The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20083288.tiff TO: Clerk to the Board FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney "iliac DATE: December 10, 2008 RE: Water System Master Plan for Central Weld County COLORADO Water District Attached is a copy of the Water System Master Plan for Central Weld County Water District. It was submitted as part of the application for Union Estates PUD. H.B. 08-1141 requires that such a plan be kept on file by the government entity in order to show that developments to be serviced by that water supplier have sufficient supply. A copy of H.B. 08-1141 is attached. Therefore, this Master Plan satisfies the requirements of H.B. 08-1141 when it is reviewed in conjunction with a proposed contract for water service supplied by Central Weld to serve a proposed development. So, please keep this Master Plan in a file for future reference. Let me know if you have any questions. --Bruce T. Barker Weld County Attorney pc: Cris Gathman Attachments � 2008-3288 en/Li!lull /Ch t11)YLJ /02-7.51- DCOy7 NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill or taken other action on it,please consult the legislative status sheet,the legislative history, or the Session Laws. n d )) HOUSE BILL 08-1141 BY REPRESENTATIVE(S)Curry,Borodkin,Butcher,Carroll M.,Fischer, Frangas, Gagliardi, Gallegos, Green, Labuda, Levy, Looper, Madden, McFadyen,Merrifield,Peniston,Romanoff,Rose, Scanlan, Solano, Soper, Stafford, Hodge, and Jahn; also SENATOR(S)Bacon,Boyd,Hagedorn,Isgar,Schwartz,Tochtrop,and Tupa. CONCERNING SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES FOR LAND USE APPROVAL. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. 29-20-103(1),Colorado Revised Statutes,is amended to read: 29-20-103. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Development permit" means any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, conditional or special use permit, subdivision, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction;EXCEPT THAT,FOR PURPOSES OF PART 3 OF THIS ARTICLE, "DEVELOPMENT PERMIT" IS LIMITED TO AN APPLICATION REGARDING A SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT INCLUDES NEW WATER USE IN AN Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes;dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act. AMOUNT MORE THAN THAT USED BY FIFTY SINGLE-FAMILY EQUIVALENTS,OR FEWER AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SECTION 2. Article 20 of title 29, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PART to read: PART 3 ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY 29-20-301. Legislative declaration. (1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: (a) FINDS THAT, DUE TO THE BROAD REGIONAL IMPACT THAT SECURING AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF WATER TO SERVE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CAN HAVE BOTH WITHIN AND BETWEEN RIVER BASINS,IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BE PROVIDED WITH RELIABLE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS' WATER SUPPLY TO INFORM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION IN THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS;AND (b) TO THAT END, DECLARES THAT WHILE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL DECISIONS ARE MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN,THE ENACTMENT OF THIS PART 3,TO HELP ENSURE THE ADEQUACY OF WATER FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS,IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN AND NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,SAFETY,AND WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF COLORADO. 29-20-302. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS PART 3, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: (1) "ADEQUATE"MEANS A WATER SUPPLY THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF QUALITY, QUANTITY, DEPENDABILITY, AND AVAILABILITY TO PROVIDE A SUPPLY OF WATER FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED, AND MAY INCLUDE REASONABLE CONSERVATION MEASURES AND WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO ACCOUNT FOR HYDROLOGIC VARIABILITY. (2) "WATER SUPPLY ENTITY" MEANS A MUNICIPALITY, COUNTY, SPECIAL DISTRICT,WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT,WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,WATER AUTHORITY,OR OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY COMPANY THAT SUPPLIES,DISTRIBUTES,OR OTHERWISE PROVIDES WATER AT PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 RETAIL. 29-20-303. Adequate water supply for development. (1) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNLESS IT DETERMINES IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFACTORILY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY WILL BE ADEQUATE. A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION ONLY ONCE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS UNLESS THE WATER DEMANDS OR SUPPLY OF THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS SOUGHT ARE MATERIALLY CHANGED. A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS AT WHICH SUCH DETERMINATION IS MADE. (2) NOTHING IN THIS PART 3 SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT OWN OR HAVE ACQUIRED THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY OR CONSTRUCTED THE RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. 29-20-304. Water supply requirements. (1) EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF THIS SECTION, AN APPLICANT FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHALL SUBMIT ESTIMATED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN A REPORT PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR WATER SUPPLY EXPERT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE: (a) AN ESTIMATE OF THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THROUGH BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS; (b) A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY THAT WILL BE USED TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; (c) AN ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER YIELD PROJECTED FROM THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY UNDER VARIOUS HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS; (d) WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES, IF ANY, THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; (e) WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES,IF ANY,THAT MAYBE PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR HYDROLOGIC VARIABILITY;AND (0 SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. (2) IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE SERVED BY A WATER SUPPLY ENTITY,THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT, IN LIEU OF THE REPORT REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, A LETTER PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR BY A WATER SUPPLY EXPERT FROM THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY STATING WHETHER THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY IS WILLING TO COMMIT AND ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY'S ENGINEER OR EXPERT SHALL PREPARE THE LETTER IF SO REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. AT A MINIMUM, THE LETTER SHALL INCLUDE: (a) AN ESTIMATE OF THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THROUGH BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS; (b) A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY THAT WILL BE USED TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; (C) AN ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER YIELD PROJECTED FROM THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY UNDER VARIOUS HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS; (d) WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES, IF ANY, THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; (e) WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES,IF ANY,THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED TO ADDRESS HYDROLOGIC VARIATIONS;AND (f) SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. (3) IN THE ALTERNATIVE,AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A LETTER OR REPORT IDENTIFIED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (1) AND(2) OF THIS SECTION IF THE WATER FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE PROVIDED BY A WATER SUPPLY ENTITY THAT HAS A WATER SUPPLY PLAN THAT: PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 (a) HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND UPDATED,IF APPROPRIATE,WITHIN THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY; (b) HAS A MINIMUM TWENTY-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON; (c) LISTS THE WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES,IF ANY,THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA; (d) LISTS THE WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES, IF ANY, THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; (e) INCLUDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY'S WATER OBLIGATIONS; (f) INCLUDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY ENTITY'S WATER SUPPLIES;AND (g) IS ON FILE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 29-20-305. Determination of adequate water supply. (1) THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER AN APPLICANT HAS A WATER SUPPLY THAT IS ADEQUATE TO MEET THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (a) THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 29-20-304; (b) IF REQUESTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT,A LETTER FROM THE STATE ENGINEER COMMENTING ON THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 29-20-304; (c) WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS PAID TO A WATER SUPPLY ENTITY A FEE OR CHARGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING WATER FOR OR EXPANDING OR CONSTRUCTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT;AND (d) ANY OTHER INFORMATION DEEMED RELEVANT BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE,IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION,WHETHER THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ADEQUATE, INCLUDING, PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 WITHOUT LIMITATION,ANY INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND USE REGULATIONS OR STATE STATUTES. 29-20-306. Cluster developments- inapplicability. NOTHING IN THIS PART 3 SHALL BE DEEMED TO APPLY TO A RURAL LAND USE PROCESS REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PART 4 OF ARTICLE 28 OF TITLE 30, C.R.S. SECTION 3. Applicability. This act shall apply to applications for development permits submitted on or after the effective date of this act. SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, PAGE 6-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. Andrew Romanoff Peter C. Groff SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PRESIDENT OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE Marilyn Eddins Karen Goldman CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE SECRETARY OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE APPROVED Bill Ritter, Jr. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 7-HOUSE BILL 08-1141 44IL ' WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN for ' CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ' 2235 Second Ave Greeley, CO 80631 phone:(970) 352-1284 fax.: (970) 353-5865 TEC Project No. 05-002.15 1 sbv7 THE ENGINEERING COMPANY WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN ' for CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT April 2007 1 ' The Engineering Co. Fort Collins, Colorado Project No. 05-00215 I I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS tI. Summary I A. Background 1 I B. Purpose 1 C. Scope 2 D. Recommendations 2 Transmission System 3 IStorage Facilities 3 Distribution System 3 E. Capital Improvement Plan 4 III. Design Criteria 6 A. Land Use 6 B. Population Projections 7 IC. Water Use 11 Wholesale Customer Water Use 11 Rural Water Use 12 I D. Future Demands 16 Annual Use Projections 16 Maximum-Day Demand Projections 18 I E. Pressures 21 F. Storage Requirements 21 G. Main Sizing 22 li. Fire Flows 24 III.System Analysis 26 A. Treatment Plant and Raw Water Supply 26 I Plant Capacity 26 Proposed Improvements 27 Raw Water Supply 29 I Secondary Irrigation Systems 30 B. Transmission Lines 31 External Transmission System (outside District Boundaries) 31 I Internal Transmission Capacity (inside District boundaries) 34 East Transmission System 34 South Transmission System 35 C. Pump Stations 36 ' Gilcrest Pump Station 37 South Greeley Pump Station 38 Aristocrat Ranchettes Pump Station 39 I Beebe Draw Pump Station 41 Dacono Pump Station 41 D. Pressure Zones 43 I Existing Pressure-Reducing Valves 44 Future Pressure-Reducing Valves 45 E. Storage 45 I Tank Site 1 47 Tank Site 2 48 i I I Tank Site 3 49 I Tank Site 5 50 F. Distribution System 51 General 51 I Fire Flows 51 Year 2006—System Analysis 52 Year 2010— System Analysis 53 Year 2015 - System Analysis 53 I Year 2025 —System Analysis 54 G. Capital Improvement Plan 54 LIST OF FIGURES ' Figure II-1, Town Population Projections 8 Figure II-2, Rural Tap Projections 10 I Figure II-3, CWCWD Population Projections 10 Figure 11-4,Rural Projected Annual Use 14 Figure II-5,Rural Demand Patterns 15 I Figure 11-6, 2005 Town Demand Patterns 16 Figure 11-7,Total Projected Annual Water Use 18 Figure II-8, Projected Town Demands 19 Figure II-9, Projected Max Day Demands 20 I Figure III-1, Carter Lake WTP Maximum Day Demand 27 Figure 111-2, Picture of North Membrane Plant 28 Figure 111-3,Projected Annual