity problem for a collection system? Capacity problems can be defined for each of the basic collection system components – lift stations and pipelines. A lift station is assumed to have insufficient capacity if it cannot convey peak hour flows with one pump out of service. Additionally, it is the municipality’s responsibility to ensure that sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) do not occur. Extended power outages may lead to wastewater backing up into homes and onto the streets. Mobile generators or portable trash pumps may be acceptable for lift stations, depending on the risk of overflow, available storage in the wet well and pipelines, alarms and response time, etc. A gravity pipeline is generally assumed to have insufficient capacity if “surcharging” occurs. Surcharging refers to a condition when the flow in the pipe backs up into manholes. This condition presents an increased risk of wastewater backing up into people’s homes, overflows, and the increased potential for exfiltration (escape of raw wastewater into the groundwater). There is a wide range of standards used to determine when a pipe is considered “too full” or over capacity. For the purposes of this plan, two “triggers” were considered in prioritizing improvements:  Areas that will likely experience growth. The need for capital improvements should be triggered when the pipe is at 75% of flow capacity, with the goal to have new facilities in place by the time the existing pipelines reach 90% of capacity.  Areas with no growth capacity. As long as interceptor pipeline flows are less than 90% capacity and no historical problems have been observed, then no improvements would be recommended. However, increased monitoring may be warranted. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 1 - 3 209088/3/11-113 Ongoing infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction efforts, along with installation of check valves in service lines that feed basements, are additional measures the City could take to reduce the risk of pipe surcharging as a method to address the risk of SSOs. In addition to capacity problems, other conditions may affect the effectiveness of the collection system. Providing minimum slopes that allow for scouring velocities is important to keeping pipelines free from debris. Additionally, the condition of the pipe may affect pipeline capacity. Root intrusions, broken sections of pipeline, accumulation of grease and excessive debris can all affect the capacity of the pipelines. For purposes of computer modeling, it was assumed that operation, maintenance, and repair activities would keep pipelines clean and free of obstructions. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 1 209088/3/11-113 2.0 SEWER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION This chapter provides an overview of the Moscow sewer system. 2.1 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT The City of Moscow owns and operates a collection system comprised of gravity and pressure pipelines, manholes, diversion structures, and lift stations. The City also has an agreement to maintain the collection system owned by the SE Moscow Water and Sewer District. While all of the flow from the UI campus enters the City’s collection system, the UI is responsible for the operation and maintenance of their own system. Chapter 3 of this plan discusses in more detail the agreements with these two satellite facilities. An organization chart for the public works department can be found in Appendix B. Of the 14 employees assigned to the wastewater system, 3 employees are dedicated to the collection system. Additional management staff oversee collection system efforts. The Sewer Collections Lead Operator reports to the Utility Operations Supervisor, who reports to the Water / Wastewater Manager, who reports to the Public Works Director. A summary of duties is provided below: Sewer Collection Lead Operator  Customer claims coordination  Lift station maintenance scheduling  Parts acquisition/inventory maintenance  Scheduling of collection tasks  I&I work coordination (office)  Coordination of mainline repairs  Contractor coordination/scheduling  New construction quality control (TV)  System logging coordination  Work order processing  Safety issues and signage  Equipment coordination/maintenance scheduling Maintenance Worker III Collections  Perform video work  Customer service calls-prime contact  Mainline cleaning  Lift station maintenance and operations  Mainline taps  I&I coordination assistance (field)  Main repair assistance  System logging (flow and/or sampling)  Locates Maintenance Worker II Collections  Operate the jet cleaner  Assist in video work  Customer service calls-secondary contact ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 2 209088/3/11-113  Mainline cleaning  Lift station maintenance and operation assistance  Mainline taps Asset Management The City of Moscow also maintains mapping for the collection system. As part of this study effort, Keller Associates has worked closely with the City staff to develop a GIS-based model of the system. This system links mapping of the City’s collection system and attribute information including pipe size, pipe material, and pipe depth information. Eventually, this system can be expanded to include pipe condition information obtained from TV monitoring. 2.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM Collection System Pipelines and Manholes The City of Moscow’s collection system is comprised of approximately 81 miles of gravity pipelines and approximately 1820 manholes. Table 2.1 shows the approximate quantity of gravity pipe for each pipe size and type. Figures 2.1 & 2.2 show the distribution of the pipelines by size and material type, respectively. Table 2.1 - Moscow Pipe Size and Material Summary GRAVITY PIPE (ft) Pipe Size Pipe Material Size Total % of Total (in) Asbestos/ Transite Clay Concrete Ductile Iron HDPE PVC Unknown (ft) Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0.00% 4" 0 1,495 0 0 0 1,089 22 2,606 0.61% 6" 80 89,510 10,602 0 0 20,745 12 120,949 28.43% 8" 1,469 33,234 15,593 0 0 135,720 0 186,016 43.73% 10" 4,497 23,539 5,100 3 57 18,028 0 51,224 12.04% 12" 0 9,132 312 0 0 6,992 57 16,493 3.88% 14” 0 1,289 0 0 0 0 0 1,289 0.30% 15" 0 373 0 0 0 4,928 0 5,301 1.25% 16” 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27 0.01% 18" 62 10,856 11,498 0 0 2,478 0 24,894 5.85% 20" 0 1,039 1,625 0 0 0 0 2,664 0.63% 24" 0 8,832 1,703 0 0 188 0 10,723 2.52% 30" 0 494 0 0 0 1,357 0 1,851 0.44% 36" 0 0 0 0 0 1,341 0 1,341 0.32% Material Total (ft) 6,108 179,793 46,433 3 57 192,898 91 425,383 100.00% % of Total 1.44% 42.27% 10.92% 0.00% 0.01% 45.35% 0.02% 100.00% (80.6 miles) Generally speaking, the clay pipe is the oldest pipe in the system and concrete pipe the next oldest. Transite, or asbestos cement (AC) pipe, has been used but in limited quantities. The newer sections of the collection system are PVC. Approximately 26 percent of the system is 6 inches in diameter, which does not meet the City’s minimum standard of 8-inch diameters for gravity sewers. As these pipelines are ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 3 209088/3/11-113 replaced, they should be replaced with pipelines that are 8 inches or larger. A discussion of pipeline capacities and flow velocities can be found in Chapter 6 of this report. A comprehensive evaluation of pipeline and manhole conditions was outside of the scope of this study. However, Keller Associates did review eight hours of video footage that represented typical conditions in the clay and concrete sections of the collection system. Based on this evaluation, it would appear that close to 20% of the clay and concrete pipe in the system currently needs to be replaced or rehabilitated, and it is anticipated that the remainder of the clay and concrete lines will require replacement or rehabilitation within the next 20 years. A technical memorandum summarizing the findings of this effort can be found in Appendix C. It should also be noted that previous smoke testing efforts revealed a large number of sources of inflow. Large increases in flow observed at the plant during rain events and during the wet winter season confirm that collection system condition contributes to high levels of infiltration and inflow. A list of previously identified sources can be found in Appendix C. According to City staff, letters were sent to notify property owners for those sources coming from private laterals; however, records of what fixes have been made are not available. According to City staff, very few pipeline rehabilitation / replacement projects have occurred within the last decade because of budget constraints. Overview of Drainage Basins General topographic information for the study area is illustrated in Figure 2.4. There are two large drainage basins in the Moscow area – one that drains to the South Fork of the Palouse River and the other to Paradise Creek. Smaller basins collect flow within these larger basins. Sewer interceptor pipelines generally follow these drainages. Figure 2.3 illustrates the gravity sewer pipelines that flow to each of the existing lift stations found within the Moscow collection system. Diversion Manholes There are 13 existing diversion manholes located in Moscow’s collection system. These diversion manholes allow wastewater to be diverted into parallel conveyance pipelines. Some of these diversions are intended to split flow, while others are intended to divert excess or high flows (Elevated Relief). Table 2.2 summarizes pertinent diversion information. The location of these diversions is illustrated in Figure 2.1 in Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 4 209088/3/11-113 Table 2.2 - Diversion Manholes Manhole ID Location Diversion Type Design Comments Status (June 2011) Primary Outlet Div. Outlet E17-07 On W. 3rd St, near S. Home St. Elevated Bypass West, 18-inch N.E. 18-inch, elevated 10" Open E17-20 North of UI Student Recreation Center, west of Line St./ W. 3rd St. Intersection Elevated Bypass West, 24-inch South 24-inch, elevated 3" Open E18-15 Ghormley Park, north of W. 6th St./Deakin Ave Intersection Elevated Bypass N.W., 20-inch N.E. 12-inch, elevated 18.5" Open F15-11 On W. E St., between N. Almon St. & N. Main St. Elevated Relief West, 18-inch South 6-inch, elevated 31.3" Open F16-09 W. A St. & N. Asbury St. Elevated Bypass South, 12-inch S.E. 12-inch, elevated 14" Open F17-10 W. 3rd St. & N. Asbury St. Elevated Bypass West, 15-inch N.E. 12-inch, elevated 8" Open F18-24 On Deakin Ave, south of W. 6th St. Flow Split N.E., 15-inch North 12-inch, elevated 0.5" Open F19-14 On 8th St., east of S. Jackson St./College St. Intersection Elevated Bypass West, 20-inch North 12-inch, elevated 41" Open F20-01 Sweet Ave & Deakin Ave Elevated Relief East, 10-inch North 8-inch, elevated 5.4" Plugged to East, Flow Diverted North G20-09 On Troy Hwy, west of S. Adams St. Future Bypass N.W., 18-inch N.E. 18-inch (to 30-inch dry) elevated 18” Plugged to N.E. H20-16 Troy Rd. & S. Harrison St. Elevated Relief West, 10-inch N.E. 10-inch, elevated 12" Open I20-12 Kenneth St. & S. Blaine St. Flow Split West, 10-inch S.E. 18-inch, elevated 0.12" Open, Splitting Flow J16-20 In Field north of E. B St, between N. Grant St. & N. Cleveland St. Flow Split South, 10-inch East 10-inch Plugged to South Elevated Bypass = relief to parallel pipeline Elevated Relief = relief to different sewer basin Flow Split = pipes at approx. same elevation ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 5 209088/3/11-113 Lift Stations There are four existing lift stations in Moscow’s collection system (excluding pumping facilities located at the wastewater treatment plant). The location of these lift stations and the service area for each lift station is illustrated in Figure 2.3. The following table contains summary information about the lift stations. For a more complete evaluation of lift station conditions and hydraulic capacity, refer to Chapter 6 and the Technical Memorandum completed by USKH (found in Appendix Table 2.3 - Lift Station Inventory Name Hp, 2009 Observed Pump Rate Wet Well Diameter (ft) Standby Power Year Constructed / Upgraded Force Main Diameter (in) Length* (ft) South 30 hp, triplex pumps; 380 gpm @ 74’ TDH (single pump) 10.0 On-site 2008 10 3,080** Southeast 25 hp, Gorman Rupp duplex pumps; 350 gpm @ 70’ TDH (single pump) 6.0 Portable Connection 1980 Check valves replaced (from swing to ball) in 2008 6 5,073 Mall 25 hp, Gorman Rupp duplex pumps; 1200 gpm @ 36’ TDH (single pump) 7.5 Portable Connection 1976 Electrical upgrades in 1997 Wet well modifications in 2009 15 354 Orchard 10 hp, duplex pumps; 210 gpm (single pump) 8.0 Portable Connection 1990 6 667 * All pressure mains are PVC unless noted includes approximately 638 ft of clay, ductile iron, and transite pipe Telemetry As of November 2010, when the telemetry system was evaluated, the existing system had been in use since 1994. The system uses remote transmitting units (RTUs), leased phone lines and three computers (Human Machine Interface or HMIs). The three computers provide an operator interface for control and gathering information as well as redundancy. Only one computer is required to operate the system, and the other two provide additional access points as well as redundancy (hot standby). The computers supply information to a Microtel 500 Alarm Dialer to notify operators when problems occur. The SCADA system is located in the Water Department offices at 201 North Main and 120 West A Street. The system uses Onspec 4000 SCADA software to control equipment, gather data and report status. Onspec creates historical files that track pump start/stop times and wet well levels, and records each event. Alarm points and conditions are created and adjusted within Onspec to allow flexibility of operation. Selective data is graphed and trended to supply the operator with information about the operation of the sewer collection system. Backup power supply is also provided at the Water Department office and remote sites, and is capable of operating the system for 8+ hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 6 209088/3/11-113 Information from the remote units is transmitted to the water department and is displayed graphically on three redundant HMI computers. From this location the operator can change set points, operate components in manual and automatic modes, and display and manipulate data. Alarms are also displayed on each of the redundant computers, and key personnel are automatically notified via pager or cell phone. SCADA upgrades have been budgeted for FY 2011. Upgrades will include new software and three new system computers as well as replacement of the hardware at all remote sites. The upgrade is likely to be phased over several years. 2.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES The Moscow wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) now includes the following process components:  Pretreatment - Headworks  Primary treatment, emergency operation during high flows  Influent pump station  Advanced secondary treatment  Filtration  Re-aeration  Disinfection  Dechlorination  Sludge storage  Sludge dewatering The pretreatment component (headworks) consists of two JWC Channel Monster grinders and one Smith & Loveless Pista Grit cyclone grit removal system. The hydraulic capacity for the headworks is 4 MGD (2780 gpm) design average flow and 10 MGD (2640 gpm) peak flow. Excess flows can be diverted around the headworks through Distribution Box A to a primary clarifier and then later pumped back into the headworks. The screened and de- gritted wastewater flows to the influent pump station. The primary clarifier is not in use during normal flows. Influent flows above the 4 MGD (2780 gpm) design can be diverted from Distribution Box A at the head of the plant, to a comminutor and then to the primary clarifier. The primary clarifier has a diameter of 55 feet and a side wall depth of 9.5 feet. The hydraulic capacity of the primary clarifier is 3 MGD (2081 gpm). The influent pump station receives flow from the headworks and/or primary clarifier and pumps the wastewater using three 15-horsepower, 54-inch screw pumps to the secondary treatment process. The capacity of the influent pump station is 15 MGD (10,400 gpm). The advanced secondary treatment system consists of one oxidation ditch train with three anaerobic cells, two anoxic cells, and one aeration cell. There is space for two additional equivalent oxidation ditches. The flow from the influent pump station is split and discharged into three anaerobic cells (the flow is controlled by valves and can go to any one or all three of the cells). The return activated sludge (RAS) flow is discharged to the desired anaerobic cell. The anaerobic cells are completely mixed using vertical mixers. The wastewater then flows into anoxic cells, selected as desired, and then on to the aeration basin. The partially ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 2 - 7 209088/3/11-113 treated wastewater flows from the secondary treatment stage on to Box F, where it is divided between two secondary clarifiers. Three 2400 gpm return activated sludge (RAS) pumps distribute the RAS to the anoxic cells. Piping is already in place for future RAS pumps to serve additional aeration basins when needed. The waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps are rated at 400 gpm, and transfer the waste sludge from the aeration basin to the sludge holding tanks. Flow from Distribution Box G is directed to the Parkson Dyna Sand Filters. The filters consist of five cells of four filters each. The effluent filters are sized bsed on an operating capacity of 3-5 gpm/sf. Each filter bank has four pods equating to 200 square feet and a maximum treatment capacity of 1000 gpm. While the total treatment capacity of the five filter banks is 5,000 gpm (7.2 MGD), the optimum treatment occurs at about 3 gpm/sf or 600 gpm per filter bank. Alum is added to the flow prior to the filters for phosphorus removal during the period of May 15th through October 15th. The effluent phosphorus limit is 0.136 mg/L as a average and 0.27 mg/l as a weekly average. Effluent from the filters or from Distribution Box G is then sent to the reaeration process to increase the dissolved oxygen. The reaeration process consists of a basin with a 20 hp floating aerator to increase dissolved oxygen (DO) above 8.0 mg/L to meet the permit effluent DO limit. Disinfection is by chlorine gas. After disinfection, the wastewater is dechlorinated using sulfur dioxide gas. The chlorine and sulfur dioxide gas system utilize 150 pound cylinders. The system was designed to provide a chlorine feed of up to 200 pounds per day; however, normal feed rates are typically about 30 pounds per day. The chlorine contact chamber was constructed with two chambers to provide for redundancy and to facilitate cleaning. City staff completed dye testing to confirm that they have 90 minutes per contact basin at 3 MGD (2083 gpm). The solids handling facilities consist of two 328,000-gallon aerated sludge storage tanks. Aeration is provided by three 750 scfm blowers. The concentration of solids in the storage tanks is approximately Two 2-meter belt filter presses are used for dewatering the sludge, increasing the solids content to approximately 15%. The dewatered solids are transported to Latah Sanitation for composting. 2.4 SERVICE AGREEMENTS The City of Moscow collects wastewater from the University of Idaho and the S.E. Moscow Water & Sewer District. A more complete description of the service area agreements is included in Chapter 3 of this report. A copy of the agreement with the District can also be found in Appendix D along with UI water rights and reuse agreements. At the time this report was completed, the City was not aware of a written agreement that outlined the conditions by which the UI could discharge into the City’s system. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 3 - 1 209088/3/11-113 3.0 SERVICE AREA POLICIES, PLANS, AND AGREEMENTS 3.1 STUDY AREA The study area includes the existing service area plus anticipated growth areas for the next 50+ years, as illustrated in Figure 3.1 in Appendix A. For planning purposes, service areas were considered for the 6-year, 20-year, and 50-year planning horizons. These service areas are illustrated in Figure 3.2 in Appendix A. Where topographic considerations made it prudent to consider areas outside of the 50-year planning areas, these areas were also considered with input from the Technical Review Committee (TRC). While the study area does not include areas outside the State of Idaho, the City’s system could be expanded to include additional future areas in the State of Washington. Service to this area could not be provided via gravity flow to the treatment plant, but could be provided via a new pump station located west of the City. A pump station located in Washington State could provide gravity service to the basin located within the State of Idaho and directly northwest of the impact area. 3.2 EXISTING SEWER ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS The sewer use ordinance for the City of Moscow is found in Chapter 3, Title 5 of the Moscow City Code. This section of the code provides the authority for requiring permits and fees, setting sewer rates, and adopting rules and regulations to enforce the provisions of the code; and also specifically addresses inflow, prohibited and hazardous wastes, and industrial waste. The sewer use ordinance also references regulations (specifications) governing sewer construction. These are included in the City of Moscow Standard Construction Specifications, which briefly address trenching and backfill, sewer pipe, sewer services, and manholes. There are several issues not currently covered by the standard specifications (including sewer repair and rehabilitation). There has been some discussion about adopting the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) to replace the City’s current standard specifications. This would provide several advantages, including:  Given widespread use of the ISPWC, most contractors are familiar with its requirements.  ISPWC addresses possible scenarios not currently covered by the City’s standard specifications for sewer work, including pipe types other than ASTM 3034 PVC; pressure pipe for gravity sewers (used where non-potable water line separation requires construction to water main standards); clean-outs; plastic liner for sewers, manholes and structures; and various methods of sewer repair and rehabilitation.  The ISPWC is updated frequently to stay abreast of industry changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 3 - 2 209088/3/11-113 There are several options for utilizing ISPWC. Adoption of the ISPWC in its entirety would require that City staff review all of the ISPWC to decide if ISPWC provisions meet the City’s needs. In particular, ISPWC requirements for work currently addressed by the City standards would need to be compared with the current standards to determine if changes are desired. For example, sewer test requirements in the City’s standard specifications are significantly different than those in ISPWC (relative to time for 1 psi pressure drop, hydrostatic exfiltration testing, deflection tests for flexible pipe, and acceptance criteria for sags observed during TV inspection). If there are specific items that the City wants to do differently than the ISPWC (e.g. no manhole steps), these could be addressed in a separate document of Supplemental Specifications for the City of Moscow that would modify certain ISPWC provisions. Since the ISPWC is updated frequently, a review and possible revision of the City’s Supplementals would be needed with every new release. The City would need to formally adopt each new release and revised Supplementals (if any). Another approach would be to adopt just certain sections of the ISPWC to augment the City standards. For example, to address sewer pipe rehabilitation the City standards could reference ISPWC Sections 507 (Sanitary Sewer Open Cut Repair/Rehabilitation), Section 508 (Sliplining), Section 509 (CIPP Rehabilitation), Section 510 (Pipe Bursting), and Section 511 (Fold-N-Form Pipe Rehabilitation). This approach would leave existing requirements unchanged, while updating the standards to include work not currently covered. Sewer Service to S.E. Moscow Water & Sewer District The City of Moscow collects wastewater from the SE Moscow Water and Sewer District, which currently provides gravity sewer service to 84 residential users. The District boundary and service area is illustrated in Figure 3.4 in Appendix A. A lift station conveys all of the wastewater from the District approximately 5100 feet to an outfall manhole located at the intersection of S. Mercer Ave. and S. Mountain View Rd. Flow from the outfall manhole is then conveyed through the City’s collection system to the wastewater treatment plant. The City performs normal operation and maintenance, including minor upgrades (i.e. control system, check valves), of the District system. According to City staff, the system is believed to be tight, with little I/I. A comparison of pump run time data for typical wet weather and dry weather periods confirms that the total I/I is minimal, with peak flows doubling in an extreme event (such as the high flow period of January 7-8, 2009). There are four privately maintained private lift stations in the District system that service individual establishments (including a mobile home park). District facilities are relatively new (constructed in 1981) and in good condition. District pipelines are of PVC material. A copy of the current agreement, dated June 1991, between the City and the District can be found in Appendix D. Some key elements of the agreement are highlighted below:  The City is to maintain, operate and keep in good repair District facilities (excluding the individual service lines). In the event of a major repair (defined as exceeding 50% of annual revenue), the repair costs are the full responsibility of the District.  The City is responsible to provide administrative services relating to billing, collection and general accounting. The District is responsible to assist in collecting delinquent payments. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 3 - 3 209088/3/11-113  New facilities are to be constructed to City-approved standards and procedures. Expansion of the District also requires City approval.  Expansions of the District collection system become part of the District.  The District “expresses its intent, through its Board of Directors, not to oppose annexation of the District by the City of Moscow and if necessary, will voluntarily dissolve the District.” Transferring of all assets, operating property, right-of-way and easements to the City will be at no capital cost to the City.  The terms of the current agreement are to be reviewed at least every ten (10) years, with the agreement in effect until December 1, 2012. Pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, the District customers are billed by the City and charged the same rate as City users plus an additional dollar administrative fee. Because most of the District is outside of the city limits, dissolving the District and billing its patrons as out-of-city users would result in higher user rates than currently paid by District patrons under the existing agreement with the City. Thus, without complete annexation, a separate agreement may be in order if the District is to be dissolved without protest from its patrons. One concern of City staff is that there needs to be close attention by the City in collecting connection fee payments for new connections within the District. Ultimately, as the City grows, the District could become an island within the City service area. At some point in the future, Keller Associates recommends that the District be dissolved and its facilities become part of the overall City collection system. Because the current term of the agreement is until 2012, an updated agreement may be needed in the interim. The new agreement should address the potential for future City flows entering the District’s system. Sewer Service to the University of Idaho Wastewater from the UI is collected by a university-owned and maintained gravity sewer collection system. The UI system discharges to the Moscow collection system at approximately 10 locations, with over 80 percent of the flow from the UI campus entering at 3 of the locations. Maps showing the UI system, along with an evaluation of wastewater flows and the distribution of these flows, can be found in the 2005 Sewer Cost Apportionment Study completed by JUB Engineers, Inc. According to City staff, there is no known agreement between the City of Moscow and UI to collect and treat UI wastewater. There is a 1977 agreement between the City and UI that allows UI to use treated effluent for irrigation purposes. The UI is currently billed on a basis. In 2005, HDR completed a Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate Study that has served as the basis for calculating UI wastewater fees. The study recommended a substantial increase in the UI fee, with a “negotiated” transition plan. According to City staff, the UI agreed to the findings of the HDR and JUB reports. The UI rate increase has now been fully implemented, and the rate is adjusted yearly at the same percentage as other customers. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 3 - 4 209088/3/11-113 A review of the 2005 Sewer Cost Apportionment Study suggests that there is a potential for a disproportionate amount of flow from UI during high flow events. This is significant in that the collection system and many components of the treatment plant must be designed to handle peak flow events. Keller Associates recommends the following actions pertaining to the University of Idaho collection system:  Develop an agreement between the UI and Moscow that defines responsibilities, roles, cost sharing, allowances for growth, coordination requirements, and liabilities. This agreement should be much more comprehensive than the loose agreement that currently exists.  Install inline flow meters, beginning with the three sewer basins that contribute the majority of the flow to the City’s collection system.  Periodically review the cost allocation methodology. Keller Associates recommends that the cost allocation account for peak flows, not just average flows. This will serve to more equitably distribute costs and to encourage the UI to remove sources of infiltration and inflow in their system. Consistency with City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan The collection system planning effort is intended to complement the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan completed in February 2009. Existing and future land use information for this study, provided to Keller Associates by the City, is substantially the same as that used in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan outlines goals and objectives for public utilities, services, and growth capacity. This planning effort is consistent with these goals in the following ways:  The master plan accommodates sustainable growth in an orderly and efficient manner. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan calls for “a comprehensive sanitary sewer plan . . . be completed to identify any limitations in the current system and set out a strategy to prepare for future growth” (Comp Plan, pg 5.10).  Reuse evaluations are intended to allow the City to better address sustainable management and development of local and regional water resources, and to reduce waste where feasible. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan specifically mentions that . . the City should consider the feasibility of installing a wider network for the effluent re-use distribution system” (Comp Plan, pg 5.9).  The capacity analysis identifies remaining pipeline capacities so that the City can best direct growth to areas that can be most efficiently and economically served. Bottlenecks are identified and addressed.  This plan better quantifies infiltration and inflow which remains an issue throughout the City, and makes recommendations for addressing structurally deficient pipelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 1 209088/3/11-113 4.0 SYSTEM FLOW PROJECTIONS 4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS Demographic projections were developed in coordination with the City’s Community Development Department and as part of the Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP). Projections were made for the following time periods: six years, twenty years, and fifty years (build-out) for the study area. These projections included the amount and distribution of future development. For sewer planning, the distribution and amount of growth was assumed to be the same for the 6-year, 20-year, and 50-year study areas. This reflects a 1.42% annual growth rate. Figure 3.2 illustrates the land use and phasing of future growth. For planning purposes, each service area was assumed to fully build out. Table 4.1 - Moscow Demographic Projections Calendar Year Population Dwelling Units (Excluding UI On-Campus) Developed Non Residential Acres Moscow + UI UI On- Campus* Total Single Family Duplex Multifamily Mobile Home 2009 24,596 1,968 10,057 4,251 994 3,881 [PHONE REDACTED] 26,768 2,141 10,945 4,544 1,092 4,370 [PHONE REDACTED] 33,072 2,646 13,523 5,395 1,376 5,788 626 1,050 2060 50,486 4,039 20,643 7,745 2,159 9,704 697 1,305 *2008 UI Enrollment was approximately 12,300. UI On-Campus population refers only to the number of students living on-campus. 4.2 FLOW CHARACTERISTICS In evaluating historical flows, Keller Associates considered water meter data and wastewater treatment plant influent records. Water consumption data was analyzed as part of the CWSP. Wintertime water consumption data is meaningful in evaluating wastewater flows because it 1) excludes irrigation uses, and 2) about 90 percent of the wintertime domestic water that enters the household ends up in the sewer collection system. Wastewater flows are often much higher than wintertime water consumption data because of infiltration and inflow into the collection system. Infiltration refers to the component of flow that enters the collection system via groundwater infiltrating into pipelines and manholes. Inflow refers to storm water and snow melt runoff that enters directly into the collection system. An analysis of historical wastewater flows was completed for the years 2002 through 2009. Data prior to this time period were not considered because flow meter readings were believed to be inaccurate. The data since 2002 represents flow meter readings from the City’s newer flow metering equipment. Table 4.2 summarizes 2002-2009 flow data. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 2 209088/3/11-113 Table 4.2 - Summary of Historical Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent (MGD) Flow Scenario 2002* 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009** Annual Avg. Day 2.24 2.15 2.11 1.98 2.15 1.98 1.90 1.99 Avg. Winter (Nov. - Feb.) 2.44 2.20 2.29 1.99 2.46 2.22 2.14 2.14 Avg. Summer (June - Aug.) 1.79 1.67 1.78 1.77 1.72 1.64 1.43 1.43 Max Day Flow 6.2 5.87 5.72 3.59 4.93 4.52 4.29 7.02 (Date of Occurrence) Jan. 25 Jan. 31 Jan. 29 Mar. 27 Jan. 17 Dec. 3 Feb. 12 Jan. 7 Min Amount 1 1.36 1.32 1.31 1.37 1.27 0.76 1.06 (Date of Occurrence) Jan. 20 Nov. 25 Dec. 25 Nov. 24 Jul. 2 Sept. 2 Dec. 25 Jul. 4 Peak Hour*** 8.1 7.6 7.4 5.0 6.9 6.3 6.0 8.65 *According to City staff , flow meter readings prior to 2002 are not considered accurate. **Max Day Flow for 2009 based on SCADA data for January 7, 2009 from Midnight to Midnight. ***Peak Hour (PH) for Jan 7, 2009 determined from SCADA. Other PHs estimated at 1.3*PD for flows over 5 mgd, and 1.4*PD for flows between 3.5 and 5 mgd. In planning for a collection system, the most critical flow events are the peak hour flows. At the time this flow analysis was completed, the only period for which peak hourly data was available was 2009. Keller Associates used available 24-hour continuous SCADA data for peak flow periods to establish a relationship between peak hour flows and corresponding average daily flows. Daily maximum flows were observed to be between 120% and 150% of the corresponding average daily flows. Keller Associates recommends a peaking factor of 1.5 times the peak day flow to be used in estimating peak hour flows. To help define the maximum day flow, Keller Associates looked at the probability of exceedance for the higher flow values within the range of data for 2002-2009. Table 4.3 and Chart 4.1 illustrate the frequency at which certain events are exceeded. Table 4-3 shows the Count (number of flow events during 2002-2009 that were in the exceedance category), the Average (average value for those flow events that were in the exceedance category), and the Maximum and Minimum values for the exceedance category. For example, there were 14 events that have a 99.5% probability of exceedance. This means an event like this on average is exceeded 0.5% of the time, or about every 200 days. The average flow rate for an event of this return frequency was 5.39 MGD, with a range of flows from 4.56 MGD to 7.02 MGD. Table 4.3 - Probability of Exceedance for WWTP Inflows (2002-2009) % Count Average Max Min 99.9 3 6.61 7.02 6.20 99.5 14 5.39 7.02 4.56 99 28 4.82 7.02 4.05 95 145 3.71 7.02 3.09 90 287 3.32 7.02 2.77 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 3 209088/3/11-113 Chart 4.1 - Probability of Exceedance for WWTP Inflows (2002-2009) A review of all of the plant flow data since 2002 shows that a flow of 6.1 MGD was exceeded only three times since 2002, and two of these dates were January 7-8 of 2009 (7.02 and 6.61 mgd, respectively). The third occurrence was 6.2 mgd, recorded on January 25 of 2002. To better understand what circumstances resulted in the highest flow events, Keller Associates looked at the environmental conditions for the 28 highest daily flow events (i.e. those events with less than 1 percent probability of exceedance). For these events, approximately 43% occurred in January, and 93% occurred during the months of January through April. Approximately 75% of these events corresponded to days with at least some rainfall, and about 50% of the days also corresponded to periods of snowmelt. This further illustrates that the peak events generally correspond to late winter and early spring runoff periods. Flows vary seasonally at the treatment plant. Heavy fall and winter rains gradually increase flows at the WWTP. Sometimes the rise takes multiple months and can be delayed several months (especially with snow accumulation). A plot of average flows and average precipitation can be found in Appendix E. Chart 4.2 below compares annual average flows to average annual precipitation. This chart illustrates that years with heavier precipitation result in higher annual flows. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 4 209088/3/11-113 Chart 4.2 - Average Annual Inflow and Average Annual Rain Chart 4.3 illustrates how plant flows are influenced by rain and snowmelt. The magnitude of the increase in flows at the treatment plant is not always proportional to the magnitude of the daily rain or snowmelt. Previous moisture conditions, such as multiple days of rain or snowmelt, make the plant more likely to see a spike in flows. Chart 4.3 - Moscow Daily WWTP Influent vs. Precipitation and Snow Melt *Precipitation includes all rain and melted snow (assumes 15% water content) **Snowmelt is defined as the change in snow depth from the previous day ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 5 209088/3/11-113 4.3 FLOWS USED FOR MODELING For modeling purposes, Keller Associates recommends that the following target influent flows be used to evaluate the existing collection system. These values represent typical values observed at the WWTP for annual average, winter and summer conditions. For the maximum day flow condition, this value corresponds to an event that historically has occurred about once every other year. The peak hour event was estimated to be 150% of the maximum daily flow. Table 4.4 - Existing System Flows Flow Scenario (MGD) 2010 Design Flows (MGD) 2010 Flow Per Capita* (gpcd) Annual Avg. Day 2.0 81 Avg. Winter (Nov. - Feb.) 2.2 89 Avg. Summer (June - Aug.) 1.5 61 Max Day Flow 6.1 250 Peak Hour** 9.2 375 *Flow Per Capita includes all residential, commercial, and institutional components and are calculated by dividing the 2009 Design Flows by the 2009 population of 24,596. Values reported are gallons per capita per day (gpcd). **Assumes 150% of max day flow based on high I/I The City’s annual average flow per capita are lower than typical values of 100 gpcd. However, peak daily flows and peak hour flows are high. This reflects a large quantity of I/I that enters the system during and/or following storm water and snow melt events. Keller Associates estimates the average annual I/I entering the Moscow wastewater treatment plant to be approximately 0.41 mgd. This equates to about 21% of the flow, or 17 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). This value is calculated based on the following assumptions:  Total water usage includes Moscow and UI  The potable water usage (excluding irrigation) was assumed to be uniform throughout the year and was equal to the wintertime water usage.  UI potable water usage was calculated to be 95% of the wintertime well production.  