Water Use 29 I Figure 111-4,42"Transmission Line Hydraulic Profile 32 Figure 111-5,Total Transmission System Capacity 33 Figure III-6, East Transmission System 35 I Figure III-7, South Transmission System 36 Figure III-8, Gilcrest Pump Station System Curves 38 Figure I1I-9, South Greeley Pump Station System Curves 39 I Figure III-10, Aristocrat Pump Station System Curves 40 Figure III-1 1, Beebe Draw Pump Station System Curves 41 Figure 111-12, Dacono Pump Station System Curves 42 Figure III-13, CWCWD Tanks 46 ' LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 following page 1 I Exhibit 2 following page 6 Exhibit 3 following page 43 Exhibit 4 following page 52 IExhibit 5 Pocket at End of Report I Iii LIST OF TABLES Table I-I, Capital Improvement Plan 5 Table II-1,Projected Population -Towns 9 ' Table 1I-2,Water Consumption Comparison 12 Table II-3, Determination of Max Day Multiplier 13 Table II-4, Rural Customers Annual Use 13 ' Table II-5, Projected Annual Use - Towns 17 Table II-6,Projected Annual Use—Rural Customers 17 Table 11-7, Projected Max Day Demands—Towns (MGD) 18 Table II-8, Design Pressures 21 Table 1I-9, Minimum Standards Distribution Piping—AWWA 23 Table II-10,Rural Line Capacities 24 Table II-11, Residential Fire Flows 24 Table III-1,Theoretical Pressure Zones 43 Table III-2,Pressure Reducing Valves 44 Table 11I-3,Recommended PRV Modifications 45 Table III-4, Water Storage Tank Inventory 46 Table III-5,Recommended Storage Volumes 47 Table III-6, Recommended T-1 Zone Storage 48 Table I11-7, Recommended T-2 Zone Storage 48 Table 111-8, Recommended T-3 Zone Storage 49 Table 11I-9, Alternate T-3 Zone Storage 50 Table III-10, Recommended T-5 Zone Storage 50 Table III-11, Alternate T-5 Zone Storage 50 Table 111-12, Capital Improvement Plan 55 iii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I. SUMMARY 1 1 1 1 t Summary A. Background The Central Weld County Water District(CWCWD) was created in 1965 to serve the largely rural area of Weld County. Exhibit 1 illustrates the 250 square mile service area for the District that is south of Greeley, along the South Platte River to the area along I-25 south of Dacono. It currently serves the rural areas as well as the communities of Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, Gilcrest, Kersey, LaSalle, Milliken, and Platteville. The area is primarily agricultural with extensive cattle feeding, poultry, and dairy operations. However, the recent trends in much of the service area indicate a shift in water usage patterns toward residential and municipal. The District currently serves a population of approximately 40,000 people through 2,010 (2005)retail taps and 10 wholesale customers, which are served through master meters. ' B. Purpose A Master Plan Study for Central Weld County Water District was prepared by The Engineering Company and adopted by the Board in June of 1998, and updates were accepted in June of 1999 and June of 2003. The District has continued to grow at a rapid rate and is expected to continue this trend in the foreseeable future. The District has received a number of significant requests for service in various locations within its service area. The Tri-Town area in general, consisting of Dacono, Firestone, and Frederick has seen, and is anticipating, additional explosive growth within the next five to ten years. This area includes the land along 1-25 from Weld County Road(WCR) 26 on the north,to WCR 8 on the south. Recent annexations by all three Towns have given way to an abundance of tap requests from a variety of locations throughout the region. ' Over the last four to five years, rural tap sales throughout the remainder of the District have also increased to levels well above any previously experienced. The average number of tap sales per year prior to 1995 was 30. Since 1995,this average has nearly doubled to 50 taps/year. This rapid increase in demands on the system, as well as the inordinately high growth, which is expected to continue, has prompted the District to re-evaluate its system. A comprehensive analysis of the system was required in an effort to ascertain any shortcomings and recommend solutions. This report describes the results of that study and offers the recommended alternatives that will preserve the high level of service provided by the District in the past. 1 ( Q m rp N+ p Ct = t� $ •� Y I �p Y �y S K N H CIS m•, O • . 4 .... • • II • . ?1/4...... 1‘.•\ r. . r ♦ • . T - . • �" c..) I, • p . c • r • . • I I a . a 4 S 8 2 • ♦ [ • . . L) l r U ...• a et w I / , • +��O�S �r �' FBI W to - / ,• , > gCi CU • . . " . r 4 • f /17 i :4,! L W 4 .� i • U I! • n L, ,.,_.- , , . , ,,r, • • sb—r \) ( 5 I r / ill a a t 1 t- I^ a 7' 1 L a J i a l ' I El S $tr.'ill C PIM L • % _ -411 "— . _ . , cillilitA it .. 4 aa1• Diu r� t .w�_ - I . r IL • • phi. :IA i Si a • r ♦ N O a r N 1 r M $ age : J'1'- s a w•---Ar. - as ' '1•*j 4 -,7.;--,,,i..- •::-:. ... . --.,.. ri 411 Eke,„... . Its__ ' ' r.,:p“ullall it .., . . • ,... , ., :si, . I . MEDI ' Ifer,....t.„ . t:I . dili IP . It 4 - r R I� :, • re r., .y iF1lHN�..{I NI,: • t. . , _ • . •• II a E. .. n.. , 2 L. ..:, !z N 1 I II I. WNW \_ 4 � -r 1 • _, VIII . 1 • I- - Mt 4 I t 13 Iiiii " ( 5 r i NIP_ � et I La_____H -.N.., , a • • • EN . kill . -L,,,, • , _ . . _ ii. . . ..- ._•„. : • I nen g • • O_ - -. .41111 : iii _ w Z III Lill =2 U I w 1 . . a , Q let' la lit • al '- 1 II "... \ . I ' - . . • - -*. . , -. . • r_ JS. ening Pb...._. - • 4. . us" , ii.,,,,,wili .„ • . ant 1 1111 0 O. a I Erna f:.! kat1. ai . ,'I'll:: . .r.., I. IR a • • . • . n . m . _ 0 _L . kill16 In Th... 61 es l . I it e fr i� ) Ma a y fi N p f N . • fIli � 1, :, �� ,� 10' N N ♦r• I w w. i air4t:::: . ,..?, a f ge r. �r. : .• . tl r : Itiiiiii ≤ (!t' wily i • a■ �. I �1 n i (�1;+ - F .+ 1 11 I a •:v.-II 13 _ <k I . .t—'"r lid I et .. , . H ,, • 4 CI n in ki ✓ 1 ..± • EW 0 La g ( • �. II ill 'ail a • ♦ 1 • • r- J - . • , . ...___ . _ , I . . c a a a S 2 : 3 V g $ $ I I I C. Scope _..� The study area covers the entire Central Weld County Water District system. All aspects of the system were evaluated from treatment capacity to distribution system adequacy. The specific items to be considered a part of this study include the following: 1. Review the comprehensive plan of Weld County, as well as each municipality within the service area, to determine the design criteria to be used such as ultimate annual, maximum day, and peak-hour demands for water. 2. Determine a population projection for the area. This includes independent growth projections within each community. 3. Review the District's records and update the hydraulic model to reflect additions to the system and current demands. 4. Work with the District to evaluate the current operating parameters of the transmission lines and determine the future demands and conditions. 5. Review the results of the preliminary investigations with the District and develop the design criteria to be used for the remainder of the study. 6. Evaluate the impact of projected demands on the existing system(s) and determine those improvements required to supply the projected demands including the need for, location of, and size of storage tanks,transmission lines,distribution lines, and pump stations. 7. Develop a proposed phased construction of the selected alternatives. ' 8. Prepare a written report summarizing the basis of the study, the impacts on the existing water system, and the improvements required to meet the projected demands. The report will include a map identifying the proposed system improvements. ' D. Recommendations Treatment and Supply Present—2010 1. Evaluate the need to convert the old North Plant for pre-treatment of Dry Creek Reservoir water. 2. Evaluate the alternatives for expansion of the South Plant or converting the plant to replace the granular media filters with membranes. 3. Participate in the Northern Integrated Supply Project. 4. Participate in the Windy Gap Firming Project. ' 2 2010-2015 ' 1. Participate in the Northern Integrated Supply Project. 2. 10 to 24 MGD South Filter Plant expansion or conversion of the existing granular media filters to up to 44 MGD of membranes. 2020-2025 1. Evaluate alternatives for additional plant capacity. Transmission System Present—2015 No transmission improvements scheduled. ' 2015—2020 1. East District Transmission Line—WCR 42 install a parallel 20"waterline. 2020—2025 1. Continue east District Transmission Line— WCR 42 from WCR 39 east five miles, then north two miles. 2. PRV 401 upgrade — Replace one of the existing 14" valve with a 24" valve or install a 20" valve in addition to the existing valves. ' Storage Facilities In all the storage scenarios, the District has enough to serve its retail customers. It is the lack of storage ' provided by the Towns that is driving the storage improvements. If the Towns were to construct their own storage, the District would not need any storage for the next 20 years. The following improvement schedule assumes the District will be providing storage for the Towns and that they will participate in the ' construction. 2015-2020 1. 5.0 MG of additional storage at Tank 3 site. 2. 2.0 MG of additional storage at Tank 5 site. Distribution System Present-2010 Most of the projects proposed for this phase include short line extensions to resolve existing low pressure areas. The specific improvements are shown on Exhibit 4 and are summarized in Table I-1. ' 3 2010—2015 ' The most significant project during this phase is the construction of a 30-inch line from the 36-inch line in WCR 13 to Tank 3 to increase the capacity and allow the tank to fill. Another improvement is to increase the capacity to the South Greeley Pump Station with a new line in WCR 33 from the 14" line to WCR 48 and WCR 35. Other short line extensions are also recommended to alleviate low pressure areas. 2015—2025 The most significant improvements include a series of 12-inch and 6-inch lines from Tank 1 north and east to improve the supply to the Kersey area. Several short main extensions are also shown in all areas of the District. E. Capital Improvement Plan The proposed improvements and the projected costs are summarized in Table 111-15 on the following page. The costs shown are based on today's construction costs. These improvements will not be constructed for a number of years, and the substantive system modifications beyond this time may vary depending on actual sustained growth patterns. In addition to these improvements the District should plan for construction of a new treatment plant and transmission system prior to 2025. Central Weld's share of those costs could be as high as $35,000,000. ' 4 I I Table I-1,Capital Improvement Plan I ID 'Project 'Dia. (Dist. (ft) (cost Phase I -2007-2010 I-A North Carter Lake Filter Plant Pre-treatment $3,000,000 I I-B NISP $1,024,000 I-1 20" LCR 23, 42" to 20" Connection 20 7,920 $712,800 1-2 8" WCR 20, WCR 19-WCR 21 8 5,280 $190,080 I 1-3 4" WCR 24, WCR 19 - WCR 21 4 5,280 $95,040 I-4 6" WCR 6, WCR 9.5 WCR 11 6 2640 $71,280 1-5 4" WCR 21, WCR 14 - WCR 14.5 4 2,640 $47,520 1-6 6" WCR 53, WCR 42-WCR 46 6 10,560 $285,120 ' $5,425,840 Phase 11 -2010-2015 II-A 24 MGD South Filter Plant Expansion $12,500,000 I II-B NISP $21,432,000 II-1 30" WCR 14, WCR 13 WCR 17 30 13,200 $1,782,000 11-2 8" WCR 33, WCR 42 -WCR 48 & WCR 33 8 21,120 $830,320 I 11-3 14" WCR 49, Tank 1 - WCR 50 14 2,640 $166,320 11-4 4" WCR 59, WCR 48.5 - WCR 50 4 2,640 $47,520 II-5 6" Connection WCR 56 & WCR 51 6 500 $13,500 I 11-6 4" WCR 35, WCR 38.5 - WCR 42 4 7,920 $142,560 $36,914,220 Phase III -2015 - 2020 III-A WTP & Trans. Expansion, Planning $250,000 I III-B NISP $9,872,000 III-C Zone 3 5.0 MG Storage $2,500,000 III-D Zone 5 - 2.0 MG Storage $2,000,000 I III-1 20" WCR 42, WCR 25 to WCR 39 20 36,960 $3,396,400 111-2 10" WCR 46, WCR 49 to WCR51 to WCR 48 10 15,840 $712,800 III-3 6" WCR 51, WCR 54.25 to WCR 58 6 9,240 $284,480 I 111-4 4" WCR 55, WCR 54.5 to WCR 56 4 2,640 $47,520 III-5 4" WCR 55, WCR 48 to WCR 48.5 4 2,640 $47,520 111-6 24" WCR 34, WCR 13 to WCR 15 24 5,280 $570,240 I 111-7 4" WCR 21, WCR 16 to WCR 20 4 10,560 $190,080 $19,621,040 Phase IV -2020-2025 IV-A WTP &Trans. Expansion Design $1,825,000 I IV-1 20" PRV 403 CO 1-25 &WCR 38 $60,000 IV-2 12" WCR 50, WCR 49 to WCR 51 12 5280 $285,120 8" WCR 51, WCR 50 to WCR 52 8 5280 $190,080 I 6" WCR 51, WCR 52 to WCR 54 IV-3 6 5280 $142,560 10" WCR 50, WCR 51 to WCR 59 10 21120 $950,400 IV-4 6" WCR 52, WCR 51 to WCR 53 6 5280 $142,560 I IV- 5 12" WCR 49, WCR 48 to WCR 48.5 12 2640 $142,560 IV-6 18" WCR 20, WCR 13 to WCR 15 18 5280 $427,680 IV-7 12" WCR 42, WCR 39 to WCR 49 12 26400 $1,425,600 I 12" WCR 49, WCR 42 to WCR 48 12 10560 $570,240 $4,336,800 I I5 1 I 1 II. DESIGN CRITERIA 1 II. Design Criteria A. Land Use Weld County is classified as an "urban" county by the Demographic Section of the Colorado Division of Local Government'. The implication of this definition has not characteristically defined previous land- use within the Central Weld County Water District. The land-use pattern within the District has historically consisted of a predominantly agricultural customer base. However, recent growth trends indicate that much of the new development has been and will likely continue to be residential and/or municipal. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan ambiguously addresses urban development adjacent to existing municipalities as "...appropriate if municipal services can be extended to serve the area..." The Plan lists the following three alternatives for establishing urban growth boundaries: ' 1. The three mile referral —Weld County refers land use proposals for review to any jurisdiction within three miles of the site of the proposed change. 2. Intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreements — municipalities establish their own tailor-made growth areas (the preferred method). 3. The standard one-half mile urban growth boundary— default of one-half mile perimeter from the existing public sanitary sewer facilities. The District currently serves eight municipalities through master meters. The majority of the Towns have ' developed, or are in the process of developing, their own growth boundaries. The Tri-Town area is composed of the communities of Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono in the southwestern corner of the District, and is experiencing large-scale residential/commercial growth (see Exhibit 2). All three Towns have recently signed agreements with the District for the implementation of up to 200 taps/year. Development interest in this area originally prompted several system improvement recommendations as presented in the "Water System Improvement Plan for the I-25 Corridor" and the "Central Weld County Water District-Water Distribution System Master Plan, 1999." Pertinent information and recommendations from both studies have been incorporated into this report. The remaining municipalities within the District are forecasting more moderate growth. Aside from the urban growth adjacent to existing municipalities, the District has also experienced a marked increase in the number of rural, residential tap sales over the last decade. Despite the apparent reversion from agricultural to residential/municipal use, the actual majority of the District remains rural in nature. Several large users currently exist within the District, including such agricultural operations as dairies and feedlots. With the prevalent growth in the Front Range area, many ' Weld County Colorado,"Weld County Colorado Comprehensive Plan",2002. 6 E:\2007 Projects\07002.05\98041 half.dwg 2/23/2007 9:29 AM X i LEGEND DItibi TOWN OF FIRESTONE t TOWN OF FREDERICK A TOWN OF DACONO Scale: NOT TO SCALE - - FIRESTONE URBAN GROWTI — — FREDERICK URBAN GROWT ommi....,.... iprir .q..,... .„................ ....,.„01 i — — DACONO URBAN GROWTH 1 II" IFAil '' Pm 12 10" '` I..�' =; r fa 2 a' fir ,%'• I :, -30 $ 1 6C.? ca 5 :. ■ 5 „lir I/ la env/ ■I N N 7�a I' ' ,,,,i7---- I . . . . . 12" 2 1 2 12 2 g1 •'..t...:, 26 IF — Atil 4. / N I �1 /: ;;J • N I .03 0 io r 12 8 /'• r 9lir I� „ 11 N I = 7 V 8 9 C- 18 I�,c��r I .� I LHWDille. ,1 ` - I m ,. 2., 12 I ici 4. 2" 24 - - - - - - - - • . i (i., Ili SIPI r" - 12" N // - .1 ip (PRV 305 ia . N6".. 1 ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ `� ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■ \ IIIIL 17 18 r .%.,.. 18 18 I lifr r ` 00 I M I � i 1■ _ 2 _ _ I7fl _ _ _ I 6 8„22 ■ . al _ © ® I ` I 12" I = III N . . _ / 1 '-s-' o L-- • 4.00 21 .--____1"---..... 22AMIN o- ..� 12" N J\ ---N...- . 24 1 2" \ 19 1 20 21 23 6" + t. 20sep �. .. . • a 2" N 12N 28 30 Ai 27 Ir 28 \-144- le NI "hiP 1_11 Cr I , � T Ft I -IN O 12" - 311 es , '---�--_ �1 - 8 •I..---r t N � �� II � • -4- N • st 00 .- 9.4II / 3. $35 I 3 "� � 31 P.} 14" 32 • I 38 : 0. 15MG 33 :..C.4M, o -1 TANK-34 Ill , I • C 2 \ u iii ,-J I r r, I N 1.� 5 4 2 ®1 1 , s (I . ii + , ih. :� ittom. iN 1 I N --1 v O. 12" I te N? -I • 24 " 6" 6 0.- ..i `18„ �P a I ? fill I ---,. I C-2" k'� N 4 LHWD 1 8 9 a LO i mil r 12 7 9 8 I M I I I , dI tom. .1 12 _ 2 ' 1 . ■ ...... . . I I 0. I i a- I C 8„ 13 17 18 15 14 18 17 18 I I I I I I I I I 24'' 1 •= 24 ;°1' z 18" ►"4 161' 8„ I 8)) A •�� , •`4 • I I I /I - - 20 22 ■ 19 21 1 1 00 7 24' fir20 21 I I I I '` -f I I I • I - - - 1 8 - - - - - -->_ - - - E ■ EE I - - - - -(11)3 (9)5 7 9 11 13 15 17 15 EXHIBIT 2 -4 The Engineering Company TRI-TOWN AREA FORT COLLINS, COLORADO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES I large users have recently requested increased flows. In addition, many new agricultural users are bound to surface water, due to the availability of land and the presence of a reliable water source. .PA B. Population Projections The State of Colorado has grown significantly over the past 10 to 15 years. Weld County, in particular, has had an average growth rate of 25%per decade. The last decade, 1990-2000, saw a 37% population increase with over 73% of the population located in the eight hundred square mile area in the southwestern part of the County. Population density in this area increased 7% in the same time frame'. Central Weld County Water District's service area is located within this highly populated and rapidly developing subsection of the County. Therefore, accurate yet conservative growth projections are imperative for proper infrastructure ' planning. In 1999, the District served 15,590 people in the towns and approximately 6,650 in the District. The current population served by the District is approximately 37,400, which includes 30,630 people in the towns and an estimated 6,770 District customers. ' Various population projections have been made and utilized for projecting growth within Central Weld County in previous analyses. Included among these population projections are estimates based on 1 information gathered from the State Demographers Office, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), and Weld County, Colorado, as presented in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan (WCCP). The projections available from NCWCD were completed prior to 1992 when a heavy resurgence of growth began within the State. This estimate was therefore considered unusable in the present circumstance. The WCCP, completed in 2002, projects an average compounded annual growth rate of 3.16% through 2020 for the entire County. However, since the County population is concentrated in the southwest, and distinct differences exist between individual communities and the rural population, a more systematic approach was taken. Each individual community was scrutinized based on their respective urban growth boundaries and anticipated population increase. ' Anticipated growth was analyzed in a variety of ways including projections by individual communities, increases by constant percentages, increases by a constant number of taps per year, and as reported by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Water Supplies and Demands for NISP Participants Report(NISP). All historic data, 1960-2004, was obtained from the State of Colorado Demography Office with the years 2001-2004 data being estimates of population rather than actual population counts. The population projection deemed most appropriate was determined by utilizing the U.S. Census data from 2000 and applying the growth methods described above and comparing to the tap count information kept by the District. The percentage growth method was used for Gilcrest, Kersey, La Salle, and Platteville. The ' growth projection as reported by NISP was used for the towns of Dacono and Fredrick. Firestone's growth projection was obtained from David Lindsey, the Town Engineer, as a part of the Firestone master plan. All population data was projected through the year 2035. 2 Weld County Colorado,"Weld County Colorado Comprehensive Plan",2002 7 I I ICWCWD TOWN POPULATION PROJECTIONS 30.000 ---_--_-- ---- I y�Dacono-NSIP Iff —60.Firestone-Master Plan x'00 ••••• Frederick-NISP -- - . I SKersey-3.16% O LaSalle-1.0% 20.000 —Gilcresi-1.0%I '--- Z _ Platteville-3.16% o ,r. Et ,_ 15.000 4 �.. O 10.000 5.000 --1 ,i.>r.a.:•i•><N.=.I.Z.r.�M!!� . . . . . . . . . . K1 'Ctt%"t1'W V o 6 000000000 H 'M I1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 ' Figure II-1, Town Population Projections The Town of Milliken was intentionally omitted from the population projection. The District and the I Town of Milliken have an agreement for provision of water service that will limit the amount delivered to the maximum amount metered in 1998, which is 600 gpm. Therefore, future population projections were not considered as possible increases in demand. Any demands experienced within the Town of Milliken, Iabove those specified in the agreement with Central Weld County Water District, will be supplemented by the City of Greeley. IAs illustrated in Figure II-1, the most dramatic growth anticipated within the District will be in the Tri- Town Area/I-25 Corridor. The proximity of this area to Denver, Longmont, and Boulder has significantly Iincreased the development interest in the region. Exhibit 2 illustrates the encompassing nature of the Tri- Town area. Virtually the entire southwest corner of the District's service area falls within the urban Igrowth boundaries of one of the three constituent Towns. Although the other communities within the District are not forecasting the extensive growth encountered Iin the Tri-Town Area, it appears that growth is imminent. Platteville and Kersey are expected to grow at the rates forecasted for the long-term growth in Weld County of 3.16%. Gilcrest and LaSalle are I predicting more conservative growth rates than the general County growth projection. Table II-1 summarizes the individual projections for each municipality. 1 8 1 Table II-1,Projected Population - Towns 1 Year Dacono Firestone Frederick Gilcrest Kersey LaSalle Platteville 1990 2,228 1,358 920 1,084 980 1,783 1,515 1 2000 3,015 1,908 2,298 1,162 1,389 ],849 2,370 2005 3,404 7,388 6,700 1,173 1,479 1,876 2,659 I 2010 5,760 9,324 12,100 1,233 1,732 1,971 3,114 2015 8,120 10,809 16,000 1,296 2,029 2,072 3,647 2020 10,480 12,531 19,000 1,362 2,376 2,177 4,271 I2025 12,840 13,835 22,000 1,432 2,783 2,289 5,002 2030 15,200 15,275 24,500 1,506 3,259 2,405 5,858 I2035 17,560 16,865 26,500 1,583 3,817 2,528 6,861 Population projections for the rural portion of the District proved equally difficult to determine. The I primary difficulty involved in estimating the population for the rural areas was distributing the demands in a reliable fashion. Figure II-2 is a graph of the rural tap growth in the District. IPrior to 1995, annual rural tap sales averaged 30 taps/year. However, in 1997 rural tap sales approached 100 taps/year. Tap sales since 2000 have averaged approximately 50 taps/year. Upon reviewing the Ihistorical tap sales information, it is believed that tap sales of 60 taps/year is a reasonable number to use. The worst case for the District was projected at 150 taps/year. IThe Beebe Draw Subdivision has constructed infrastructure for the provision of water service to the first phase of development. This subdivision will eventually contain a total of 600 taps, with approximately 50 Itaps sold to date. The District has signed an agreement with the developer allowing a maximum addition of 100 taps/year. With this fact in mind, it is apparent that the District could easily attain an average of more I than 100 taps/year, at least through the construction period of the Beebe Draw Subdivision. An actual build- out period for the subdivision was estimated at 16 years, which corresponds to total build-out by the year 2015, at a rate of 40 taps/year. However, recent tap sales have shown much slower growth and a more Imoderate rate of 20 taps/year was used for projections. The remainder of the rural portion of the District was estimated assuming average tap sales of 60 Itaps/year. This annual increase was assumed to occur evenly over the district service area where existing taps currently exist. I I I 1 9 I I CWCWD RURAL TAP PROJECTION 1 7,000 _-_____._. _______ ___. _ . .--.__ _n Et sting Taps I �u3 Distact Protection _ 6,000 ."b�Max..150 taps/yrI —C—NISP Appros-Buildout — —Expon.(Etasting Taps) for Beebe Draw _ —Linear(Existing Taps) 160 taps/year I 5000 _ 4,000 - _ __. __ _ _ •• .,••• / iso tapaNear H F / 3,000 •w 2,000 1,000 mow _ - — 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 IFigure II-2,Rural Tap Projections ICWCWD POPULATION PROJECTIONS 140,000 LI-O—LRural District ��Mumcipatities I o-'TOTAL ' 100,000 _ —_ __ Z C 80,000 --- - F tirl p 60,000 I 6. 