Approximately 90% of the wintertime water usage makes it to the sewer system (the remainder being consumed at the place of use) While the annual average I/I is relatively small, wintertime plant flows clearly illustrate that during peak events, infiltration and inflow can account for the majority of the flow. As the City continues to collect influent flow data and as additional measures are taken to reduce the I/I in the system, the City should reevaluate the design flows from time to time. As will be discussed later in this section, future per capita flows are anticipated to be lower than existing per capita flows as a result of improved construction techniques, better construction standards, and more reliable materials that are less susceptible to I/I. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 6 209088/3/11-113 4.4 FLOW PROJECTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION University Flow Analysis There are no existing permanent flow meters for the UI wastewater collection system. Keller Associates utilized the following data in approximating existing and future flows from UI:  Sewer Cost Apportionment Study completed in 2005 by JUB Engineers  water usage from 1984 to July of 2009, and daily water usage information from 2007 through July 2009.  Long-Range Campus Development Plan (2000 Update)  Correspondence with UI and City officials The 2005 Sewer Cost Apportionment Study completed by JUB Engineers, Inc. looked at available water usage records, flow meter data collected on the UI campus, and land use to approximate the existing flow distribution from the UI campus. Ten sub-basins were identified, and flows were approximated for each of these basins. Average and peak flows were also estimated. The following assumptions were made for the purposes of this study:  The existing distribution of flows is currently the same as that reported in the 2005 study.  Peak flow conditions occur (peak flow conditions are what determine pipe capacity requirements).  The distribution of peak flows is based on the average of the top 10 recorded events (refer to Table 2-2 of the Sewer Cost Apportionment Study). For additional UI information, refer to Appendix E. Total well production data for UI can be found in Appendix E. A comparison of daily data to data suggests that during the winter months (when no irrigation would be present), a maximum day demand of about 1.7 times the average winter demand would be expected. In projecting future flows from UI, flows were assumed to increase in proportion to the increase in student population. Future on-campus student populations were estimated by the City to be approximately 8% of the total population. For the UI campus, this equates to approximately 680 people in the 20-year planning period. This projection is also consistent with UI plans to build an additional 400-700 beds within the 20-year planning period. It should be noted that this projection is somewhat optimistic given the lower growth rates experienced at the campus in the last 10 years. For the build-out analysis, the on-campus student population was assumed to increase by an additional 1393 students beyond that projected for 2030. In distributing the future flows on the UI campus, consideration was given to the location of the new structures identified in the 2000 campus master plan. For the 20-year plan, UI staff anticipate the following structures will likely be built: new 75,000 sf science bldg at the site of the existing Navy Building; new 23,000 sf engineering lab located north of 6th East, just east of the steam plant; and the new residential hall located north of 6th Street between the LLCs and McConnell. All of these improvements contribute flow within a single sub-basin identified as Basin 2 in the 2005 study. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 7 209088/3/11-113 For the distribution of flows for build-out, new flows were assumed to be roughly distributed based on the location of planned facility improvements identified in the 2000 campus master plan. The assumptions for build-out should be revisited in the future. However, it should be noted that all of the flows from the UI campus eventually make it to the City’s main trunkline, and that pinpointing the location of the inflows to the City’s main trunkline is believed to have minimal effect on the computer modeling results. Table 4.5 - Distribution of UI Wastewater Flows by Basin % Distribution of Flows by UI Sewer Sub-Basin Plan Year Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 Basin 8 Basin 9 Basin 10 Existing Flows* 11.1% 56.9% 12.4% 2.2% 9.1% 0.7% 4.8% 0.7% 0.5% 1.5% 6-year growth** 100% 20-year growth** 100% 50-year growth** 15% 35% 0% 11% 5% 10% 12% 12% *Existing distribution based on 2005 Sewer Cost Apportionment Study. **Distribution of new growth was approximated based on planned growth activities. Moscow Flow Projections Future flows were calculated by adding flows from new growth to existing flows. Future per capita flows were assumed to remain the same for existing average annual, average winter, and average summer conditions. However, future per capita flows were assumed to be less than existing per capita flows for maximum day and peak hour events as a result of improved construction techniques, better construction standards, and more reliable materials that are less susceptible to I/I. In projecting maximum day flows, wintertime water production data was used to determine how much higher the winter maximum day demand is than the average winter day demand. For the period of 2006-2009, the average winter water production was 1.64 mgd compared to the maximum day winter production rate of 2.48 mgd (refer to Appendix E for winter well production data). This equates to a peak demand that is 151% of the average winter demand. For planning purposes, a similar peaking factor was assumed in the collection system for new growth, plus an additional I/I reserve of 30 gpcd (max day flow = 89*1.51+30 = 164 gpcd) was added. For peak hour flows, because new growth is assumed to be less subject to I/I, a more typical multiplier of 1.5 times the maximum day flows would apply to new growth areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 4 - 8 209088/3/11-113 Table 4.6 - WWTP Influent Flow Projections Flow Scenario (MGD) 2010 Base Flows (MGD) Future Flows Per Capita** 2015 2030 2060 Population 24,596 26,800 33,100 50,500 Annual Avg. Day 2.0 81 2.2 2.7 4.1 Avg. Winter (Nov. - Feb.) 2.2 89 2.4 3.0 4.5 Avg. Summer (June - Aug.) 1.5 61 1.6 2.0 3.1 Max Day Flow* 6.0 164 6.5 7.5 10.3 Peak Hour 9.1 246 9.8 11.2 15.5 *Assumes a max day is 151% of average winter flows plus an additional 30 gpcd I/I allowance **Future flows per capita were assumed to apply to new growth only and were added to existing flows. Distribution of Wastewater Flows Existing 2009 Flows: The distribution of existing flows is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The general methodology is as follows: 1. Assign base flows by factoring winter water demands (provided by HDR and used in the water model, assumed reduction factor = 0.9) and allocating to the nearest model manhole. 2. Assign UI flows based on 2005 study (14.7 % of total flow for average conditions and 21.8% of total flow for max day and peak hour conditions). 3. Assign either a commercial or domestic flow pattern depending on the location of the demands. For those demands located in land use areas identified as residential, a typical diurnal residential curve was applied. For institutional and commercially zoned areas, a general commercial curve was developed. 4. Add additional flows to reflect I/I. Future Flows: A similar methodology was followed in distributing future flows. 1. Assign future winter demands, based on the projected land use and growth areas provided by the City, to the nearest model manhole. 2. Add additional flows to UI based on projected on-campus population growth. Distribute these flows as addressed above. 3. Assign a commercial or domestic flow pattern. 4. For areas of existing development, the same I/I base flows were assumed to exist in the future. Ideally, some of these flows could be reduced in the future by implementing a rehabilitation / replacement program. Ongoing maintenance will be required to prevent I/I from increasing in the future. 5. For areas of new growth, a lower value of I/I was assumed. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 1 209088/3/11-113 5.0 WATER RECYCLING OPTIONS This section of the report documents the history of water recycling and previous water recycling studies, and presents an updated evaluation of alternative water recycling options available to the City of Moscow. 5.1 WATER RECYCLING HISTORY Agreement with the University of Idaho The City of Moscow (City) and the University of Idaho (UI) entered into an agreement on June 21, 1977 to reuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) effluent for irrigation purposes on UI land. Goals listed in the agreement include conservation of underground water supply in the Moscow basin, reduction in the fertilizer requirements for large irrigated green areas, and creation of a long-term uninterruptible source of irrigation water supply. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) issued a 1977 Water Right License (Water Right No. 87-07026) to the UI for a peak diversion rate of 1.78 cubic feet per second {1.15 Million Gallons Per Day (mgd)} for the period April 1 to November 1, with an annual volume of 594.0 acre feet (af). The City has been providing UI with recycled water (treated wastewater) for irrigation of green spaces since 1977. For the period from 2005 to 2010, UI only used recycled water from May to October. In 2009, no recycled water was used in October. In 1996, the UI also secured a water right from IDWR (Water Right Permit No. 87-07201) for 175 af of wastewater effluent for discharge to the wetlands located of the WWTP. Water Recycling at University of Idaho Water Right 87-07026 indicates a place of use for the recycled water totaling 198 acres. The area currently irrigated by UI with the recycled water is shown on Figure 5.1. This figure also illustrates the existing distribution system for the recycled water on the UI campus. The total area irrigated by UI (using Google Earth to estimate area) is approximately 328 acres. Recycled water flows from the WWTP chlorine contact chamber outlet box to the UI storage basin by gravity. The existing 300,000-gallon storage lagoon was replaced in early 2010 with a 517,000-gallon covered concrete storage tank. The water level in the new storage tank controls an automatic gate valve that allows recycled water to flow to the tank. Effluent that is not directed to the UI storage tank is dechlorinated and discharged to Paradise Creek. The recycled water control system maintains a minimum flow of 0.2 mgd to the dechlorination system in order to provide sufficient flow to obtain accurate readings on the sulfur dioxide analyzer. A summary of WWTP total effluent flow, flow discharge to Creek, recycled water routed to UI, and other water used within UI during the irrigation season (May to October) for the period 2006 to 2010 is provided in Table 5.1. The average WWTP effluent produced and discharged for irrigation is shown on a basis in Table 5.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 2 209088/3/11-113 Table 5.1 – Moscow WWTP Effluent Reused at University of Idaho (UI) Date Moscow Effluent, gallons Percentage of Moscow's Effluent Reused UI Irrigation, gallons Total WWTP Effluent WWTP Effluent Discharged to Creek WWTP Effluent Discharged to U of I Other Irrigation Water Total Irrigation Flow Where Irrigated Usage per acre1 Aquaculture (well water) Domestic (UI) Water Golf Course, MU-002802 Lawns, Playfields, MU-002801 gal/ac mg/ac/yr May-06 62,733,000 57,350,000 5,383,287 8.6% 990,460 174,691 6,548,438 3,410,000 3,138,438 19,965 Jun-06 52,223,000 41,100,000 11,122,684 21.3% 1,834,360 26,004 12,983,048 6,270,000 6,713,048 39,582 Jul-06 49,763,000 23,560,000 26,203,083 52.7% 2,778,340 78,463 29,059,886 11,404,000 17,655,886 88,597 Aug-06 54,629,000 27,590,000 27,039,236 49.5% 2,336,070 130,581 29,505,887 11,504,000 18,001,887 89,957 Sep-06 53,483,000 39,000,000 14,482,605 27.1% 1,171,880 0 15,654,485 6,851,000 8,803,485 47,727 Oct-06 58,254,000 56,110,000 2,144,274 3.7% 222,290 0 2,366,564 946,000 1,420,564 7,215 0.29 May-07 56,030,000 48,980,000 7,050,367 12.6% 313,070 36,287 7,399,724 2,984,000 4,415,724 22,560 Jun-07 46,623,000 33,300,000 13,323,111 28.6% 2,011,640 0 15,334,751 6,442,000 8,892,751 46,752 Jul-07 48,078,000 22,010,000 26,067,534 54.2% 2,820,590 0 28,888,124 12,007,000 16,881,124 88,074 Aug-07 51,336,000 26,970,000 24,365,762 47.5% 2,702,210 267,644 27,335,616 9,661,500 17,674,116 83,340 Sep-07 49,615,000 36,000,000 13,614,823 27.4% 718,990 2,000,000 16,333,813 5,600,000 10,733,813 49,798 Oct-07 53,129,000 52,700,000 429,103 0.8% 19,680 0 448,783 132,000 316,783 1,368 0.29 May-08 85,088,000 80,600,000 4,487,923 5.3% 741,630 0 5,229,553 2,180,000 3,049,553 15,944 Jun-08 44,665,000 33,000,000 11,665,287 26.1% 1,273,540 0 12,938,827 5,790,000 7,148,827 39,448 Jul-08 43,974,000 15,500,000 28,473,660 64.8% 2,309,700 0 30,783,360 10,300,000 20,483,360 93,852 Aug-08 50,189,000 31,000,000 19,189,425 38.2% 1,585,890 720,000 21,495,315 6,972,000 14,523,315 65,534 Sep-08 50,288,000 36,000,000 14,288,245 28.4% 1,163,720 0 15,451,965 6,386,000 9,065,965 47,110 Oct-08 51,060,000 50,220,000 839,510 1.6% 237,690 0 1,077,200 150,000 927,200 3,284 0.27 May-09 69,879,000 67,520,000 2,358,950 3.4% 458,420 0 2,817,370 967,000 1,850,370 8,590 Jun-09 46,116,000 32,230,000 13,886,113 30.1% 1,091,640 211,000 15,188,753 6,086,000 9,102,753 46,307 Jul-09 44,995,000 23,290,000 21,704,514 48.2% 1,528,840 0 23,233,354 10,875,000 12,358,354 70,833 Aug-09 47,584,000 28,930,000 18,654,384 39.2% 1,437,350 0 20,091,734 5,955,000 14,136,734 61,255 Sep-09 48,801,000 32,270,000 16,531,084 33.9% 993,370 0 17,524,454 7,021,000 10,503,454 53,428 Oct-09 54,010,000 54,010,000 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 May-10 61,259,000 61,140,000 118,750 0.2% 247,710 214,340 580,800 250,000 330,800 1,771 Jun-10 56,626,000 54,750,000 1,876,158 3.3% 526,890 0 2,403,048 750,000 1,653,048 7,326 Jul-10 46,063,000 24,860,000 21,203,302 46.0% 1,135,030 1,280,910 23,619,242 9,460,000 14,159,242 72,010 Aug-10 47,484,000 21,020,000 26,464,467 55.7% 1,054,170 585,546 28,104,183 10,168,000 17,936,183 85,683 Sep-10 51,718,000 41,130,000 10,587,551 20.5% 590,410 0 11,177,961 4,508,000 6,669,961 34,079 Oct-10 53,855,000 51,790,000 2,064,533 193,490 0 2,258,023 406,000 1,852,023 6,884 0.21 May Avg. 66,997,800 63,118,000 3,879,855 6.0% 550,258 85,064 4,515,177 1,958,200 2,556,977 13,766 June Avg. 49,250,600 38,876,000 10,374,671 21.9% 1,347,614 47,401 11,769,685 5,067,600 6,702,085 35,883 July Avg. 46,574,600 21,844,000 24,730,418 53.2% 2,114,500 271,875 27,116,793 10,809,200 16,307,593 82,673 Aug. Avg. 50,244,400 27,102,000 23,142,655 46.0% 1,823,138 340,754 25,306,547 8,852,100 16,454,447 77,154 Sep. Avg. 50,781,000 36,880,000 13,900,862 27.5% 927,674 400,000 15,228,536 6,073,200 9,155,336 46,428 Oct. Avg. 54,061,600 52,966,000 1,095,484 1.5% 134,630 0 1,230,114 326,800 903,314 3,750 Annual Avg. 77,123,945 1,145,093 0.26 1 Based on 328 acres of irrigation area. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 3 209088/3/11-113 Currently UI uses potable water for irrigation during some months. This generally represents a relatively small amount of supplemental water, although there have been some months of high usage. Since there appears to be sufficient treated wastewater available (based on data), it would follow that with proper management and sufficient storage the supplemental potable water demands could be reduced or eliminated. Table 5.1 also shows the amount of water per acre per season irrigated by UI from all sources as an average of 0.26 million gallons per acre per season (mg/ac/season). The irrigation rate has been decreasing since 2007. Summary of Past Water Reclamation and Reuse Analysis Studies The City has had the following water reclamation and reuse studies completed:  City of Moscow/University of Idaho Wastewater Reuse Capacity Assessment, March 2010, JUB Engineers, Inc.  Reuse Study for the City of Moscow, December 2001, Kimball Engineering. The JUB study provided a planning level analysis of the potential for using reclaimed water from the City’s WWTP for irrigation of a 27-acre City ball field complex located in the southwest corner of Moscow on Palouse River Drive. The report concluded that the WWTP has sufficient flow to provide irrigation water for the ball field complex, but that UI does not have the infrastructure to transmit the irrigation water to the complex. The report developed six concepts to upgrade the UI infrastructure to provide irrigation water to the complex, with preliminary cost estimates ranging from $1,300,000 to $2,114,000 for these scenarios. The JUB study indicates an average irrigation flow of 0.78 mg per week, or 19.94 mg for the May to October period (0.63 mg/acre/season). The Kimball study analyzed options for meeting future phosphorus effluent limits during the growing season by using Moscow WWTP effluent for land application (irrigation). A second objective for land application was to reduce the demand for City water by using recycled effluent for irrigation. The Kimball study provided a list of areas within the City that could be irrigated with recycled water, and estimated the irrigation demand at each site. According to the Kimball report, UI irrigated approximately 315 acres (ac) at several sites including the golf course (116.4 ac) and lawns and play fields (198.7 ac). These two areas are defined in the land application permit as MU-002802 and MU-002801, respectively. (This is more land than the 198 acres indicated in the Water Right but is approximately the same as the 328-acre irrigated area shown in Figure 5.1). The report concluded that the land available within the City for irrigation with recycled water was insufficient to use all of the City’s effluent and thus eliminate discharge during the phosphorus effluent limit period of May 15 to October 15. That report utilized a consumptive use of 0.92 mg/acre/season (referenced as obtained from the Washington State University Extension) for calculating potential volumes of recycled water to irrigate various parks in Moscow. 5.2 POTENTIAL FOR WATER RECYCLING Recycled Water Flow Limitations The UI also obtains irrigation water from a well for aquaculture and from their domestic water system. If the use of their domestic water for irrigation could be eliminated, the UI could potentially recycle an additional one million gallons of effluent per season for irrigation. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 4 209088/3/11-113 The City maintains a minimum flow to the dechlorination system of approximately 200,000 gallons per day during the irrigation season in order to provide sufficient flow to obtain accurate readings from their sulfur dioxide analyzer. If the City reconfigured the dechlorination system to eliminate the need for the minimum flow, an additional 200,000 gallons per day of irrigation water could be available for recycling. However, it should be noted that if this flow were diverted for recycling purposes, it would not be available for discharge to the wetlands. Part of the flow listed in Table 5.1 as “WWTP Effluent Discharged to Creek” is actually discharged to an artificial wetlands on UI property adjacent to the state line, between the railroad right-of-way and the north bank of Paradise Creek. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Palouse Clearwater Environmental Institute, UI, and the City for the Paradise Creek Watershed Restoration Artificial Wetlands Demonstration Project (see Appendix D) includes a requirement for the City to “assure continued flow of Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the Wetlands facility, subject to prior water rights and contingent upon regulatory approval, if required.” The MOU can be terminated upon 30 days written notice, and it is supposed to be reviewed every five years “to assure its adequacy, effectiveness and continuing need.” DEQ indicated in a phone conversation that the Demonstration Project is over, and the City has no regulatory obligation to continue discharging to the wetlands site. Irrigation Rates In order to determine the volume of water that could be recycled within Moscow, the design irrigation rate in million gallons per acre per season must be selected. As indicated above, Kimball used 0.92 mg/ac/season while JUB used 0.63 mg/ac/season. An independent consumptive use value was also determined as part of this study by using precipitation deficit values for irrigated lawns in Moscow from the UI Kimberly Research and Extension website ETIdaho 2009. The precipitation deficit during the growing season is the net irrigation water requirement for an irrigated crop. From the website, the mean precipitation deficit for April 1 to November 1 for irrigated turf in Moscow totals 24.73 inches. This equates to 0.67 mg/ac over the season. Accounting for irrigation application losses (from DEQ Guidance for Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater assumed 80% efficiency), the total application rate would be 0.67/0.8 or 0.84 mg/ac/season. However, as shown in Table 5.1, UI is only using 0.26 mg/ac/season on the golf course and campus. Based on this information, it would appear that UI is using much less than the potential consumptive use of the grass. If it were the City’s primary objective to remove their discharge from the Creek, the City could work with the UI to increase the amount of irrigation currently applied to existing areas. In addition to theoretical consumptive use values, actual irrigation rates for City parks were considered. The City of Moscow provided Keller Associates with meter readings for irrigation water at several parks in the City. This data is summarized in Table 5.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 5 209088/3/11-113 Table 5.2 – Irrigation Rates in Moscow Potential Water Recycling Area 2009 2010 Site Irrigated Area Meter 1 Meter 2 Meter 3 Total Meter 1 Meter 2 Meter 3 Total Average acres ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 ft3 gal/y mg/ac/y Existing Alturas Park 0.80 184,000 184,000 190,500 190,500 1,400,724 1.75 Anderson Frontier 3.10 184,000 184,000 164,800 164,800 1,304,599 0.42 Berman Creekside 0.80 52,000 52,000 38,500 38,500 338,493 0.42 Dog Park 0.95 18,300 18,300 34,800 34,800 198,607 0.21 East City Park 5.70 25,100 62,200 14,100 101,400 45,100 68,500 25,500 139,100 899,530 0.16 East Gate 0.95 83,800 83,800 172,500 172,500 958,626 1.01 Fire Tower/ Heron’s Hideout 0.72 13,300 36,500 13,200 63,000 10,000 46,600 19,300 75,900 519,521 0.55 Ghormley 5.70 161,300 24,700 21,900 207,900 177,100 32,400 29,200 238,700 1,670,396 0.29 Kiwanis 1.35 80,400 80,400 73,200 73,200 574,502 0.43 Joseph Street 2.88 288,900 0 288,900 192,100 3,900 196,000 1,813,647 0.63 Lions Park/ Fair Grounds 0.97 102,600 102,600 74,300 74,300 661,650 0.68 Oyler Fields 8.93 201,700 39,900 136,800 378,400 146,400 48,000 192,800 387,200 2,863,535 0.32 Rotary 1.33 118,700 118,700 89,100 89,100 777,224 0.59 SE Water Tank 0.95 38,500 38,500 48,900 48,900 326,898 0.34 Vista Reservoir 1.84 68,200 68,200 84,700 84,700 571,884 0.31 White Avenue Round-about 0.08 5,700 5,700 1,900 1,900 28,426 0.38 TOTAL 37.05 1,975,800 2,010,100 14,908,262 AVERAGE 0.53 The area for each park in Table 5.2 is the irrigated area as provided by the City. As shown, Moscow is irrigating the parks at an average rate of 0.53 mg/ac/season. (Both the City and UI have indicated that they water to maintain green, usable parks and not to limit the amount of water used.) Since the City has irrigated at a rate of 0.53 mg/ac/season over the last two years, a rate of 0.50 mg/ac/season will be used for estimating potential recycling volumes on areas not currently metered by the City. Potential Recycling Areas The areas outside of the UI that potentially could be irrigated with reclamation water from the City’s WWTP are shown on Figure 5.2. Table 5.3 provides a list of these sites with their total acreage, irrigated acreage, and potential irrigation demands based on either City irrigation records or the design irrigation rate where no records are available. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 6 209088/3/11-113 Table 5.3 – Potential Water Reclamation Demand Site Area (acres)1 Demand (mg/season) Park Area Irrigated Area Metered Demand1 Estimated Demand1 Total Existing Alturas Park 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.40 Anderson Frontier 6.20 3.10 1.30 1.30 Baseball Field at JHS2 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 Berman Creekside 4.00 0.80 0.34 0.34 Dog Park 1.00 0.95 0.20 0.20 East City Park 6.00 5.70 0.90 0.90 East Gate 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.96 Fire Tower/Heron’s Hideout 1.80 0.72 0.52 0.52 Ghormley 7.60 5.70 1.67 1.67 Kiwanis 1.50 1.35 0.57 0.57 Joseph Street 19.20 2.88 1.81 1.81 Lena Whitmore 2.46 1.97 0.98 0.98 Lions Park/Fair Grounds 2.43 0.97 0.66 0.66 Moscow Cemetery3 41.00 36.90 18.45 18.45 Mountain View3 12.20 10.98 5.49 5.49 Oyler Fields 9.40 8.93 2.86 2.86 Rotary 1.77 1.33 0.78 0.78 SE Water Tank 1.00 0.95 0.33 0.33 Vista Reservoir 1.94 1.84 0.57 0.57 White Avenue Round-about 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 Existing Total 40.32 Existing Total (mg/month)4 7.96 Future Ball Field Complex3 27.00 24.30 12.15 12.15 Indian Hills #6 Park3 0.94 0.85 0.42 0.42 Indian Hills #8 Park3 0.80 0.72 0.36 0.36 Lola Clyde Park3 5.70 5.13 2.57 2.57 Moser Park3 1.40 1.26 0.63 0.63 Salisbury Park3 3.00 2.70 1.35 1.35 Future Total 17.48 Future Total (mg/month) 3.45 Existing + Future Total per Season 57.8 Total (mg/month) 11.4 Total (mgd) 0.38 1 Irrigated area and metered data provided by City of Moscow. For parks without historical meter usage, assumed 0.5mg/ac/season. 2 Irrigated area estimated at 50% of total area. 3 Irrigated area estimated at 90% of total area. 4 Based on 152 day season. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 7 209088/3/11-113 The potential irrigation demand for existing sites is approximately 40 million gallons per season (mg/season), and approximately 58 mg/season with the future areas. The potential demand represents the potable water savings if the irrigation demand for City water were replaced by recycled water. Thus, the City could potentially save approximately 58 million gallons of domestic water per year by providing reclaimed water from the WWTP to existing and future sites. As shown in Table 5.1, the WWTP effluent discharged to the creek ranged from 21 mg to 63 mg per month during a typical irrigation season. Thus the City appears to have sufficient effluent available to provide the majority (if not all) of the irrigation water for these parks plus the UI. The City could, with sufficient storage, pumps, and piping, divert almost all of their effluent as reclaimed water to these sites and UI irrigation during the summer. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES FOR EXPANDING RECYCLING One option for providing recycled water is to treat raw wastewater in small satellite (scalping) plant(s) located close to the point of use. The plant(s) would need to be capable of providing the necessary level of treatment to allow water recycling on the sites during the summer, and would be bypassed during the winter. Solids generated in the scalping plant(s) would be discharged via the existing collection system to the Moscow WWTP for treatment and disposal. A review of the City’s collection system and areas that could be irrigated with reclaimed water (Table 5.2) resulted in three potential locations for consideration for scalping plants - two in the northeast area of the city, and one in the drainage basin of the South Fork of the Palouse River. Alternatives for scalping plants are also compared to expanding the delivery capacity of the recycled water from the City’s existing WWTP. Scalping Facilities in Northeast Moscow Table 5.4 indicates large green spaces located in northeast Moscow that could be irrigated with recycled water. These green spaces have been divided into Area 1 in northeast Moscow and Area 2 in east Moscow. Figure 5.3 shows the locations of Areas 1 and 2, and the potential locations of Scalping Plants 1 and 2. Scalping Plant 1 could be located in Area 1 near the intersection of North Mountain View Road and East B Street, to capture flow from the drainage basin labeled as Area 1 on Figure 5.3. Scalping Plant 1 could deliver recycled water to the green spaces in Area 1. Scalping Plant 2 could be located in Area 2 near the intersection of Kenneth Avenue and Blaine Street, to capture flow from the drainage basin labeled as Area 2 on Figure 5.3 and deliver recycled water to the green spaces in Area 2. Another alternative would be to construct one scalping plant at the Scalping Plant 2 location and install irrigation pipe to the green spaces in Areas 1 and 2. Table 5.4 also shows the estimated irrigation flow rate and estimated storage tank size for each area. For the purposes of this irrigation analysis, we estimated that irrigation would be required on half of each park area every other night for 8 hours; thus the entire park area is watered at night over a 2-day period. In order to use all of the water at each area, a treated water storage tank would be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 8 209088/3/11-113 Table 5.5 identifies the anticipated flows available at each scalping plant. Data from monitoring completed by the City in May and June, 2010 (after the UI spring semester had ended) was used to determine the average flow currently available. Keller performed computer modeling to determine the anticipated future average and peak flows. Since Area 1 is upstream from Area 2, any flow removed at Scalping Plant 1 would not be available at Scalping Plant 2. Table 5.4 – Potential Scalping Plant Recycling Demand Site Area (acres)1 Demand (mg/season) Park Area Irrigated Area Metered Demand1 Estimated Demand1 Total Area 1 / Scalping Plant 1 Baseball Field at JHS2 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 East City Park 6.00 5.70 0.90 0.90 Kiwanis 1.50 1.35 0.57 0.57 Lena Whitmore 2.46 1.97 0.98 0.98 Lola Clyde Park3 5.70 5.13 2.57 2.57 Moser Park3 1.40 1.26 0.63 0.63 Mountain View3 12.00 10.80 5.40 5.49 Oyler Fields 9.40 8.93 2.86 2.86 Rotary 1.77 1.33 0.78 0.78 Total Scalping Plant 1 (mg/season) 15.28 Total (mg/month) 3.01 Total (mgd) 0.10 Instantaneous demand (gpm)4 470 Required storage (gal)5 70,000 Area 2 / Scalping Plant 2 Alturas Park 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.40 Dog Park 1.00 0.95 0.20 0.20 East Gate 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.96 Fire Tower/Heron’s Hideout 1.80 0.72 1.66 1.66 Indian Hills #6 Park3 0.94 0.85 0.42 0.42 Indian Hills #8 Park3 0.80 0.72 0.36 0.36 Joseph Street 19.20 2.88 1.81 1.81 Lions Park/Fair Grounds 2.43 0.97 0.66 0.66 Memorial Gardens Cemetery 41.00 36.90 18.45 18.45 Moser Park3 1.40 1.26 0.63 0.63 Salisbury Park3 3.00 2.70 1.35 1.35 White Avenue Round-about 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 Total Scalping Plant 1 (mg/season) 27.93 Total (mg/month) 5.51 Total (mgd) 0.18 Instantaneous demand (gpm)4 580 Required storage (gal)5 120,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 9 209088/3/11-113 A comparison of the irrigation demands in Table 5.4 with the available reclaimed water shown in Table 5.5 indicates that there is currently sufficient flow at Area 1 to provide all of the irrigation water required. Adequate flow is available at Plant 1 to meet existing and projected irrigation demands. A treatment system at Scalping Plant 1 rated at an average flow of 0.110 mgd, with the ability to handle peak flows of 0.220 mgd, should provide the required treatment capacity through 2030. Flows in excess of the treatment capacity would overflow to the gravity line and continue to the WWTP. Wasted sludge would be discharged to the WWTP in the gravity main. Table 5.5 – Reclaimed Water Availability Site Available Flow Current1 Year 2030 Area 1/Scalping Plant 1 Average Flow (gpm) 100 172 Average Flow (mgd) 0.14 0.25 Irrigation Season (mg)2 22.0 38.0 Flow per Month (mg/month) 4.25 7.60 Area 2/Scalping Plant 23 Average Flow (gpm) 280 319 Average Flow (mgd) 0.40 0.46 Irrigation Season (mg)2 61.0 70.0 Flow per Month (mg/month) 12.17 14.00 Area 1 & 2/Scalping Plant 2 Location4 Average Flow (gpm) 380 491 Average Flow (mgd) 0.55 0.71 Irrigation Season (mg)2 83.0 107 Flow per Month (mg/month) 16.73 21.60 1 Based on City monitoring, May-June 2010. 2 Irrigation season 152 days. 3 All flows based on total for Area 2 less flows to Area 1. 4 All flows based on total for Area 2 with no removal at Area 1. Table 5.4 – Potential Scalping Plant Recycling Demand (continued) Areas 1 and 2 / Scalping Plant 2 Location Total Scalping Plant 1 (mg/season) 43.21 Total (mg/month) 8.52 Total (mgd) 0.29 Instantaneous demand (gpm)4 1,050 Required storage (gal)5 190,000 1 Irrigated area and metered data provided by City of Moscow. For parks without historical meter usage, assumed 0.5 mg/ac/season. 2 Irrigated area estimated at 90% of total area. 3 Irrigated area estimated at 50% of total area. 4 Assumes entire area watered every other night in 8 hours; based on peak month (July) irrigation requirements 5 Assumes 16 hours storage. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 10 209088/3/11-113 For Area 2, flows are currently more than enough to provide all of the irrigation water required. A treatment system at Scalping Plant 2 rated at an average flow of 0.190 mgd, with the ability to handle peak flows of 0.380 mgd, would provide the treatment capacity necessary through 2030. For the third option with a single scalping plant for both Areas 1 and 2, a scalping plant rated at an average flow of 0.300 mgd with the ability to handle peak flows of 0.600 mgd, would provide the required treatment capacity for both areas through 2030. Scalping Facility in South Moscow Based on available lift station monitoring data, the average flow reaching the South Lift Station during the summer season is approximately 50 gpm, and the average flow anticipated at the Southeast Lift Station is 30 gpm. In the 50-year plan, both of these lift stations would be bypassed and a gravity collection system installed to transport this flow to a South Fork Palouse Area Scalping Plant. However, it was assumed that in the next 20 years only flow into the South Lift Station would be available for a scalping plant 3, which would be located near the South Lift Station. The ball field complex and Anderson Frontier Park could be irrigated with reclaimed water from Scalping Plant 3. At an average flow of 50 gpm, about 10.9 mg would flow past the proposed Scalping Plant 3 during the irrigation season. As shown in Table 5.2, approximately 13.45 mg of irrigation water per season would be required for the Ball Field Complex and Anderson Frontier Park. Thus an additional 2.6+ mg of City water would be needed to irrigate these areas. For this scalping plant the wasted sludge would be discharged to the lift station, but since all the flow is directed to the scalping plant there is a potential for odors due to hydrogen sulfide generation. Two options that could minimize the hydrogen sulfide generation would be to provide “flushing” of the solids using wastewater or domestic water. Wastewater used for flushing would not be available for irrigation and would have to be replaced by domestic water. Using Year 2030 flows from the South Fork area, a scalping plant sized for an average flow of 0.075 mgd and a peak flow of 0.150 mgd would provide the treatment capacity required to treat all of the flow during the summer season for irrigation scalping. During the winter, the flow could be routed back to the WWTP and the scalping plant taken off-line. Alternatively, if an NPDES permit could be obtained, treated flow could be discharged to the South Fork of the Palouse River. EPA has indicated that in the near term it is not likely that an NPDES permit can be obtained. The State of Idaho must first approve the proposed Antidegradation Rule, and the Rule must weather any lawsuits from interested parties. After the Rule is in place, the restrictions on issuing new permits to impaired water bodies (which apply to the South Fork of the Palouse River) must be addressed. All existing dischargers to that impaired water body must be in compliance. Currently, the Country Homes Mobile Home Park is not in compliance. Our understanding is that the mobile home park applied for an NPDES permit and although a draft permit was published, a final permit was never issued. Once the Antidegradation Rule is in place and all existing discharges are in compliance, the City could theoretically obtain an NPDES permit. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 11 209088/3/11-113 Reuse Permit The City would have to obtain a Reuse Permit from DEQ to permit new plant(s) for reclamation and water recycling on the parks and cemetery. The scalping plants could be designed to provide Class B effluent, as long as the parks and cemetery were watered during non-use periods and setbacks were met. If the plant were designed to provide Class A effluent, irrigation could occur at any time and there would be no buffers required. Class A systems could be expanded to include residential irrigation uses. For Class A effluent, the plant(s) would be required to meet lower BOD limits (10 mg/l) and would also be subject to additional requirements for redundancy, disinfection, continuous monitoring of chlorine residual, and automatic activation of alternative treatment (in the event that turbidity, chlorine residual or virus removal are not met for a 5-minute period). Class A systems require purple piping, valve boxes, and irrigation heads. It should also be noted that DEQ setback requirements for open basins need to be considered in design and permitting of new treatment facilities. The Reuse Permit application would require the following information:  Technical Report in accordance with DEQ guidance, to include detailed information on: - Site location and ownership - Location of drinking water sources and surface water relative to reuse site(s) - Buffer zones - Process description - Treatment site characteristics (hydrogeologic, soil, etc.) - Wastewater characterization, cropping plan, loading rates - Site management  Site Maps  Plan of Operation per DEQ checklist to include O&M information for the scalping plant and reuse sites, plus monitoring, lab testing, reporting, and engineering plan General Assessment of Package Wastewater Treatment Systems Two treatment systems capable of producing Class B effluent are sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) plants. These processes were considered the best options for the scalping plant, since other treatment processes producing similar quality effluent are not as cost-competitive. Skid-mounted package plants were considered, but the largest skid-mounted plant (SBR and MBR) located is rated at 50,000 gpd. This is not sufficient capacity for any of the alternatives presented. Additionally, little or no cost savings are anticipated by providing multiple smaller skid-mounted treatment plants. However, SBR and MBR manufacturers can provide their equipment as packages in preset sizes to reduce the manufacturing cost. For instance, GE Zenon (a MBR manufacturer) markets systems sized for 0.050 mgd, 0.150 mgd, and 0.250 mgd as packages that include most of the equipment required for the plant. As with a non-packaged system, the tanks, interconnecting piping, electrical, controls, and buildings still have to be designed. To minimize the equipment cost, the scalping plant is proposed to be a treatment plant designed around a package of equipment from a single manufacturer. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 12 209088/3/11-113 Of the two options, MBR plants are used most often for water recycling scalping plants, have a smaller footprint, are easier to operate, and provide a higher effluent water quality than SBR plants. Since MBR plants also have a higher capital cost than SBR plants, costs for MBRs were used to develop conservative cost estimates. As noted above, a building (masonry assumed) and concrete tankage, plus piping, electrical and controls would be needed with any of the alternatives. Also, effluent storage and pumping facilities are required as part of the reuse irrigation system. To enclose a 0.125 mgd MBR treatment plant installed at Scalping Plant 1 would require a building that is approximately 30’ by 30’ by 16’ high. For budgeting purposes, it was assumed that the building would be CMU with a membrane room, a blower room, and a lab/office room. There would also be an outdoor aeration basin approximately 30 feet long by 20 feet wide by 20 feet high. An 80,000-gallon treated water storage tank and a booster pump station were also included. (It should be noted that enclosing the aeration basin would allow for increased public access, improved aesthetics, and reduced setback requirements, but would add several hundred thousand dollars to the project cost). Multiple skid-mounted treatment plants would not likely be a cost-competitive alternative for this size of facility. The 0.300 mgd MBR treatment plant that could be installed at Scalping Plant 2 site would include a building that is approximately 60 feet by 50 feet by 16 feet high. For budgeting purposes it was assumed that the building would be CMU with a membrane room, a blower room, and a lab/office room. There would also be an outdoor aeration basin that is approximately 45 feet long by 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. A 130,000-gallon treated water storage tank and a booster pump station were also included. The 0.075 mgd MBR treatment plant that could be installed at Scalping Plant 3 site would include a building approximately 25 feet long by 25 feet wide by 16 feet high. For budgeting purposes it was assumed that the building would be CMU with a membrane room. There would also be an 80,000-gallon treated water storage tank and a booster pump station. As a potential cost-competitive alternative, two skid-mounted treatment plants could be considered at Scalping Plant 3. The budget estimates for the scalping plant alternatives assume a treatment plant capable of producing a Class A effluent. Rather than costly redundancy provisions, cost estimates assume that turbidimeters and automatic valves would be used to bypass back to the collection system if the discharge does not meet standards. Expand Recycling from the Existing WWTP Another option available to the City is to expand the recycled water distribution piping from the existing WWTP. The plant currently produces Class B water, but the City plans to upgrade the plant to Class A in the future. A distribution pipeline system could be designed to provide a pipe from the WWTP to the areas in East Moscow shown in Figure 5.3. The Kimball report described one option for expanding the existing water recycling infrastructure by constructing a storage lagoon at the WWTP and a 12” distribution piping system from the WWTP to Mountain View Park. The pipeline would be constructed along State Highway 8, East White Avenue, South Mountain View Road, East Third Street, East F Street, and North Eisenhower Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 5 - 13 209088/3/11-113 Update of Opinions of Probable Cost Preliminary opinions of probable cost were prepared for Scalping Plant 1, Scalping Plant 2, and the South Fork Scalping Plant. The cost estimates included the diversion structures and pumps, MBR plant and building, site work, storage tank, booster pump station, and distribution piping. It was assumed that existing irrigation systems would be used at the parks. The costs for each site are summarized in the following table. In addition, the cost estimate in the Kimball study for a treated water storage lagoon and distribution system from the WWTP to Mountain View Park was updated using the ENR construction cost indices. This distribution piping would provide recycled water to most of the parks in Areas 1 and 2. The cost estimates also include contractor overhead and profit at 15% of the construction cost, a contingency of 20%, and engineering (design and construction management) at 18% of construction costs. Since the Kimball report did not include costs for a pumping system, a booster pump system was added to the costs. Table 5.6 – Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost Item Project Cost Annualized Cost1 Annual O&M Cost Total Annual Cost Annual mg Recycled Annual $/gal 1 Scalping Plant 1 $ 4,800,000 $ 385,164 $ 50,000 $ 435,164 17.14 $ 0.0254 2 Scalping Plant 2 $ 7,600,000 $ 609,843 $ 75,000 $ 684,843 25.88 $ 0.0265 3 Scalping Plant 3 $ 3,300,000 $ 264,800 $ 50,000 $ 314,800 10.90 $ 0.0289 4 Storage and Distribution Piping to Areas 1 and 2 $ 7,900,000 $ 633,916 $ 35,000 $ 668,916 44.36 $ 0.0151 1 Annualized cost at 5% and 20 years financing. 5.4 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS It is more cost-effective to bring treated effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant than to construct scalping plants that would provide the same amount of recycled water. However, at an annual cost of $0.0151/gallon, this reuse alternative is approximately 6 times more than the current cost the City charges for water ($1.9/100 CF = $0.00254/gallon). While recycle alternatives do not presently appear to be the most economical solution, the City may choose to pursue this option for other reasons, including potential regulatory requirements for continued wastewater discharge, preservation of water resources, and other social or political reasons. For planning purposes, Keller Associates has not included the cost of recycle improvements in the capital improvement plan. If the City chooses to expand their recycled systems to water existing and future parks, Keller recommends that the City install treated water storage at the WWTP and a distribution system from the existing WWTP. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 1 209088/3/11-113 6.0 SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter discusses the collection system analysis and recommendations. It outlines the model selection, model construction, and model calibration process. This chapter also documents existing and anticipated future deficiencies and presents recommended improvements to address these deficiencies. 6.1 MODEL ACQUISITION AND CALIBRATION Software Selection The City requested Keller Associates to review potential options for the modeling software to be used for the study, and recommend the option that would most likely meet the City’s present and long-term modeling needs. Through a series of coordination meetings and research efforts, it was determined that MWH InfoSewer should be used. A technical memorandum presenting the software options considered, and why the recommended software was selected, can be found in Appendix F. Database & Model Construction In order to build the collection system model with the selected software, the pertinent pipe and manhole data was retrieved from multiple sources. A previous Hydra computer model served as the starting point for model construction, and included much of the pipe elevation, size, and material data necessary to build the InfoSewer computer model. Another source of data used for comparison with the Hydra database and for filling in missing or new information, was the City’s Manhole Card files. These hardcopy files contained rim and invert elevations and pipe size information, and were scanned to create a digital Manhole Card database containing picture images of the actual cards. These images were further linked by Keller Associates to a GIS database of Moscow’s collection system. The card data was then compared to the Hydra database to evaluate the accuracy of data in the Hydra model. Where the cards and Hydra database differed, Keller Associates used notes on the cards and in the database, City input, and field checks to determine which data to use. The result of the comparison process was a new database file ready for use in the selected modeling software. During the model creation process, the City’s AutoCAD base mapping was further updated. In some locations the original database contained duplicate pipes and/or pipes drawn in multiple sections, rather than as a single element. These were cleaned up as necessary for the model to run. Also the Moscow system contains many drop manholes and flow split manholes. Additional field work was performed so that the elevations and slopes of pipes were properly reflected in the model. Once all manholes and pipes were created and data populated in the model, several queries were conducted to reveal anomalies in the data. These included reverse slope pipes, changes in pipe size, and anomalies in the pipe connectivity. These anomalies were then discussed with City personnel to determine actual conditions, and appropriate changes were made in the model. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 2 209088/3/11-113 Model Assumptions One of the basic assumptions of the hydraulic model is that all of the lines are free from physical obstructions such as roots and accumulated debris. Such maintenance issues, which certainly exist, must be discovered and addressed through maintenance efforts. The modeled capacities discussed in this chapter represent the capacity assuming the sewer lines are in good working order. Model Loads Model loads refer to the wastewater flows that enter the sewer collection system. These loads are comprised of wastewater collected from individual services (base flows) plus groundwater infiltration and stormwater inflows. Baseline wastewater flows were applied to the model utilizing winter water consumption data developed as part of the Comprehensive Water System Plan completed by HDR. Wintertime water consumption data was used because it included the student population but excluded irrigation demands, which do not return directly to the sewer system. A spatial distribution of the consumption data developed by HDR was used to assign more than 2000 loads to the nearest manhole(s). It was further assumed that only 90% of water entering the homes/establishments makes its way into the collection system. The factored consumption data provided base flows from which the model was further calibrated. Each load in the software was also assigned a 24-hour flow pattern developed from the flow monitoring data. Two patterns were extracted from the flow data, one for residential flows and one for commercial flows, as shown in Charts 6.1 and 6.2. Chart 6.1 – Residential Flow Unit Curve Chart 6.2 – Commercial Flow Unit Curve 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 Time of Day (hour) Factor (Avg Flow = 1.0) MH J15-07 - Tue, Oct 20, 2009 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 Time of Day (hour) Factor (Avg Flow = 1.0) Mall Lift Sta. - Sun, Oct 18, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 3 209088/3/11-113 Model Calibration The first step in calibrating the model was collecting flow data at various manholes throughout the system. Figure 6.1 illustrates the location of each monitored manhole and the dates that data were collected. Flow data were collected during dry and wet weather periods to allow an analysis of the I/I occurring in the system. Dry Weather Calibration: The model was run with the base loads, and then the resulting flows were compared to a single day of observed dry weather flow data at each monitored manhole. A no or low-precipitation day was selected with an average flow observed to be representative of the dry weather data collected for that manhole. Chart 6.3 shows an example comparison. A factor was applied uniformly to all loads within a basin collected by the monitored manhole to align the peak flow of the model in a 24-hour period with the peak in the flow data. Matching peaks was given priority over matching average flows since the piping of a collection system is designed based on peak flow conditions. However, average flows were also noted and taken into consideration when factoring to ensure the accuracy of the model as a whole. Some basins required little or no adjustments to the base flows to match model and monitored flows. Appendix F contains calibration information for each monitoring site. Chart 6.3 – Dry Calibration Modeled vs. Observed Flows – Manhole F16-15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Flow (gpm) Field Observed Data Modeled Base Flow s Calibrated Model Flow s Wet Weather Calibration: A similar calibration methodology was used for the wet weather calibration as was employed for the dry weather calibration. Days with a precipitation event near 0.5 inches were targeted for comparison in order to capture the storm water inflow influence. Where possible, the peak day for that manhole or the day containing the peak hour flow for the entire monitoring period was selected. Where monitoring periods ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 4 209088/3/11-113 overlapped for different manholes, the same precipitation event was selected when possible. Model flows after dry calibration were compared against the flow data to determine if and how much additional flow should be added for I/I. Applying the I/I flow was an iterative process, where additional infiltration and inflow flows were added until peak hour flows and patterns matched. Chart 6.4 shows an example comparison. Appendix F contains comparison graphs and calibration factors for all wet and dry weather calibrations. Chart 6.4 – Wet Calibration Modeled vs. Observed Flows – Manhole F16-15 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Flow (gpm) Field Observed Data Dry Calibrated Model Flow s Wet Calibrated Model Flow s Through the calibration process of matching peak flows within various sub-basins, flows were also compared at the treatment plant where model and observed flows were within 5% of each other. Modeling Scenarios Various model simulations were run to analyze current capacities and the effects of future growth at 5, 20, and 50-year horizons. At the City’s request, flows resulting from build-out of the entire study area were also simulated. City-supplied GIS land use layers identifying areas of anticipated growth at 5, 20, and 50-year intervals were used to calculate future flows and identify where pipeline extensions would be required. Future Flows: Future residential loads were calculated using densities and per capita flows to determine a flow per acre (gallons per acre per day = gpad), which was then applied to each mapped area to determine the total load (or flow) in gallons per minute. The resulting load was then applied to the nearest manhole(s) mapped for that growth scenario. Future commercial loads were estimated by looking at existing commercial areas and dividing the total existing flow by the existing area to determine a flow per acre. Several commercial areas were considered, with values ranging from 100-1100 gpad. To allow flexibility in development, Keller Associates recommends using values at the high end of this range for planning. Table 6.1 summarizes the design flows utilized in the model for new growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 5 209088/3/11-113 Table 6.1 – Future Average Day Design Flows by Land Use Area Type Future Flows per Capita* (gpcd) People per house (2000 Census) Homes per acre Flow per area (gpad) Low Density Residential (LR) 81 2.25 3.5 640 High Density Residential (HR) 81 2.25 20.0 3650 Commercial (COM) - - - 1000 Mixed use - - - 3650 gpcd = gallons per capita per day gpad = gallons per acre per day 6.2 SYSTEM PHYSICAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS Once all future manholes and pipes were mapped and future flows applied, various model simulations were run to evaluate the capacity of the pipelines for existing and future conditions. Several additional intermediate scenarios were run, including different combinations of improvement projects, in an effort to optimize phasing of improvements. All scenarios simulated a 24-hour extended period at maximum day flows. Existing Conveyance System Capacity Analysis – Priority 1 & 2 Improvements The calibrated model was exercised to determine the effects of a 2010 peak day flow event on the system. Figure 6.2 illustrates the available capacity of the existing system. The figure is color coded to show a gradation of pipes based on utilized capacity (i.e. red = flowing at >100% design capacity, orange = flowing at 90-100% of design capacity, yellow = flowing at 75-90% capacity, etc.). There are multiple pipeline sections that are surcharged during peak hour flow conditions, and several other sections that are approaching capacity. The following paragraphs describe recommended priority improvements that should be implemented to address current deficiencies. These improvements correct existing capacity limitations and reduce the risks of surcharging and overflow. Failure to correct these sections may result in unwanted property damage and lead to unpermitted discharges of raw sewage. Priority 1a improvements are intended to correct areas where surcharging and flooding occurs. Priority 1b improvements are to correct areas where the pipeline is at or near capacity. Priority 2 improvements may also be urgent, and represent localized spots where additional maintenance or repair may be necessary. Figure 6.4 illustrates the locations of Priority 1 and 2 improvements. No Action Alternative: If no additional improvements are completed, the City would continue to be at risk of sanitary sewer overflows resulting from high flow events. This condition would continue to get worse with new growth, as illustrated in printouts found in Appendix F. 36-inch and 30-inch Paradise Creek Interceptors – Priority 1a: Keller Associates recommends that the City proceed with current plans to install a 36-inch interceptor from near the intersection of Deakin and West 6th to the wastewater treatment plant. Some sections of this 36-inch interceptor are currently under construction. This line is assumed to replace one of the two existing 24-inch pipelines. Completion of this line is a high priority, as one of the 24-inch lines is surcharged along the entire length of this improvement during peak hour conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 6 209088/3/11-113 As an alternative to this improvement, Keller Associates also looked at better splitting the flow between the two existing parallel interceptors. While additional interties would reduce the level of surcharging in one 24-inch interceptor, existing peak hour flows continue to exceed the capacity of both pipelines. This results in at least one or more sections in each 24-inch parallel pipeline continuing to be surcharged during a peak hour flow event. In addition to the 36-inch pipeline, a 30-inch line should also be completed from the intersection of Deakin and West 6th to the southeast and connected to the west end of the existing 30-inch dry line along Troy Road/State Highway 8. Connect 30” Dry line – Priority 1a: A section of existing 30-inch pipe was previously installed along Troy Road / State Highway 8 and currently has no flow (dry line). The City should proceed with previous plans to connect this dry line at manhole G20-09 to intercept flow in the 18-inch interceptor along Troy Road. The connection should be a full 100% diversion of flow at G20-09 to relieve surcharging in the existing 18-inch and 20-inch pipelines. Implementation of this connection should not take place until the sections of 30-inch pipe (also Priority 1a) are completed. This improvement should also include bringing online the existing 18-inch dry line along Main Street between manholes F20-22 and G20-21. Utilizing this line will route flows from the South Lift Station and surrounding basins directly to the 30-inch interceptor, rather than transmitting through the University of Idaho campus sewer lines where several bottlenecks occur. North Main to North Polk 15” – Priority 1a: This improvement involves replacement of the 8, 10, and 12-inch pipes along East E Street, North Adams Street, East Morton Street, North Van Buren Street, and East Public Avenue. The existing pipes involve shallow slopes and reductions from 10 to 8-inch lines that result in surcharging during peak hour flow events. A 15-inch pipe will provide a smooth transition from the 10-inch pipe on N. Polk to the 18-inch pipe on E Street, while adding sufficient capacity for future upstream development along North Polk. Troy Road / White Avenue Interceptor– Priority 1b: This improvement involves installation of an interceptor pipeline from the east end of the 30-inch dry line, along Troy Road and White Avenue to South Blaine Street. Keller Associates assumed a parallel 21-inch line was modeled alongside the existing 18-inch pipeline with a diversion at manhole I21-05. Before implementing this improvement, the City should reevaluate the condition and life of the existing 18-inch concrete pipe and determine if a single larger pipe (24-inch) better suits the needs of the City in this area. This improvement should also include replacement of the existing 18-inch clay pipe on Blaine Street between White Avenue and Johnson Street, which has a flat slope. Keller Associates recommends that flows in this pipe be directed to the new 21-inch interceptor. Maintenance Pipes – Field Inspections & Repair/Replacement – Priority 2a: Multiple pipeline segments in the system are reported to have shallow or reverse slopes that can lead to decreased velocities and increased sedimentation. Additional field work at these pipeline segments is recommended to confirm reported conditions and determine if the pipeline grades can be easily corrected. The City can then either consider replacement of these pipes and nearby segments to fix the slope issues, or add these sections to a list for special attention for more frequent maintenance and cleaning. Table 6.2 lists the location, connecting manholes, and invert elevations for these pipes. The first six pipeline segments have adverse or flat slopes but do not currently exhibit capacity limitations. The last five pipeline segments have flat or low slopes that currently result in localized capacity concerns. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 7 209088/3/11-113 Table 6.2 – Maintenance Pipes – Candidates for Replacement From MH To MH Location From Invert To Invert Size (in) Material L20-35 L20-31 White Ave & Hourglass Lane 2,603.09 2,603.19 8 PVC E18-20 E18-17 W. 6th Street near Deakin Ave 2,556.55 2,556.58 18 PVC K15-08 K15-07 D. Street near Harding Street 2,598.01 2,598.04 18 Clay J18-04 J18-05 Mtn View Road near 7th Street 2,585.24 2,585.05 18 Clay F18-24 F18-06 Deakin Avenue south of W. 6th 2,557.13 2,557.13 12 Clay E16-19 E16-18 Pullman Road & Line Street 2,554.26 2,554.26 8 PVC J12-22 J12-14 Near Thatuna Ave. & Juniper Dr. 2,617.450 2,617.450 8 Concrete F18-20 F18-18 W. 6th & Main Street 2,556.830 2,556.640 10 Clay F20-20 F20-15 Sweet Avenue 2,564.640 2,564.540 12 Clay I18-08 I18-09 E. 6th & Hayes Street 2,621.490 2,621.340 6 Clay E17-20 D17-09 Paradise Creek interceptor North of Recreation Center 2,549.106 2,549.100 24 Clay Future Conveyance System Capacity Analysis Several model simulations were run to analyze the effects of future growth at four projected populations: 2015, 2030, 2060, and build-out of the study area. Appendix G contains printouts of capacity results for these scenarios. Figure 6.3 illustrates potential new future lines necessary to expand the collection system according to projected growth. Figure 6.4 illustrates the location and phasing of capital improvement projects in response to said growth. For the purposes of the figure and the following discussions, replacements of existing pipelines are considered “improvements” while new pipelines driven by development are referred to as “expansion”. Future System Expansion: Pipelines modeled for 2015, 2030, 2060, and build-out scenarios but not labeled as Improvement Priorities in the accompanying figure were mapped according to the locations of anticipated growth areas and the observed topography of the area. The actual construction phasing of these pipelines is highly dependent on where and when the development occurs. Therefore, the illustration of these pipelines in the accompanying figure should be used for general planning purposes only and not as a strict timeline for improvements. Priority 2d, 3g, 4f, and 5f costs to the City were calculated as the difference between constructing an 8-inch pipeline and constructing the size required to accommodate all future growth. This method assumes that development will pay for the associated costs up to the size of an 8-inch pipeline and any “oversizing” requested by the City will be a City expense. South Fork Palouse River Interceptor: The construction of an interceptor pipeline along the South Fork of the Palouse River is shown to occur in two phases, at 20 and 50-year horizons. This is based on the 20 and 50-year planning areas identified by the City. While reviewing development plans in this area, the City should take special care to ensure the new pipelines are placed at elevations that support the overall concept of an interceptor line extending up the river drainage and deep enough to cross and serve areas on both sides of the river. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 8 209088/3/11-113 Additionally, the phasing for an extension of the interceptor to the SE Lift Station should consider future development along the corridor, future conditions of the SE Lift Station, and future reuse plans. While not assigned a priority level, this interceptor would need to be completed prior to implementation of Priority 4 improvement taking the SE Lift Station Offline. US 95 (South Main) 18-inch Crossing – Priority 3a: This improvement involves upsizing the pipe crossing US 95 immediately west of the South Lift Station. As development occurs south of the South Fork Palouse River along and west of the highway, the size of the pipe entering the South Lift Station will need to be increased. Construction of an 18-inch pipe from manhole F24-05 to the Lift Station assumes the current gravity flow from west to east will be maintained along the river. Implementation of this improvement should take into consideration the City’s evaluation of future reuse alternatives. Additionally, depending on the condition of the South Lift Station at the time the improvement is needed, the City may wish to relocate the South Lift Station farther to the west. Styner Ave to Sweet Ave 18-inch Interceptor – Priority 3b: This improvement involves replacing the existing 8-inch pipeline along South Main Street with a larger (18-inch) pipeline to accommodate future flows from the South Lift Station. The 18-inch pipeline was sized based on anticipated 2060 flows. Implementation of this improvement should take into consideration the City’s evaluation of reuse alternatives and other improvements that may affect the total flow being discharged by the South Lift Station in the future. Coordinating the project with future roadwork could substantially reduce surface restoration costs. The City may also wish to extend this improvement farther south along South Main to replace the northern portion of the pressure main which is reported to be gravity clay pipe. West 3rd to North Almon Interceptor – Priority 3c: The existing system contains two parallel lines with multiple overflow diversions from the West 3rd / Pullman Road intersection to the North Almon / West A Street intersection. Due to the differing elevations of these lines, it is not possible to use the diversion points to relieve the surcharging of the lower 18-inch pipe. This improvement would involve construction of a 21-inch interceptor pipe along West 3rd, Lieuallen, First, Asbury, and Streets from manhole E17-07 to F16-18. Existing clay pipe along 3rd and Asbury Streets south of 1st St. will remain in service but will be replaced sometime in the future as part of the annual replacement schedule. Existing pipe along Asbury and Streets north of 1st Street will be replaced by the interceptor. From the North Almon / West A Street intersection north to West C Street, the existing 18-inch pipe would be replaced with a new 18-inch line to correct slope issues. A special consideration to note is that at manhole E17-07, the 21-inch pipe should be connected to the new 36-inch interceptor to prevent surcharging of the parallel 24-inch pipe. D Street Canal Crossing – Priority 2a This pipe is already listed as part of Priority 2. However, by the year 2030, development to the east will lead to surcharging in this line. Replacement (if not already completed) or increased maintenance may be necessary at this point. Orchard and SE Lift Stations Offline – Priority 3 & 4: Both the Orchard and SE Lift Stations can be serviced by gravity lines constructed to serve 2060 development areas. In both cases, and especially for the Orchard Lift Station, moving construction of these future pipelines up the priority list may be beneficial to eliminate pump station maintenance costs. For the Orchard Lift Station, approximately 1,830 ft of 10-inch gravity pipe is required to connect the lift station into the existing system. For the SE Lift Station, approximately 6,940 ft of 18-inch and 12-inch pipe is required to connect the lift station to the proposed industrial park 24-inch pipe. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 9 209088/3/11-113 Palouse River Drive 15” Interceptor – Priority 4a: This improvement involves replacing the existing 10-inch pipeline along the South Fork of the Palouse River (south of West Palouse River Drive) with a larger (15-inch) pipeline to transmit flow from development south of the river. The new larger line can be constructed at a shallower slope which will help depth and cover issues. As with the highway crossing, implementation of this improvement should take into consideration reuse and lift station projects along the river which may alter the necessity of this improvement and/or the flow directions in this new line. Pullman Road Interceptor – Priority 4b: This improvement involves replacing the existing 12- inch pipeline entering the Mall Lift Station from the east with a larger (21-inch) pipe up to manhole C17-03 at the Farm Road intersection. This replacement is in response to continued development northeast of the Mall, and would be triggered by upstream development of approximately 2900 ERUs. The sizing of this pipe considered the possibility of collecting a large area along Farm and Mix Roads at build-out. White Avenue to Mountain View Road 21-inch Interceptor – Priority 4c: At projected 2060 populations, the existing 18-inch clay pipe through the fairgrounds begins to approach 90% capacity, triggering replacement with a larger 21-inch pipe. The proposed route of the new pipe is to the southeast to avoid unnecessary street repair and damage to fairground buildings built over the existing pipe. The pipe would intercept flows coming from East White Avenue near manhole J20-12, and intercept all flows coming down Mountain View Road at manhole J20-06. Depending on the condition of the pipeline, the City may choose to proceed with this improvement prior to the pipeline reaching design capacity. Mountain View Road Canal Crossing – Priority 2a This pipe is already listed as part of Priority 2. However, at 2060 projected flows, the pipe between manholes J18-04 and J18-05 between E. 6th and E. 7th Streets along Mountain View Road becomes surcharged during peak hour events. Replacement, if not already completed, or increased maintenance may be necessary at this point. Farm Road 18-inch Interceptor – Priority 5a: This improvement would replace the 10-inch pipe along Farm Road between Pullman Road and West A Street with a larger (18-inch) pipe, in response to development along Farm and Mix Roads at build-out. N. Cleveland 12-inch Interceptor – Priority 5b: This improvement involves replacement of the existing 10-inch line along Cleveland Street from F Street to Thatuna Street with a 12-inch pipeline, in response to build-out of developments in the North Orchard Avenue and Trail Road vicinity. Although some sections could utilize pipe bursting technology, several sections also need correction of shallow slopes, requiring open trench construction. The exact location of the pipeline should be field verified, since the mapping indicates multiple sections that are under or very near residential structures. If the mapping is correct, an alternate alignment and extension of service lines may be a preferred alternative. Additionally, invert elevations and grades along F Street are such that a new pipe can also be constructed from manhole J14-05 to manhole J14-11 to direct flows from the north into the 18-inch interceptor in Mountain View Drive. This new diversion will relieve surcharging in the 10-inch pipe between F and B Streets. Redirect Diversions at J16-20 and South Cleveland 12” – Priority 5c: This priority item involves an operational and a capital improvement. Switching the plug at manhole J16-20 to direct flow south rather than east (current diversion) relieves peak hour surcharging in the 18- inch pipe, but causes some surcharging in the 10-inch clay pipe along South Cleveland and South Grant Streets. The City has a choice to either enlarge nearly 3,800 ft of 18-inch pipe ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 10 209088/3/11-113 and not change the diversion, or to replace approximately 2,000 ft of 10-inch pipe with the operational change to the diversion. For this planning study, it was assumed that the 10-inch clay line between B and 5th Streets would be replaced with a larger pipeline. Pipe bursting may be an acceptable construction technique that should be considered. Remaining Capacity Summary Table 6.3 summarizes the remaining capacities of existing pipelines. The City should use this for general planning purposes to determine when future improvements will be required. This table should be updated from time to time to reflect additional information the City gathers through future flow monitoring efforts, possible future reductions in infiltration and inflow resulting from rehabilitation efforts, and as additional data is made available. Table 6.3 – Development Levels Triggering Improvements Priority Improvement/Location Additional Upstream ERUs 1 1a 36” Paradise Creek Interceptor to Wastewater Treatment Plant 0 1a 30” Paradise Creek Interceptor extension Connect 30-inch “Dry Line” (along Troy Hwy) 0 1a North Main to North Polk 15-inch Interceptor 0 1b Troy Road / White Avenue Interceptor 0 2a Misc. “Maintenance” Pipes 0 3a US 95 ( South Main) 18-inch Crossing 340 3b South Main 18” / Styner to Sweet Avenue 1100 2 3c West 3rd to North Almon Interceptor 800-850 3d South Lift Station Upgrade 470 - D Street Canal Crossing 2300 4a West Palouse River Drive. 15-inch Interceptor 1150 4b Pullman Road 21-inch Interceptor 2900 4c White Avenue to Mountain View Road, 21-inch Interceptor 3200 3 4d South Lift Station Upgrade #2 6 4e Mall Lift Station Upgrade 1170 - Mountain View Road Canal Crossing 800 5a Farm Road 18-inch Interceptor 2300 5b N. Cleveland 12-inch Interceptor and Diversion 900 5c J20-16 Diversion 3400 4 5c S. Cleveland 12-inch Interceptor 850 5 5d South Lift Station Upgrade #3 6 5e Mall Lift Station Upgrade #2 6 ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit 1 Additional added to current 2010 system (at Peak Hour flows 1gpm = 2.6 ERUs) 2 Highly influenced by South Lift Station pumping capacity 3 Upstream of manhole J20-04 in Fairgrounds 18-inch interceptor 4 Upstream of manhole J16-08 in Mountain View Road 18-inch interceptor 5 Diverted flow 6 Dependant on capacity of previous upgrades, see Table 6.4 for projected flows ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 11 209088/3/11-113 The basis for capacity analysis is the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). An ERU is estimated as the amount of flow expected to come from a typical single home residence with an assumed number of persons per household. For this study, the assumed number of people per home was based on the 2000 census was 2.25 people/home. This number was used along with the peak hour per capita value in Table 4.6 (246 gpcd) to convert design capacity from gallons per minute to ERU. 6.3 LIFT STATIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS The City of Moscow currently operates four lift stations as shown in Figure 2.1. An evaluation of each lift station is included in the Technical Memo completed by USKH (see Appendix and an inventory of lift station attributes was previously provided in Table 2.3. Table 6.4 lists the current capacity of each lift station in comparison to existing and projected peak hour flows taken from the model. Table 6.4 – Lift Station Influent Flows vs. Existing Pumping Capacity Lift Station Pumping Capacity (gpm)* 2010 Peak Hour Flow (gpm) 2015 Peak Hour Flow (gpm) 2030 Peak Hour Flow (gpm) 2060 Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Build-out Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Orchard 210 34 34 35 NA NA Mall 1200 750 [PHONE REDACTED] 2700 SE 350 153 153 220 NA NA South 550 370 [PHONE REDACTED] 4350 Peak Hour Flows exceeding current capacities are noted with red text. * Pumping capacities assume one pump is off-line. As illustrated in the accompanying table, future expansion of the areas serviced by the Mall and South Lift Stations results in total flows that exceed the current pumping capacities of these stations. The Mall and South Lift Station will require repeated pumping capacity upgrades to service increasing future flows. Future Lift Station Capacity Analysis Standby Power At Lift Stations – Priority 2b: This improvement was identified by the City in the 2009 Budget Capital Program Outline to install onsite generators at the Mall, Orchard, and SE District lift station sites. Vulnerability Assessment – Priority 2c: This improvement was identified by the City in the 2009 Budget Capital Program Outline to fund a study determining necessary improvements to both infrastructure and operations to protect and safeguard lift stations per Homeland Security Department requirements. South Lift Station Upgrade – Priority 3d: The design point for the South Lift Station pumps targeted a flow of 850 gpm; however, actual performance is much lower on the pump curve. It is anticipated that, by replacing the current pumps with similar horsepower but higher head pumps, the required capacity for 2030 peak flows can be achieved without more extensive upgrades to the lift station (i.e. new wet well, larger pumps, building, and/or bigger generator). ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 12 209088/3/11-113 At the South Lift Station, the existing 10-inch pressure main begins to exceed 10 feet per second at 2,450 gpm. It is recommended that a second parallel pressure main be installed when within the 20-year planning period. A new pressure main will allow for decreased velocities in the pipeline, lower pump horsepower requirements, and pipeline redundancy which would allow continued lift station operation during pressure main maintenance or repairs. Increasing the pumping capacity of the South Lift Station also triggers replacement of gravity pipe along US 95 (South Main) as previously discussed under Priority 3 improvements. Considerations at the wastewater treatment plant should also be given in designing future upgrades to the South Lift Station. Take Orchard Lift Station offline – Priority 3e: This operational improvement should occur as soon as development between the lift station and E. Tamarack Drive initiates expansion of the gravity conveyance system in this area. Approximately 1,830 ft of gravity pipe is necessary to reach the lift station from the existing pipe on E. Tamarack Drive. South Lift Station Upgrade – Priority 4d: The design of this improvement is highly dependent on actual development and the design of the previous improvement 3d. For costing purposes it was assumed that this improvement would require the construction of an entire new parallel lift station including wet well, pumps, electrical, and generator to provide the required capacity for projected 2060 peak hour flows. Although gravity piping was evaluated at higher 2060 flows, lift station design should still consider the effects of increased pumping rates on the capacities of pipes. Likewise, the effects of increased pumping capacity on the operations of the WWTP should be considered in design of both the future lift station and WWTP improvements. Mall Lift Station Upgrade – Priority 4e: At the Mall Lift Station, the existing 15-inch pressure main will be adequate for future pressure flows, however, larger pumps are required for projected 2060 peak hour flows. Increased capacity of the Mall Lift Station does not affect any gravity pipe due to its proximity to the WWTP headworks, but the effects of increased capacity on the operations of the headworks should be considered in design of both future lift station and WWTP improvements. Take SE Lift Station offline: This operational improvement should occur once development along the South Fork of the Palouse River or the need to redirect flows (i.e. recycle water) initiates installation of the 18-inch trunkline along the River. Approximately 10,600 ft of gravity pipe is necessary to reach the SE Lift Station from the South Lift Station. South Lift Station Upgrade – Priority 5d: This improvement is anticipated to be required when flows approximately double those projected for the previous improvement 4d. All the considerations of the 4d improvement are pertinent again here. Design should also consider the possibilities of relocating the new lift station further down the South Fork of the Palouse River to accommodate additional development to the west, the City’s evaluation and possible locations of future reuse alternatives, and even the possibility of a second treatment facility and discharge point along the South Fork Palouse River. Mall Lift Station Upgrade – Priority 5e: The design of this improvement is highly dependent on actual development and the design of the previous improvement 4e. For costing purposes it was assumed that this improvement would require the construction of an entire new lift station including wet well, pumps, electrical, and generator to provide the required capacity for projected peak hour flows at buildout. Increased capacity of the Mall Lift Station does not affect any gravity pipe due to its proximity to the WWTP headworks, but the effects ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 13 209088/3/11-113 of increased capacity on the operations of the headworks should be considered in design of both future lift station and WWTP improvements. 