40,000 _ — 20,000 —- Q. II 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 YEAR ' Figure II-3,CWCWD Population Projections 1 10 Figure I1-3 demonstrates the relationship between the District population and the combined population of the towns. Despite the marked increase in number of rural taps, the changing pattern in the type of customers served is irrefutable. This changing customer base will be reflected somewhat in the typical Iusage pattern experienced by the District. C. Water Use The characteristics of water use that are of importance in the design of the water distribution system are the average-day demand (ADD), the maximum-day demand (MDD), the peak-hour demand, and the required fire flow. The average daily consumption is of importance for the management of the water system in that it I is used to estimate the total annual usage and determine the adequacy of the raw water supply. The maximum-day demand is used to size the treatment plant, transmission lines, main pump stations, storage reservoirs, and the main distribution lines that deliver water from one reservoir to another. The peak-hour 1 demands are used to size the distribution lines and booster pump stations that do not pump to a storage tank. Fire flows are also used in sizing the distribution lines as well as storage tanks. However, most rural water systems do not supply fire flows due to the significant distance between customers and the small size of most of the lines. In a developing region such as the I-25 Corridor/Tri-Town Area, fire flows are becoming an important aspect of the system design. Wholesale Customer Water Use Daily readings of the District's demands are maintained at the Central Weld office. Table 11-2 summarizes the annual, maximum-day, and peak-hour usage for the towns served by the District. The Towns as a whole display very typical quantities for water use. The peak-hour demands were generated in two different ways. In Table II-2, Firestone, Kersey, and Milliken are estimated based on usage during the maximum month because hourly telemetry values are not available. The peak-hour demands for these towns were estimated assuming a multiplier of 1.5 applied to the average demand on the maximum-thy. This ratio has been confirmed in a number of different systems and is the generally accepted figure used where actual measurements are not available. The values shown for the remaining towns reflect actual quantities as reported through the telemetry system. The slight change between peak-hour and maximum-day demands for Dacono reflects the fact that Dacono draws their water essentially at a constant rate and utilizes the elevated 1.0 MG tank for system equalization during peak usage times. I I 1 11 I ITable 11-2,Water Consumption Comparison I Da men Firestone Frederick Kersey Milliken" LaSalle Gilcrest Platteville Left Hand Aristocrat No.ofTaps co 1,440 2,751 2,623 409 824 691 330 528 426 358 2005 Usage(MG) 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 144.3 I Average Day(MGD) 0.40 1.36 1.18 0.14 0.24 0.29 0.15 0.38 0.52 0.08 Avg.annual use(1000 gal/tap) 100.21 180.81 163.59 123.23 106.80 151.23 162.42 262.50 446.95 85.47 Avg.Day per tap(gpm/tap) 0.19 0.34 0.31 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.31 050 0.85 0.16 I Maximum Day(MGD) 0.75 3.07 2.51 027 0.52 0.71 0.40 1.00 1.16 0.15 Avg.Max Day(gpm/tap) 0.36 0.78 0.66 0.46 0.44 0.71 0.85 1.32 1.89 0.29 Peak Hour(MGD) 0.69 0.85 3 76 0.33 0.78 1.12 0.61 0.78 1.74 0.22 Avg.Peak Hour(gpm/tap) 0.33 021 I.00 0.56 0.65 1.13 1.29 1.03 2.84 0.43 I ++Does not include water taken from Greeley *5/8"Equivalent Taps—Estimated from annual use. I The annual water use per tap for each of the towns is listed in the Table I1-2, and ranges from 100,000 gallons (Dacono) to 180,800 gallons (Firestone). Other districts and towns of similar size and use have approximately the same usage. The annual projections will be based on 180,000 gallons per tap. The maximum-day demands per tap range from 0.36 gpm/tap (Dacono) to 1.32 gpm/tap (Platteville). Dacono and Milliken demand per tap is misleading. Dacono draws water at a constant rate and supplements the peak flow from their tank, while Milliken also gets water from the City of Greeley. All of the towns' maximum-day demand projections will be based on 1.0 gpm/tap. IRural Water Use I The demands of the individual retail customers of the District are more difficult to determine since daily readings on each meter are not available. In order to estimate the design maximum-day rate to be used in the hydraulic model, the relationship between the maximum monthly usage of each meter to that of the IDistrict as a whole was determined. The maximum-day demands at the various locations in the distribution system are then determined using the relationship between the total peak demand for the system and the I total metered usage during the maximum month. This number is then multiplied by the metered usage of each tap. The procedure has been automated by assigning a number to each account in the billing system that corresponds to a node number in the hydraulic model. A report can then be generated from the billing I system that totals the usage for a selected month at each node. The total usage at each node can then be multiplied by a ratio to derive an estimate of the maximum-day demand placed on the system at each node. I I I 1 12 I ' The multiplier based on the 2006 consumption figures for June is determined as follows: ITable I1-3,Determination of Max Day Multiplier I (a) Maximum-Day Demand(MGD) 18.27 (b) Less Towns on Telemetry(MGD) 12.49 (c) =Net District Demand(MGD) 5.78 I (d) Max Month Usage(1,000 gal) 418,242 (e) Less Towns on Telemetry(1,000 gal) 301.406 (f) =Net District Usage(1,000 gal) 116,836 (g) Peak-Hour Multiplier(c/f in gpm) 0.034 For the average District customer, the above figures translate to a maximum-day demand of 1.66 gpm/tap Iand a peak-hour demand of 1.27 gpm/tap. Table II-4, Rural Customers Annual Use I Meter Size> 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" Total map.Ratio to 5/8" 1 1.5 2.5 5 8 _15 25 Retail 1999 Total Use (1000 gal) 242,475 53,729 115,778 10,420 164,029 10,205 177,662 774,298 I Number Of Meters 1,363 60 44 4 7 1 3 1,482 1999 Usage per tap(gal) 177,898 895,483 2,631,318 2,605,000 23,432,714 10,205,000 59,220,667 2000 Total Use (1000 gal) 294,825 64,275 100,197 _ 56,940 200,043 27,715 147,468 8.91,463 Number Of Meters 1,663 63 45 7 10 1 4 1.793 I 2000 Usage per tap(gal) 177,285 1,020,232 2,226,608 8,134,246 20,004,304 27,714,660 36,867,035 2001 Total Use (1000 gal) 279,922 67,055 94,158 56.936 204,056 23,785 172,635 898,548 Number Of Meters 1,688 65 45 8 10 1 4 1,821 2001 Usage per tap(gal) 165,831 1,031,610 2,092,402 7,117,023 20,405,622 23,785,260 43,158,795 I 2002 Total Use (1000 gal) 326,002 77,570 103,211 61,152 190,952 27,121 128,348 914,356 Number Of Meters 1,738 67 45 _ 8 12 1 4 1,875 2002 Usage per tap(gal) 187,573 1,157,761 2,293,578 7,644,000 15,912,667 27,121,000 32,087,000 2003 Total Use(1000 gal) 301,901 7.1,310 99,442_ 56,268 205,493 22,473 85.516 842,403 I Number Of Meters 1,872 69 46 8 13 1 3 2,012 2003 Usage per tap(gal) 161,272 1,033,478 2,161,783 7,033,500 15,807,154 22 473,000 28,505,333 _ 2004 Total Use(1000 gal) 279,154 67,539 78,062 41,014 207,83 18,199 137,006 828,806 1,872 69 46 8 13 I 3 2,012 1 2004 Usage per tap(gal) 149,121 978,826 1,697,000 5,126,750 15987,077 18,199,000 45,668,667 2005 Total Use(I000 gal) 290,646 77,205 _ 78,062 41,014 207,832 18,199 1.37,006 849,964_ Number Of Meters 1.872 69 46 8 13 I 3 2,012 2005 Usage per tap(gal) 155,260 1,118,913 1,697,000 5,126,750 15,987,077 18,199,000_ 45,668,667 Average Use per tap 167,748 1,033,758 2,114,241 6,112.467 18,219,516 21,099,560 41,5.96,595 Avg.Use/tap(Acre-Ft) 0.51 3.17 6 49 18.75 127.60 Avg.Use w/10%losses 0.57 3.49 7.13 20.62 61.48 71.19 140.36 IMax Use w/10%losses 0.63 3.91 7.74 25.79 53.69 91.51 108.27 Another water use figure that is important to the District is the annual consumption. This will help define the total amount of water on an annual basis that the District will need to secure. Table 11-4 summarizes the total annual use for the District from 1999 to 2005. The average annual use per residential tap for the last seven years was 168,000 gallons and the highest was 187,000 gallons. The annual use projections Iwill be based on 180,000 gallons per year. Adding system losses of 10% the annual water requirement per residential tap is 0.61 acre-feet. The larger taps should be evaluated on a case by case basis with the I usages summarized in Table 11-4. 1 13 1 ' The projected District's annual use is shown in Figure II-4. The blue line shows the projections based on 1 the above figures while the red line shows the projection made for the NISP project. I RETAIL CUSTOMERS ANNUAL USE s,000 - -T 1 +Actual 5,000 UDist.Projection —0.—NISP Projection a,000 ' e 1 a 1 3,000 --- = ill To c c Q 2,000 I 1,000 1 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Figure I1-4,Rural Projected Annual Use 1 The telemetry data available also allows for the derivation of a diurnal pattern, which is used to simulate the temporal demand over the 24-hour analysis period. A multiplier was formulated for each hour within the 1 24-hour period and applied to the average maximum-day demand. The end result of using the diurnal pattern is a distribution of the overall maximum-day demand through an extended period with the actual 1 peaks and lulls normally experienced by the system. Figure II-5 illustrates the diurnal pattern used in the analysis and compares the current rural District pattern with those in the past, as well as that recommended by the AWWA. 1 I I 1 1 14 I I CWCWD RURAL DEMAND PATTERN 1 1.80 -- -.-------- --_-.. ------- -_- 1.60 K 1 / \ / ,.26 IC i cc m 0.80 I o O 0.60 1 CC -x/ I 0.40 1 0.20 1 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM =Avg 04-05 X2001 X1995 1997 —IN-1994 , 0(—AWWA X2004 X2005 1 Figure II-5, Rural Demand Patterns It is apparent from Figure II-5 that the District usage pattern is ever-changing. Figure II-5 demonstrates the Ineed for periodically updating the analysis of the system as time progresses. The peak hour for the District generally coincides with the same time frame as the AWWA. The District's peak hour is much less I pronounced than the AWWA peak and, rather than a decrease in usage at early morning hours, another peak occurs in the District. The flatter District pattern as derived from actual flow data may be attributable, in part, to the presence of several large agricultural users, which draw their water at a more constant rate. The 1 usage patterns after 2000 display a fairly significant change from previous patterns as well. The newer patterns indicate higher usage in the early morning with less use in the daytime hours. The timing of this pattern coincides with the start of the drought seen in eastern Colorado. The pattern may be partially Iexplained by public awareness of irrigation efficiency being higher at evening hours and watering restrictions during daytime hours. IThe towns on telemetry were also analyzed and considered for application of independent diurnal patterns. Figure II-6, seen below, displays the usage patterns for the towns on telemetry as well as the rural District Iarea. From the curves, it is obvious that Platteville has its own, fairly constant usage pattern while Kersey has a slightly distinct pattern. The usage patterns of the towns do not vary much from each other. Since I Fredrick has a slightly higher peak than the average of all the Towns and Platteville was fairly constant, three different urban usage patterns were chosen for the model; the Town of Fredrick, Town of Platteville and the average of all towns. 1 15 1 1 2005 District Usage Patterns 2.00 i I 1.80 T_-- _ __._—_._— 1.60 1 I 1.40 e 120 '•To S 1.00 .� "� — — _ I0.60 — I 0.60 --- ' 0.40 ',, 0 20 1 12'.00 AM 2'.00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8'.00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM I Time I—e—Rural LaSalle—dr—S.Fredrick—N—Platteville—e—Kersey Town Average—'—AW WA Figure II-6,2005 Town Demand Patterns ' D. Future Demands Annual Use Projections .-., „ ,„ _ �,_ n„.„„_,,,,,,„,„_. „„_,, , ,„ The projected annual water use for the towns through the year 2030 is summarized in Table II-5. The I projections are based on the population predictions discussed previously and the average usage for each of the towns, illustrated in Table II-2. I I I 1 16 I I Table II-5,Projected Annual Use - Towns IAnnual Use(MG) Aristocrat Total Total Year Dacono Firestone Frederick Gilcrest Kersey LaSalle Milliken Platteville Left Hand I Ranchettes Towns (ac-ft) 2000 141.0 108.1 214.8 57.0 63.1 127.5 64.4 184.5 0.031.4 991.8 3,044 2005 144.3 497.4 429.1 53.6 50.4 104.5 88.0 138.6 190.4 30.6 1,726.9 5,300 I 2010 239.6 570.5 867.3 52.3 66.0 119.3 93.0 206.8 298.3 44.8 2,557.8 7,850 2015 337.8 661.3 1,146.9 55.0 77.3 125.4 93.0 242.1 381.6 60.0 3,180.3 9,760 2020 436.0 766.6 1,362.0 57.8 90.5 131.8 93.0 283.6 456.0 76.0 3,753.2 11,518 I2025 534.2 846.4 1,577.0 60.8 106.0 138.5 93.0 332.1 525.9 76.0 4.289.9 13,165 2030 632.3 934.5 1,756.2 63.9 124.1 145.6 93.0 389.0 590.9 76.0 4,805.5 14,748 2035 730.5 1,031.8 1,899.6 67.2 145.4 153.0 93.0 455.6 651.1 76.0 5,303.1 16,275 As previously mentioned, the annual projections are based on 180,000 gallons per tap. The wholesale Icustomers will need nearly 20,510 acre-feet of water by 2035. It should be noted that Milliken and Aristocrat Ranchettes were capped at their current contract amounts. The rural customers were projected in a similar fashion to the wholesale customers. The projection used from the rural customers was 180,000 gallons per tap. Table I1-6 summarizes the projected annual use Ithrough the 30-year planning period. ITable H-6,Projected Annual Use—Rural Customers Year Annual Use Annual (1000 gal) Use(ac-ft) I2000 898.6 2,757.7 2005 1,044.5 3,205.5 I2010 1,122.7 3,445.5 2015 1,200.9 3,685.5 2020 1,279.1 I 2025 1,357.3 4,165.5 2030 1,431.6 4,393.5 2035 1,490.3 4,573.5 I By 2035, the rural customers will be using approximately 4,600 acre-feet of water annually. Figure 11-7 illustrates the entire annual use for the District. By the end of the planning period, the District can expect to use on the order of 21,000 acre-feet of water annually. I I I 17 I I -- Total Projected Annual Water Use I 25,000 r •Dacono I OFredrick I ❑Firestone ❑Arist.Ranch. 20,000 ■Lett HandI -___�_ ■Platteville ,I ❑Milliken •LaSalle ❑Kersey x 15,000 . I I uW.. y ■Cilcrest ORural Cust I J To Q10,000 --- 5000 isesitimosa �, s Ti-- 7kg tii. .s� is V ,t,. 1?:,a r s: •—i 1 r a LI:c; f �r� 7. "�$+ '{rNro b'b i .