6.4 DIVERSION MANHOLE ANALYSIS The City of Moscow collection system has multiple diversion manholes which allow for splitting of flows between sewer basins and/or interceptors. The location of these diversions is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Optimizing the use of these diversion points can provide flexibility and extend the capacity life of some pipelines. Several of these diversions are affected by proposed improvements as summarized in Table 6.5 and discussed below. Proposed Diversion Manhole Improvements Table 6.5 – Diversion Manhole Operational Improvements OP Manhole ID Location Proposed Alterations Year - E17-07 On West 3rd Street, near South Home Street Lower bypass pipe as part of Priority 1a to enable parallel pipes to better share the flow 2012 #5 E17-07 On West 3rd Street, near South Home Street Direct flow from Priority 3c to south 36-inch trunkline by 2030 - E17-07 On West 3rd Street, near South Home Street Redirect flow from Priority 3c to north trunkline by build-out population #1 E17-20 North of UI Student Recreation Center, west of Line Street / West 3rd Street intersection Open bypass valve to allow surcharge relief 2012 - E18-15 Ghormley Park, north of West 6th Street / Deakin Avenue intersection Lower bypass pipe as part of Priority 1a to enable parallel pipes to better share the flow 2012 - F15-11 On West E Street, between North Almon Street and North Main Street None NA - F16-09 West A Street and North Asbury Street Remove as part of Priority 3c by 2030 - F17-10 West 3rd Street and North Asbury Street Remove as part of Priority 3c by 2030 - F18-24 On Deakin Avenue, south of West 6th Street None NA - F19-14 On College Street, east of South Jackson Street West 8th Street intersection None NA #3 F20-01 Sweet Avenue and Deakin Avenue Remove plug to North 18” dry line after completion of Priority 1a 2013 #2 G20-09 On Troy Hwy, west of South Adams Street Install plug to west, Open connection to 30” dry line after completion of Priority 1a 2013 - H20-16 Troy Road and South Harrison Street None NA #4 I20-12 Kenneth Street and South Blaine Street Install plug to west by 2015 #6 J14-05 E. F Street and N. Cleveland Create new diversion by build-out population #7 J16-20 In Field north of East B Street, between North Grant Street and North Cleveland Street Switch plug so open to south & closed to east by build-out population * see Figure 6.4 E17-07: This diversion occurs at the confluence of sets of parallel lines from both the east and south. The east parallel lines will be replaced by a Priority 3 improvement which should be constructed to allow diversion into either the existing 24-inch or future 36-inch parallel interceptor pipelines. Lowering the diversion pipe between these parallel lines will allow for a true flow split between the parallel lines, rather than just surcharge relief. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 14 209088/3/11-113 E17-20: This diversion is controlled by a bypass valve which is currently closed. Once the 36-inch pipeline to the WWTP is completed, this valve should be opened to allow relief of current surcharging into the 36-inch pipe. E18-15: This diversion is an elevated relief between parallel trunklines. It occurs at the junction of flows coming from the South Lift Station and a large portion of the UI campus. This diversion is the first opportunity for balancing flows from these areas between the parallel lines. Lowering the diversion pipe between these parallel lines will allow for a more equitable flow split between the parallel lines rather than just surcharge relief. F20-01: This existing diversion is currently plugged; however, to relieve surcharging in a shallow pipe along Sweet Avenue and other diversions, this plug should be removed once the 30-inch dryline extension improvement is completed. This diversion will also need to be open in the future to allow transmission of increased flows from the South Lift Station. G20-09: This diversion is currently an elevated bypass which will need to be lowered in order for flows from the existing 18-inch interceptor to be diverted into the existing 30-inch dryline. I20-12: This diversion is currently open in both directions, and elevations and pipe sizes indicate the majority of flow should be directed to the southeast into the 18” interceptor. However, field observations and flow monitoring data indicate a majority of the flow actually flows west into the 10-inch pipe. Plugging this line to force flows into the 18-inch interceptor is not necessary to prevent surcharging, but will direct flow into the proposed parallel interceptor system rather than along a much longer path of older clay pipe. J16-20: This diversion becomes a major player once the city reaches build-out populations. By switching the plug to direct flows south, the City can decrease the amount of flow in the 18-inch main along Mountain View Road and prevent surcharging in this line. J14-05: This diversion will be created as part of Priority 5 improvements and will direct flows from the Orchard Street area into the 18-inch main along Mountain View Road sooner than the J16-20 diversion. This prevents surcharging in the 10-inch pipe between J14-05 and J16-20. 6.5 OTHER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS Sewer Department Operations Facility – Priority 3f: This improvement was identified by the City in the 2009 Budget Capital Program Outline for construction of a new building at a new site for use by the sewer department. The location could be at the existing Street Department site or in conjunction with a new Public Works Maintenance facility at a new undetermined site. 6.6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSIDERATIONS The scope of this study did not include an evaluation of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). However, future flows are compared to reported treatment capacities. The reported average day WWTP design flow of 4 MGD is not exceeded until close to the end of the 50-year planning period considered for this study. The reported peak hour flow of ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 6 - 15 209088/3/11-113 10 MGD is anticipated to be exceeded when the population reaches approximately 27,700 people (before year 2018). With peak influent flows in excess of 10 MGD, a portion of the flow at the headworks facility would need to bypass existing screening facilities. The influent pump station, with a reported capacity of 15 MGD, should be adequate until close to the end of the 50-year planning period. During high flow events the existing primary clarifier can be used for flow attenuation. Depending on the amount of attenuation of peak flows in the treatment plant, the disinfection system should be sufficient for flows up to 6 MGD. To accommodate flows in excess of 6 MGD, modifications to the disinfection system operations and/or facilities may be required. The existing capacity of the filters will be exceeded when flows exceed approximately 7.2 MGD. Keller Associates recommends that the treatment plant treatment biological/chemical model be reevaluated using the new design influent flows developed as part of this study. This will allow the City to better determine when future oxidation ditch, RAS, WAS, filter, and disinfection capacity are needed. If applicable, seasonal permit limits should be considered in evaluating plant capacities in that peak flow rates are anticipated to occur during the winter and early spring. Additionally, attenuation of peak hour flows through the plant should be considered. If enough storage within the plant can be provided, it may be possible to reduce peak flow rates from peak hour values to peak day values documented in this report (i.e. from 11.2 MGD in 2030 to 7.5 MGD in 2030). ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 7 - 1 209088/3/11-113 7.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This chapter discusses the capital improvement plan based on the recommended improvements to the conveyance system. It outlines the capital improvement schedule, planning level costs, and other recommendations for implementation. 7.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements presented in this capital improvements plan (CIP) are described in Chapter 6. An overview of the entire Master Plan, including system expansion and the priority of improvement projects, is illustrated in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. The cost sheets included in Appendix H illustrate the location of each proposed improvement along with a brief description of the project. Priorities 1 through 5 improvements are focused on correcting existing and future capacity issues. Priority 1a improvements correct existing surcharging and flooding risks. Priority 1b improvements address pipelines where a high potential for surcharging exists (current utilized capacity Priority 2 improvements address localized concerns due to pipe segments with low or flat slopes. Priority 3 improvements are necessary by the year 2030 to address anticipated future issues due to 20-year projected growth. Priority 4 improvements are necessary by the year 2060 to address anticipated future issues due to 50-year projected growth. Priority 5 improvements are necessary to address anticipated future issues due to build-out of the entire study area. The amount of growth in equivalent residential units (ERUs) necessary to trigger each improvement was previously presented in Table 6.4. 7.2 COST METHODOLOGY In determining an opinion of probable costs of the proposed projects, Keller Associates developed a unit cost sheet listing construction items typical of pipeline projects. These unit costs were developed based on recent bids for projects in Moscow and other projects Keller Associates has overseen. Cost summary sheets were then developed for each project, outlining estimated quantities of items, unit cost, and total cost. These unit cost data, cost sheets and summary tables can be found in Appendix H. Table 7.1 summarizes the planning level cost estimates for each improvement. In addition to the capacity-related projects listed in Table 7.1, the City should also budget for annual rehabilitation and replacement of aging and deteriorating sections of the system. A technical memorandum outlining the recommended actions is included in Appendix C. The memo recommends multiple operational actions including upgrading inspection equipment, improved inspection and cleaning schedules, and pretreatment programs, which were not assigned a cost since the City currently budgets for these activities. The memo does identify that the City should budget $718,000/year across the next 40 years to replace the existing 43.5 miles of asbestos cement, clay, and concrete pipe. This estimate approximates replacing 6,000 feet of pipe per year. Where capital improvements are anticipated to be funded by growth, only the system expansion oversize costs were included. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 7 - 2 209088/3/11-113 Table 7.1 – Estimated Capital Improvement Plan Project Costs ID# Item Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Future Total* Priority 1 Improvements (2012) 1A.1 36" Interceptor to WWTP $ 1,308,000 1A.2 30" Paradise Creek Interceptor $ 1,119,000 1A.3 N. Main to N. Polk 15" Main $ 600,000 1B Troy Rd / White Ave Interceptor $ 881,000 Total Priority 1 Improvements $ 3,908,000 Priority 2 Improvements (by 2015) 2 Miscellaneous Slope Corrections $ 651,000 2B Standby Power All Lift Stations $ 175,000 2C Vulnerability Assessment $ 35,000 2D System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 8,000 Total Priority 2 Improvements $ 869,000 Priority 3 Improvements (by 2030) 3A US 95 / S. Main Crossing $ 143,000 3B S. Main 18" - Styner to Sweet Ave $ 330,000 3C W. 3rd to N. Almon Interceptor $ 818,000 3D Upgrade South Lift Station & New Force Main $ 854,000 3E Orchard L.S. Relief Interceptor $ 175,000 3F Sewer Dept. Operations Facility $ 2,000,000 3G System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 405,000 Total Priority 3 Improvements $ 4,725,000 Priority 4 Improvements (by 2060) 4A W. Palouse River Dr. 15" $ 350,000 4B Pullman Rd 21" Interceptor $ 318,000 4C White Ave to Mtn View Rd 21" Interceptor $ 419,000 4D Upgrade South Lift Station $ 1,158,000 4E Upgrade Mall Lift Station $ 929,000 4F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 440,000 Total Priority 3 Improvements $ 3,614,000 Future Improvements (by Build-out) 5A Farm Road 18" Interceptor $ 304,000 5B N. Cleveland 12" & Diversion $ 460,000 5C Diversion & S. Cleveland 12" $ 311,000 5D Upgrade South Lift Station $ 1,538,000 5E Upgrade Mall Lift Station $ 1,234,000 5F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 178,000 Future Improvements $ 4,025,000 TOTAL (rounded) $ 3,908,000 $ 869,000 $4,725,000 $ 3,614,000 $ 4,025,000 $17,141,000 Notes: 1. All costs in 2011 Dollars. Costs include engineering and contingencies. 2. Costs in above table do not include an estimated $718,000/yr for pipeline rehabilitation and replacement. Additionally, costs do not include upgrade costs that may be required at the wastewater treatment plant to accommodate future increases in flow. 3. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 7 - 3 209088/3/11-113 Cost Apportionment to Growth As the city system expands and improvements are required, a portion of total pipeline capacity is required to convey current flows and a portion of the capacity is necessary to allow for increased flows due to growth. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect new development to pay for the additional capacity of the improvements constructed to service system expansion. The apportionment of total project costs to growth falls into one of three main categories described below.  For Priority 1 projects, where current pipe size is insufficient to convey current peak flows, larger pipe is required immediately. However, these projects should be sized to also accommodate future growth. The total capacity of the new pipeline, the capacity needed for current peak flows, and the remaining capacity available for future flows were determined. Then, the percent of total capacity available for future flows was utilized as the percent of project costs attributed to growth.  For Priority 2 projects that correct existing slope and grade issues, project objectives are to eliminate current bottlenecks while also preventing future surcharging. Therefore, the percent of total future flows (calculated using projected 2060 flows) coming from new growth was utilized as the percent of project cost that is attributed to growth.  For all other future priority pipeline projects, where current capacity is sufficient for current flows, the entire cost of the project was attributed to growth. Table 7.2 lists the percentage and total cost attributed to growth for each proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 7 - 4 209088/3/11-113 Table 7.2 – Growth Apportionment of CIP Costs Total Estimated Cost Growth Apportionment City’s Estimated Portion ID# Item % Cost Priority 1 Improvements (2011) 1A.1 36" Interceptor to WWTP $ 1,308,000 63% $ 818,000 $ 490,000 1A.2 30" Paradise Creek Interceptor $ 1,119,000 63% $ 705,000 $ 414,000 1A.3 N. Main to N. Polk 15" Main $ 600,000 66% $ 395,000 $ 205,000 1B Troy Rd / White Ave Interceptor $ 881,000 73% $ 643,000 $ 238,000 Total Priority 1 Improvements $ 3,908,000 $ 2,561,000 $ 1,347,000 Priority 2 Improvements (2015) 2 Miscellaneous Slope Corrections $ 651,000 40% $ 262,000 $ 389,000 2B Standby Power All Lift Stations $ 175,000 50% $ 87,000 $ 88,000 2C Vulnerability Assessment $ 35,000 0% $ 0 $ 35,000 2F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 8,000 100% $ 8,000 $ 0 Total Priority 2 Improvements $ 869,000 $ 357,000 $ 512,000 Priority 3 Improvements (2030) 3A US 95 / S. Main Crossing $ 143,000 100% $ 143,000 $ 0 3B S. Main 18" - Styner to Sweet Ave $ 330,000 100% $ 330,000 $ 0 3C W. 3rd to N. Almon Interceptor $ 818,000 100% $ 818,000 $ 0 3D Upgrade South Lift Station & New Force Main $ 854,000 100% $ 854,000 $ 0 3E Orchard L.S. Relief Interceptor $ 175,000 5% $ 8,000 $ 167,000 3F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 405,000 100% $ 405,000 $ 0 3G Sewer Dept. Operations Facility $ 2,000,000 50% $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Total Priority 3 Improvements $ 4,725,000 $ 3,558,000 $ 1,167,000 Priority 4 Improvements (2060) 4A W. Palouse River Dr. 15" $ 350,000 100% $ 350,000 $ 0 4B Pullman Rd 21" Interceptor $ 318,000 100% $ 318,000 $ 0 4C White Ave to Mtn View Rd 21" Interceptor $ 419,000 100% $ 419,000 $ 0 4D Upgrade South Lift Station $ 1,158,000 100% $ 1,158,000 $ 0 4E Upgrade Mall Lift Station $ 929,000 100% $ 929,000 $ 0 4F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 440,000 100% $ 440,000 $ 0 Total Priority 4 Improvements $ 3,614,000 $ 3,614,000 $ 0 Future Improvements (Build-out) 5A Farm Road 18" Interceptor $ 304,000 100% $ 304,000 $ 0 5B N. Cleveland 12" & Diversion $ 460,000 100% $ 460,000 $ 0 5C Diversion & S. Cleveland 12" $ 311,000 100% $ 311,000 $ 0 5D Upgrade South Lift Station $ 1,538,000 100% $ 1,538,000 $ 0 5E Upgrade Mall Lift Station $ 1,234,000 100% $ 1,234,000 $ 0 5F System Expansion Oversize Costs $ 178,000 100% $ 178,000 $ 0 Future Improvements $ 4,025,000 $ 4,025,000 $ 0 TOTAL (rounded) $17,141,000 $ 14,115,000 $ 3,026,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 8 - 1 209088/3/11-113 8.0 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT This chapter provides a summary of the current financial condition of the City’s sewer fund, discusses alternative financing programs, and recommends a financial strategy. The scope of this effort is intended to be a general overview. The City is currently completing a more comprehensive user rate study. The recommendations of this report should be incorporated into the user rate models developed as part of the user rate study. 8.1 PAST AND PRESENT FINANCIAL CONDITION Keller Associates reviewed financial data provided by the City of Moscow for 2006-2010. Summary budget information can be found in Appendix I. Both operating expenses and revenues have increased by $1.1 million to $1.2 million per year over this time. The large increase in expenses can be partially attributed to large increases in the debt obligation ($445,000 increase from 2006 to 2010), transfers to general fund ($281,000 increase) and fleet fund ($221,000 increase), and an almost 50% increase in commodities costs ($264,000 increase, of which utility and biosolids disposal costs account for $159,000). The City currently has two outstanding sewer bonds. In 2002, the City entered into a 20-year loan on $8,255,000 to fund facility upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant. In 2008, the City entered into another 20-year loan for $6,000,000. The combined annual obligation of these loans is approximately $1,240,000. According to City staff, the City does not have a legal bonding limit for sewer revenue bonds, and may need to secure additional loan funds in the future for needed collection and treatment improvements. The City of Moscow is currently updating their wastewater utility rate study. This effort will involve a determination of rate impacts associated with the capital improvement plan summarized in Chapter 7. As part of this effort, Keller Associates recommends that user rates be increased to fund Priority 1 improvements and to begin funding an annual pipeline replacement / rehabilitation program. Additionally, the rate analysis should consider phasing an additional two full-time equivalent employees for collection system operations and maintenance. 8.2 CAPITAL FINANCING ALTERNATIVES AND APPROACHES A variety of funding resources exist in both the private and public sector if projects meet certain criteria. Some of those grant and loan resources that could be available to the City of Moscow include the following.  Department of Environmental Quality, State Revolving Loan Fund – The SRF program has experienced significant changes over the last few years. The SRF program is funded by a combination of repayment of loans previously made by DEQ and grant money supplied by EPA. Owners of public water systems can apply for SRF funds annually through a competitive application process which generally has an application deadline around January. Applications are ranked by state officials based on need, sustainability, and other criteria. Davis-Bacon wages are required. Currently, loan terms can range from 20 to 30 years, and interest rates range from 0% to 1.75% depending on applicant user rates and median household income. If the user rates are high enough, applicants may qualify for principal forgiveness. DEQ is required to commit a significant percentage of available loan funds to sustainable, energy-efficient, and “green” infrastructure improvements. Consequently, elements ---PAGE BREAK--- September 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN CITY OF MOSCOW 8 - 2 209088/3/11-113 that meet the “green” infrastructure qualifications may receive priority for funding. Judicial confirmation or voter approval in a bond election is required for this funding source.  Department of Commerce and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – The Department of Commerce offers a number of grant programs for public wastewater system improvements. Eligibility for these funds is dependent on several factors including need for the improvements, low-moderate income status, and job creation/retention potential. Grants up to $500,000 are available through community programs. Applicants must secure the services of a certified grant administrator to administer grant money and follow other grant requirements. There is an annual application window for applying for these funds which generally has a deadline around November.  Special Congressional Appropriations – Keller Associates has assisted a number of communities to obtain congressional grants. The applications for these grants are typically due around February. Grants are typically less than $1,000,000 in a given year. Administration of the grants for sewer projects is usually through the Army Corps of Engineers or through DEQ (EPA Stag Grants). Typically a match of 50% or more is encouraged. In recent years, there has been increased competition and relatively few grants provided.  Local & Private – In addition to federal and state funding programs, there are local and private funding sources available. These include local improvement districts (LIDs), business improvement districts (BIDs), an urban renewal district, the municipal bond market (with voter approval), connection fees, and development agreements with developers. 8.3 RECOMMENDED FINANCIAL STRATEGY Funding needed system improvements will require that user rates and connection fees (and impact fees) be properly established. The existing user rates are not adequate to provide sufficient revenues needed for system replacements. Additional rate increases may be required to finance Priority 1 improvements. Connection fees and impact fees should be established to allow for growth to pay for their share of future improvements. Keller Associates also recommends that user rates and connection fees be updated annually to account for inflation, and that rates be reevaluated in depth every 3-5 years. Public financing in the form of additional debt may be required to implement planned improvements. In terms of state and federal programs, the City should pursue low interest DEQ loan funds for Priority 1 improvements. However, the City should be aware that collection system improvements generally rank lower than treatment plant improvements. Therefore, the City should be prepared to finance Priority 1 improvements without the assistance of state and federal programs. With regard to the ongoing financial relationship with the S.E. Moscow Water & Sewer District, City-related operation and maintenance expenses are not tracked separately for services provided to the District. City staff reports that the level of service and maintenance activities within the District is comparable to services rendered in other parts of the City. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Keller Associates recommends that the City consider formally taking over ownership of District facilities. This may require that the City continue to provide wastewater service at the rate charged residences within the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A FIGURES ---PAGE BREAK---



 ORCHARD-LIFTSTATION MALL-LIFTSTATION SOUTH-LIFTSTATION SE-LIFTSTATION WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT E17-20 I20-12 H20-16 G20-09 F15-11 F18-24 J16-20 E18-15 E17-07 US 95 F17-10 F19-14 F20-01 F16-09 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 2-1 Jurisdiction.mxd LEGEND
 Lift Station Diversion Manholes Manhole Pipe Size 6" or Less 6" FM 8" 10" 10" FM 12" 14" 15" 15" FM 18" 20" - 21" 24" 36" U of I Pipes Figure: Title: Project: 2.1 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK---



 E17-20 I20-12 H20-16 G20-09 F15-11 F18-24 J16-20 E18-15 E17-07 US 95 F17-10 F19-14 F20-01 F16-09 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 2-2 Pipe Material.mxd LEGEND
 Diversion Manholes Streets_Moscow Pipe Material Unknown Asbestos Clay Concrete PVC PVC - FM Transite U of I Pipes Figure: Title: Project: 2.2 PIPE MATERIAL Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ORCHARD-LIFTSTATION SE-LIFTSTATION SOUTH-LIFTSTATION MALL-LIFTSTATION WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ---PAGE BREAK---



 US 95 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 2-3 Lift Station Basins.mxd LEGEND
 Lift Station Existing System Force Mains Mall L.S. Sewer Shed Orchard L.S. Sewer Shed SE L.S. Sewer Shed South L.S. Sewer Shed Existing System Pipes U of I Pipes Figure: Title: Project: 2.3 EXISTING LIFT STATION BASINS Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ORCHARD-LIFTSTATION MALL-LIFTSTATION WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SE-LIFTSTATION SOUTH-LIFTSTATION ---PAGE BREAK---



 É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 2-4 Topographic Map.mxd LEGEND
 Existing Lift Stations Existing System Pipes U of I Pipes 10ft Contour Boundary Study_Area Figure: Title: Project: 2.4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- US 95 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 3-1 Study Area.mxd LEGEND City Limits Impact Area Study Area Figure: Title: Project: 3.1 STUDY AREA Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- US 95 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 3-2 Growth Area Phasing.mxd LEGEND Study Area Future Growth Horizon, Land Use 50, COM_GEN 50, COM_IND 50, LR 50, HR 20, COM_GEN 20, COM_IND 20, Mixed 20, LR 20, HR 5, COM_GEN 5, COM_IND 5, Mixed 5, LR 5, HR Figure: Title: Project: 3.2 GROWTH AREA PHASING Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- US 95 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 3-3 Jurisdiction.mxd LEGEND SE Sewer District Univeristy of Idaho Pipes City of Moscow Pipes Jurisdiction Boundaries Owner SE Moscow W&S District University of Idaho Campus Study Area Figure: Title: Project: 3.3 JURISDICTION MAP Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK---
 SE-LIFTSTATION SH 8 - TROY RD WHITE AVE WHITE AVE HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD EIGHTH ST THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST WOOD ST É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 3-4 SE Sewer District.mxd LEGEND
 Liftstation Manholes Existing Force Mains Gravity Pipe Owner SE Moscow W&S District Boundary SE LS Potential Gravity Service Area Figure: Title: Project: 3.4 SOUTHEAST SEWER DISTRICT Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- É LEGEND Potential Application Sites Existing Parks Future Parks Figure: Title: Project: 5.2 POTENTIAL WATER RECLAMATION APPLICATION SITES Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN Mt. View Park Kiwanis Park Ballfield Oyler Field Lena Whitmore Park East City Park Joseph Street Playfields Eastgate Park Fire Tower Park Lions Park Memorial Gardens Cemetery Alturas Park Ghormley Park Berman Park Frontier Anderson Park Ballfield Complex 0 1,500 3,000 750 Feet Indian Hills #6 Park Indian Hills #8 Park SE Tank Site Salisbury Park Lola Clyde Park Moser Park White Ave. Round-a-bout Rotary Park Dog Park Path: P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 5-2 Potential Reclamation.mxd Lieuallen Park Herons Hideout ---PAGE BREAK--- hg hg hg É LEGEND hg Scalping Plant Potential Reclaimed Water Pipeline Potential Application Sites Area 1 - Existing Area 2 - Existing Area 3 - Existing Area 1 - Future Area 2 - Future Other Figure: Title: Project: 5.3 POTENTIAL WATER RECLAMATION APPLICATION AREAS AND SCALPING FACILITIES Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN Mt. View Park Kiwanis Park Ballfield Oyler Field Lena Whitmore Park East City Park Joseph Street Playfields Eastgate Park Fire Tower Park Lions Park Memorial Gardens Cemetery Alturas Park Ghormley Park Berman Park Frontier Anderson Park Ballfield Complex 0 1,500 3,000 750 Feet Indian Hills #6 Park Indian Hills #8 Park SE Tank Site Salisbury Park Lola Clyde Park Moser Park AREA #3 REUSE SHED AREA #1 REUSE SHED SOUTH EAST L.S. SITE REUSE SHED AREA #2 REUSE SHED White Ave. Round-a-bout Rotary Park Dog Park Path: P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 5-3 Potential Reclamation.mxd #1 #2 #3 Lieuallen Park Herons Hideout From WWTP ---PAGE BREAK---



 J15-07 I20-16 I21-04 J20-09 J16-06 J16-21 J21-06 J20-10 I20-22 F15-04 F16-15 G19-21 H21-01 H14-06 J20-11 US 95 G18-01 K19-01 H13-05 F19-10 SH 8 - PULLMAN RD SH 8 - TROY RD STREET STREET MAIN ST MAIN ST WHITE AVE WHITE AVE STREET BLAKE ST TAYLOR AVE EIGHTH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR SIXTH ST SIXTH ST SIXTH ST THIRD ST. JACKSON ST JACKSON ST US 95 - MAIN ST POLK ST HAYES ST KENNETH AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD THIRD ST JOSEPH ST SPOTSWOOD ST STREET STREET WASHINGTON ST ORCHARD AVE É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 6-1 Flow Monitoring Sites.mxd LEGEND Manholes Monitored May - June 2010 Manholes Monitored - April 2010 Manholes Monitored Fall '09 - Spring '10
 Lift Station Manhole Figure: Title: Project: 6.1 FLOW MONITORING SITES Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T T D17-11 D17-12 E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 8 6 12 21 20 24 18 4 10 14 48 36 15 6 8 8 12 6 18 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 18 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 18 15 8 24 8 10 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 20 8 6 8 12 10 12 10 8 6 6 18 10 10 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 18 6 10 6 12 6 8 15 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 12 8 8 8 6 8 18 20 12 8 12 8 18 12 18 8 10 10 18 8 8 6 6 8 8 36 8 10 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 10 10 8 10 12 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 10 8 6 8 8 6 18 8 6 6 18 8 6 18 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 6 8 18 6 8 18 6 10 6 6 8 15 12 8 8 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 15 6 10 10 8 10 12 18 8 8 24 8 12 6 12 10 10 6 8 6 6 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 24 24 8 8 36 8 8 8 12 8 8 18 8 8 8 18 10 8 12 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 24 18 8 8 10 6 8 6 10 6 18 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 18 18 8 8 15 8 6 36 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 10 10 10 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 10 10 8 10 6 6 6 8 8 10 8 6 6 24 6 18 18 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 15 10 36 18 8 8 6 8 6 15 8 10 10 12 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 18 10 8 6 10 6 10 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 18 8 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 18 8 6 6 10 8 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 6 6 24 8 8 8 6 10 8 18 6 8 18 8 8 18 6 8 12 8 6 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 8 20 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 12 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 10 18 18 18 8 6 10 6 6 10 18 8 8 14 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 14 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 18 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 12 24 8 6 10 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 24 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 14 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 14 6 8 10 8 18 10 6 6 10 10 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 24 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 10 6 18 10 8 8 8 8 12 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 6 6 10 6 8 10 6 24 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 8 6 18 15 18 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 15 6 8 24 8 18 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 12 8 8 10 8 24 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 6 10 6 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 10 10 6 8 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 12 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 8 18 10 6 8 6 8 8 12 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 6 12 6 6 8 18 6 24 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 10 20 8 18 20 8 18 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 10 8 18 8 6 6 8 10 6 12 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 10 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 10 10 8 10 12 6 6 6 10 6 8 6 8 4 8 8 6 10 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 6 12 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 24 8 6 6 6 15 8 8 6 6 6 18 6 6 8 6 12 12 8 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 6 8 8 6 10 6 10 6 10 10 24 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 36 8 6 10 8 6 6 15 6 15 8 6 18 8 18 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 18 6 6 8 10 24 10 8 6 10 8 6 10 10 8 6 8 18 8 8 12 6 10 15 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 12 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 12 10 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 12 8 6 8 12 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 24 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 12 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 24 10 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 24 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 18 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 10 10 10 10 10 6 8 10 18 6 4 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 4 8 24 6 10 8 18 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 6 8 8 6 14 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 18 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 6 8 6 12 Legend Study_Area CurrentLandUse Flow as % of Max Capacity 0%_No Modeled Flow 0-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged Potential Overflow Points P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Figure: Title: Project: 6.2 EXISTING SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN É ---PAGE BREAK---



 E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST N MAIN ST / US-95 W 6TH ST PULLMAN RD / SH-8 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR ORCHARD AVE FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE WASHINGTON ST W 3RD ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 8 6 12 20 24 18 4 10 14 48 36 15 30 8 6 18 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 6 8 18 18 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 36 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 15 12 8 8 12 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 18 8 8 10 6 6 8 14 10 6 8 8 10 10 18 6 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 6 8 8 8 6 24 10 12 18 8 8 8 6 10 15 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 6 24 18 6 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 8 10 15 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 18 18 18 6 8 6 10 6 10 6 12 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 6 18 8 30 8 6 8 12 10 10 10 8 8 6 18 6 10 10 6 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 18 6 6 10 6 10 6 6 8 8 18 6 8 8 18 12 6 6 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 4 6 8 30 15 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 18 10 8 10 8 18 8 8 8 8 10 10 12 8 8 18 10 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 24 12 8 6 6 18 6 10 6 6 10 10 8 6 8 10 8 10 12 20 6 8 18 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 10 8 6 24 12 24 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 15 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 14 12 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 6 12 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 15 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 12 24 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 6 8 8 6 8 24 6 6 8 10 8 18 8 6 12 18 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 18 8 6 8 6 10 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 36 8 6 10 6 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 12 8 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 24 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 36 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 15 8 6 6 8 6 6 18 10 24 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 36 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 12 10 18 8 8 6 8 8 12 10 8 6 8 12 6 8 6 12 10 6 18 6 8 10 8 8 6 10 8 10 24 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 18 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 24 6 18 8 18 10 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 6 8 4 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 30 6 24 6 8 6 14 10 8 12 6 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 18 6 6 8 10 12 10 8 10 6 18 8 8 24 10 6 18 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 18 6 8 6 18 12 6 15 8 12 10 8 10 8 6 10 12 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 12 10 8 8 6 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 20 10 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 24 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 18 8 18 8 10 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 20 12 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 6 10 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 10 8 12 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 18 8 15 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 10 8 15 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 18 8 10 10 10 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 12 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 6 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 12 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 18 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 15 8 8 6 8 18 6 6 6 18 6 12 12 8 6 24 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 24 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 18 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 24 8 8 6 6 8 8 24 8 18 18 15 8 6 10 6 6 15 15 8 8 8 24 10 8 6 8 10 8 6 18 8 10 6 6 10 8 10 24 10 12 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 10 6 6 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 10 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 10 18 8 10 6 8 8 12 8 12 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 10 10 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 6 12 8 6 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 14 8 8 8 8 10 24 10 8 8 6 8 8 12 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 14 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 20 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 8 10 10 6 8 10 8 18 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 18 6 10 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 36 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 12 15 10 8 8 10 10 8 12 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 12 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 10 12 18 10 8 12 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 12 18 12 8 8 8 10 8 10 12 18 10 8 8 8 8 10 18 12 8 15 8 18 10 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 15 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 6-3 System Expansion.mxd LEGEND Expansion Priorities ZONE Existing 2010 2015 (pop. 26,768) 2030 (pop. 33,072) 2060 (pop. 50,486) Buildout (pop. 73,889)
 Lift Station Study_Area Figure: Title: Project: 6.3 MASTER PLAN - SYSTEM EXPANSION Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK---



 3b 3d Op.#5 Upgrade Pumps Take L.S. Offline Op. #7 Op. #6 Upgrade Pumps Take L.S. Offline Op. #2 Op. #3 Op. #1 Op. #4 1a 1a 1a 1b 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3e 3c 3a 4a 4c 4b 5b 5c 5a 36'' 15'' 30'' 36'' 21'' 18'' 18'' 10'' 18'' 21'' 10'' 18'' 18'' 10'' 15'' 21'' 18'' 21'' 12'' 18'' 12'' E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST N MAIN ST / US-95 W 6TH ST PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR É P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 6-4 Improvement Projects.mxd LEGEND Existing 2010 System TYPE Gravity Force Main ZONE, PHASE Improvement Priority 1a - Now Improvement Priority 1b - Now Improvement Priority 2 - 2015 Improvement Priority 3 - by 2030 pop. Improvement Priority 4 - by 2060 pop. Improvement Priority 5 - by Buildout pop.
 Lift Station Study_Area Figure: Title: Project: 6.4 MASTER PLAN - IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN Development Driven ---PAGE BREAK---         3b 3d Op.#5 Upgrade Pumps Take L.S. Offline Op. #7 Op. #6 Upgrade Pumps Take L.S. Offline Op. #2 Op. #3 Op. #1 Op. #4 1a 1a 1a 1b 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3e 3c 3b 3a 4a 4c 4b 5b 5c 5a 36'' 15'' 30'' 36'' 21'' 18'' 18'' 12'' 10'' 18'' 21'' 10'' 18'' 18'' 18'' 10'' 15'' 21'' 18'' 21'' 12'' 18'' 12'' E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST N MAIN ST / US-95 W 6TH ST S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE WASHINGTON ST W 3RD ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 8 6 12 21 20 24 18 4 10 48 36 15 30 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 24 18 18 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 10 18 10 10 10 6 8 10 10 6 10 8 10 12 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 12 18 6 6 6 10 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 18 12 6 8 8 8 6 15 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 24 8 10 6 10 18 8 8 8 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 18 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 18 10 8 6 8 8 12 10 10 8 8 36 18 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 12 6 8 6 8 6 18 15 6 8 6 6 18 18 8 6 8 10 6 6 6 30 18 6 15 12 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 8 6 6 18 12 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 15 10 8 6 10 18 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 6 18 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 6 8 10 10 12 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 10 18 8 8 12 6 15 8 8 15 8 8 10 6 10 8 6 8 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 10 10 10 18 6 10 8 6 6 18 6 6 6 6 18 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 10 8 6 6 6 8 18 12 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 18 6 6 12 8 18 8 8 6 30 8 8 8 8 6 8 15 18 10 10 6 8 20 12 8 6 8 6 20 8 18 8 10 24 6 6 8 8 10 10 8 6 10 8 10 6 8 6 8 10 18 10 12 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 10 8 10 6 6 10 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 8 12 10 12 8 8 18 8 8 10 8 10 8 24 8 6 8 6 6 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 18 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 18 8 8 10 8 12 6 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 6 10 24 36 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 6 18 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 18 8 10 8 24 12 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 10 6 6 8 10 6 12 8 12 6 8 6 18 6 6 6 8 18 24 8 8 6 6 12 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 20 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 12 8 8 8 18 12 10 6 10 18 18 10 24 8 12 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 10 8 12 8 8 6 12 6 10 8 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 10 24 8 10 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 12 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 10 6 18 8 8 10 8 18 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 18 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 30 6 8 24 6 8 8 8 10 12 8 8 8 12 8 24 8 10 18 8 10 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 18 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 12 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 24 12 8 8 12 10 6 10 10 6 12 8 12 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 6 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 18 10 6 8 6 8 10 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 12 6 6 6 18 6 24 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 10 8 18 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 6 10 18 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 15 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 18 18 10 10 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 20 6 10 8 8 10 8 8 24 6 6 6 8 18 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 18 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 18 8 6 8 6 6 15 8 18 6 6 6 6 18 6 6 8 6 12 8 8 6 24 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 24 6 6 18 8 8 18 8 15 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 10 10 10 10 6 8 6 10 10 6 10 8 10 24 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 18 18 15 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 15 8 8 18 8 24 18 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 6 10 8 10 24 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 12 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 12 10 10 18 8 10 8 6 8 8 12 8 12 10 8 8 8 8 12 8 6 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 18 18 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 24 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 12 8 6 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 10 24 10 8 8 6 6 8 6 12 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 8 8 10 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 6 8 8 10 8 6 18 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 18 6 8 18 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 8 18 6 8 6 6 6 8 6 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 6 6 8 4 18 8 24 18 6 10 8 18 15 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 24 8 6 8 8 10 10 6 8 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 10 18 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 12 15 10 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 12 12 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 15 12 18 15 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 12 8 12 12 8 8 12 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 8 12 10 8 18 18 10 8 18 8 8 10 8 10 18 12 10 8 10 10 8 12 18 8 8 8 8 12 10 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 8 15 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  P:\209088\Design\GIS\Figures\Fig 6-4 Improvement Projects.mxd Existing 2010 System TYPE Gravity Force Main ZONE, PHASE Improvement Priority 1a - Now Improvement Priority 1b - Now Improvement Priority 2 - 2015 Improvement Priority 3 - by 2030 pop. Improvement Priority 4 - by 2060 pop. Improvement Priority 5 - by Buildout pop. Expansion_Priorities_ ZONE Existing 2010 2015 (pop. 26,768) 2030 (pop. 33,072) 2060 (pop. 50,486) Buildout (pop. 73,889)   Lift Station Study_Area                ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF MOSCOW PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF TREATMENT PLANT SUPERVISOR Todd Swanstrom Chad Boyd STREET SUPERVISOR STREET/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE MANAGER Tyler Palmer Brian Bontrager, P.E. PRINCIPAL TECHNICIAN Ron Crumley, P.L.S. Will Trottier Kyle Steele CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL SPECIALIST Tod Gosselin MAINTENANCE WORKER III Jason Chavez Steve Schulte MAINTENANCE WORKER II Roy Bremenour Rich Dimmick MAINTENANCE WORKER II David Stone MAINTENANCE WORKER II TEMPORARY SUMMER STAFF Artie Ingham MAINTENANCE WORKER I MAINTENANCE WORKER II SHOP SUPERVISOR John D. Smith VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MECHANIC MAINTENANCE WORKER I Wes Peterson Kirby Barnhill ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II EQUIPMENT MECHANIC MAINTENANCE WORKER I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II Elaine Gogan LAB TECHNICIAN Maggie Sillers MAINTENANCE WORKER I Rick Hunt OPERATOR II Max Hastain OPERATOR I (OIT) Franklin McCray MAINTENANCE WORKER II Kyle Woodland TEMPORARY SUMMER STAFF Theresa Sharrock Rick Benjamin Kurt Schwendiman Bob Buvel MAINTENANCE WORKER III Tom Luther MAINTENANCE WORKER III Brian Hall ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II Ken Kipp, P.L.S. Gene Dethman MAINTENANCE WORKER III MAINTENANCE WORKER III Mike Lienhard MAINTENANCE WORKER III Darin Ery WATER CONSERVATION SPECIALIST Nicole Baker ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER UTILITY OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III Pat Mink WATER / WASTEWATER MANAGER Tom Scallorn PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Les MacDonald, P.E. CITY ENGINEER Kevin Lilly, P.E. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II SEASONAL INTERN POSITION(S) Carey Edwards David Richardson WATER DISTRIBUTION LEAD Steve Barnes OPERATOR III Mike Dimmick OPERATOR III OPERATOR III Rodney Cook TRANSPORT DRIVER Leroy Chavez ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN III - DESIGN SPECIALIST WATER PRODUCTION LEAD Tony Waters ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST SEWER COLLECTIONS LEAD Gary Smith Gayle Renzelman ORG CHART 6-15-11 6/24/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATIONS MOSCOW TV INSPECTION MOSCOW LIFT STATION DATA COLLECTION BASEMENT FLOODING LOCATIONS 1996-97 SMOKE TEST RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Les MacDonald, Public Works Director Tom Scallorn, Water/Wastewater Manager City of Moscow, Idaho From: James Bledsoe, PE Keller Associates, Inc. Date: August 8, 2011 Update Re: Moscow TV Inspection Evaluation This technical memorandum summarizes the findings from our evaluation of the TV inspection logs and presents general recommendations pertaining to the operations, maintenance, and replacement of the existing sanitary sewer collection system. Background City of Moscow collection staff reviewed video footage from eighteen years of system CCTV inspection and provided eight hours of video footage (approximately 15,000 linear feet of pipe) considered representative of the collection system to Keller Associates for review. This approach was used to avoid the expense of Keller Associates reviewing hundreds of videos and determining which areas to select for a representative evaluation. The inspection footage was provided on four VHS tapes. The first three tapes were representative of pipeline sections in the older system areas comprised primarily of concrete and clay pipe. The final section was labeled indicating that these sections of pipelines were once known to have problems with flow blockages, and consequently, these sections have been on a list of pipeline sections to clean each month. The list is a fluid list on which pipelines are added or removed as problems are identified or as repairs are completed. The City did provide a single, 3-inch, 3-ring binder that contained all of the City’s written logs. This binder is divided into two general parts. The first part contains written CCTV Inspection Logs with records dating back to the mid-1990s. This information indicates there are significant problems on many sections of pipelines. Comments like “Almost every joint has roots coming in” or “Top of pipe missing” occur on many logs. The second portion of the 3-ring binder is divided into five sections, corresponding to different geographic areas of the collection system. A map showing the location of these sections is attached. Documents in this portion of the binder contains a written catalogue of what video footage is available and mentions several projects that were inspected. The record contains general location information and VHS counter tape footage information. Inspection dates, physical location, direction of camera run, inspector, and miscellaneous comments are recorded in the binder at the beginning of each run. Within each section are also some schematic drawings and copies of miscellaneous service requests. It should be noted that the City of Moscow also provided a list of about 100 locations where smoke testing identified potential sources of storm water inflow and infiltration. This list was developed in the mid 1990s, and included problems such as no cap on the property owner’s cleanout and broken or cracked service lines. The City notified via letter all property owners who needed to correct an identified source of inflow and infiltration. City staff has also reported a number of activities that are currently underway to improve the collection system maintenance management program. These activities include plans to purchase a new CCTV camera, convert to digital software for CCTV logs, purchasing an asset management system capable of ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 2 interfacing with the City’s GIS, and securing additional root control equipment. The City has for many years funded a root foaming program to control roots until permanent repairs can be made. Conclusions / Recommendations From the written documents provided to Keller Associates it appears that approximately 17% of the lines videoed had problems that need correction. Many logs indicated broken pipe segments and/or severe roots. Keller Associates recommends further follow-up by implementing maintenance management systems to track and evaluate the current condition of those sections of pipeline with known sewer roots or broken pipe. The City has already budgeted for and is currently purchasing these systems. Keller Associates further recommends that the City review current staffing levels, with special consideration to the number of staff historically assigned to Collections, the significant increase in miles of pipe in the system, and the nature of how new technology has changed the work load. Keller Associates prepared written logs for the CCTV inspections and attached pictures of conditions observed. A copy of these written logs will be provided to the City. A summary table of what was encountered is attached. Keller Associates noted problems in almost every section of pipeline inspected. Additionally, we recommend that the City consider replacing / rehabilitating the entire pipeline for approximately 25-30% of the pipelines inspected. Many sections we consider in need of immediate attention and include severely broken and missing segments of pipe. Sample photos taken from the logs can be found at the end of this Technical Memorandum. Our recommendations have been grouped into various categories highlighted below: Operational & Maintenance Related Improvements 1. Keller Associates recommends that the City proceed with their plans to upgrade their TV inspection equipment. The existing unit used to provide the video footage does not have an oscillating head capable of better inspecting cracks, services, and broken pipe. Additionally, the unit appeared to have a lens that was not capable of quickly evaporating off the moisture that would accumulate on the lens causing a foggy image through which it was difficult to discern problems. Consequently, the overall quality of the video footage was poor to fair. 2. As part of the upgrade in TV equipment, Keller Associates recommends that the City use digital technologies to create indexed DVDs (rather than VHS tapes). Software should be used to continuously show on the video what section of pipe is being inspected and create TV Inspection reports with written commentary and corresponding digital pictures that document pipeline conditions. 3. Keller Associates recommends that every section of pipeline be video inspected approximately every 3-5 years. The pipelines should generally be cleaned prior to inspection, and, where practical, monitoring should be done during periods where the flow is sufficiently low so that the camera is not submerged. According to City staff, the City would like to see each line cleaned at least every other year and TV inspected at least every 3 years. Keller Associates recommends that the frequency of cleaning and TV inspection be reviewed and regularly updated as part of an ongoing maintenance management program. 4. As part of the TV monitoring program, Keller Associates recommends that the City of Moscow develop a written rating system to uniformly document problems. Ideally, the same individual may do most of the monitoring and ranking of pipeline improvements. Additionally, comparing video logs to previous video logs will assist the City in determining how quickly the pipeline may be deteriorating. ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 3 5. The monitoring of the collection system should extend to the manholes. Most of the TV reports reviewed had little or no information about the manholes. The limited data we could observe from the video data provided suggest that many of the manholes are old, sources of infiltration and inflow, poorly channeled, and in need of rehabilitation or replacement. 6. The City should periodically review their priority cleaning areas. In our opinion, many of the sections that are cleaned could be cleaned less frequently and/or would justify implementing repairs to reduce the maintenance requirements. 7. Ongoing smoke testing and flow monitoring efforts should be an integrated component of the City’s maintenance management program. These efforts will assist the City in pinpointing where TV monitoring and rehabilitation efforts should be focused. 8. Consider a more organized pre-treatment program, particularly for addressing grease. Some sections that are cleaned still showed evidence of grease build-out. Working with businesses to eliminate the grease may be a cost effective way of addressing the problem while reducing risks of backups in City sewers. According to City staff, efforts are underway to develop some best management practices and education program tailored to the commercial users. While grease traps are required on new facilities, but there is reportably insufficient staff to monitor or enforce pre- treatment efforts. 9. The City of Moscow should work toward tying all the TV logs, repairs, work orders, etc. to a central GIS maintenance management system. This system could have the following features: o Link TV reports to GIS o Track service calls / repairs for each line segment o Track maintenance practices and performance of maintenance programs such as more frequent cleanings, root control, etc. o Generate work orders for future cleaning / repairs 10. Sufficient staffing should be provided to allow regular cleaning, video inspection, GIS and asset management, and associated activities. An additional 2-3 full-time equivalent employees may be required to provide the increased level of service discussed above. Keller Associates would recommend that additional staffing be phased in as additional services are provided. Capital Improvement Recommendations 1. The City of Moscow needs to establish a regular pipeline replacement / rehabilitation program. From the limited data provided, it appears that the City has a fairly large backlog of problematic pipeline segments. Assuming an average cost of $125/foot it would take the City of Moscow approximately $718,000/year to replace the existing 43.5 miles of asbestos cement, clay and concrete pipe within the next 40 years. This represents a tremendous backlog of replacements. Keller Associates recommends that the City phases into this program and regularly updates the list of priority capital replacement/rehabilitation projects. 2. The City’s pipeline replacement program should implement available technologies for repair. Cured In Place Pipe (CIPP), pipe bursting, open cut construction, and other in-situ pipeline and manhole rehabilitation techniques should be employed where appropriate. Care should be taken to coordinate activities with planned street improvements to minimize costs where feasible. Pipe bursting can be used to upsize existing pipelines, including the large percentage of 6-inch pipelines found in Moscow’s system. ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 4 City of Moscow Sample of Pictures Taken From Video Logs Provided to Keller Associates (2009) Broken Pipe (lower left); broken service (right) Missing pipe (top) Roots (lower left); missing pipe (upper right) Roots ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 5 Severe Roots Severe Roots Severe Roots Brocken Pipe; Roots ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 6 Brocken and missing pipe, offset joint Brocken pipe; roots Roots Broken and missing pipe; roots ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\209088\Reference\Report\Appendix\TM on TV 7 Brocken Pipe Missing Pipe Offset Joint Roots and Grease ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- REPORTED LOCATIONS OF BASEMENT FLOODING (LIST BY CITY) ---PAGE BREAK--- 209022/Reference/Report/Locations of known basement flooding (1996-1997).doc Name Address – Flooding 96 97 NOTE: The locations below are locations of known flooding. The WO# reflects that fact that these individuals called in to the City to complain about the flooding. According to Tom Scallorn, the vast majority, if not all, of these locations are where basements exist. Tom believes that check valves may have been installed at a dozen or more of the locations by the City. (James Bledsoe 3/30/10) Address Name Date WO# 405 S. Cleveland 1/14/91 1017712 313 S. Cleveland 1/14/91 1017712 405 S. Cleveland 2/6/96 1017620 903 S. Washington Apt #A Brian Gamer 2/6/96 1017622 862 Troy Rd McDonalds Rest. 2/6/96 1017622 1024 S. Blaine Barrett Hoines 2/6/96 1017622 825 S. Jefferson Vince Hanley 2/6/96 1017622 910 E. 1st Marilyn Warren 2/6/96 1017622 926 E. Lewis Thora Leplick 2/6/96 1017622 108 N. Mt. View Patty Heiley 2/6/96 1017622 320 Lewis Dianna Foreir 2/6/96 1017622 425 Lewis Paula Marley 2/6/96 1017622 131 N. Cleveland 1017622 320 Lewis Keith 2/6/96 1017622 123 N. Cleveland Wayne Collins 2/6/96 1017622 1222 S. Logan Animal Clinic 2/6/96 1017622 530 N. Adams Bertha Dunn 2/6/96 1017622 910 E. 1st Marily Warren 2/6/96 1017622 207 S. Asbury Pat Richey 2/6/96 1017622 1020 S. Main Allen Suva 2/6/96 1017622 716 White Ave Rodger Collins 2/7/96 1017622 1222 S. Logan Animal Clinic 2/7/96 1017621 2416 E. Dst Debbie Ellard 2/7/96 1017623 1111 E. 7th Mark Rust 2/8/96 1017622 827 S. Jefferson Magie Cridler 2/8/96 1017633 212 W. 8th Jim Norgard – Crites 2/8/96 1017635 326 Troy Rd. Jiffy Lube 2/8/96 1017627 912 S Washington Latah F. C. U. 2/8/96 1017628 709 E. 6th Brad Bredeson 2/8/96 1017629 903 S. Washington Howard Williams 2/8/96 1017632 923 Kenneth Kenneth Phillips 2/8/96 1017630 525 E. 6th 2/8/96 1017631 405 S. Cleveland #5 Sandra Wood 2/9/96 1017622 313 S. Cleveland 2/9/96 1017619 Polk Street Ext. Steve Moyer 2/10/96 1017622 131 N. Cleveland Mr. Baymony 2/12/96 1017622 425 Lewis Paula Marlee 2/12/96 1017626 233 S. Cleveland Apt. B-a 2/13/96 1017622 ---PAGE BREAK--- 209022/Reference/Report/Locations of known basement flooding (1996-1997).doc Page 1 Address Name Date WO# 209 N. Cleveland Ann Vate 2/14/96 1017622 320 Lewis Patty Haley 2/14/96 1017622 736 S. Meadow 2/15/96 1017622 1119 E. 5th Mrs. Kellberg 2/15/96 1017622 220 Lauder #1 Steve Clare 2/16/96 1017622 1214 E. 6th Tom Crowser 2/17/96 1017622 1111 7th Nancy Rust 2/18/96 1017622 C & Main – Storm Drain Flooding 2/18/96 1017622 825 S. Jefferson Margaret Hanley 2/19/96 1017622 827 S. Jefferson 2/20/96 1017622 211 N. Cleveland Gerald Hanks 2/21/96 1017622 961 N. Grant Mr. Rostad 2/21/96 1017622 109 N. Cleveland John Bashaw 2/22/96 1017622 324 N. Grant Alan Gemberling 12/27/96 1017622 324 N. Grant Alan Gemberling 12/30/96 1017622 1020 S. Meadow 2/31/96 1017622 220 Lauder 2/31/96 1017622 1111 E. 7th 1/1/97 1017622 207 Asbury Rich 1/2/97 1214 E. 6th 1/2/97 618 S. Logan Donna Damer 1/2/97 1111 E 7th 1/2/97 913 W. Palouse Rv Dr Ray Rooper 1/2/97 931 Kenneth Brad Hudson 1/2/97 207 S. Asbury Jim Richey 1/2/97 710 Sherwood Mary Blew 1/2/97 625 Sherwood Ralph Kenney 1/2/97 207 S. Asbury James Richey 1/3/97 611 Lynn Debbie Esyelt 1/3/97 1312 Public Edward Stohs 1/7/97 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1996-97 SMOKE TEST DATA (LIST BY CITY) ---PAGE BREAK--- C.O. = Clean Out S.L. = Service Line 222 Nursery C. O. Greens Body Service C. O. 2124 Nursery C. O. 263 E. Palouse River Drive 2 places C. O. Palouse Empire Plumbing Floor Drain The Plantation C. O. Auto Lab C. O. Waterman's 2 places Pipe Joint Not Sealed Chinese Village Pick Holes in MH Stove Plus C.O. Trailer Court by Darigold lot 1 & 3 C.O. Terrace Gardens # 71, 69, 67, 63, 61, 28 C.O. 214 N. Main 5 Down Spouts Moose Down Spouts House R & S Recycling 2 places C.O. 2013 S. Main Down Spouts Mini Storage NW corner of Palouse River Drive C.O. 2102 Joseph C.O. 1406 F St Roof Drains 103 N Cleveland C.O. 1125 Kamiaken S.L. 1406 5th St C.O. 1426 5th St C.O. 120 Monroe C.O. 820 E A St S.L. 804 B St S.L. 101 Hayes C.O. 925 B St S.L. 910 A St S.L. 909 B St Down Spouts 317 Hayes Vent Holes in Private MH 732 Logan Down Spout 605 7th St S.L. 615 7th St S.L. 710 7th St S.L. 721 7th St S.L. Known Inflow & Infiltration in Residential Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- Known Inflow & Infiltration in Residential Areas 817 7th St S.L. 707 S. Hayes S.L. 863 7th St S.L. 735 7th St S.L. 909 E Third C.O. 407 Monroe S.L. 413 Monroe S.L. 709 E Third S.L. 725 Third S.L. 726 E Third S.L. 716 E A St S.L. 717 E B St S.L. 708 E A St S.L. 406 N Howard 2 places S.L. 344 N Howard S.L. 412 N Howard-Convent C.O. 419 N Howard S.L. 712 E D St S.L. 604 E C St C.O. 103 N Howard S.L. 617 E B St 2 places S.L. 605 E B St S.L. 214 N Polk S.L. 610 E A St S.L. 621 E Third C.O. 402 S Polk S.L. 514 S Polk 2 places C.O. 415 N Hayes Roof Drain 421 N Hayes C.O. 424 N Lincoln S.L. 530 N Monroe Roof Drain 804 E St C.O. 531 E Third S.L. 419 S Polk S.L. 411 S Polk S.L. 501 S Polk S.L. 517 S Hayes C.O. - S.L. ---PAGE BREAK--- Known Inflow & Infiltration in Residential Areas 132 N Hayes S.L. 208 N Hayes S.L. 204 N Hayes S.L. 520 E Sixth C.O. 939 E Sixth Concrete Basin 927 E Sixth C.O. 445 E Seventh C.O. 443 E Seventh C.O. 439 E Seventh Unknown 404 E Eighth S.L. 401 E Eighth S.L. 323 E Eighth C.O. 430 E Seventh S.L. 626 S Adams S.L. 907 S Jefferson S.L. 916 S Jefferson S.L. 918 S Jefferson S.L. 804 S Jefferson S.L. 908 S Jefferson S.L. 719 S Main Exterior Floor Drain Gritman Hospital C.O. Nuart Theater 2 places Roof Drain 512 S Main Roof Drain 510 S Main Roof Drain 312 S Main Roof Drain 310 S Main Roof Drain 112 N Main C.O. 315 N Washington C.O. 329 N Washington 2 Places S.L. Known Inflow & Infiltration in Downtown Areas The areas of I & I in the downtown areas plus all the pumps throughout the city contribute far more to the overall problem than all problems in the residential areas combined. This is only a semi-educated guess. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D AGREEMENTS SE MOSCOW W & S DISTRICT UI USE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT WETLANDS MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING ---PAGE BREAK--- SE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT SERVICE AGREEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- UI REUSE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT AGREEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PARADISE CREEK ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E FLOW ANALYSIS SEWER BASIN AND FLOWS FROM 2005 COST APPORTIONMENT STUDY UI DAILY WATER USAGE (2007-2009) MOSCOW WINTER DAILY WATER PRODUCTION (2006-2009) MOSCOW WWTP INFLUENT SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- SEWER BASIN AND FLOWS FROM 2005 COST APPORTIONMENT STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- UI DAILY WATER USAGE (2007-2009) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2007 January February March April May June July August September October November December 1 262853 588447 364195 279618 278792 581831 530710 903355 473756 597889 608059 270816 2 223711 292878 302267 311893 583022 573069 620372 803726 466302 621767 604254 563115 3 223711 289613 512474 583186 542947 601616 624372 785743 650299 633784 411553 292299 4 273483 525476 623556 377722 271443 309578 648437 686122 712449 773168 284122 278624 5 273483 282260 645335 277725 315874 321423 654140 621427 729384 842630 471519 583475 6 0 350172 630416 485363 629821 464443 665752 642805 693706 842568 564847 588963 7 277027 592386 615161 585330 657935 417770 602178 686703 652632 833129 561703 284111 8 498228 288611 586435 595764 688912 439332 597879 797830 471281 593797 299035 286385 9 221201 279174 291441 384538 826532 301768 701991 828656 1009661 546510 282611 496118 10 296699 559047 289212 272190 910519 381453 694235 696013 1540656 672631 575002 279831 11 586592 279873 548909 488033 461638 441316 728117 630758 1215682 690750 292390 353885 12 289893 293643 510298 590145 268674 487888 924317 640476 866018 568940 285752 568525 13 283774 595118 278818 285743 595363 434636 833393 663731 660219 491790 620270 284738 14 283774 320912 323854 279474 508291 439797 631723 879874 618974 567930 625303 262687 15 289389 275263 574628 486793 475169 431450 647613 935888 599445 501944 290785 262687 16 588710 536590 285967 276856 353347 281714 650979 784676 601958 434552 271351 317360 17 386728 280763 292294 347991 287662 440441 691356 739118 450878 571436 271351 317360 18 277201 287901 610093 575653 499117 504208 797569 714471 327597 626908 282372 273837 19 481627 553780 630652 297200 271235 596112 734193 675162 479683 582275 282372 273837 20 291833 278581 623917 279775 279865 765223 614553 594798 615752 620923 272915 270032 21 283209 304140 610202 558608 279865 764932 618201 643001 607614 569846 272915 270032 22 574928 608844 299138 278834 290645 698817 623555 734236 580479 588820 271431 0 23 578778 378335 280015 273752 581641 452737 631912 777327 578448 608563 271431 272598 24 287060 289319 562160 579272 290996 299105 667336 714134 547033 617548 278655 272598 25 297635 531787 282145 624664 280161 432388 752378 600138 562098 577021 562421 263322 26 459892 613649 284467 608386 554567 595328 818781 608693 665485 566046 287165 263322 27 279588 617091 587873 289242 274406 662553 813097 624117 567089 648695 305769 244148 28 428246 557915 585911 280371 290696 672140 595638 830368 304579 339081 475649 259797 29 519236 282506 565038 472371 561790 489671 1544962 383669 336667 467605 15649 30 279936 269493 284667 287638 444741 630865 1822910 576540 673045 294325 268278 31 367184 520587 406763 845782 1115554 665887 536556 Reported values reflect 2-day averages which was felt to be more accurage given large number of readings in the daily data. October data was lost and so it was assumed based on previous three years worth of data. Peak summer demands likely include some irrigation Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Average 344,052 416,127 454,981 413,461 442,449 493,320 680,035 797,638 640,312 606,663 388,164 315,322 2 Day Max 588,710 617,091 645,335 624,664 910,519 765,223 924,317 1,822,910 1,540,656 842,630 625,303 588,963 Peak Factor 1.71 1.48 1.42 1.51 2.06 1.55 1.36 2.29 2.41 1.39 1.61 1.87 Average Winter (Jan, Feb, Nov, Dec) excludes any potential irrigation Average 365,916 2 Day Max 605,017 Peak Facotr 1.67 University of Idaho Domestic Water Usage 2007 P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\University of Idaho\Water Usage\UI 2007 Daily Water usage.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December 1 267584 293877 292132 527968 285065 279159 703927 664579 351228 671097 277192 294032 2 267584 441304 595094 292316 319235 285138 713415 608220 643168 652050 568964 586806 3 264436 553908 611348 388908 297722 483672 746847 640811 735598 483887 291772 292774 4 264436 289599 435832 329239 422264 305784 720468 723162 743349 317413 317343 288323 5 273329 346345 296553 289191 422264 396378 629866 760259 607470 489011 419760 583445 6 457537 616725 481023 578172 295176 289128 665230 783512 348139 670775 282642 295122 7 275584 406441 311916 450866 590614 284739 699500 830973 467982 693671 472277 317422 8 396133 292724 277914 284094 295438 343699 685739 850374 752678 685570 292052 435725 9 595545 489725 277914 452454 296208 300705 698178 801041 690883 652345 318294 291939 10 290788 486135 287844 602574 296208 522121 685021 705054 656361 316389 541685 478142 11 282503 286555 406738 286472 297903 280376 640546 779137 709916 302777 288984 304507 12 567505 402678 282387 292226 297903 293476 634703 809006 681600 644132 382214 275660 13 285002 616354 443427 410596 292472 327152 640902 768474 645993 636896 316621 403564 14 377807 446623 279936 287908 299052 308146 628293 777193 660187 466637 292436 290466 15 676028 286105 287275 490140 279090 602298 662040 724161 684469 171096 583852 474074 16 298220 439256 287275 613110 558337 656121 675978 717868 704793 281347 291416 311512 17 311082 288601 297341 292507 285827 625014 638765 865083 725105 511079 300698 286985 18 311082 308279 605035 293498 302643 600095 625751 991513 720763 280053 603069 566888 19 283116 623307 451407 293498 589641 626589 616004 792236 654494 355680 302371 279903 20 399993 484578 291199 310287 286998 435974 559476 639112 474936 532012 286723 0 21 284753 291387 443408 605098 297565 334920 559173 414832 309229 226653 286723 278220 22 483365 419547 295922 294811 594337 523311 578171 360348 436946 311780 274375 278220 23 610523 455647 295849 312363 296772 563354 624266 626459 617871 515124 274375 277440 24 295035 286783 605341 547555 305543 563345 675023 688882 650492 280229 285291 277440 25 284656 448579 601296 275305 591747 446052 640274 558866 654291 368987 285291 0 26 576911 517446 291805 325049 286204 413591 575763 370155 379179 292102 83969 273842 27 292255 320261 302864 577798 288716 601590 350299 513364 301366 299749 281510 273842 28 293473 286612 597686 292863 577013 649482 365014 739691 568345 595571 197541 281995 29 612555 294822 312472 597107 701243 645571 723448 697282 295822 283131 281995 30 525727 302466 576023 617620 724550 717403 676230 715238 313531 283131 272424 31 359509 611930 558318 702056 394304 313531 544847 Reported values reflect 2-day averages which was felt to be more accurage given large number of readings in the daily data. Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Average 379,486 408,049 391,709 396,179 387,774 458,907 635,602 687,044 599,645 439,580 332,190 325,728 2 Day Max 676,028 623,307 611,930 613,110 617,620 724,550 746,847 991,513 752,678 693,671 603,069 586,806 Peak Factor 1.78 1.53 1.56 1.55 1.59 1.58 1.18 1.44 1.26 1.58 1.82 1.80 Average Winter (Jan, Feb, Nov, Dec) excludes any potential irrigation Average 361,363 2 Day Max 622,303 Peak Facotr 1.73 University of Idaho Domestic Water Usage 2008 P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\University of Idaho\Water Usage\UI 2008 Daily Water usage.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 January February March April May June July 1 0 452724 698705 708081 328929 352215 668215 2 275957 290903 349654 356338 328929 591460 836396 3 275957 461533 342576 327566 344937 765618 779658 4 276399 628722 709755 415059 693692 784573 744835 5 276399 323448 367179 344555 348755 384104 733669 6 291820 299989 338260 626874 355727 370227 740708 7 291820 578344 681936 408826 604473 593880 517592 8 296737 296566 343675 339211 248746 513799 412189 9 296737 295354 358183 660240 325761 788441 675096 10 95278 664573 731137 360043 383996 848440 800146 11 281930 720168 571846 340139 337591 488001 761613 12 472201 350948 347090 495964 629134 398508 726155 13 424419 339321 490499 341844 349778 581453 635530 14 349922 339321 342301 573331 357278 595445 357944 15 211053 358030 345489 716345 357278 337076 500160 16 291666 738851 426993 347038 323005 455379 954857 17 291666 612886 330185 369476 323005 755686 945376 18 290667 343087 582063 454916 357209 688921 868731 19 569389 485472 333382 347668 603653 326183 857812 20 533630 542206 335127 628221 246444 314485 793390 21 291535 335488 335127 736042 338582 314485 771037 22 356725 538087 381551 352045 338582 339751 790643 23 396128 591609 740435 360760 343132 726965 789961 24 292768 348666 358884 700684 493776 733540 779373 25 539908 554176 363172 339924 330607 479672 662796 26 519571 764568 729101 378972 986866 387115 855705 27 299321 344877 365929 576659 1205034 601891 995685 28 425350 698102 332311 337138 471670 730344 639280 29 613935 693947 506616 392537 536592 671588 30 291505 361636 367166 660925 379999 669328 31 299868 351743 467830 459044 104012508 10420260 13298017 14039872 13817741 13877859 16164248 22394512 Reported values reflect 2-day averages which was felt to be more accurage given large number of readings in t Analysis completed based on data through July 2009. Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Average 336,137 474,929 452,899 460,591 447,673 538,808 722,404 2 Day Max 613,935 764,568 740,435 736,042 1,205,034 848,440 995,685 Peak Factor 1.83 1.61 1.63 1.60 2.69 1.57 1.38 Average Winter (Jan, Feb, Nov, Dec) excludes any potential irrigation 2009 2008 2007 2007 - 2009 Average Average 405,533 361,363 365,916 377,604 2 Day Max 689,251 622,303 605,017 638,857 Peak Facotr 1.72 1.73 1.67 1.71 University of Idaho Domestic Water Usage 2009 P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\University of Idaho\Water Usage\UI 2009 Daily Water usage.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- MOSCOW WINTER DAILY WATER PRODUCTION (2006-2009) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Daily Well Production Winter 2006‐2009 Gallons Pumped (1000s) Day Jan-06 Feb-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 31 2657 1341 1785 1649 1606 1650 1363 1731 30 1002 1318 1383 1861 1862 1224 1542 1111 1376 1652 1744 1260 29 1745 1764 1154 1606 1825 1262 1277 1655 1287 1965 1526 1495 28 1596 1595 1652 1605 2027 1736 1607 1572 1727 2021 [PHONE REDACTED] 1528 1798 1541 27 1723 1865 1827 1116 1613 1655 1951 1564 1744 1582 1492 1323 1497 2014 1919 917 26 1313 1565 1502 1506 2269 1835 1880 1592 1612 1590 1429 1265 1641 2003 1593 1720 25 1755 1751 1097 973 1660 1761 1673 806 1934 1597 1327 1194 1252 1659 2183 1241 24 1829 2123 1906 1018 1605 1560 1509 1573 1751 1723 1210 1461 2008 1758 0 1913 23 1707 1848 1251 1709 1970 1973 1518 1535 1629 1780 1532 1478 2221 1289 1136 1350 22 1653 1542 1608 1244 1741 1341 1515 901 1500 1607 1391 1412 1475 1875 2501 1790 21 1668 2101 1375 1397 1856 1925 1688 1836 1780 1098 1795 1543 1362 1810 1477 1226 20 1955 1517 1650 1202 1813 1617 1729 1626 1984 2314 1476 1616 1975 1363 1571 1649 19 1591 1753 1152 1647 1389 1826 1528 1424 1788 1574 1899 2081 1473 2298 1722 1861 18 1666 1581 1580 1341 2331 1477 1586 1171 1454 1770 1458 1398 1756 887 1488 1488 17 1508 1962 2056 1168 1612 1696 1750 1932 1712 1369 1473 1753 1659 2083 1591 2068 16 1267 1536 1593 1737 1961 1707 1590 1135 2026 1749 1196 1754 1937 1140 1572 1772 15 1744 1352 1904 1824 1829 1807 1518 1920 1516 1671 1999 1385 1276 1647 1632 2614 14 1813 2046 1383 1657 1680 1484 2011 1905 1909 1822 1936 1855 1759 1876 1701 1561 13 1564 1727 2101 1780 1348 1660 1819 1597 1671 1703 1764 1850 1674 1755 1562 1753 12 1795 1811 1656 1638 2281 1803 1665 1540 1572 1636 1530 1419 1690 1639 1540 2237 11 2014 1725 1647 1859 1764 1555 1914 2176 2030 1620 1261 1528 1354 2012 1444 1562 10 1579 1805 1628 1960 1126 2208 1621 1321 1702 1858 1409 1474 1398 1722 1819 1573 9 1553 1550 1812 1764 1370 1927 1913 1638 1710 1535 1991 1760 1813 1636 1487 1483 8 1795 1627 1689 1713 1679 1360 1555 1682 1423 1973 1872 1346 1483 1884 1856 2014 7 1501 1413 1912 1790 1464 2123 1633 2174 1676 1362 1739 1809 1516 1231 1621 1936 6 1457 2032 1388 1698 1519 1470 1698 1838 1669 2030 1498 1564 1196 2003 1848 922 5 1328 1683 1722 1748 1921 2179 1527 1634 1556 1424 1666 1523 1622 1650 1871 2449 4 1630 1612 1715 1617 1688 1655 1794 1323 1515 1818 1249 1654 1394 1652 1512 1667 3 1323 1823 2124 1784 1255 2105 1714 2312 1336 1661 1577 1628 1436 1586 1713 1983 2 1555 1442 1916 1595 1568 1670 1794 1774 1021 2080 1695 1642 1488 1701 1467 1669 1 1081 1725 1726 2023 1310 1471 1652 1519 1677 1345 1661 1357 1091 1727 1443 1753 Totals 50365 48109 49656 47990 52901 48582 51038 49152 51050 47311 46177 47351 49092 47425 48333 52195 4‐year Ave. Average Winter 1634 1681 1599 1642 1639 Max Winter 2657 2331 2314 2614 2479 Max Day/Ave Day 1.63 1.39 1.45 1.59 1.51 2100 Values highlighted exceed this value P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\Water Production Data from City\Winter Daily Water Production 2006‐2009.