* 1 ,»,,(, sr ~ ra-. ,,,g•1€ .ttea v.1 k ri p a" 'e464 h 0 ^' :ai' 'a 1»;' 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 1 I Figure 11-7,Total Projected Annual Water Use ' A request by Butterball Turkey, LLC was made in December of 2006 for service to 18 of their turkey farms. Several of these farms are already serviced by the District; however, some are not. The historic I annual use for those turkey farms already serviced by the District totals 65.8 ac-ft. These same farms are anticipated to increase their annual use by 152 ac-ft. The total annual use estimated by Butterball Turkey, LLC is approximately 325 ac-ft for all 18 of their turkey farms. These services will account for an 8% Iincrease in rural usage if provided as proposed. IMaximum-Day Demand Proiections The projected maximum-day demands for the towns through the year 2035 are summarized in Table II-7 I and illustrated in Figure 11-8. The projections are based on the population predictions discussed previously and the average usage for each of the towns, illustrated in Table 11-2. ITable I1-7,Projected Max Day Demands—Towns(MGD) Year Dacono Firestone Frederick Gllcrest Kersey LaSalle Milliken Platteville Left Hand Aristocrat Ranchettes I 2000 0.717 1.180 0.859 0.341 0.386 0.578 0.793 0.643 0.906 2005 0.754 3.072 2.507 0.402 0.269 0.710 0.518 1.004 1.153 0.153 2010 1.980 3.877 5.190 0.417 0.393 0.759 0.864 1.221 1.153 0.576 2015 3.207 4.495 7.128 0.433 0.539 0.810 0.864 1.475 1.153 0.576 I 2020 4.435 5.211 8.618 0.450 0.710 0.863 0.864 1.773 1.153 0.576 2025 5.662 5.753 10.109 0.468 0.910 0.920 0.864 2.122 1.153 0.576 2030 6.890 6.352 11.351 0.486 1.144 0.979 0.864 2.531 1.153 0.576 2035 8.118 7.013 12.345 0.506 1.419 1.041 0.864 3.009 1.153 0.576 I 18 I ' PROJECTED DEMANDS-TOWNS 14.00 ---- l I I _ �Darono i i L,. �•FoWtd 12.00 0Fvestone ..Neoey I IIIN,fillIcen O LaSalle LaSalle 10.00 0Giltrdt G —nevedne U If a 8.00 ' ≤ 6.00 _. --- -___ -_- G 7 I4.00 i . '. 2.00 I . .. - .��:lii�(�iiln�iy�i��a��!i�!!�!i�� •.no�.pdilQti�i 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 YEAR IFigure II-8,Projected Town Demands The rural customers currently draw approximately 7.0 MGD of which the larger users such as Aurora I Dairy, Kuner Feedlot, and the Gilcrest Feedlot consume nearly 26%. Rural residential demand is expected to nearly double by the year 2035 from the current 4.2 MGD to a total MDD of 8.4 MGD. Current and future large users in the rural portions of the district will only escalate this number. The Iresidential estimate includes the extra demand attributable to Beebe Draw. The agreement between the District and the developer permits a maximum number of 100 taps/year within the development. The I previous master plan estimated the sales at 40 taps/year for Beebe Draw. To date, approximately 50 taps have been sold of the 600 total lots, which corresponds to a sales rate of 10 taps/year. Considering the recent historic rural tap sales, 80 taps/year was used for the rural demand projections, including the 20 Iadditional taps per year for Beebe Draw growth until 2030. At year 2030 rural demand projections return to 60 taps/year. IOne of the most recent inquiries into large scale service has come from Butterball Turkey, LLC. The company is interested in service to 18 sites located throughout Weld County, most in the District's service I area, several outside the service area. Some of the sites are already serviced by Central Weld taps; however, most are not. The total requested max day demand for these requested taps will increase the ' max day demand for 2007 by an additional 922 gpm. I 19 I PROJECTED MAX DAY DEMANDS I 50.00 45.00 F - II 40.00 . t I - I ii 35.00 1 ! -- 0 30.00 - ;0•0,0deiteer,eceotereeceVe4. D Q 25.00 — w W G 20.00 ts.00 I to.00 5.00 I 0.00 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 YEAR IH‘ Rural District •"•••Municipalities°TOTAL Figure II-9,Projected Max Day Demands IFigure II-9 portrays the anticipated demands for the entire system up through the year 2035. One obvious conclusion which may be drawn from the graph is the usage pattern shift from primarily rural retail I customers to predominantly municipal residential use from 1992 up through the present. This usage pattern is expected to continue into the foreseeable future, although rural use is also anticipated to increase markedly above current values. The increase in demand shown from 1998 to 1999 represents inclusion of Beebe Draw and Aristocrat I Ranchettes, as well as an increase in the amount drawn by Left Hand Water District. As mentioned previously, Beebe Draw started drawing water from the system in the summer of 1999. In 1998 Aristocrat Ranchettes began using District water. Aristocrat has signed an agreement with the District for provision of ' a maximum amount of 400 gpm. I Projection of the future demands for the District as a whole is based largely upon the historical growth in the District. It is very difficult,however,to identify the precise magnitude and location of these future demands throughout the District. Obviously, the demands are dependent upon the location of future developments, Iexpansion of existing feedlots and dairies, development of new industries and agricultural facilities, etc. Given the uncertainty of these factors, allocation of future demands has proven to be the most formidable I task in the projection of growth. If growth patterns vary drastically from those delineated in the previous sections of this report, re-evaluation of the system would be necessary to validate any recommendations made herein. I 20 I E. Pressures ' The goal of the design of a water distribution system is to provide the peak-hour demands while maintaining minimum acceptable pressure. In addition, municipal systems should typically be capable of supplying the average demand on the maximum day, plus the needed fire flows, while maintaining a minimum residual pressure throughout the entire system. Table II-8 summarizes design pressures used as design criteria from other water utilities in this area. Table II-8,Design Pressures Entity Min.Pressure Max.Pressure Fire Flow Pressure ' (psi) (Psi) (Psi) Colorado Dept H of Health 35 20 AWWA MOP M32 30 90 20 City of Denver 40 110 City of Thorton 40 100 City of Greeley 40 100 The State Health Department recommends that the normal working pressure in the distribution system be approximately 60 psi with the minimum pressure not less than 35 psi. Furthermore, the system should be designed to maintain a minimum of 20 psi at all points under all conditions of flow. For the purpose of this study, these requirements have been interpreted to mean that 35 psi will be maintained during the peak-hour conditions and that a minimum of 20 psi will be maintained during the maximum day, plus fire flow conditions. The maximum static pressure recommended for direct service is 100 psi. Pressures above this level can ' cause water heater safety valves to release and can cause leakage problems in older lines. Where static pressures exceed this level, either zone or individual pressure-reducing valves must be installed. F. Storage Requirements In addition to the guidelines for the minimum pressures, the State Health Department design criteria include recommendations on the minimum amount of storage that should be provided. The criterion recommends that the storage volume sufficiently supply one average-day demand plus fire flow demand. If this criterion is adhered to, a disproportionate share of the overall storage will be depleted to neutralize peak-hour demands. In order to compensate for equalization of the peak-hour demands, an additional guideline has been formulated by this office. The more conservative guideline includes sizing the storage volume equal to 25% of the maximum-day demand for equalization, plus the required fire storage,plus one average-day demand as an emergency supply. 21 1 An even more conservative approach is to size the storage volume equal to the maximum-day demand. ' This guideline has been used by other utilities, which have found a number of benefits for the system operation. Those benefits include more stable pressures, more constant demands on the treatment plant, and better control of automatic valves and pumps. This approach is particularly attractive for systems with long transmission lines. Due to the variable characteristics within the District's system, two different approaches were used in evaluating the storage requirements for the east and south areas. Since the 1998 Master Plan, several modifications to transmission lines have been performed. Transmission lines have been added to the south and the east. A large transmission line from the Carter Lake Filter Plant, which will serve both east and west, has been completed since the last Master Plan. ' The network of transmission lines from PRV 401 south to the Tri-Town Area serves as a true transmission system. The lines deliver water to the top of the grid system with no interim take-outs along the way. There are several possible paths in which water may be delivered to the grid system, thereby creating redundancy. For these reasons, the storage for the south portion of the District was evaluated using the modified State Health Department standard. Storage volume was sized equal to 25% of the maximum-day demand for equalization, plus the required fire storage, plus one average-day demand for emergencies. Transmission of water to the eastern portion of the District is currently routed through two transmission lines, a 16-inch in WCR 42 and the recently completed 14-inch in WCR 34. Even with the new line completed, both transmission lines to the east double as distribution lines with several points of use located along them. The distance to the tanks in the east portion of the District is much farther than the distance to the Tri-Town Area grid. In light of these facts, the more conservative approach of sizing storage equivalent to one MDD was used for the eastern portion of the District. G. Main Sizing The State Health Department criteria recommend that all water mains be sized based on a hydraulic analysis. This analysis is to include the projected demands and minimum pressures. For systems which provide fire protection, the minimum size for mains connected to fire hydrants is six inches (6"). In addition, mains not designed to carry fire flows should not have fire hydrants connected to them. ' Furthermore, dead-end mains should be minimized by looping whenever practical. ' Many communities have adopted development standards that incorporate the above criteria. Typically, those regulations require a minimum main size with larger mains spaced in a grid system. The City of Greeley and the Denver Water Department, for example, require a grid with a 12-inch main every one- half mile with eight-inch mains in the streets within the quarter-section. Such a grid generally provides mains large enough to supply domestic, irrigation, and fire protection flows for typical urban densities. ' 22 The American Water Works Association (AWWA) was also consulted for design criteria regarding main sizing. The AWWA 3 defines the following conditions as potentially deficient, or most-limiting: • velocities greater than 5 ft/sec • head losses greater than 10 ft/kft, or • large-diameter pipes (16 in. or greater) having head losses greater than 3 fUkft Velocities in pipe segments on the order of 10 ft/sec are tolerable. However, because headloss varies exponentially with velocity, these higher velocities are usually unachievable because of reduced pressures at the point of delivery. This is especially true with smaller diameter pipe where the surface area of the pipe wall has a much greater impact on losses than on larger pipe. Velocities of this magnitude also require special design considerations due to the greater possibility of water hammer. Additional AWWA recommendations include the following minimum standards for distribution piping in urban areas: Table 11-9,Minimum Standards Distribution Piping-AW WA° ' Piping Property Minimum Standard Smallest pipes in network 6 in. Smallest branching pipes (dead ends) 8 in. Smallest pipes in high value district 8 in. Smallest pipes on principal streets in central district 12 in. Obviously, this criterion is not applicable to the entire Central Weld County Water District service area. However, development in the Tri-Town Area is of a nature that justifies adoption of the AWWA standards as a minimum. These guidelines have been applied in evaluating the existing system and in ' developing the proposed improvements. The standards were adhered to as closely as prudently possible. However, sustaining sufficient pressures at all points of delivery throughout the system was the primary objective in the analysis. For rural areas the following guidelines have been used successfully to determine the approximate capacity of non-looped lines. 1 I ' 3 American Water Works Association, "Distribution Network Analysis for Water Utilities," AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M32. °American Water Works Association,"Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection,"AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M31. 