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- MOSCOW WWTP INFLUENT SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow CSSP P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\MoscowID_WWTP_Inflows2.xls 7 8 Average WWTP Inflow by Month Rainfall (in/mo) 4 5 6 P Inflows (MGD) ( ) Max Day by Month Min Day by Month 1 2 3 WWT P:\209088\Design\Spreadsheets\MoscowID_WWTP_Inflows2.xls 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F MODEL CONSTRUCTION WASTEWATER MODEL SELECTION DRY CALIBRATION WET CALIBRATION ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SUMMARY OF FLOW MONITORING DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow WW Flow Monitoring Data T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R Min Hr Avg Max Hr Fall 2009 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 Oct-22 Oct-23 Oct-24 Oct-25 Oct-26 Oct-27 Oct-28 Oct-29 Oct-30 Oct-31 Nov-1 Nov-2 Nov-3 Nov-4 Nov-5 Nov-6 Nov-7 Nov-8 Nov-9 Nov-10 Nov-11 Nov-12 Minimum Average Maximum Headworks Total Inf. (gpm) 1,160 1,285 1,167 1,118 1,111 1,146 1,271 1,132 1,153 1,132 1,292 1,097 1,125 1,417 1,139 1,111 1,125 1,222 1,243 1,160 1,125 1,118 1,125 1,215 1,132 1,146 1,132 1,146 1,139 1,139 1,090 1090 1165 1417 Precipitation (in) 0.005 0.78 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.02 0.06 0.57 0.01 0 0.53 0.04 0 0.03 0.07 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.005 Normalizing Factor: 1.19 1.22 1.23 F15-04 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 102 50 57 61 53 44 45 44 42 58 42 38 48 44 45 43 38 Average (gpm) 133 115 112 117 121 105 97 97 98 100 100 108 101 99 104 87 106 Maximum (gpm) 168 223 224 207 187 250 174 174 165 162 164 157 183 180 180 173 250 Partial Day 10 hrs 10 hrs F16-15 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 143 107 123 110 103 97 109 101 97 Average (gpm) 245 201 178 181 200 177 167 171 190 Maximum (gpm) 365 374 349 330 331 342 323 373 374 Partial Day 8 hrs 10 hrs G18-01 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 29 42 50 122 48 56 2 0 0 14 92 92 75 81 116 0 Average (gpm) 109 92 86 288 242 142 38 2 21 73 184 180 227 187 160 135 Maximum (gpm) 153 147 157 432 446 298 90 10 67 162 311 278 382 295 240 446 Partial Day 9 1/2 hrs 10 1/2 hrs 18 1/2 hrs 10 hrs G19-21 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 18 9 9 9 7 5 10 10 16 8 10 14 15 11 10 11 5 Average (gpm) 28 25 23 24 30 27 26 36 45 35 40 43 39 34 34 27 32 Maximum (gpm) 36 46 48 55 53 57 51 84 80 77 72 71 82 72 67 69 84 Partial Day 9 1/2 hrs 10 hrs H14-06 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 35 15 24 22 17 5 12 2 10 8 15 27 4 18 24 26 2 Average (gpm) 48 38 37 39 49 36 38 24 27 43 38 62 40 59 49 54 43 Maximum (gpm) 62 69 71 60 76 76 105 70 52 92 65 101 109 119 107 106 119 Partial Day 8 1/2 hrs 10 1/2 hrs H21-01 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 22 6 3 7 1 4 6 7 6 8 10 8 7 8 11 8 1 Average (gpm) 30 20 22 22 21 20 28 29 31 30 33 35 31 31 35 27 28 Maximum (gpm) 39 39 46 50 46 53 58 62 58 61 55 55 68 60 72 62 72 Partial Day 8 hrs 19 1/2 hrs 9 1/2 hrs I20-22 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 40.6 23.8 17.9 17.5 12.7 18.8 12.9 10.4 10.6 6.7 16.0 15.8 4.9 10.7 21.1 12.7 5 Average (gpm) 53.7 62.8 42.9 40.5 49.8 51.2 32.2 33.0 33.9 37.7 52.9 46.4 44.1 57.7 52.8 35.7 45 Maximum (gpm) 73.4 104.3 76.5 66.6 88.1 82.4 52.0 63.7 67.6 66.1 106.6 79.8 78.2 140.6 87.6 95.2 141 Partial Day 11 hrs 9 hrs J15-07 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 33 15 14 16 15 22 19 3 27 21 25 20 1 25 21 1 Average (gpm) 49 38 41 45 50 51 47 45 49 53 51 52 55 51 46 48 Maximum (gpm) 63 75 86 78 80 91 90 100 94 95 79 91 96 93 91 100 Partial Day 15 hrs 23 hrs 20 1/2 hrs 11 hrs J16-21 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 43 16 24 11 22 20 23 35 14 6 14 27 11 10 23 15 6 Average (gpm) 74 75 60 48 60 62 63 69 40 43 75 50 39 62 62 44 58 Maximum (gpm) 134 163 148 102 127 109 145 132 142 97 150 102 76 133 149 158 163 Partial Day 14 1/2 hrs 21 hrs 8 1/2 hrs J20-09 0 0 Minimum (gpm) 0 Average (gpm) #DIV/0! Maximum (gpm) 0 Partial Day J20-10 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 167 53 78 84 76 83 96 80 81 53 Average (gpm) 224 169 165 180 197 187 177 171 108 175 Maximum (gpm) 289 372 319 314 313 389 388 371 173 389 Partial Day 14 1/2 hrs 5 hrs J20-11 Minimum (gpm) 0 Average (gpm) #DIV/0! Maximum (gpm) 0 Partial Day J21-06 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 33 24 16 16 13 8 14 13 18 12 11 20 52 0 16 57 0 Average (gpm) 48 49 41 36 34 36 38 35 36 40 41 62 102 28 64 99 49 Maximum (gpm) 63 86 72 53 55 78 60 71 67 76 144 122 240 93 143 170 240 Partial Day 14 1/2 hrs 9 hrs Period 1 Period 2 No Fall Data Collected Empty File - No Data Reported Looks OK ( >H14-06 & J15-07 + J16-21) Also consistent w/ J20-09 June 2010 data - KTK 6/22/10 P:\209088\Design\Flow Monitoring\Fall 09-Spring 10 Flow Monitoring Master Summary_Apr5-2010.xls 3/15/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow WW Flow Monitoring Data Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M Min Hr Avg Max Hr 2009 Annual Spring 2010 Jan-31 Feb-1 Feb-2 Feb-3 Feb-4 Feb-5 Feb-6 Feb-7 Feb-8 Feb-9 Feb-10 Feb-11 Feb-12 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-16 Feb-17 Feb-18 Feb-19 Feb-20 Feb-21 Feb-22 Feb-23 Feb-24 Feb-25 Feb-26 Feb-27 Feb-28 Mar-1 Minimum Average Maximum Avg Day Headworks Total Inf. (gpm) 1,528 1,576 1,569 1,514 1,410 1,479 1,410 1,361 1,382 1,354 1,347 1,403 1,326 1,292 1,417 1,514 1,438 1,451 1,410 1,375 1,340 1,333 1,354 1,354 1,604 1,431 1,451 1,389 1,361 1292 1420 1604 1386 Precipitation (in) 0.45 0.16 0.18 0 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.03 0.01 0 0 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.3 0.06 0.01 0 0 0.005 0.01 0 0 0 0.23 0 0.005 0.08 0 Normalizing Factor: 0.86 F15-04 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 56 48 45 47 42 41 36 40 40 53 40 47 40 34 34 Average (gpm) 86 81 75 75 75 80 71 69 78 78 76 80 79 57 76 Maximum (gpm) 110 120 114 125 126 115 126 123 133 134 119 121 114 121 134 Partial Day 13 hours 8 1/2 hours F16-15 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 43 108 50 27 12 26 145 142 83 78 33 67 94 259 242 317 268 159 123 65 107 125 237 5 0 138 0 1 0 Average (gpm) 225 170 158 66 72 143 219 261 175 152 96 126 188 396 359 406 353 252 224 172 219 219 333 177 110 217 82 77 202 Maximum (gpm) 370 285 320 127 208 235 406 367 422 338 221 276 292 595 472 557 567 458 497 367 325 365 663 560 253 453 272 157 663 Partial Day G18-01 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 48 83 0 32 25 25 20 24 20 20 18 35 25 23 0 Average (gpm) 119 136 73 51 51 53 49 46 46 45 56 54 44 36 61 Maximum (gpm) 201 207 149 74 77 79 78 75 72 70 107 76 92 56 207 Partial Day 21 1/2 hrs G19-21 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 26 14 8 17 14 15 18 21 17 13 15 17 13 4 4 Average (gpm) 43 40 40 43 51 55 50 47 56 44 45 45 48 31 46 Maximum (gpm) 61 92 113 115 101 89 121 101 110 119 110 79 84 98 121 Partial Day 13 hours 9 3/4 hrs H14-06 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 75 112 3 28 32 24 38 89 20 7 13 84 8 23 3 Average (gpm) 117 138 82 56 73 63 90 130 102 39 66 136 61 57 86 Maximum (gpm) 169 174 174 96 161 112 157 213 260 111 145 236 155 144 260 Partial Day 21 hrs H21-01 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 14 3 2 1 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average (gpm) 19 18 14 12 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Maximum (gpm) 29 39 35 35 25 24 13 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 39 Partial Day 12 1/2 hrs 2 hrs 13 hrs 10 hrs I20-22 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 127 113 61 52 47 108 126 106 79 47 47 53 110 74 112 83 47 Average (gpm) 147 143 95 82 102 136 174 142 110 70 75 98 135 117 137 104 115 Maximum (gpm) 162 190 140 145 143 182 215 207 165 112 110 139 183 168 175 171 215 Partial Day 10 1/2 hrs 8 hrs J15-07 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 0 41 31 36 37 34 31 32 31 31 38 39 33 35 49 40 31 Average (gpm) 47 67 58 61 59 59 62 61 61 60 61 62 65 67 79 62 63 Maximum (gpm) 92 107 104 102 97 94 94 100 105 107 103 98 103 98 100 112 112 Partial Day 14 hrs 9 hrs J16-21 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 84 67 59 50 50 57 49 48 42 47 36 52 53 45 85 7 7 Average (gpm) 115 114 99 101 106 119 97 100 96 94 83 101 109 117 136 87 104 Maximum (gpm) 165 195 168 194 169 214 165 165 175 206 163 176 188 198 206 151 214 Partial Day 14 hrs 10 hrs J20-09 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 131 63 55 46 40 50 44 39 36 32 33 40 41 35 83 60 32 Average (gpm) 193 169 139 120 128 141 151 129 114 114 112 120 124 138 180 102 132 Maximum (gpm) 243 367 333 305 306 284 277 336 303 314 324 277 241 220 271 302 367 Partial Day 4 hrs 8 hrs J20-10 Isco 5 min Minimum (gpm) 50 94 87 68 45 78 139 34 85 73 31 47 49 36 16 16 32 16 -3 -103 -92 43 -53 37 39 49 54 85 -103 Average (gpm) 133 145 120 112 118 189 185 125 115 90 96 69 93 85 39 33 37 31 29 33 40 63 64 94 76 73 96 129 86 Maximum (gpm) 259 212 156 171 256 292 296 205 153 129 184 103 182 153 95 63 48 48 63 122 95 78 124 165 122 99 152 187 296 Partial Day J20-11 Minimum (gpm) 0 Average (gpm) #DIV/0! Maximum (gpm) 0 Partial Day J21-06 HACH 1 min Minimum (gpm) 71 63 54 56 66 56 51 47 20 -11 -11 -7 7 1 -11 Average (gpm) 96 94 86 85 85 70 71 73 59 8 5 6 33 26 54 Maximum (gpm) 120 124 114 113 94 87 97 96 85 59 20 12 68 65 124 Partial Day 13 hrs 9 1/2 hrs ND ND 10 1/2 hrs 9 hrs Period 1 Period 2 No Spring Data Collected BAD DATA - Use Fall 2009 ( F15-04 on some days) also 2x Fall data and H13-05 April data - JB & KTK 6/22/10 BAD DATA - Reflowed June 2010 ( < J15-07 + J16-21 & > J20-10 ) - JB & KTK 6/22/10 BAD DATA - Use Fall 2009 Data 1/2 Fall Data & < J20-09 - JB & KTK 6/22/10 P:\209088\Design\Flow Monitoring\Fall 09-Spring 10 Flow Monitoring Master Summary_Apr5-2010.xls 3/15/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow WW Flow Monitoring Data W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M Min Hr Avg Max Hr 2009 Annual April 2010 Apr-21 Apr-22 Apr-23 Apr-24 Apr-25 Apr-26 Apr-27 Apr-28 Apr-29 Apr-30 May-1 May-2 May-3 Minimum Average Maximum Avg Day Headworks Total Inf. (gpm) 1,465 1,854 1,833 1,826 1,764 1,813 2,361 2,313 2,035 1,979 1465 1924 2361 1386 Precipitation (in) 0 0.41 0 0.07 0 0 0.44 0.61 0.1 0.005 0.75 0.76 F19-10 5 min Minimum (gpm) 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 1 4 0 Average (gpm) 57 48 45 55 60 51 63 78 50 59 71 69 42 57 Maximum (gpm) 125 126 112 142 126 147 117 180 131 126 148 143 78 180 Partial Day 16 hrs 7 1/2 hrs G18-01 5 min Minimum (gpm) 9 24 32 37 21 0 15 39 0 29 28 28 27 0 Average (gpm) 93 68 71 70 48 38 86 93 31 37 37 35 39 57 Maximum (gpm) 115 102 100 98 74 70 228 170 46 50 58 42 49 228 Partial Day 15 1/2 hrs 8 hrs H13-05 5 min Sensor #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 Minimum (gpm) 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 12 12 0 Average (gpm) 0 8 45 72 63 5 0 86 81 52 44 33 37 41 Maximum (gpm) 7 45 198 130 178 26 2 229 228 173 82 53 145 229 Partial Day 1/4 hr 13.5 17 18 7.5 1 20 22 8 hrs K19-01 5 min #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 Minimum (gpm) 2 14 24 17 16 0 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average (gpm) 32 38 35 36 45 36 47 56 23 19 7 18 0 30 Maximum (gpm) 41 70 50 56 71 83 78 97 89 56 22 60 1 97 Partial Day 9 hrs 22 21 22.5 17 19 3 hrs Good - Confirms Feb 2010 Data - JB & KTK 6/22/10 Good - Consistent w/ H14- 06 Fall 2009 data - JB & KTK 6/22/10 P:\209088\Design\Flow Monitoring\Apr, May, Jun 2010 Flow Monitoring Master Summary_Aug16-2010.xls 3/15/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow WW Flow Monitoring Data M T W R F - F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Sa Su M T W R F Min Hr Avg Max Hr May-June 2010 May-24 May-25 May-26 May-27 May-28 - Jun-4 Jun-5 Jun-6 Jun-7 Jun-8 Jun-9 Jun-10 Jun-11 Jun-12 Jun-13 Jun-14 Jun-15 Jun-16 Jun-17 Jun-18 Jun-19 Jun-20 Jun-21 Jun-22 Jun-23 Jun-24 Jun-25 Minimum Average Maximum Headworks Total Inf. (gpm) 0 #DIV/0! 0 Precipitation (in) 0 0 0.005 0.67 0.03 0.45 0.02 0.03 0.03 0 0.47 0.01 0.34 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.36 0.01 0 0.48 0.23 0.005 0 0 0 I20-16 5 min Minimum (gpm) 3 27 24 26 30 5 36 36 34 32 32 3 Average (gpm) 36 37 36 43 34 47 45 43 43 40 45 41 Maximum (gpm) 42 45 49 68 44 55 55 53 52 50 70 70 Partial Day 10 1/2 hrs 7 1/2 hrs 13 1/2 hrs 11 hrs I21-04 5 min Minimum (gpm) 20 125 133 145 193 45 307 207 201 200 201 20 Average (gpm) 346 322 335 405 262 542 441 399 393 372 373 381 Maximum (gpm) 458 567 564 684 479 611 619 539 601 605 641 684 Partial Day 10 1/2 hrs 7 1/2 hrs 12 1/2 hrs 11 hrs J16-06 5 min Minimum (gpm) 9.9 31.3 32.6 32.1 42.5 12.7 62.3 43.0 39.8 38.6 34.9 10 Average (gpm) 92.1 81.7 83.1 103.0 72.0 128.4 104.9 102.2 88.0 85.6 95.1 94 Maximum (gpm) 113.4 154.3 145.9 219.2 176.3 166.2 150.1 159.8 183.4 155.8 205.3 219 Partial Day 11 hrs 7 1/2 hrs 12 1/2 hrs 11 hrs J15-07 5 min Minimum (gpm) 201 69 44 39 40 29 29 31 10 40 10 Average (gpm) 376 88 78 76 74 74 74 69 74 50 73 Maximum (gpm) 641 114 115 112 131 106 122 96 112 92 131 Partial Day 11 1/2 hrs 13 hrs 7 1/2 hrs J16-21 5 min Minimum (gpm) 35 53 68 39 44 40 41 50 41 54 39 Average (gpm) 98 124 103 96 94 87 89 92 106 72 96 Maximum (gpm) 205 180 163 129 145 162 134 139 182 110 182 Partial Day 11 1/2 hrs 13 hrs 7 1/2 hrs J20-09 5 min Minimum (gpm) 31.6 195.3 137.5 117.9 97.7 76.1 74.7 76.5 61.0 109.6 61 Average (gpm) 45.3 250.7 228.7 217.7 209.0 181.9 175.8 155.6 203.7 136.2 195 Maximum (gpm) 69.9 335.6 335.5 330.6 369.4 292.8 264.8 232.7 355.6 209.4 369 Partial Day 11 1/2 hrs 13 hrs 7 1/2 hrs BAD DATA 6/9 - Level &/or Pipe dia. wrong Looks Reasonable - JB & KTK 6/22/10 Questionable J20-10 Feb 2010) - JB & KTK 6/22/10 Good - Sim to Feb 2010 - JB & KTK 6/22/10 Good - Sim to Feb 2010 - JB & KTK 6/22/10 Looks Reasonable - higher than Feb 2010, & 100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2010 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T T E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 8 6 12 21 24 18 20 4 10 14 48 36 15 30 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 6 8 18 6 8 18 6 8 10 8 8 15 8 8 18 8 18 6 24 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 18 6 8 18 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 15 12 6 8 24 6 8 8 10 10 6 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 10 18 6 8 8 8 8 24 8 18 6 6 36 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 18 18 8 8 8 15 8 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 6 30 6 6 10 6 8 6 8 6 12 6 6 8 8 8 10 12 18 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 8 10 6 6 14 6 18 8 8 18 18 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 8 24 8 6 10 8 8 21 8 18 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 10 10 8 8 21 12 8 8 18 6 10 8 8 6 8 24 8 15 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 6 21 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 12 10 8 6 8 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 15 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 30 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 12 10 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 10 36 6 8 8 8 10 6 8 12 6 8 6 6 8 6 10 6 6 8 8 36 6 8 8 15 18 10 6 8 8 18 8 12 8 8 10 8 18 8 6 6 8 8 8 18 12 10 8 6 15 8 8 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 10 8 6 10 10 8 6 6 18 8 18 6 8 8 8 6 36 10 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 12 8 10 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 14 8 10 10 8 6 8 4 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 6 10 6 6 8 8 6 18 10 8 8 6 8 8 15 6 6 8 6 12 8 6 8 10 8 8 10 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 12 15 18 8 10 8 10 6 8 36 6 8 8 10 8 6 10 6 6 8 10 10 6 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 12 10 6 10 8 18 6 8 8 10 8 10 10 10 6 6 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 10 12 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 6 8 8 18 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 12 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 12 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 10 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 10 6 6 10 10 8 15 6 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 20 6 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 18 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 18 6 8 8 8 8 6 36 8 6 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 6 15 8 12 8 15 8 8 8 24 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 6 21 10 6 30 8 10 6 8 12 8 8 15 6 6 8 6 6 10 8 10 6 8 8 18 6 10 6 18 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 36 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 18 14 8 8 8 8 6 14 10 8 12 6 10 6 8 10 6 8 18 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 24 6 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 10 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 8 15 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 18 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 6 18 8 10 6 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 18 8 6 10 15 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 36 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 10 18 8 8 15 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 18 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 10 36 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 10 6 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 36 8 8 10 12 10 8 8 8 8 10 18 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 12 8 18 8 6 8 6 6 30 8 8 8 18 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 12 8 6 24 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 18 10 8 8 8 10 10 36 8 6 10 8 10 6 10 6 36 8 10 18 8 8 6 6 10 8 24 8 8 8 8 6 15 8 15 8 8 8 24 10 6 36 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 12 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 18 8 8 10 30 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 36 6 8 8 10 10 8 8 12 8 8 10 6 6 6 8 30 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 12 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 20 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 10 8 18 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 24 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 18 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 15 18 8 8 6 6 15 8 6 6 6 6 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 12 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 10 6 6 8 8 36 10 10 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 21 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 18 8 18 8 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 18 8 8 10 10 8 15 8 6 10 8 6 8 8 10 18 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 24 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 Model Parameters Scenario: 2015_+P1 CIP System = Future 2015 w/ Priority 1 ° Legend CIP_Pipes_ PHASE 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 Future_Growth Horizon, Land_Use 5, HR 5, Mixed 5, LR 5, COM_GEN 5, COM_IND Study_Area Study_Area Flow as % of Max Capacity q_Q 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2015 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 8 6 12 21 24 18 20 4 10 14 48 36 15 30 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 10 6 6 10 8 8 8 18 8 6 18 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 15 8 6 8 12 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 12 8 18 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 18 6 6 8 8 8 24 15 6 8 8 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 36 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 30 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 12 18 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 10 12 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 12 36 6 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 8 18 10 18 18 10 8 8 6 8 6 15 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 18 24 8 8 8 6 10 10 8 8 18 6 8 8 6 10 36 6 18 6 6 6 15 8 8 10 8 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 36 8 10 6 6 10 8 6 6 8 15 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 18 8 6 6 8 4 8 8 10 8 10 6 8 10 12 10 8 10 8 8 10 10 8 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 10 6 10 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 8 18 6 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 15 8 15 8 8 8 6 8 6 36 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 15 8 8 12 8 8 8 18 6 12 8 8 8 8 30 10 36 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 24 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 24 8 6 8 8 10 8 30 10 12 8 8 8 6 8 24 10 6 8 6 15 18 12 8 8 8 6 18 8 6 18 6 8 6 6 6 20 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 15 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 6 18 24 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 6 10 10 6 18 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 10 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 15 6 8 8 10 12 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 12 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 10 18 8 36 36 6 8 8 8 10 6 10 10 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 14 8 8 15 10 6 24 8 24 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 18 8 20 8 12 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 10 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 12 6 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 15 18 10 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 12 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 10 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 18 8 6 6 6 6 10 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 18 6 8 8 18 6 8 10 6 8 15 8 6 8 6 15 8 6 12 6 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 12 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 6 24 18 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 36 6 4 6 8 15 12 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 10 8 8 6 8 6 12 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 24 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 18 36 8 8 8 6 8 8 24 10 6 8 18 6 6 8 15 12 8 18 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 10 10 10 8 30 6 6 6 8 12 36 8 8 10 12 8 8 21 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 18 8 10 10 8 15 8 6 8 10 10 6 6 8 10 6 6 6 8 12 6 8 10 8 8 8 12 8 6 6 6 8 8 14 6 8 8 8 8 12 6 6 8 10 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 24 18 12 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 6 6 6 24 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 10 18 21 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 36 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 18 6 8 8 10 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 10 8 8 10 36 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 18 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 10 6 10 12 6 8 8 10 6 8 10 8 8 21 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 6 18 8 10 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 6 6 18 8 18 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 18 8 8 8 18 8 8 10 6 8 10 10 10 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 36 8 24 8 8 6 8 10 8 36 8 10 18 8 15 10 8 6 6 6 15 8 6 8 24 10 8 8 6 36 10 6 12 14 6 6 14 24 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 10 30 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 8 30 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 12 10 18 8 10 6 8 8 8 36 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 20 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 12 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 8 15 18 8 8 6 8 15 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 36 10 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 10 8 24 18 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 15 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 10 18 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 Model Parameters Scenario: 2030_+P1 CIP System = Future 2030 w/ Priority 1 ° Legend CIP_Pipes_ PHASE 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 Future_Growth Horizon, Land_Use 20, COM_GEN 20, COM_IND 20, Mixed 20, LR 20, HR Study_Area Study_Area Flow as % of Max Capacity 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2030 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 6 12 21 24 18 20 4 8 10 14 48 36 15 30 12 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 12 18 6 8 10 10 8 8 10 18 10 6 8 8 15 6 6 6 6 10 8 8 20 8 8 8 8 6 10 21 6 10 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 12 8 6 8 10 18 8 10 10 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 6 8 6 6 6 24 8 24 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 18 6 6 8 10 10 8 8 8 15 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 15 15 6 6 8 12 6 8 8 8 18 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 36 12 6 10 8 8 6 6 6 6 10 18 8 8 18 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 8 12 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 10 8 6 8 10 6 8 15 8 6 8 4 8 6 10 8 6 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 10 15 8 6 6 18 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 18 8 6 30 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 21 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 15 8 18 6 24 10 6 8 8 36 21 8 8 18 6 8 6 8 8 18 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 36 10 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 30 36 6 8 10 4 8 8 8 18 18 8 18 8 6 6 8 10 18 36 8 10 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 12 8 10 6 8 18 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 10 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 10 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 6 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 6 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 21 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 10 10 18 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 30 6 8 8 6 8 12 6 15 8 8 6 8 12 18 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 36 18 12 36 6 10 18 18 21 8 6 10 6 6 8 21 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 6 8 6 18 8 18 8 8 8 10 14 8 8 12 15 10 6 8 8 8 12 8 6 6 18 8 6 20 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 24 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 24 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 10 6 10 12 8 6 8 8 12 8 8 21 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 24 10 8 12 6 8 8 10 8 8 24 8 10 8 10 6 10 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 24 8 10 14 18 10 8 8 6 8 6 10 24 21 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 12 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 15 8 6 6 8 8 15 18 6 8 8 15 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 18 8 10 10 8 6 18 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 36 6 8 12 8 8 12 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 6 18 18 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 36 8 8 8 12 15 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 8 10 8 18 8 6 8 10 6 8 24 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 18 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 10 8 8 18 6 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 6 15 8 8 8 6 6 6 21 6 8 6 8 10 6 10 10 10 8 30 8 8 8 8 21 36 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 24 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 18 8 10 8 10 8 18 8 8 18 10 10 8 6 15 24 6 6 10 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 18 6 6 8 6 6 14 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 21 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 20 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 10 36 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 21 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 12 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 10 6 12 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 18 18 8 8 6 6 21 6 10 6 8 6 6 8 6 10 6 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 24 6 8 12 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 10 8 6 10 10 36 8 6 10 8 6 8 36 6 10 8 6 8 10 8 6 15 8 10 8 8 8 15 6 6 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 36 8 10 14 8 14 36 8 8 24 8 24 18 8 10 8 8 18 8 10 8 10 30 8 18 6 10 8 6 8 18 6 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 30 10 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 10 10 10 8 18 8 8 8 36 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 18 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 18 12 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 20 8 8 12 8 18 6 8 6 8 8 6 24 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 12 8 8 6 8 6 8 15 6 8 8 6 15 12 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 12 12 36 10 8 8 10 18 8 10 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 12 6 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 15 8 8 10 6 8 8 10 6 10 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 6 10 Model Parameters Scenario: 2030_+P1_+P3 CIP System = Future 2030 w/ Priority 1 + Priority 3 ° Legend CIP_Pipes_ PHASE 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 Future_Growth Horizon, Land_Use 20, COM_GEN 20, COM_IND 20, Mixed 20, LR 20, HR Study_Area Study_Area Flow as % of Max Capacity 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2030 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 6 12 21 24 18 20 4 8 10 14 48 36 15 30 6 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 10 36 8 8 8 8 6 12 15 6 8 6 18 6 18 6 6 6 8 6 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 6 18 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 8 10 21 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 6 18 18 8 8 15 6 10 10 8 8 12 6 6 10 6 8 10 24 6 10 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 10 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 24 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 36 8 6 10 15 21 8 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 12 8 10 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 15 6 4 10 8 36 6 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 36 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 18 18 18 10 8 6 15 6 10 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 18 6 6 8 6 36 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 24 10 8 6 8 24 10 8 8 36 8 24 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 10 8 8 8 6 12 8 8 6 6 10 8 10 8 18 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 6 18 8 6 6 8 8 21 12 8 10 8 18 8 10 8 10 6 8 18 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 18 8 6 24 6 8 30 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 12 8 8 6 8 8 6 36 8 8 6 6 10 8 18 8 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 14 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 12 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 6 8 20 8 6 10 8 10 10 6 8 6 18 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 36 10 18 15 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 18 10 8 12 8 6 8 8 8 10 18 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 21 10 6 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 12 6 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 6 12 15 8 6 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 10 8 8 8 21 18 6 8 8 18 8 30 15 15 8 18 8 6 8 8 10 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 6 10 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 10 8 6 10 8 18 6 12 8 8 8 18 8 6 6 8 10 6 6 10 18 24 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 18 6 8 6 10 6 8 18 15 12 14 6 21 8 21 8 18 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 8 6 8 6 12 8 18 6 8 6 8 8 8 21 8 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 24 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 15 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 10 6 12 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 18 8 10 12 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 15 6 8 8 8 8 15 6 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 24 8 6 8 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 10 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 18 8 10 6 6 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 24 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 12 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 12 10 6 8 8 12 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 21 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 10 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 36 8 4 12 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 6 8 8 8 12 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 14 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 10 6 10 24 21 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 18 8 18 8 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 18 10 10 8 12 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 12 8 6 8 15 6 8 8 10 10 8 10 6 36 8 30 8 10 6 8 24 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 6 8 6 8 6 8 10 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 8 4 6 10 10 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 12 8 10 8 18 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 10 10 6 24 10 8 18 18 6 6 8 8 8 10 8 21 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 10 10 36 8 10 10 8 6 6 10 8 36 18 10 8 8 8 6 36 8 6 10 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 6 18 6 6 36 8 10 8 14 8 8 14 36 8 8 8 8 24 10 18 8 6 8 8 8 30 18 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 36 10 8 8 6 8 6 6 30 10 8 8 8 24 8 8 6 6 6 10 10 8 12 6 8 6 8 8 36 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 10 10 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 12 8 8 18 12 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 10 6 6 6 8 21 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 8 10 18 8 8 8 24 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 8 12 8 6 8 15 6 8 6 8 8 15 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 18 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 6 18 6 8 10 8 8 12 6 36 10 10 10 8 8 10 18 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 20 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 30 10 12 6 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 15 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 18 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 12 8 8 8 6 8 10 Model Parameters Scenario: 2060_+P1_+P3 CIP System = Future 2060 w/ Priority 1 & 3 ° Legend CIP_Pipes_ PHASE 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 Future_Growth Horizon, Land_Use 50, COM_IND 50, COM_GEN 50, LR 50, HR Study_Area Study_Area Flow as % of Max Capacity 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2060 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T E ST E ST E 6TH ST WHITE AVE TROY RD / SH-8 BLAINE ST N POLK ST ORCHARD AVE PULLMAN RD / SH-8 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD N ALMON ST W 6TH ST N MAIN ST / US-95 S MAIN ST / US-95 PALOUSE RIVER DR FARM RD JACKSON ST STYNER AVE W 3RD ST WASHINGTON ST SWEET AVE PALOUSE RIVER DR 6 12 21 24 18 20 4 8 10 14 48 36 15 30 6 8 8 18 8 8 36 6 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 6 6 4 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 18 8 8 18 10 12 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 20 6 8 15 8 8 6 6 6 12 8 8 18 8 8 10 8 12 6 8 15 8 12 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 18 8 8 8 10 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 18 12 10 8 8 8 8 21 12 6 12 8 24 18 10 15 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 12 24 6 8 8 6 18 8 18 6 6 12 6 6 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 18 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 18 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 15 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 10 10 14 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 10 6 10 6 8 10 10 8 8 18 18 8 18 8 6 18 8 8 12 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 18 8 15 10 12 8 6 10 8 6 21 36 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 6 12 8 8 18 12 6 6 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 18 21 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 24 10 6 8 10 6 8 15 14 36 8 8 6 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 10 15 10 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 30 6 6 6 6 8 18 8 8 8 10 6 8 36 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 15 8 6 8 12 6 12 8 10 8 8 24 21 8 12 6 10 6 8 6 10 8 18 6 8 8 10 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 18 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 10 12 10 15 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 6 8 24 8 8 12 8 8 6 18 6 18 36 10 8 8 8 12 10 8 8 6 8 8 6 21 8 6 8 15 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 18 10 6 8 24 18 8 8 10 6 12 8 8 10 10 8 6 6 8 21 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 21 10 6 18 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 10 6 6 8 4 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 18 10 15 6 6 10 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 18 6 15 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 18 8 24 8 6 18 10 8 24 6 6 15 8 8 18 8 18 6 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 10 6 10 10 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 36 6 10 8 6 6 10 8 8 10 6 18 8 6 6 10 6 6 8 8 15 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 6 10 8 8 6 8 18 12 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 18 6 8 6 6 10 8 6 6 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 18 8 6 8 36 8 8 10 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 10 6 8 10 8 15 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 12 6 18 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 15 8 8 21 8 15 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 36 18 8 10 6 8 6 8 18 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 12 6 8 8 6 10 21 21 8 6 8 10 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 14 6 8 8 8 10 6 