23 I ITable 1I-10, Rural Line Capacities Line Size Based on Velocity Based on Pressure Loss I (in) gpm @ Vel. Taps flow @ Loss Taps 2.0 10 psi/mi I 1.5 11 1 6 0 2 20 5 13 2 2.5 31 11 17.5 4 I 3 44 18 28 10 4 78 36 60 26 6 176 120 176 120 ' 8 313 254 375 305 10 488 I H. Fire Flows . .. When the District was originally organized, its sole purpose was to provide domestic water service to the rural areas of central Weld County primarily along the South Platte River. At that time, little thought was Igiven to the need to provide fire service. Even now, in the rural areas where the distances between the individual customers is typically 1/4 to 1/2 mile and where the distance to the nearest fire station is often as I much as 5 to 10 miles,providing fire flows through the distribution system cannot be economically justified. However, in some of the developing areas of the District, particularly along the I-25 Corridor, there has been considerable pressure for the District to supply fire flows. I The State Health Department criteria recommend that systems which provide fire protection should be I designed such that the fire flows are in accordance with the State Insurance Services Office (ISO) guidelines. The ISO guidelines recommend "Needed Fire Flows" based on the type of building zone and the separation between buildings. For one and two-family homes not exceeding two stories in height, the ISO Irecommends the following needed fire flows: I Table II-11,Residential Fire Flows Building Separation Needed Fire Flow Over 100' 500 gpm ' 31-100' 750 gpm 11-30' 1,000 gpm 10'or less 1,500 gpm IFor commercial and industrial areas the needed fire flows are determined for each individual structure from the Commercial Fire Rating Schedule. This schedule considers the size of the building, the type of Iconstruction, the proximity to other structures, and the type of occupancy. Typical figures for multi-family dwellings are in the range of 2,500 gpm, while figures for commercial and industrial can be as high as 3,500 I gpm or more. The flows can vary widely depending on the type of construction and the presence of fire divisions. Furthermore, the needed fire flows can be substantially reduced by the installation of a fire sprinkler system. I 24 I In instances where buildings are fully sprinkled, and unless the buildings are unusually large or the occupancy is considered a high hazard, fire flows of 2,000 to 2,500 gpm have been found to be generally acceptable. Therefore, this range was used in the design of improvements to the system. The ISO guidelines also specify the required duration of the fire flows. For a fire flow up to 2,500 gpm, the required duration is two hours. For flows up to 3,500 gpm,the required duration is three hours. The ISO Rating Schedule also includes guidelines on the distribution of fire hydrants. Those guidelines ' specify the amount of credit allowed for each hydrant depending upon the distance from a test location. For example, hydrants within 300 feet of a location can be credited with a flow of up to 1,000 gpm. For hydrants within 301 to 600 feet, the credit is 670 gpm, and for hydrants within 601 to 1,000 feet, the credit is 250 gpm. These credits are subject to the ability of the system to supply the credited flows. Using these guidelines and applying them to a residential area with a needed fire flow of 1,500 gpm, each ' structure should be within 300 feet of one hydrant and 600 feet of a second hydrant, or within 1,000 feet of two other hydrants. Thus, the generally accepted spacing for hydrants in residential areas is approximately 600 feet. For a commercial area with a fire flow of 3,500 gpm, each structure should be within 300 feet of three hydrants, with a fourth hydrant within 600 feet. From this requirement, the typical spacing for commercial areas is 300 feet. Although evaluation of the adequacy of the fire hydrant ' distribution is beyond the scope of this study, this information is included as a guideline for the District and the towns to apply to existing and developing areas. 1 1 25 1 1 III. SYSTEM ANALYSIS I i III. System Analysis A. Treatment Plant and Raw Water Supply Treated water is provided to the District from the Carter Lake Filter Plant (CLFP) that is jointly owned with the Little Thompson Water District (LTWD). The plant consists of the original "North Plant" that was constructed in 1963 and the South Plant that was constructed in 1993 and expanded in 2001. The gross capacity of South Plant is 20 MGD. Subtracting the water used for backwashing results in a net capacity of 18 MGD. The gross capacity of North Plant was originally 16 MGD; however, recent implementation of more stringent water quality standards has necessitated the down rating of the capacity to 10 MGD. In 2004 the Districts decided to replace the North Plant with a new 30 MGD microfiltration plant. Although a detailed evaluation of the treatment plant and raw water supply requirements are beyond the scope of this study, a short summary of the anticipated improvements is included here in order to provide a more complete picture of the anticipated improvements. Plant Capacity The demands on the treatment plant have increased dramatically in recent years. The peak day through July 2006 was 27.1 MGD, compared to 21.2 MGD in 2000. This is an annual increase in demand of about 1.0 MGD per year. Previous projections made for the North Plant Study have been updated to show the current demands as well as the needed capacity expansions. Figure III-1 shows the actual demands as a solid blue line. The"worst case"projection is shown as the red line. The graph also shows the plant capacity and the capacity of the combined transmission lines leaving the plant. ' The individual district demands for 2006 show Central Weld at 16.4 MGD and Little Thompson at 10.9 MGD. The difference between the"worst case" projection and the probable projection represented by the shaded areas is the rate of growth in the individual developments in the Little Thompson District. That projection was made as a part of the Little Thompson Master Plan and included the projected build out of the individual developments. Some of those developments have not progressed as originally planned and the Wilson Ranch development hasn't been started. Therefore the "worst case" projection is highly unlikely, at least in the near term. The dashed blue line represents a simple projection of the trend in the growth of the historical maximum day production of the plant. I I I 26 I CARTER LAKE WTP MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND 1 90 //o LTWC —Alt Plant Cap aann•W arst Case �, 70 I W TP Output i I—',/ South Plant -- Plant Cap. Exp. 10 MG ' 80 F Trans.Capacity I ' / �HisiVic Trend M South p Plant Exp. 'i�/ z / a m 50 p N6 Plant QM- Erene Exp. I / p 40 J / 1 i II 10 GM South ale PI IExp.No. 30 •e•a MSM III out,'Plant 20 10 I 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure III-1, Carter Lake WTP Maximum Day Demand IProposed Improvements I As indicated above, with the completion of the North Membrane Plant, the capacity should be adequate through 2013 to 2016. It should be noted that the existing 20" and 30" pipelines from the new clearwell at the north plant to the storage tanks limits the flow rate that can be delivered from the new plant to the tanks. IWith this restriction, the maximum flow that can be delivered with the tanks full is about 20 MGD. In order to deliver 30 MGD from the new plant to the tanks the tank level will have to be operated 10 feet below the I maximum level. As the demand on the new plant increases above 20 MGD, a new pipeline will be required from the clearwell to the tanks in order to maintain the tank level as high as possible. That capacity is projected to be reached sometime between 2009 and 2015. At that time the existing 20" line should be Ireplaced with 1,300 feet of 42" line or both existing lines should be replaced with a 48"line. The only question remaining is whether the old north plant will have to be retrofitted to provide pretreatment for the water from Dry Creek reservoir. The final decision on that will be made once water has been stored in the reservoir for a period of a year and the quality of the water can be evaluated. The Iprevious analysis indicated the cost of the retrofit would range between $2,500,000 and$3,000,000. When the demand on the plants reaches 48 MGD additional plant capacity will be required. Previous Iplans anticipated the South Plant would be expanded by 10 MGD by adding 4 more trident units on the north side of the plant, similar to what was accomplished on the south side of the plant in 2000. The cost I27 I 1 of that expansion in 2000 was about$5,000,000 and would probably exceed$6,200,000 at today's prices. I As shown in Figure III-1, with the projected growth rate a 10 MGD expansion would only provide sufficient capacity for about 3 years. Considering the rate of growth and the fact that the South Plant is considered a direct filtration plant that at times has a problem meeting the particulate removal Irequirements, it may be better to retrofit the South Plant with membranes. Furthermore, since the transmission line capacity is over 70 MGD it may be cost effective to expand the South Plant to provide I more capacity than 30 MGD at that site. Other alternatives for additional capacity include the construction of "peaking plants" within the Districts that could utilize "native supplies." These alternatives will have to be carefully evaluated as the demands approach the capacity of the existing I plants. 1 _ littl l', r 1 ., - ' ' 1 ' '' - 4: 11,11;?;::::', , . I 1 as ' 11 ''7. •7' - - ` , . t_1 _ t ;. _^ , ..... : l- Ir" ® i ;sa1s�" �I i� fl d n4C ,I Figure III-2,Picture of North Membrane Plant Figure II-1 also projects the transmission line capacity, as well as the expanded treatment plant capacity, will be reached by 2024. Prior to that time a new plant at Carter Lake, as well as a new pipeline from Ithere to the District, will be required or an alternate source of water will have to be identified. It is therefore recommended a water treatment and transmission line study be conducted between 2015 and I 2020 to determine the best alternative for providing future demands. In addition, the District will have to prepare for a significant expenditure prior to 2024 for new treatment and transmission line capacity. For example, if a new plant is constructed at Carter Lake with a new transmission line the costs for a 30 MGD I 28 1 first phase of a plant plus a 60 MGD transmission line could be as high as $70,000,000, half of which I would be the responsibility of Central Weld. Raw Water Supply With the large increase in demand projected for the next 20-30 years, the availability of CBT water to Imeet that demand is becoming a serious concern. The projected demands for 2025 shown in Figure III-1 represent an increase in the maximum-day demand of 28 to 49 MGD. On an average day that is equal to I 11.2 to 19.6 MGD, and on an annual basis it represents 12,500 to 22,000 acre-ft of usage. The combined annual demands for the District and the Towns is shown in Figure III-3. 1 Total Projected Annual Water Use I 25,000 I j ■oaconoI F ❑Fredrick I CI Firestone ❑Arist.Ranch. 20,000 a Left Hand ■Platteville j ❑Milliken I II LaSalle 0 Kersey .2' 15,000 •Gilcrest d 0 Rural Cast I N To c c 10,000 5,000 p ,, i s Ar v # r In ,✓ Ac y1ni y{x1 p s o... u t^r4 f,y L"3, K t r'8 I 0 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 IFigure III-3,Projected Annual Water Use I In order to supply this quantity of water, the Districts and the towns would have to acquire an additional 17,800 to 31,400 units of CBT at a 70% delivery. Since there are less than 70,000 units currently in private hands, and since there are other utilities competing for this water, it is reasonable to assume that it Imay not be possible to obtain 31,400 additional units. Therefore, the Districts have been investigating other alternatives including "native" water rights, the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), or 1 encouraging or developing the use of secondary supply systems in new developments for irrigation. The above figure indicates District's retail customers are projected to require an additional 1,320 acre feet by 2035. The projected additional usage by 2050 as reported in the NISP report is 2,700 acre feet. This compares to the District's current share of the NISP project of 3,300 acre feet. 1 29 In addition, the Districts are completing the construction of a 10,000 acre-foot reservoir near LCR 44 and 25. This reservoir will be jointly owned and operated by CWCWD and Little Thompson Water District (LTWD). This location is next to CWDWD 20-inch steel waterline, which will be used to transport raw water from this reservoir to Carter Lake Filter Plant. The main purpose of Dry Creek Reservoir is to allow CWCWD and LTWD to store more CBT water. Since the NCWCD allows only a small percentage of carryover within the CBT system, water can be delivered to Dry Creek Reservoir and stored, and then delivered back to the treatment plants as needed. Another raw water project that the District has committed to is the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). NISP is a regional supply and storage project, which will provide approximately 34,400 acre-feet of new yield water rights and 47,000 acre-feet of firming storage for the 14 participants. The second phase of the project is currently underway, which is the environmental assessment and permitting. Once the permitting is completed, the final phase is design and construction, which is expected to be 10 to 15 years out. NISP will give the District more flexibility with raw water rights because they will be able to transfer rights from the NISP project to Carter Lake and divert them into the existing filter plants. CWCWD and the Towns of Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono will be committing approximately $50 million to the construction of the NISP project. In addition to NISP and the Dry Creek Reservoir Project, there are other potential opportunities to secure 1 and utilize native water rights to supply the District customers. The District has already examined two sites in the Vi-town area for an alternate plant site. The first alternative studied was Milavec Lake located in Frederick. That study indicated a 2.0 MGD microfiltration plant could be constructed for about $4,000,000 if the water is blended with Carter Lake water. The second alternative investigated was a plant located at the Varra Gravel Pit. Due to the lower water quality of this water the study recommended the treatment train include preoxidation, coagulation/flotation, microfiltration, reverse osmosis, stabilization/disinfection. The preliminary opinion of cost of this system is $5,500,000 for a 1.8 MGD plant. Based on that analysis it was recommended other sources be investigated. To determine whether any of the native raw water within the District boundary is worth treating will ' require a feasibility study on the water quality, water quantity, and the best treatment plant location. A study of this type is a project in itself and is beyond the scope of this study. Secondary Irrigation Systems Another strategy that can be used to reduce the dependency on CBT shares is to encourage the use of ' secondary systems for supplying irrigation water. Research on daily usage patterns in other systems indicates that the peak day demands on the treatment plant and transmission lines from new taps could be reduced by as much as 50% and annual demands could be reduced by 65 to 70%. Using the projections in Figure III-1 (see page 24), the projected maximum day for 2025 with secondary systems implemented in all new developments would drop to 39 to 45 MGD compared to 54 to 65 MGD shown. The number 1 of additional CBT units required would drop to between 7,120 and 12,560 compared to the 17,800 to 31,400 units mentioned previously. ' 30 1 One of the primary concerns with dual systems is the long-term viability of the irrigation systems. 1 Currently most of the systems being implemented in the area are being constructed and operated by homeowners associations. The concern is whether or not these associations will continue to operate and maintain the facilities over the long term. If not, then the homeowners could revert to using the domestic 1 system for irrigation, thus placing those demands back on the system. One approach that has been used successfully in Utah and Idaho is to have the irrigation companies own and operate the irrigation systems. This offers the irrigation companies the opportunity to create a new revenue stream while at the same time keeping water in their ditches. This would benefit the remaining farmers that rely on the ditch water by increasing revenues and spreading out the losses in the ditches. Another approach would be for the ' Districts or the cities and towns to take over the ownership and operation of the irrigation systems. The Town of Eaton has adopted this approach. B. Transmission Lines ` External Transmission System (outside District Boundaries) Water is currently delivered to the District from the Carter Lake Filter Plant through two transmission lines. The 16.8 mile long, 20-inch steel line was constructed as part of the formation of the District in 1967. CWCWD and LTWD jointly constructed a 16.5 mile long, 42-inch DIP waterline that was completed in ' 2001 with a total capacity of 35,000 gpm. Since CWCWD traded ownership of its share of the 24-inch waterline to Little Thompson for additional capacity (4,000 gpm) in the 42" line, CWCWD's share in the 42" line is now at 21,500 gpm to LTWD 13,500 gpm. The hydraulic profile of the 42-inch transmission line 1 from the Carter Lake Filter Plant to PRV 401 is shown in Figure I11-4. Assuming a delivery pressure at PRV 401 of between 45 psi and 60 psi (depending on WTP tank levels), the capacity of this new joint line was estimated at 35,000 gpm or 50.4 MGD. 31 1 42"-NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE IHydraulic Profile 6000 1 5800 - s L • ' 5600 - . _ — .'_ .__-.- - ..___. _ _•_ _ • _. z 5400 o I it w w 5200I-TTTti5E / I5000 - __ _. _ _.__ _ 4800 _. ____ I..__ 4600 . . 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 IDISTANCE —Gnd A-Gravity HGL—Static Ha- - - 200 psi.- 4- 250 psi—•—300 psi---35 psi I I Figure III-4,42"Transmission Line Hydraulic Profile LFigure III-4 was generated assuming the allotment to each respective District previously noted. Little Thompson intends to extract its share in the 42-inch joint line at five different locations. Take-out points for I Little Thompson along the 42-inch line were assumed as follows: • Larimer County Road(LCR) 8E, south of Hertha Reservoir. • Northwest of the Town of Berthoud,near Loveland Reservoir. • WCR 46/WCR 7, for connection to the Twin Mounds Tank. • Highway 56/I-25. I • WCR 38/I-25,for connection to a future tank site. ' Central Weld has connections to the 42-inch line at the following locations: • WCR 42/I-25,for connection to the existing 20-inch transmission line. I • WCR 38/I-25,the terminus of the new line and connection to PRV 401. With the construction of the Dry Creek Reservoir project, the 20-inch waterline from Carter Lake Filter I Plant to LCR 23 1/2 is planned to be a raw waterline. The Dry Creek Reservoir feasibility study shows the construction of a new 24-inch in LCR 23 '/z between the 42-inch and the 20-inch. This would ensure that the 20-inch waterline capacity would be maintained from LCR 23 1/2, east to the District boundary. 1 32 1 - TOTAL SYSTEM TRANSMISSION CAPACITY Operating Conditions 50 __ _.___.___ ...___.....__ .........._ ... 45 40 ' - - . ■ . . . . . . . ■ . . . ■ . . •- • ■ . . � G 30 Lel Q New 42"Trans Line 25 � I I ga 20 X Q 15 5 1 1990 1995 20011 ANIs 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR •Max Day Demand —E—Total Transmission Capacity Figure III-5,Total Transmission System Capacity Figure III-5 illustrates the transmission capacity for the District. CWDWD has approximately 31 MGD capacity in the 42-inch waterline and 5.6 MGD in the 20-inch waterline. The current transmission capacity of 36 MGD will be adequate until approximately 2026. Beyond 2026, additional transmission capacity or a local source of water will need to be developed. The capacity of the transmission system to the District boundaries is exceeded primarily by the development expected in the Tri-Town area. The growth assumed by NISP and by the Town of Firestone ' appear to be fairly aggressive even though they are less than reported in the previous master plan. These growth projections should be reviewed carefully as they appear to be relatively high for a long term projection and don't represent any of the slow down recently seen in home sales and development projects. Should development proceed as projected, however, the treatment and transmission systems will be exceeded near the 20-year planning window. I 33 1 1 Internal Transmission Capacity (inside District boundaries) East of Interstate 25, the transmission system is essentially divided into the east and south regions. The east region of the District includes that portion of the service area north of Highway 66 and east of WCR 15 (see Exhibit 1). The east line continues along WCR 42 to WCR 39 and then turns south to Tank No. 2. The south line splits into three separate legs downstream of PRV 401. One leg runs south along I-25, one leg runs south along WCR 13, and the other is routed east to the 18-inch tie at WCR 38/WCR 15. From this point, the line turns south to the Cleveland Hill tank site. ' East Transmission System The east transmission system has two primary transmission lines. The northern line (WCR 42) ranges in size from 20 inches to 14 inches from I-25 to WCR 39. The southern line was recently completed to Tank No. 2. This 18 to 14-inch line generally follows WCR 34 to WCR 35, north to WCR 38, and then east to Tank No. 2. ' The drop in elevation from the treatment plant tanks to Tank No. 2 is approximately 459 feet. The current transmission capacity to the Tank No. 2 pressure zone is 9.2 MGD, as illustrated in Figure 1I1-6. The I transmission capacity can be increased to 10.5 MGD with all three pumps operating at the Gilcrest Pump Station. The pressure setting at PRV 302 was revised to 92 psi(HGL 5,010 ft). This system can deliver the projected MDD through the year 2019 under gravity conditions and to 2025 with the Gilcrest Pumps on. Beyond 2025, MDD will exceed the transmission capacity unless improvements are completed. There were two alternates considered to provide additional transmission capacity to the east district. The first alternate evaluated was installing a second 16-inch transmission line parallel to the existing line in WCR 42 from PRV 103 east to WCR 39. With some upgrades to the existing Gilcrest Pump Station, this would provide a total of 12.1 MGD transmission capacity to this area. Demand in this portion of the District is not expected to exceed 12.1 MGD until after 2028. The estimated cost for these improvements is $4,092,412. As mentioned, improvements to Gilcrest Pump Station are required and will be discussed in Section III. C. 1 I I 34 I I EAST TRANSMISSION SYSTEM I Operating Conditions 16 Gravity Anernate i 10 _____ ___—_____ —.__. __ _ ___.. __20"tram PRV 102 to WCR 39 12 GJ re6 Pump on 10 LNe.Fat Gaubm • 4 GJ sP5 3 _.__. Ongmat Gravity Caput)/ cz X • _ __ __.__ ____.._ _____— __._—____. __. _.. III b 4 I 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR f —Max Day Demand ' �Eaa Travmissinn Gpaoity — Figure III-6,East Transmission System I In the second alternate, the same transmission capacity can be achieved with gravity flow. To achieve a gravity capacity of 12.1 MGD, a 20-inch waterline would have to be installed from PRV 103 (WCR 25) to WCR 39. This would allow the District to abandon the Gilcrest Pump Station, which will have reached its Idesign life by the time improvements are needed. The estimated cost for this alternate is$4,418,607. ISouth Transmission System The three lines to the south range in size from 36 inches to 14 inches. The drop in elevation from the I treatment plant tanks to the Cleveland Hill tanks is approximately 344 feet. As illustrated in Figure III-7, the current delivery capacity of the transmission system under current gravity conditions is about 26 MGD (18,000 gpm). The maximum daily demand projected to reach the capacity by 2025. At the present time Ithe actual capacity to the Cleveland Hill tanks is limited by the 14" line from WCR 15 to the tank. In order to achieve the capacity shown in the graph that line should be replaced with a 30" line from the 30" line in WCR 13 to the tank site. I I 35 I I SOUTH TRANSMISSION SYSTEM I35 --- Operating Conditions 30 _. 336 Complete o�Highway52 _ _.. _V 25 • G V F 1 Z a x 136 from PRV401 to 12 } in WCR 26 I a15 _.. _. .__-_—___ __. _. .. ' x Reconfigure PRV 305 a 10 142"Compleletl _. _. _ __.. • _. _ •'Original Gorily Capacity j • I 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 YEAR I 'Max Day Dcmaed 't.South Transmission Capacity Figure III-7,South Transmission System IFrom the above figure, the capacity of the South Transmission system is projected to be reached by 2025. This is also the time frame for the capacity of the East Transmission system and the transmission line from 1 Carter Lake. In order to increase the capacity beyond this period, a new transmission line will be required from Carter Lake all the way to Tanks 2 and 3. IThe time frame could be extended significantly by the expanded use of secondary irrigation systems in the developing areas. Another alternative would be the construction of "peaking" plants located within the 1 District's service area that would supplement the supply from Carter Lake during the summer months. Other alternatives should also be investigated including cooperation with other Districts such as North Weld to enable Central Weld to utilize other water sources and eliminate the need for expansion of the Carter ILake complex beyond 70 MGD. ' C. Pump Stations I Presently, the District operates four pump stations: South Greeley Pump Station, Aristocrat Pump Station, Beebe Draw Pump Station, and the Dacono Pump Station. The Gilcrest Pump Station is available to increase transmission capacity the eastern portions of the District, but is not currently in service. The South I Greeley, Aristocrat, and Beebe Draw pump station all serve subdivisions. The Dacono pump station services the extreme southwestern portion of the district. 1 36 r Gilcrest Pump Station The Gilcrest Pump Station was constructed in 1991 to supply the increased demands due to the addition of LaSalle and Gilcrest to the system. The station includes three 100 HP horizontal centrifugal pumps operating at 3,500 rpm. As noted in the 1998 Master Plan, the operating conditions of the station are not ' ideal in that one pump operating independently does not provide any additional flow. With the completion of the second transmission line to Tank 2, the Gilcrest Pump Station has not been used. The station is simply by-passed and the east transmission system operates under gravity conditions. To increase the east transmission system capacity to 12.1 MGD, the Gilcrest Pump Station capacity will ' have to be increased to 7.5 MGD. To accomplish this, a 16-inch waterline will have to be installed from PRV 103 to WCR 39. Figure III-8 illustrates the benefits of installing this 16-inch waterline. The gravity ' transmission capacity will be increased from 2,000 gpm to 4,000 gpm. Improving the Gilcrest Pump Station will increase the pumping capacity from 5.1 MGD to 7.5 MGD. New pumps will be necessary because the existing pumps will not operate on their pump curve with the transmission line improvements (refer to Figure 111-8). The new pumps need to be approximately 116 water horsepower(125 Hp motors)with an operating point of 1736 gpm at 142 ft of total dynamic head(TDH). 7.5 MGD can be achieved with two pumps operating and a third as a standby. The benefit to installing this new transmission line and pumps will be reduced ' discharge pressures in the local area. The existing pump station has a discharge pressure of approximately 210 psi at the pump station. With the construction of the 16" parallel line, the new pumps will have a discharge pressure of 170 psi at the pump station. The cost to upgrade the Gilcrest Pump Station is estimated at$100,000. I 1 ' 37 I I GILCREST PUMP STATION System Curves 1 500 lI 400 Parallel fi"line from 300 ' - --- PRY 10310?MR 39 I 200 _. s . I r Z -�� • 00 I 0 t . 