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 6 10 6 8 6 12 6 8 20 8 6 10 8 15 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 15 8 6 6 8 15 6 8 8 24 10 8 8 6 18 6 30 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 15 12 18 6 6 8 8 10 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 21 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 12 6 8 8 10 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 36 8 8 8 6 12 8 18 12 8 10 10 18 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 24 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 18 6 6 8 6 6 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 15 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 36 20 8 10 10 8 36 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 12 8 6 8 15 8 8 8 10 6 8 12 10 10 36 8 8 10 21 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 12 6 8 8 36 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 8 20 10 10 8 8 8 10 6 12 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 6 10 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 10 8 10 10 6 8 8 6 10 10 8 24 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 21 8 10 6 15 6 18 10 21 12 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 15 8 6 21 8 6 10 36 10 6 10 8 6 8 10 8 18 10 8 8 8 8 6 36 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 8 36 8 8 36 6 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 10 6 8 8 8 18 10 8 8 30 8 8 8 8 10 8 36 8 18 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 6 30 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 10 6 10 18 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 18 10 8 8 21 6 10 6 18 8 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 10 8 12 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 12 8 15 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 10 8 24 8 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 12 8 10 21 8 8 8 12 8 6 8 15 6 8 6 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 18 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 6 15 10 8 8 18 8 6 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 30 10 12 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 14 8 15 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 6 8 10 Model Parameters Scenario: 2060_+P1_+P3_+P4 CIP System = Future 2060 w/ Priority 1 & 3 + Priority 4 ° Legend CIP_Pipes_ PHASE 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 Future_Growth Horizon, Land_Use 50, COM_IND 50, COM_GEN 50, LR 50, HR Study_Area Study_Area Flow as % of Max Capacity 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged P:\209088\Design\Model\2010_SewerModel\CurrentModel\2010_MoscowSewerModel.mxd Appendix Figure Title: Project: CIP SYSTEM UTILIZED CAPACITY - 2060 Peak Hour Flows Prepared for: CITY of MOSCOW, IDAHO COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T 6 12 24 21 18 20 4 8 10 15 48 36 30 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 12 8 6 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 18 8 10 6 6 6 21 8 8 6 15 8 8 4 6 8 8 10 8 8 12 8 30 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 36 6 18 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 10 15 6 15 6 6 6 8 15 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 36 15 10 6 8 10 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 6 18 6 6 8 10 10 8 8 8 6 12 18 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 6 10 8 8 24 24 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 12 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 8 12 6 8 6 8 6 21 18 6 24 21 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 21 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 10 8 10 8 21 6 10 6 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 15 8 18 8 10 6 8 24 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 10 12 6 6 6 10 12 8 8 8 6 6 10 12 8 6 8 6 24 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 10 6 36 6 10 6 8 36 10 10 6 8 10 8 10 10 10 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 10 6 8 15 8 8 6 12 10 8 6 6 12 10 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 36 12 6 8 8 6 8 6 10 15 8 18 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 12 10 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 21 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 10 6 18 8 30 20 8 10 6 10 8 8 36 18 10 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 15 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 18 6 15 6 10 8 8 8 10 10 6 10 21 6 36 10 8 12 10 24 8 6 12 6 21 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 12 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 15 36 10 6 24 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 24 8 18 8 8 8 6 6 8 15 18 6 8 8 18 6 10 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 8 8 6 36 24 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 12 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 24 8 8 24 6 8 8 10 15 6 15 6 6 10 6 6 12 8 24 24 6 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 8 6 6 8 6 18 10 6 8 8 8 15 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 8 6 24 6 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 21 8 8 18 8 15 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 6 24 21 6 8 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 12 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 10 8 6 8 8 10 6 18 6 10 6 10 8 10 8 6 8 10 8 6 6 10 8 8 8 10 21 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 30 8 8 8 10 10 21 8 8 15 6 8 10 6 15 6 8 36 36 6 10 8 6 8 6 6 15 8 8 6 8 6 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 10 30 6 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 24 8 10 10 6 12 12 8 8 6 6 30 10 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 6 10 8 6 6 10 6 10 10 6 20 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 8 8 21 21 6 20 8 6 6 6 8 6 10 10 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 10 6 8 12 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 6 12 8 8 8 8 10 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 12 6 10 6 6 12 8 6 18 8 6 8 10 8 21 8 8 18 8 8 18 10 6 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 10 6 6 6 8 6 18 6 6 10 8 6 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 21 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 12 6 36 10 15 10 8 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 18 10 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 12 6 6 6 6 6 12 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 6 10 10 6 12 8 6 6 8 8 6 18 8 6 6 6 24 8 8 6 6 24 8 8 6 8 10 T 2010_MoscowSewerModel Keller Associates - 209088 01/29/11 CIP System - Buildout Impact Area + Priority 1,3,4 Peak Day Capacity Results Global Factor =2.0 Loads 1-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ° Legend CIP_Pipes PHASE 1a 1b 2 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b Study_Area Study_Area Future_Growth_Impact_Areas Capacity_q-Q_Results q_Q 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged Scenario: IMPACT_+P1+P3+P4 ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T 24 6 12 21 18 8 10 20 4 15 30 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 10 8 21 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 18 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 18 10 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 18 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 15 10 6 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 18 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 6 8 8 8 18 6 6 8 10 8 8 10 6 10 8 8 10 15 8 8 8 10 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 10 12 15 10 6 6 18 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 15 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 6 10 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 10 18 6 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 10 10 18 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 18 15 6 8 6 8 6 15 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 15 8 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 10 18 8 8 8 18 10 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 18 10 8 6 8 6 6 18 18 8 10 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 18 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 12 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 18 8 10 6 8 6 10 18 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 6 15 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 6 10 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 18 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 8 30 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 12 21 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 10 6 6 8 6 18 8 10 8 10 6 10 10 8 8 4 10 8 10 6 18 12 8 18 6 6 12 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 10 10 18 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 18 10 18 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 15 6 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 10 12 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 10 18 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 8 8 8 8 21 6 8 21 8 8 8 10 24 8 8 6 10 8 8 18 18 8 8 6 8 10 6 18 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 18 10 6 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 15 8 8 8 10 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 15 10 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 18 8 10 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 18 10 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 12 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 8 6 6 8 8 8 12 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 12 8 10 18 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 18 8 6 18 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 10 10 10 8 21 12 6 8 6 6 18 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 18 12 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 15 8 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 10 8 6 10 6 8 8 6 6 10 21 18 21 6 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 21 8 6 8 8 21 8 8 18 6 6 8 8 10 6 10 8 6 6 10 8 18 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 18 12 6 10 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 30 8 6 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 24 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 21 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 20 8 10 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 15 8 15 18 18 6 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 10 8 12 6 18 8 8 10 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 12 8 6 8 8 10 30 12 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 10 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 10 10 6 18 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 6 18 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 6 18 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 6 6 8 15 6 8 18 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 6 6 8 6 8 8 18 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 8 15 6 8 6 18 8 8 15 18 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 6 18 6 8 10 8 8 8 18 12 10 10 10 8 10 6 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 12 6 12 12 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 15 8 8 10 6 8 6 6 10 6 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 12 8 18 8 8 T T 2010_MoscowSewerModel Keller Associates - 209088 01/29/11 CIP System - Buildout Impact Area + Priority 1,3,4 Peak Day Capacity Results Global Factor =2.0 Loads 1-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ° Legend CIP_Pipes PHASE 1a 1b 2 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b Study_Area Study_Area Future_Growth_Impact_Areas Capacity_q-Q_Results q_Q 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged Scenario: IMPACT_+P1+P3+P4 ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T 6 12 24 21 18 20 4 8 10 15 48 36 30 4 6 18 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 18 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 20 10 6 18 6 8 6 10 8 30 8 8 8 8 15 8 6 15 10 6 12 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 6 6 8 10 8 15 8 6 8 21 6 8 8 21 6 10 10 8 6 36 8 15 18 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 18 6 8 18 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 6 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 36 10 6 8 8 12 8 10 12 6 10 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 12 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 8 24 6 18 15 8 8 8 10 12 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 21 24 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 6 10 8 10 8 10 21 6 10 8 6 8 8 21 8 8 8 6 24 6 10 6 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 8 10 12 6 12 8 6 21 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 15 8 10 12 8 24 6 6 21 8 18 8 6 10 36 10 10 8 8 21 36 24 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 6 6 10 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 12 6 8 12 6 8 8 6 8 8 4 8 36 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 15 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 12 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 8 12 10 6 8 12 8 10 8 21 8 6 8 10 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 18 30 8 6 10 6 10 8 8 36 8 10 6 8 12 6 8 8 8 10 6 12 8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 6 10 6 8 24 10 10 6 6 6 20 36 10 6 8 12 10 18 8 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 20 8 6 10 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 15 36 10 6 24 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 21 24 8 18 8 6 6 6 8 6 15 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 12 8 6 8 8 8 6 36 24 8 18 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 8 8 8 18 15 24 8 8 24 8 6 8 10 15 8 8 15 6 6 10 12 8 21 6 12 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 10 6 6 18 10 6 8 8 8 8 15 10 6 6 6 8 6 12 8 6 10 6 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 12 8 8 6 6 10 6 8 6 24 6 6 10 8 10 6 18 6 18 8 8 6 8 21 8 8 15 8 8 8 6 8 15 8 18 8 8 10 24 8 21 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 8 18 21 8 18 6 12 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 18 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 6 10 8 8 10 8 6 12 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 8 10 21 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 8 6 8 30 21 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 15 8 10 6 15 8 6 36 36 8 10 8 8 6 15 6 6 6 10 8 6 6 6 6 6 10 30 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 6 8 6 24 8 10 8 10 6 6 12 8 6 8 30 6 8 8 21 6 8 18 6 8 10 10 6 10 6 10 10 8 6 18 6 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 8 6 10 6 18 8 6 6 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 12 8 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 10 6 6 8 12 6 8 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 8 6 6 6 8 12 6 18 6 6 12 8 24 8 18 8 6 8 10 8 21 8 8 8 18 10 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 20 8 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 10 8 6 8 8 6 6 10 8 8 10 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 18 8 6 21 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 10 8 8 12 6 36 10 15 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 12 8 8 10 8 10 12 6 6 6 6 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 10 8 18 6 8 10 6 8 8 6 6 10 10 10 10 6 8 6 6 6 18 8 6 6 6 24 8 8 6 6 8 24 8 8 6 8 10 T 2010_MoscowSewerModel Keller Associates - 209088 01/29/11 CIP System - Buildout Impact Area + P 1,3,4 + Priority 5 Peak Day Capacity Results Global Factor =2.0 Loads 1-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ° Legend CIP_Pipes PHASE 1a 1b 2 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b Study_Area Study_Area Future_Growth_Impact_Areas Capacity_q-Q_Results q_Q 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged Scenario: IMPACT_+P1+P3+P4_+P5 ---PAGE BREAK--- T T T 24 6 12 21 18 8 10 20 4 15 30 10 8 8 10 6 8 8 12 8 8 6 10 8 18 10 18 6 8 8 10 8 18 8 8 18 10 6 21 6 6 8 8 6 10 8 18 10 8 8 8 8 10 18 6 8 6 21 6 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 18 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 18 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 8 15 18 8 21 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 10 15 6 8 10 8 10 6 8 6 8 8 8 6 12 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 12 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 12 15 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 10 18 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 15 8 10 8 8 8 8 6 18 8 8 8 10 6 6 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 10 8 8 8 18 6 10 8 18 10 8 8 8 6 8 6 15 6 6 6 6 6 15 8 8 10 18 8 18 6 8 8 15 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 8 6 18 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 18 8 10 6 8 8 8 18 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 21 10 6 8 18 6 8 6 6 8 6 12 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 18 6 6 6 8 8 18 8 10 6 6 8 10 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 18 12 6 6 8 8 18 8 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 12 30 8 12 8 8 6 18 8 8 15 8 6 10 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 12 12 8 18 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 6 8 8 8 10 18 6 8 6 10 10 6 8 8 4 10 10 10 6 18 6 8 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 10 10 8 8 10 10 8 8 6 8 10 8 18 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 15 6 10 8 6 8 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 6 10 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 21 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 6 6 8 30 6 8 8 6 12 8 6 6 18 6 8 10 10 8 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 6 10 24 8 8 6 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 12 8 10 6 6 8 8 8 18 8 6 18 10 12 8 8 8 8 8 15 6 8 8 8 10 8 21 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 18 15 10 8 6 6 10 6 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 18 8 10 12 6 8 6 8 12 18 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 12 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 12 18 8 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 10 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 8 18 6 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 8 10 10 6 8 12 12 6 8 10 6 8 6 8 6 8 8 12 8 8 8 6 8 8 15 8 6 8 8 10 6 8 8 12 8 6 6 8 8 10 8 6 10 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 21 6 18 21 18 8 6 8 6 10 8 8 8 6 6 12 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 10 6 18 10 8 8 8 12 6 10 8 6 8 10 6 6 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 18 6 10 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 30 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 18 8 12 8 6 8 6 6 8 8 8 15 8 10 8 8 8 6 10 10 20 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 10 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 10 6 18 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 15 15 18 6 8 8 8 10 18 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 10 8 8 6 8 12 8 6 8 10 8 8 12 8 8 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 8 21 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 6 8 6 6 10 8 10 6 8 18 10 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 12 10 6 18 10 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 18 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 21 8 8 6 8 10 6 8 18 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8 15 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 18 6 8 6 6 6 8 6 18 8 6 6 8 6 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 12 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 10 18 10 8 8 8 18 8 6 8 15 6 8 6 8 8 6 15 18 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 12 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 6 18 6 8 8 8 12 10 10 10 10 8 10 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 12 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 21 18 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 6 12 12 6 6 8 8 8 8 6 8 10 10 8 15 8 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 10 8 6 10 6 18 8 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 6 18 8 8 8 6 12 8 18 8 8 8 T T 2010_MoscowSewerModel Keller Associates - 209088 01/29/11 CIP System - Buildout Impact Area + P 1,3,4 + Priority 5 Peak Day Capacity Results Global Factor =2.0 Loads 1-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ° Legend CIP_Pipes PHASE 1a 1b 2 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b Study_Area Study_Area Future_Growth_Impact_Areas Capacity_q-Q_Results q_Q 0%_No Flow 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-89% 90-99% >100%_Surcharged Scenario: IMPACT_+P1+P3+P4_+P5 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX H COST ESTIMATES ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO Est: 2/9/11 Updated: 6/16/11 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Master Plan by: KTK by: KTK Capital Improvement Plan ID# Item Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Future Total 1A.1 36" Trunkline to WWTP 1,308,000 $ 1A.2 30" Paradise Creek Trunkline 1,119,000 $ 1A.3 N. Main to N. Polk 15" Main 600,000 $ 1B Troy Rd / White Ave Trunkline 881,000 $ Total Priority 1 Improvements 3,908,000 $ 2 Miscellaneous Slope Corrections $651,000 2B Standby Power All Lift Stations $175,000 2C Vulnerability Assessment $35,000 2D System Expansion Oversize Costs $8,000 Total Priority 2 Improvements $869,000 3A U.S. 95 / S. Main Crossing $143,000 3B S. Main 18" - Styner to Sweet Ave $330,000 3C W. 3rd to N. Almon Trunkline $818,000 3D Upgrade South Lift Station & New Force Main $854,000 3E Orchard L.S. Relief Interceptor $175,000 3F Sewer Department Operations Facility $2,000,000 3G System Expansion Oversize Costs $405,000 Total Priority 3 Improvements $4,725,000 4A W. Palouse River Dr. 15" $350,000 4B Pullman Rd 21" Trunkline $318,000 4C White Ave to Mtn View Rd 21" Trunkline $419,000 4D Upgrade South Lift Station $1,158,000 4E Upgrade Mall Lift Station $929,000 4F System Expansion Oversize Costs $440,000 Total Priority 4 Improvements $3,614,000 5A Farm Road 18" Trunkline 304,000 $ 5B N. Cleveland 12" & Diversion 460,000 $ 5C Diversion & S. Cleveland 12" 311,000 $ 5D Upgrade South Lift Station 1,538,000 $ 5E Upgrade Mall Lift Station 1,234,000 $ 5F System Expansion Oversize Costs 178,000 $ Future Improvements $4,025,000 3,908,000 $ $869,000 $4,725,000 $3,614,000 $4,025,000 17,141,000 $ Future Improvements (by Build-out) TOTAL (rounded) * All costs in 2011 Dollars. Costs include engineering and contingencies. Priority 1 Improvements (by 2012) Priority 2 Improvements (by 2015) Priority 3 Improvements (by 2030) Priority 4 Improvements (by 2060) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Keller Associates, Inc P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 6/16/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow, Idaho WW CIP Unit Cost List ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE* PVC Pipe 8" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $50 10" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $55 12" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $60 15" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $65 18" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $70 21" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $85 24" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $110 30" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $135 36" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $160 Remove Old Pipe - 8" thru 18" LF $5 Remove Old Pipe - 21" thru 24" LF $8 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes - 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes - 24" thru 36" EA $3,500 Manhole 48" - 8" thru 18" pipe EA $3,000 Manhole 54" - 21" thru 24" pipe EA $4,000 Manhole 60" - 30" thru 36" pipe EA $5,000 Intertie Lines (connecting pipe,fittings, etc.) EA $8,000 Reconnect Services LF $15 Dewatering LF $10 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 Traffic Control LS varies Additional Cost for Pipe in Confined Construction - 8" thru 18" LF $18 Additional Cost for Pipe in Confined Construction - 21" thru 24" LF $20 Additional Cost for Pipe in Confined Construction - 30" thru 36" LF $25 Bypass Piping Setup - 8" thru 18" gravity EA $5,000 Bypass Piping Setup - 21" thru 24" gravity EA $7,500 Bypass Piping Setup - 30" thru 36" gravity EA $10,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation - 8" thru 18" gravity LF $10 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation - 21" thru 24" gravity LF $13 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation - 30" thru 36" gravity LF $20 1/2 Lane Pavement Repair LF $20 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 HWY Repair (Including Extra for Backfill) LF $70 Concrete Road Repair (excluding extra for Backfill) LF $270 Self Compacting Backfill LF $50 Gravel Road Repair LF $10 Sod Repair LF $5 Highway Bore - incl. casing & carrier pipe LF $400 Canal Crossing - incl. casing & carrier pipe LS $35,000 Easement LF $20 Mobilization - Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% Contingency - % of construction costs % 25% Engineering and CMS - % of construction costs % 20% * Costs in 2011 Dollars The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Keller Associates, Inc P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 36" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $160 3,890 $622,400 Replace Manholes EA $5,000 11 $55,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes EA $3,500 2 $7,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 24" EA $7,500 1 $7,500 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 24" LF $13 3,890 $50,570 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 24" LF $8 3,890 $31,120 Connect to Headworks LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Pavement Repair LS $5,000 1 $5,000 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 3,800 $19,000 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Dewatering LF $10 3,890 $38,900 Subtotal $858,990 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $42,950 Total Construction Costs $901,940 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $225,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $180,388 Total Project Cost (rounded) $1,308,000 Project Location: South of Pullman Road, Rayburn St. to WWTP Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: 36" Trunkline to WWTP Project Identifier: 1A.1 (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 24" south parallel trunkline with a larger 36" pipeline to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Interconnections between parallel lines ‐Coordination with University of Idaho ‐Creek Influence The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Pullman Rd WWTP Farm Rd P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 36" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $160 1,710 $273,600 Replace Manholes EA $5,000 9 $45,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 4 $6,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 24" thru 36" EA $3,500 2 $7,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 24" EA $7,500 1 $7,500 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 24" LF $13 1,710 $22,230 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 24" LF $8 1,710 $13,680 30" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $135 1,425 $192,375 New Manholes EA $5,000 5 $25,000 Intertie Lines (connecting pipe, fittings, etc.) ‐ ( 2 Reconstruct, 1 New) EA $8,000 3 $24,000 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 2,150 $8,600 1/2 Lane Pavement Repair LF $20 860 $17,200 Full Lane Pavement Repair ‐ W. 6th Crossing LF $40 100 $4,000 Misc Surface Repair LF $5 2,175 $10,875 Dewatering LF $10 3,135 $31,350 Railroad Crossing LF $400 100 $40,000 Traffic Control LS $6,000 1 $6,000 Subtotal $734,410 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $36,721 Total Construction Costs $771,131 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $193,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $154,226 Total Project Cost (rounded) $1,119,000 Project Location: Parallel to Paradise Creek, Line St. to College & Jackson Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: 30" Paradise Creek Trunkline Project Identifier: 1A.2 (upsize pipe & new) Objective: This project will replace a section of the existing 24" south parallel trunkline with a larger 36" pipeline to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. The existing 30" dry line will also be extended to connect with the upsized 36" pipe. Potential Issues: ‐Reconstruct Interconnections between parallel lines ‐Coordination with University of Idaho ‐Creek Influence The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Line St. W. 6th St. Jackson St. End of Existing 30" Dry Line P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 15" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $65 2,540 $165,100 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 9 $27,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 9 $13,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 10" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 10" LF $10 2,540 $25,400 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" & 10" LF $5 2,540 $12,700 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 2,540 $10,160 Reconnect Services LF $15 2,540 $38,100 Gravel Road Repair LF $10 485 $4,850 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 2,055 $82,200 Traffic Control LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $394,010 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $19,701 Total Construction Costs $413,711 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $103,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $82,742 Total Project Cost (rounded) $600,000 Project Location: Near City Shop, N. Main St. to N. Polk St. Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: N. Main to N. Polk 15" main Project Identifier: 1A.3 (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10", and 12" pipes with a larger 15" pipeline to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Proximity to existing structures ‐Sewer bypassing, reconnecting services ‐Existing Utility Protection ‐Confined Work Space The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Main St. Polk St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Intertie to Existing 30" EA $8,000 1 $8,000 21" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $85 3,250 $276,250 New Manholes EA $4,000 11 $44,000 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 300 $21,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 18" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 18" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 18" LF $10 270 $2,700 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 18" LF $5 270 $1,350 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 3,550 $14,200 Confined Work Space LF $18 3,550 $63,900 Misc. Surface Repair LF $10 1,820 $18,200 Highway Bore ‐ incl. casing & carrier pipe LF $400 100 $40,000 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 1,630 $65,200 Traffic Control LS $15,000 1 $15,000 Subtotal $577,800 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $28,890 Total Construction Costs $606,690 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $152,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $121,338 Total Project Cost (rounded) $881,000 Project Location: Along Troy Road and White Ave, from Adams St. to Blaine St. Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Troy Rd/ White Ave Trunkline Project Identifier: 1B (new pipe) Objective: This project will install a new 21" trunkline from the end of the existing 30" dry line and intercept flow in the 18" main near the fairgrounds. Potential Issues: ‐Remaining life of existing parallel 18" trunkline may warrant upsizing new line and abandoning existing line. ‐Hydraulic interties between 18" and 21" parallel trunklines should be considered. ‐Highway Traffic Control ‐Assumes routing pipeline outside of highway pavement, extra costs may be accrued for any additional pavement repair The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Troy Rd White Ave. Mtn. View Rd. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/11/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 8" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $50 298 $14,900 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 1 $3,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 8" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 8" LF $10 451 $4,510 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" LF $5 298 $1,490 Misc Surface Repair LF $5 298 $1,490 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $35,890 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $1,795 Total Construction Costs $37,685 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $9,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $7,537 Total Project Cost (rounded) $55,000 Project Location: White Ave & Hourglass Lane Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.1 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerated cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 46 $3,220 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 0 $0 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 8" & 12" EA $5,000 3 $15,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 8" & 12" LF $10 285 $2,850 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 18" LF $5 46 $230 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 60 $2,400 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $29,200 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $1,460 Total Construction Costs $30,660 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $8,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $6,132 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $840 46 $38,660 $45,000 Project Location: W. 6th Street near Deakin Ave Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.2 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Deakin Ave. W. 6th St.. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 140 $9,800 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 0 $0 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 12" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 12" LF $10 140 $1,400 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 18" LF $5 140 $700 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 140 $5,600 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $28,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $1,400 Total Construction Costs $29,400 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $7,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $5,880 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $364 100 $36,400 $43,000 Project Location: Street near Harding Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.3 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 610 $42,700 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 1 $3,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 18" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 18" LF $10 763 $7,630 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 18" LF $5 610 $3,050 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 100 $4,000 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Canal Crossing ‐ incl. casing & carrier pipe LS $35,000 1 $35,000 Subtotal $105,880 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $5,294 Total Construction Costs $111,174 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $28,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $22,235 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $1,392 100 $139,174 $162,000 Project Location: Mtn View Road near 7th Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.4 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. E. 6th St. Mountain View Road P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 8" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $50 156 $7,800 10" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $55 233 $12,815 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 1 $3,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 3 $4,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 8" & 10" EA $5,000 2 $10,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 8" & 10" LF $10 536 $5,360 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" & 10" LF $5 389 $1,945 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 389 $1,945 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $49,865 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $2,493 Total Construction Costs $52,358 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $13,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $10,472 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $122 536 $65,358 $76,000 Project Location: near Thatuna Ave & Juniper Drive Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.7 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Mtn View Road Thatuna Ave. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 10" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $55 353 $19,415 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 1 $3,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ X" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ X" LF $10 353 $3,530 Remove Old Pipe ‐ X" LF $5 353 $1,765 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 353 $14,120 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $52,330 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $2,617 Total Construction Costs $54,947 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $14,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $10,989 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $195 353 $68,947 $80,000 Project Location: W. 6th & Main Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.8 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. 6th St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 12" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $60 355 $21,300 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 1 $3,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 12" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 12" LF $10 355 $3,550 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 12" LF $5 355 $1,775 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 355 $1,775 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $41,900 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $2,095 Total Construction Costs $43,995 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $11,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $8,799 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $155 355 $54,995 $64,000 Project Location: Sweet Avenue Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.9 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. S. Main Sweet Ave P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 8" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $50 157 $7,850 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 0 $0 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 2 $3,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 8" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 8" LF $10 157 $1,570 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" LF $5 157 $785 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 157 $6,280 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $26,985 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $1,349 Total Construction Costs $28,334 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $7,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $5,667 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $225 157 $35,334 $42,000 Project Location: E. 6th & Hayes Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.10 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. E. 6th St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 24" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $110 361 $39,710 Replace Manholes EA $4,000 0 $0 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 24" thru 36" EA $3,500 2 $7,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ X" EA $7,500 0 $0 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ X" LF $13 0 $0 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 24" LF $8 361 $2,888 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 361 $1,805 Traffic Control LS $2,500 0 $0 Dewatering LF $10 361 $3,610 Subtotal $55,013 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $2,751 Total Construction Costs $57,764 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $14,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $11,553 Total Project Cost (rounded) Unit Price Total Length Construction Cost $199 361 $71,764 $84,000 Project Location: Paradise Creek Interceptor north of Recreation Center Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Miscellaneous Slope Corrections Project Identifier: 2.11 (correct slope) Objective: This priority addresses multiple pipes within the system that have low or flat slopes that create localized surcharging. Each location should be investigated to determine feasibility of correcting the slope. Increased maintenance through accelerted cleaning schedules may be a desired alternative to replacement. Potential Issues: ‐Utility and/or Canal crossings that dictate slopes The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Pullman Road Line St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 15" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $65 135 $8,775 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 220 $15,400 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 3 $9,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 3 $4,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 10" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 10" LF $10 360 $3,600 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 10" LF $5 255 $1,275 Highway Bore ‐ incl. casing & carrier pipe LF $400 100 $40,000 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Dewatering LF $10 360 $3,600 Subtotal $93,650 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $4,683 Total Construction Costs $98,333 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $25,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $19,667 Total Project Cost (rounded) $143,000 Project Location: South Lift Station, near Palouse River Drive Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: U.S. 95 / S. Main Crossing Project Identifier: 3A (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10" pipe with larger 15" and 18" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Boring & Casing to cross Highway ‐Maintain service during construction ‐ consider constructing parallel to existing line. ‐Connection to existing lift station or upstream manhole ‐River Influence The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. S. Main U.S. 95 W. Palouse Dr. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 6/16/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 990 $69,300 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 3 $9,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 4 $6,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 10" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 10" LF $10 990 $9,900 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" LF $5 990 $4,950 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 990 $3,960 Confined Work Space LF $18 990 $17,820 Reconnect Services LF $15 990 $14,850 HWY Repair (Including Extra for Backfill) LF $70 990 $69,300 Traffic Control LS $6,000 1 $6,000 Subtotal $216,080 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $10,804 Total Construction Costs $226,884 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $57,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $45,377 Total Project Cost (rounded) $330,000 Project Location: along S. Main, Styner Ave to Sweet Ave Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: S. Main 18" ‐ Styner to Sweet Ave Project Identifier: 3B (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 8" pipe with larger 18" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Highway permit, flagging, increceased backfill and surface restoration requirements ‐Coordinate pipe size with South Lift Station pump upgrades The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Sweet Ave. S. Main Styner Ave. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 21" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $85 2,200 $187,000 Replace Manholes EA $4,000 11 $44,000 Reconstruct Intertie to 36" & 24" Trunklines EA $8,000 1 $8,000 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 635 $44,450 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 3 $9,000 12" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $60 10 $600 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 9 $13,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 12" & 18" EA $5,000 3 $15,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 12" & 18" LF $10 1,632 $16,320 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 10", 12", & 18" LF $5 2,076 $10,380 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 2,735 $10,940 Confined Work Space LF $20 540 $10,800 Reconnect Services LF $15 2,076 $31,140 HWY Repair (Including Extra for Backfill) LF $70 70 $4,900 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 1,785 $71,400 Gravel Road Repair LF $10 1,015 $10,150 Railroad Crossing LF $400 100 $40,000 Traffic Control LS $9,000 1 $9,000 Subtotal $536,580 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $26,829 Total Construction Costs $563,409 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $141,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $112,682 Total Project Cost (rounded) $818,000 Project Location: along W. 3rd, Asbury, and N. Almon Streets Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: W. 3rd to N. Almon Trunkline Project Identifier: 3C (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing parallel 12" and 18" pipelines with a single larger 21" pipe to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. The project will also remove several diversion manholes in the process. New pipe should discharge to larger 36" trunkline to prevent surcharging of older 24" parallel trunkline. Potential Issues: ‐Removal of parallel pipes at different elevations ‐Reconnection of services at varied elevations ‐Confined work space ‐Highway crossing, flagging, etc. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. W. 3rd St. Almon St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Lift Station Upgrade ‐ New 30hp Pumps Electrical, Misc LS $70,000 1 $70,000 12" Force Main LF $55 2,920 $160,600 Connect to Manhole EA $1,500 1 $1,500 Existing Utility Protection LF $4 2,920 $11,680 Confined Work Space LF $18 2,920 $52,560 Highway Bore ‐ incl. casing & carrier pipe LF $400 100 $40,000 HWY Repair (Including Extra for Backfill) LF $70 2,920 $204,400 Traffic Control LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Subtotal $560,740 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $28,037 Total Construction Costs $588,777 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $147,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $117,755 Total Project Cost (rounded) $854,000 Project Location: along S. Main, Palouse River Drive to Styner Ave. Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: South Lift Station & Force Main Upgrades Project Identifier: 3D (upgrade L.S. pumps) Objective: This project will upgrade the pumping capacity of the lift station and also install a second parallel force main. Required Peak Hour pumping capacity at 2030 projected flows is 850gpm. Potential Issues: ‐Highway permit, flagging, increceased backfill and surface restoration requirements ‐Boring & Casing to cross Highway ‐Future service area of Lift Station The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Palouse River Dr. Styner Ave. S. Main 12 " P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Dismantle Lift Station ‐ plug influent lines, remove pumps, etc. LS $5,000 1 $5,000 10" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $55 1,530 $84,150 New Manholes EA $3,000 6 $18,000 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 1,530 $7,650 Subtotal $114,800 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $5,740 Total Construction Costs $120,540 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $30,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $24,108 Total Project Cost (rounded) $175,000 Project Location: E. Tamarack Drive to N. Orchard Ave Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Remove Orchard Lift Station Project Identifier: 3E (intercept flow) Objective: Reduce unnecessary pumping costs by extending the existing gravity system to intercept flows at the Orchard Lift Station. Potential Issues: ‐Groundwater The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. N. Orchard Ave Tamarack Dr. 10" P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 15" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $65 1,773 $115,245 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 7 $21,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 5 $7,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 10" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 10" LF $10 1,773 $17,730 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 10" LF $5 1,773 $8,865 Reconnect Services LF $15 1,773 $26,595 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 1,573 $7,865 Gravel Road Repair LF $10 200 $2,000 Dewatering LF $10 1,773 $17,730 Subtotal $229,530 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $11,477 Total Construction Costs $241,007 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $60,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $48,201 Total Project Cost (rounded) $350,000 Project Location: south of W. Palouse River Drive and parallel to River Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: W. Palouse River Drive 15" Main Project Identifier: 4A (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10" pipe with larger 15" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐River Influence The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. U.S. 95 / S. Main W. Palouse River Drive. 15" P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 6/16/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 21" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $85 1,485 $126,225 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 4 $12,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 4 $6,000 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 12" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 12" LF $10 1,485 $14,850 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 12" LF $5 1,485 $7,425 Reconnect Services LF $15 1,485 $22,275 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 1,345 $6,725 Pavement Repair LS $5,000 1 $5,000 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $208,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $10,400 Total Construction Costs $218,400 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $55,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $43,680 Total Project Cost (rounded) $318,000 Project Location: along Pullman Rd from Farm Rd. to Mall Lift Station Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Pullman Road 21" Trunkline Project Identifier: 4B (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 12" pipe with larger 21" pipeline to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Construction along Hwy 8 right‐of‐way ‐ potential permits, flagging, increceased backfill and surface restoration requirements (pipe in landscaping strip) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Pullman Road 21" Farm Rd WWTP P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 21" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $85 2,156 $183,260 18" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $70 30 $2,100 New Manholes EA $4,000 6 $24,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 3 $4,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 18" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 18" LF $10 630 $6,300 Misc. Surface Repair LF $5 0 $0 Gravel Road Repair LF $10 1,306 $13,060 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 850 $34,000 Traffic Control LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Subtotal $274,720 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $13,736 Total Construction Costs $288,456 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $72,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $57,691 Total Project Cost (rounded) $419,000 Project Location: through Fairgrounds Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: White Ave to Mountain View Road 21" Trunkline Project Identifier: 4C (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will install a new 21" trunkline from the end of the the Priority 1B project and intercept flow in the 18" main along Mountain View Road at Harold Street. The pipeline will also intercept flow in the 18" pipeline entering the fairgrounds from the east which serves E. White Ave. Potential Issues: The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Mountain View Rd. White Ave. 21" P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Lift Station Upgrade ‐ New Pumps, Electrical, Generator, Misc. (2400 gpm) LS $750,000 1 $750,000 Reconnect Force Main Piping, Valves, etc LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $760,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $38,000 Total Construction Costs $798,000 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $200,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $159,600 Total Project Cost (rounded) $1,158,000 Project Location: South Lift Station along Hwy 95 Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: South Lift Station Upgrades Project Identifier: 4D (upgrade L.S. pumps) Objective: This project will upgrade the pumping capacity of the lift station to meet 2060 projected peak hour flows of 2400 gpm. The existing wetwell and generator will likely need replaced as well. Potential Issues: ‐Future service area of Lift Station The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Styner Ave. S. Main Palouse River Dr. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Lift Station Upgrade ‐ New Pumps, Electrical, Misc. (1900 gpm) LS $600,000 1 $600,000 Reconnect Force Main Piping, Valves, etc LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $610,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $30,500 Total Construction Costs $640,500 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $160,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $128,100 Total Project Cost (rounded) $929,000 Project Location: Mall Lift Station along Pullman Road Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Mall Lift Station Upgrades Project Identifier: 4E (upgrade L.S. pumps) Objective: This project will upgrade the pumping capacity of the lift station to meet 2060 projected peak hour flows of 1900 gpm. The existing wetwell will likely need replaced as well. Potential Issues: ‐Future service area of Lift Station ‐Bypass piping during construction (special connection to utilize existing force main vs. Hwy crossing) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. WWTP Pullman Road P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 15" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $65 1,251 $81,315 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 6 $18,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 5 $7,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 15" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 15" LF $10 1,251 $12,510 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 10" LF $5 1,251 $6,255 Reconnect Services LF $15 1,251 $18,765 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 1,251 $50,040 Subtotal $199,385 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $9,969 Total Construction Costs $209,354 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $52,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $41,871 Total Project Cost (rounded) $304,000 Project Location: along Farm Road Pullman Rd to Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Farm Road 18" Trunkline Project Identifier: 5A (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10" pipe with larger 18" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. Potential Issues: ‐Sewer bypassing, reconnecting services The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Pullman Road 18" Farm Road P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 12" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $60 2,480 $148,800 8" Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill LF $50 156 $7,800 Replace Manholes EA $3,000 9 $27,000 Connect/Reconnect at Manholes ‐ 8" thru 21" EA $1,500 9 $13,500 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 12" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 12" LF $10 2,636 $26,360 Remove Old Pipe ‐ 8" & 12" LF $5 2,131 $10,655 Reconnect Services LF $15 2,131 $31,965 Misc Surface Repair LF $5 2,131 $10,655 Full Lane Pavement Repair LF $40 505 $20,200 Subtotal $301,935 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $15,097 Total Construction Costs $317,032 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $79,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $63,406 Total Project Cost (rounded) $460,000 Project Location: Parallel to N. Cleveland from Juniper Dr. to Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: N. Cleveland 12" and Diversion Project Identifier: 5B (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10" pipe with larger 12" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. This project will also correct slope issues in a lateral 8" pipe (if not already corrected) and create a new diversion point in the system. Potential Issues: ‐Proximity to existing structures ‐ mapping indicates the existing line is under or very near multiple residential structures ‐Groundwater influence unknown ‐Sewer bypassing, reconnecting services The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. N. Cleveland Street 12" Thatuna Ave Orchard Ave. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost 12" Pipe ‐ Pipe Burst/Lining LF $80 1,894 $151,520 Bypass Piping Setup ‐ 10" EA $5,000 1 $5,000 Bypass Pipe and Pump Operation ‐ 10" LF $10 1,894 $18,940 Reconnect Services LF $15 1,894 $28,410 Subtotal $203,870 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $10,194 Total Construction Costs $214,064 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $54,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $42,813 Total Project Cost (rounded) $311,000 Project Location: S. Cleveland and S. Grant Streets from Street to E. 6th Street Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Diversion and S. Cleveland 12" Project Identifier: 5C (upsize pipe) Objective: This project will replace the existing 10" pipe with larger 12" pipe sections to relieve potential surcharging during peak hour flows. The new larger pipe will also enable a change in the direction of flow at manhole J16‐20, to prevent surchargin in the 18" trunkline along Mountain View Road. Potential Issues: ‐Proximity to existing structures ‐Sewer bypassing, reconnecting services The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Street S. Cleveland 12" E. 6th St. S. Blaine St. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Lift Station Upgrade ‐ New Pumps, Electrical, Generator, Misc. (4350 gpm) LS $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 Reconnect Force Main Piping, Valves, etc LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $1,010,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $50,500 Total Construction Costs $1,060,500 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $265,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $212,100 Total Project Cost (rounded) $1,538,000 Project Location: South Lift Station along Hwy 95 Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: South Lift Station Upgrades Project Identifier: 5D (upgrade L.S. pumps) Objective: This project will upgrade the pumping capacity of the lift station to meet buildout population projected peak hour flows of 4350 gpm. The wetwell and generator will likely need replaced as well. Potential Issues: ‐Future service area of Lift Station The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Styner Ave. S. Main Palouse River Dr. P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow, Idaho 2011 Water Master Plan: Capital Improvement Project Details General Line Items Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity 2010 Cost Lift Station Upgrade ‐ New Pumps, Electrical, Misc. (2700 gpm) LS $800,000 1 $800,000 Reconnect Force Main Piping, Valves, etc LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Subtotal $810,000 Mobilization ‐ Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $40,500 Total Construction Costs $850,500 Contingency ‐ % of construction costs % 25% $213,000 Engineering and CMS ‐ % of construction costs % 20% $170,100 Total Project Cost (rounded) $1,234,000 Project Location: Mall Lift Station along Pullman Road Wastewater Capital Improvements Project: Mall Lift Station Upgrades Project Identifier: 5E (upgrade L.S. pumps) Objective: This project will upgrade the pumping capacity of the lift station to meet buildout population projected peak hour flows of 2700 gpm. The wetwell may need replaced as well. Potential Issues: ‐Future service area of Lift Station ‐Bypass piping during construction (special connection to utilize existing force main vs. Hwy crossing) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. WWTP Pullman Road P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 3/10/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO Est: 2/17/11 Last Rev: 2/23/11 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Master Plan by: KTK by: KTK Capital Improvement Plan - System Expansion Cost Estimate TOTAL COSTS OVERSIZE COSTS Item Unit Unit Price Est. Qty Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Future Total Unit Price Est. Qty Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Future Total Priority 2 Expansion (2015) 10" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $55 1,083 $59,565 $5 1,083 $5,415 8" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $50 8,224 $411,200 $0 8,224 $0 Manhole 48" - 8" thru 18" pipe EA $3,000 31 $93,000 $0 31 $0 Total Priority 2 Expansion $470,765 $5,415 Priority 3 Expansion (2030) 24" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $110 3,386 $372,460 $60 3,386 $203,160 15" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $65 263 $17,095 $15 263 $3,945 12" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $60 1,690 $101,400 $10 1,690 $16,900 10" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $55 5,933 $326,315 $5 5,933 $29,665 8" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $50 30,500 $1,525,000 $0 30,500 $0 Manhole 48" - 8" thru 18" pipe EA $3,000 128 $384,000 $0 128 $0 Manhole 54" - 21" thru 24" pipe EA $4,000 12 $48,000 $1,000 12 $12,000 Total Priority 3 Expansion $2,774,270 $265,670 Priority 4 Expansion (2060) 18" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $70 6,252 $437,640 $20 6,252 $125,040 15" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $65 2,606 $169,390 $15 2,606 $39,090 12" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $60 5,996 $359,760 $10 5,996 $59,960 10" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $55 12,942 $711,810 $5 12,942 $64,710 8" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $50 20,994 $1,049,700 $0 20,994 $0 Manhole 48" - 8" thru 18" pipe EA $3,000 163 $489,000 $0 163 $0 Total Priority 4 Expansion $3,217,300 $288,800 Future Expansion (Build-out) 15" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $65 4,782 310,830 $ $15 4,782 71,730 $ 12" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $60 2,677 160,620 $ $10 2,677 26,770 $ 10" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $55 3,601 198,055 $ $5 3,601 18,005 $ 8" Pipe - Excavation, Backfill LF $50 40,294 2,014,700 $ $0 40,294 - $ Manhole 48" - 8" thru 18" pipe EA $3,000 172 516,000 $ $0 172 - $ Total Priority 5 Expansion $3,200,205 $116,505 Mobilization - Percent of Item Cost Sum % 5% $23,538 $138,714 $160,865 $160,010 5% $271 $13,284 $14,440 $5,825 Total Construction Costs $494,303 $2,912,984 $3,378,165 $3,360,215 $5,686 $278,954 $303,240 $122,330 Contingency - % of construction costs % 25% $124,000 $728,000 $845,000 $840,000 25% $1,000 $70,000 $76,000 $31,000 Engineering and CMS - % of construction costs % 20% $98,861 $582,597 $675,633 $672,043 20% $1,137 $55,791 $60,648 $24,466 $718,000 $4,224,000 $4,899,000 $4,873,000 14,714,000 $ $8,000 $405,000 $440,000 $178,000 1,031,000 $ TOTAL (rounded) * All costs in 2011 Dollars. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Keller Associates, Inc P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Moscow WW Collection CIP.xls 6/16/2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Item Project Cost Annualized Cost1 Annual O&M Cost Total Annual Cost Annual mg Recycled Annual $/gal 1 Scalping Plant 1 4,800,000 $ 385,164 $ 50,000 $ 435,164 $ 17.14 0.0254 $ 2 Scalping Plant 2 7,600,000 $ 609,843 $ 75,000 $ 684,843 $ 25.88 0.0265 $ 3 Scalping Plant 3 3,300,000 $ 264,800 $ 50,000 $ 314,800 $ 10.9 0.0289 $ 4 Storage and Distribution Piping to Areas 1 and 2 7,900,000 $ 633,916 $ 35,000 $ 668,916 $ 44.36 0.0151 $ Notes: 1. Annualized cost a 5% and 20 years financing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Update Kimball Costs to Install Distribution System from WWTP to Mountain View Park WWTP to Ghormley Park quantity unit $/unit Subtotal Total 12" 7000 ft 60 $ 420,000 $ Creek Crossing 1 ea 20,939 $ 20,939 $ 12" gate valve 14 ea 17,589 $ 246,242 $ Restoration 1 ea 34,898 $ 34,898 $ Road Crossing 4 ea 15,634 $ 62,538 $ Mobilization 2% 784,617 $ 15,692 $ OHP 15% 800,310 $ 120,046 $ 920,356 $ Ghormley Park to Joseph Street Playfields 12" 11500 ft 60 $ 690,000 $ 12" gate valve 23 ea 17,589 $ 404,541 $ Boring 1 ea 83,756 $ 83,756 $ Creek Crossing 1 ea 20,939 $ 20,939 $ Street Crossing 7 ea 39,086 $ 273,603 $ Restoration 1 ea 34,898 $ 34,898 $ Mobilization 2% 1,472,838 $ 29,457 $ OHP 15% 1,537,193 $ 230,579 $ 1,767,772 $ Joseph Street Playfields to Mountain View Park 12" 9000 ft 60 $ 540,000 $ 12" gate valve 18 ea 17,589 $ 316,597 $ Creek Crossing 2 ea 20,939 $ 41,878 $ Street Crossing 7 ea 39,086 $ 273,603 $ Restoration 1 ea 34,898 $ 34,898 $ Mobilization 2% 1,172,078 $ 23,442 $ OHP 15% 1,230,417 $ 184,563 $ 1,414,980 $ Storage Reservoir 5 MG Lagoon, HDPE lined 1 ea 837,559 $ 837,559 $ Access road 1 ea 27,919 $ 27,919 $ 12" 3000 ft 60 $ 180,000 $ Mobilization 2% 865,477 $ 17,310 $ OHP 15% 1,062,787 $ 159,418 $ 1,222,205 $ Total Original Construction 5,325,000 $ Booster Pump Station 600,000 $ Total Construction 5,925,000 $ Contingency 15% 889,000 $ Engineering 18% 1,067,000 $ TOTAL 7,900,000 $ Prices increased using ENR (12/2001 6390; 10/2010 8920), except that the pipe cost was increased based on Keller experience. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CLASS: Design PROJECT : MOSCOW SCALPING PLANT JOB # : 209088 DATE : 5/19/2010 LOCATION : MOSCOW BY : GH / JB ELEMENT : PROJECT SUMMARY - 0.300 MGD SCALPING PLANT - AREA 2 REVIEWED: NO. DESCRIPTION Priority ESTIMATED COST 0 DIVISION 00 $0 1 SITEWORK $0 2 YARD PIPING $0 3 DISTRIBUTION PIPING $1,056,000 4 MBR $3,300,000 5 STORAGE AND BOOSTER PUMPS $300,000 SUBTOTAL $4,660,000 CONTINGENCY & ALLOWANCES 20% $932,000 SUBTOTAL $5,592,000 CONTRACTOR OH&P 15% $839,000 SUBTOTAL $6,431,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $6,431,000 Engineering: Design, Bidding, and CMS (for items above) 18% $1,158,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,589,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. P:\209088\Design\Reuse\MBR cost estimate.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CLASS: Design PROJECT : MOSCOW SCALPING PLANT JOB # : 209088 DATE : 5/19/2010 LOCATION : MOSCOW BY : GH / JB ELEMENT : PROJECT SUMMARY - 0.125 MGD SCALPING PLANT - AREA 1 REVIEWED: NO. DESCRIPTION Priority ESTIMATED COST 0 DIVISION 00 $0 1 SITEWORK $0 2 YARD PIPING $0 3 DISTRIBUTION PIPING $951,000 4 MBR $1,750,000 5 STORAGE AND BOOSTER PUMPS $245,000 SUBTOTAL $2,950,000 CONTINGENCY & ALLOWANCES 20% $590,000 SUBTOTAL $3,540,000 CONTRACTOR OH&P 15% $531,000 SUBTOTAL $4,071,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $4,071,000 Engineering: Design, Bidding, and CMS (for items above) 18% $733,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,804,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. P:\209088\Design\Reuse\MBR cost estimate.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE CLASS: Design PROJECT : MOSCOW SCALPING PLANT JOB # : 209088 DATE : 5/19/2010 LOCATION : MOSCOW BY : GH / JB ELEMENT : PROJECT SUMMARY - 0.075 MGD SCALPING PLANT - AREA 3 REVIEWED: NO. DESCRIPTION Priority ESTIMATED COST 0 DIVISION 00 $0 1 SITEWORK $0 2 YARD PIPING $0 3 DISTRIBUTION PIPING $486,000 4 MBR $1,275,000 5 STORAGE AND BOOSTER PUMPS $245,000 SUBTOTAL $2,010,000 CONTINGENCY & ALLOWANCES 20% $402,000 SUBTOTAL $2,412,000 CONTRACTOR OH&P 15% $362,000 SUBTOTAL $2,774,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,774,000 Engineering: Design, Bidding, and CMS (for items above) 18% $499,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,273,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. P:\209088\Design\Reuse\MBR cost estimate.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX I FINANCING ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Budget Summary 2006-2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Account Number Description Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Sewer Fund 230-000-00-447-01 Residential Sewer 2,234,252 1,432,706 1,583,475 1,698,268 1,749,398 1,800,900 230-000-00-447-16 University Sewer Service 383,000 547,820 600,520 646,100 659,025 682,090 230-000-00-447-17 Schools 11,579 13,178 20,950 24,970 26,048 25,875 230-000-00-447-18 Churches 12,013 27,757 25,953 23,411 19,126 23,130 230-000-00-447-24 Other Commercial 155,931 252,818 289,139 313,405 329,697 325,345 230-000-00-447-30 Apartments 436,769 932,900 1,003,341 1,060,896 1,141,706 1,161,270 230-000-00-447-31 Rooming Houses 44,265 94,653 92,468 102,698 103,032 105,695 230-000-00-447-32 Duplexes 65,939 163,348 172,028 185,390 198,828 199,235 230-000-00-447-33 Mobil Homes 69,219 169,309 177,544 189,419 194,316 200,580 230-000-00-447-34 Hotel/Motel 28,943 63,424 65,928 65,472 66,662 68,310 230-000-00-447-35 Restaurants 48,722 95,398 99,714 118,707 117,420 113,600 230-000-00-447-36 Bars/Taverns 1,244 2,503 3,794 4,651 5,268 4,830 230-000-00-447-37 Mixed Use 62,272 114,966 92,709 98,403 102,213 102,400 230-000-00-447-40 Sewer Tap 1,625 2,255 1,740 1,933 2,166 2,600 230-000-00-447-41 Sewer Connection Fee 248,120 160,827 143,033 289,782 104,620 106,000 Charges for Services 3,803,893 4,073,863 4,372,335 4,823,504 4,819,525 4,921,860 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx 230-000-00-471-00 Interest Revenue 64,841 82,040 102,919 57,449 22,713 20,000 230-000-00-471-50 Unrealized Gain/Loss on Invest 21,878 5,703 0 Investment Earnings 64,841 82,040 102,919 79,326 17,010 20,000 230-000-00-479-01 Refunds & Reimbursements 4,697 3,991 2,793 4,838 15,278 3,000 Refunds and Reimbursements 4,697 3,991 2,793 4,838 15,278 3,000 230-000-00-493-00 Bond Proceeds 12,332 6,012,332 13,935 0 0 230-000-00-493-01 Bond Premium 0 32,059 0 13,935 0 Other Financing Sources 12,332 6,044,391 13,935 13,935 0 230-000-00-900-00 Fund Balance Carryover 0 0 0 0 0 184,580 230-000-00-900-01 Fund Balance - Designated 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 Other Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 304,580 Total Sewer Fund Revenue 3,873,432 4,172,225 10,522,438 4,921,603 4,865,748 5,249,440 TOTAL REVENUE (less transfer, bond proceeds, connection fees, and caryover) - REPRESENTS OPERATING REVENUE OF EXISTING USERS 3,625,312 3,999,067 4,335,014 4,617,887 4,747,193 4,838,860 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- 230 Sewer 230-230-60-510-11 Full-Time Wages 457,171 516,216 476,685 412,709 528,235 585,400 230-230-60-510-15 Part-Time Wages 27,925 10,395 20,260 24,305 11,504 15,480 230-230-60-510-19 Overtime 27,810 32,966 34,256 34,190 34,383 35,000 230-230-60-520-21 FICA Taxes 36,943 41,529 39,318 34,279 41,379 48,850 230-230-60-520-22 PERSI (State Retirement) 51,762 56,834 53,246 46,503 58,130 66,100 230-230-60-520-23 Unemployment Insurance 2,417 51 0 0 0 1,950 230-230-60-520-24 Worker's Compensation 15,040 18,836 17,591 16,696 23,532 18,600 230-230-60-520-25 Health & Accident Insurance 77,769 80,926 74,226 64,727 92,220 116,200 230-230-60-520-26 Life Insurance 2,193 2,358 2,172 1,699 2,164 3,525 Personal Services 699,031 760,111 717,755 635,106 791,547 891,105 230-230-60-642-10 Professional Services 60,977 82,775 58,374 67,788 168,576 218,500 230-230-60-642-30 Professional Services-Computer 24,263 5,896 13,446 6,620 9,000 10,000 230-230-60-642-50 VEBA Program 0 6,500 6,000 4,700 3,500 3,500 230-230-60-668-10 Insurance 81,979 67,988 49,474 59,604 62,167 90,950 EPA Liability 0 134,000 0 0 0 0 Contractual 167,218 297,159 127,293 138,712 243,244 322,950 230-230-60-631-05 Office Supplies 2,319 3,143 2,819 3,043 4,315 5,000 230-230-60-631-10 Postage Expense 369 2,172 1,721 515 279 3,800 230-230-60-631-20 Printing & Binding 154 198 295 0 301 3,000 230-230-60-632-02 Safety Program Clothing 4,380 4,008 3,698 3,950 4,317 5,000 230-230-60-632-40 Department Supplies 9,728 9,626 12,329 12,438 15,411 13,500 230-230-60-632-50 Lab Supplies 16,142 13,604 14,659 13,760 14,426 16,000 230-230-60-638-10 Chemicals 52,891 46,606 59,387 59,786 62,133 85,900 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx 230-230-60-647-10 Travel & Meetings 1,291 248 369 2,126 2,686 2,500 230-230-60-648-10 Dues, Subscriptions, & Members 0 0 0 253 547 1,000 230-230-60-649-10 Personnel Training 10,233 13,238 11,099 16,968 18,313 11,250 230-230-60-650-10 Janitorial Services & Supplies 11,560 9,633 13,619 15,639 15,764 17,100 230-230-60-651-10 Telephone & Communications 4,414 3,872 4,414 5,771 4,683 5,000 230-230-60-652-10 Heat, Lights & Utilities 155,172 175,720 172,520 194,269 218,971 240,000 230-230-60-653-10 Trash & Container Service 3,484 4,739 3,990 4,563 4,259 5,000 230-230-60-653-15 Bio-Solids Disposal 119,285 130,842 134,636 165,695 214,987 190,000 230-230-60-654-10 Rental Property 0 1,743 16,592 17,667 17,667 16,000 230-230-60-654-20 Rental Equipment 0 0 0 0 136 1,000 230-230-60-658-20 R & M - Grounds 2,562 2,179 2,305 236 45 2,000 230-230-60-658-30 R & M - Buildings 1,460 1,459 6,892 3,301 7,626 6,850 230-230-60-658-40 R & M - Equipment 84,108 121,952 62,803 104,656 98,178 189,000 230-230-60-669-10 Miscellaneous Services & Charg 675 158 3,036 0 0 500 230-230-60-669-20 Recruitment Expense 719 1,717 3,567 6,240 1,920 1,000 230-230-60-675-00 Fiscal Agent Fees 1,000 500 500 1,000 1,000 4,200 230-230-60-680-00 Information Systems services 0 28,170 31,170 48,960 36,080 43,740 230-230-60-685-01 Fleet Services Supplies 15,625 16,625 20,640 28,425 20,360 19,400 230-230-60-685-02 Fleet Services R&M 47,345 54,585 53,475 42,090 41,180 48,225 230-230-60-690-10 Minor Equipment 8,702 6,432 15,053 3,666 12,767 34,995 Commodities 553,617 653,170 651,584 755,017 818,352 970,960 230-230-60-770-73 Improvements 77,054 0 24,237 0 12,545 239,000 230-230-60-770-75 Automotive Equipment 153,852 0 0 0 0 0 230-230-60-770-76 Other Equipment 0 6,301 25,727 0 0 46,500 Capital Outlay 230,906 6,301 49,964 0 12,545 285,500 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx ---PAGE BREAK--- 230-230-60-676-10 Bond Issuance Cost 11,836 11,836 166,438 19,566 19,566 0 230-230-60-790-81 Bond Principal - 2002 350,000 365,000 375,000 390,000 405,000 425,000 230-230-60-790-82 Bond Principal 2008 0 0 0 210,000 215,000 220,000 230-230-60-791-81 Bond Interest -2002 435,349 421,708 447,250 390,821 373,516 363,035 230-230-60-791-82 Bond Interest 2008 0 0 0 237,088 229,443 225,055 Debt Service 797,185 798,544 988,688 1,247,475 1,242,526 1,233,090 230-230-60-890-01 Transfer To: General Fund 517,545 551,930 680,000 733,190 799,375 860,000 230-230-60-890-05 Transfer To: Street Fund 78,750 85,000 95,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 230-230-60-890-20 Transfer To: Parks & Rec 9,150 5,600 5,880 6,175 6,500 7,400 230-230-60-890-33 Transfer To: Sewer Capital 280,000 399,220 6,172,062 1,356,905 566,580 399,225 230-230-60-890-90 Transfer To: Fleet Mgmt 45,400 45,400 93,300 162,750 267,000 77,500 230-230-60-890-95 Transfer To:Information System 0 15,000 4,300 30,500 11,050 5,550 Transfers To 930,845 1,102,150 7,050,542 2,389,520 1,750,505 1,479,675 230-230-60-900-00 Operating Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 66,160 Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 66,160 230-230-60-990-00 Unrestricted Ending Fund Bal 0 0 0 0 0 0 230-230-60-990-01 Restricted Ending Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sewer Fund Expense 3,378,802 3,617,435 9,585,825 5,165,831 4,858,719 5,249,440 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx TOTAL EXPENSE (less capital and contingency) - REPRESENTS OPERATING EXPENSES 3,098,802 3,218,215 3,413,763 3,808,926 4,292,139 4,784,055 OPERATING REVENUE LESS EXPENSE 526,510 780,852 921,251 808,961 455,055 54,805 P:\209088\Design\CIP & Rates\Sewer Fund Worksheet.xlsx