100 _ .zo0f i __ J_ - - _- - 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5,000 6.000 7,000 9,000 9.000 I —xo.et m.TDx Iaa xp PUMP 4 1UPLOWmmPS 3•mixp PUMPS meema snm®me me Iwm�e stns ma ion[me.r m..rvx v Figure III-8, Gilcrest Pump Station System Curves I South Greeley Pump Station The South Greeley Pump Station is a booster station that serves the area north of the South Platte River to the southwest limit of Evans. The service area for the pump station includes the Indian Hills, the Dos IRios, and the Carriage Estates subdivisions. The pump station is equipped with two 25 Hp variable-speed pumps, operating at a maximum 3,420 rpm. The design operating point of each pump is 400 gpm at a Ihead of 150 feet. The 1994 and 1998 Master Plan had concluded that this pump station was nearing design capacity. Since Ithat time, the service area for this pump station has expanded. In order to meet the additional demand, connection to the City of Greeley's water system was necessary. The system curves for the station are I shown in Figure III-9. As indicated by the curves, very little additional capacity is gained by operating both pumps at the same time. The second pump serves primarily as a backup pump. Current demands supplied by the South Greeley Pump Station average 475 gpm on the maximum day, exceeding the pump I station's design operating point. During these high use periods, the connection to the City of Greeley's system has been used to maintain minimum pressures in the pump station's service area. Therefore, if this connection were discontinued or used in fire flow conditions only, pressures upstream and Idownstream of the pump station would be affected. The increased flow in the supply piping would drop pressures near the end of the line to unacceptable levels. The supply line, as it presently exists, already I exhibits excessive headloss and residents within the Carriage Estates Subdivision have complained about low service pressures. With termination of the supplemental source from Greeley, this headloss increases exponentially, decreasing suction pressures and lowering the prevalent HGL within the pumped zone. I38 I I In order to maintain adequate pressures on both sides of the pump station when, and if, the supplemental source is discontinued, the supply piping will require some modification. Mitigation of excessive headloss will necessitate the installation of parallel piping along the supply line. Additional network Ipiping may be used in lieu, as long as the net effect of parallel pipes is sustained. Termination of the Greeley supplemental source may also require re-evaluation of the pump station itself. ' As mentioned previously, the 1998 Master Plan and 2003 Master Plan indicated that the pump station had nearly reached capacity and to date the system has seen demands that exceed the pump station's effective I capacity. Therefore, even with improvements to the supply line, the overall service provided to customers downstream of the pump station will likely be inferior to the level presently provided. The 1994 Master Plan also mentions replacement of several interior lines within the pumped zone to accommodate fire flows Iand increase overall pressures. These recommendations remain valid and, with the discontinued connection to the Greeley system, may become paramount to providing adequate levels of service. I SOUTH GREELEY PUMP STATION System Curves I S00 I 44,0 300 I E 200 • - IE., 100 Ii.',. 0 I .tool, 0 m0 PO 300 400 500 600 700 000 FL—muQCinimv 4s rows —.— Figure II1-9, South Greeley Pump Station System Curves ' Aristocrat Ranchettes Pump Station I This pump station contains three variable frequency drive (VFD), 25 Hp pumps. Each pump is rated at 250 gpm against a total dynamic head (TDH) of 215 ft. The intent of the original design of the pump station was to deliver a maximum of 500 gpm and maintain the tank level within the subdivision. Normal Ioperation for the station was to be two pumps operating in parallel, hence the design point of 250 gpm per pump. Figure III-10 illustrates the system curves for the Aristocrat Pump Station. 1 39 I I I The most recent agreement between Central Weld County Water District and Aristocrat Ranchettes states that a maximum of 400 gpm shall be delivered to the 4" master meter located in the southwest corner of the subdivision. Pressure at the point of delivery is to be maintained in the range of between 50 and 100 Ipsi. Actual usage of the Ranchettes has been considerably less than the contract amount with the 2006 maximum day usage at 124 gpm. IFigure III-10 shows that the pump speed may be reduced to approximately 80% of the maximum in order to supply the agreed upon quantity of water. I ARISTOCRAT PUMP STATION System curves 500 I 400 I 300 44...."...":11.**%**H. 200 I • GI S Q 100 0 1 1 I II . .. I -100 - i I -200 ` II 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 XOO I FLOW(GPM) `LAll Valve Closed. 5 0 MO Tad Open 01 PUMP 41 PUMPS O80A Val I ' Figure I11-10,Aristocrat Pump Station System Curves When the altitude valve on T-3 is closed (low flow condition), the system will be pressurized directly Ifrom PRV 305. Under these conditions, the maximum attainable flow rate to the subdivision with the pumps not operating is on the order of 380 gpm. This figure was derived using a hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 5230 near T-3 and minimum pressure at the master meter of 50 psi. This implies that as long as I the flow rate to Aristocrat is less than 380 gpm, the pump station is unneeded. However, the actual HGL at T-3 will vary, depending on demands throughout the Tri-Town Area. Therefore, the pressure at the I 4-inch master meter should control the Aristocrat Pump Station. Anytime pressures drop below the specified quantity of 50 psi, and anytime the entire quantity of 400 gpm is called for, pump operation will be required. I40 I I I Beebe Draw Pump Station The Beebe Draw Pump Station is located at the T-2 site. Currently there are approximately 50 taps in the development, but the subdivision is planned to eventually contain 600 lots, with a maximum growth rate Iof 100 new lots/year. The pump station is installed on the 14" line, adjacent to the tanks at site T-2. The station houses three VFD, 40 Hp pumps. Each pump is rated at 438 gpm against a TDH of 220 ft. These I system curves for this pump station are as shown in Figure III-11. The curves were generated assuming a delivery pressure at the entrance of the subdivision of 100 psi. BEEBE DRAW PUMP STATION System Curves I300 —I - 250 200 1 — 'I. _. _—_ 150 - �' I 100 I50 . I'I 0 t-a I I 0 200 010 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,600 1,800 2,000 I FLOW(GPM) [......TDH Max.'.....TDH Min.°Ore Pomp vTwo Pumps. 1: Tlure Pumps 1 IFigure III-11,Beebe Draw Pump Station System Curves I This pump station will be used to serve roughly one third of the entire Beebe Draw development area. Assuming the lots within the community are equally distributed over the entire area, the pump station will be required to deliver approximately 1,370 gpm. This quantity includes MDD within the subdivision, I coupled with fire flows. The analysis of the area indicated that the pump station was adequate to handle all anticipated scenarios. ' Dacono Pump Station ' Recently there has been development progressing in the extreme southern portion of the District. This area is generally bounded by WCR 12 on the north, I-25 on the west, WCR 15 on the east, and WCR 8 on the south. This entire area is above the maximum service area on the Cleveland Hills Tank. The majority I 41 I ' of the area is within the theoretical Pressure Zone 4 (HGL 5210). Even though most of this area is in I Zone 4, when the Cleveland Hill tank is filling the pressure drops drastically. To provide adequate service to this area a new pressure zone was created, Pressure Zone 5, with the installation of the Dacono Pump Station. IThe total service area of the new pressure zone is bounded on the north by CO Highway 52, on the west by I-25, and on the south and east by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Boundary. To ' serve this new zone, a 30-inch waterline was installed from the intersection of Hwy 52 and WCR 13, south along the west side of the railroad tracks approximately 1/3 mile to the pump station. From this I point, a 24-inch waterline continues south along the railroad tracks to WCR 12, then west to WCR 11 and south again to WCR 8. At this point it turns west and terminates just east of I-25 at the new 2.0 MG storage tank. I This pump station contains two variable frequency drive (VFD), 125 Hp pumps. Each pump is rated at I 2,000 gpm against a total dynamic head (TDH) of 138 ft. The Projected demand for 2035 in this zone is 1.16 MGD, or 808 gpm. The pump station was originally sized to provide peak hour demands as well as maximum day demands plus fire flows. Under that scenario the required capacity would be 808 gpm plus Ia fire flow of 2,500 gpm. This flow rate could be achieved with both pumps operating. However, with the construction of the 2.0 MG elevated tank, the demand on the pump station can be reduced to 808 gpm which can easily be provided with one pump on. I DACONO PUMP STATION System Curves 180 --- I I160 '.. - 120 - - I 1 I 100 - --- it c I 60 20 i I 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 FLOW(GPM) ' TDH Max a.TDH Min.°One Pump Two Pumps II Figure III-12,Dacono Pump Station System Curves I 42 I I I D. Pressure Zones The District service area ranges from a high elevation of 5170 to a low elevation of 4527. This 643-foot difference in elevation translates into a pressure difference of 278 psi. In order to maintain adequate I pressures at the highest elevations while keeping the pressures at the lowest elevations within acceptable limits, the area is separated into pressure zones. The gravity zones are served from Tanks 1, 2, and 3, while a small pump station located southeast of Tank 3 originally served the higher area within the District. This pump station was removed from service for a period of time, but has since been put back on-line to supplement service to this area. The basic pressure zones are summarized in the following itable. Table III-1,Theoretical Pressure Zones ' Base Water Surface Elev Zone Elevations Max Press. ID Elevation High Low High Low psi CLFP 5479 5511 5479 I Tank 5 5162 5300 5162 5191 5035 115 Tank 3 5097 5145 5097 5036 4910 102 Tank 2 4975 5015 4975 4910 4775 104 ITank 1 4840 4880 4840 4775 4650 100 The theoretical pressure zones are illustrated on Exhibit 3. Previous Master Plans included Zone 4 that I could be served from the City of Dacono's tank; however, service to that area from the District's system is now served from the Dacono Pump Station and the new elevated tank. That zone is designated as Zone 5 and includes an area in the southwest corner that could not be served from Dacono's tank because of the I increasing elevation. I As shown in Exhibit 3, the area in a portion of the Beebe Draw Subdivision is too high for service from Tank 2 and is served from a pump station. This area could be served from Zone 3 if pipelines from the Cleveland Hill tanks were in the vicinity. There has been moderate interest in possible development west of IBeebe Draw. Any development occurring in this region above the 4900-foot contour would have to be considered as part of Zone 3. The pumps at the pump station adjacent to Tank 2 (Beebe Draw Pump I Station) were sized to handle the Beebe Draw development at build-out, including possible fire flows. In order to accommodate additional growth in this region, storage provisions may have to be made for this area or larger pumps may be required. Storage within the zone would improve system operation, including more Ireliable service in the event of a power failure and improved fire flow capabilities. I Due to the topography of the area and the need to transport water long distances from the plant to the tanks, the actual operation of the system does not adhere completely to the"ideal" zones indicated on the exhibit. Furthermore, due to the large number of small lines in the system, it has been necessary for the District to maintain pressures higher than those normally used in typical municipal systems. Consequently,the"ideal" zones indicated above and shown on the exhibit are included only as guidelines to indicate locations that 43 >Iwo c.f) ›-, H ca2 cat ta., 4 4 U O v O ►--I N c U cdo H H g ,s EL Y' / 4. • Y a • • Daall 61 11 CD a • / I P W � Y � — 4.1 CLIII FaF 4 ca.i ", Cill:E.M.Mil ;4 4 a /• _ �,.. �W\t1 Q I -- l a A MIL U 11/4 I I r wt., , I • Eritili MI -I CL 4 • r, • ' . • . • 4 a I , t _ . , r~int fr • ea • . 1 • I a . .7- a a 1 : . : L1 V �w , V• f , � t r l ' V A. -di el' • fi P", •. . . . , . { , Y • I >U .,_ CIC 0.4 _ _ -- 111 �- a Y ' Illit7 . i 0 n. 2 = [let" . ili4t '1 lMCA I '../ I mi ./._ ._ r I t 4 V. > 2 - ii u . f . • 1 3 .-- Noll _17 ....._ _ ___ . _If a \ • • ...... Illii CCM. q1/44P1 I a I .... Ma 1 II f • . o. „i g • • Li1/4"-" 4 1.1 t i _ / . . V • 4 ..""r1 Pil i = - _J • •-e- • _ ...--- f 1 NI ACill A 4 so • .. Elp _ . I • • F. • a • 4 . • . Ji 1 ali- NII!P -c- I . lAiR - ____-___In - _r -- . L 1 ALSkiiik. 0 . It i.e._ i_s__L _ ��..' ■IIIIIII�IIIIIIII� • .--4-- • a •• a .----, 0 a- . . • • .- !la a • - ' 4 IIIII I MM.17.:"if—illi 4" IIM lira2111 ~ ■an ll�. '- • Liii a . I ' it 1 ONMENIIII511.1 — labs li lir-4' ' 1 il Ili • i . EMI. _ . . _ 1_ . • mis_ _LI • . 4....1 all r— n l -._ •, ,.. 1 IMF • ,, i . :1l, . . _ . _ '� . ..._ ,1 „..___,.._ , _ _ Li__ ___6p,_4._ _i X--Er.- - o, • • . Y • ' —_ - r d is • .— • --lb ' 1 ' Y — IMIS .1 j Tina A li ,'si. da _ ._..„ r._ . • a , , , .._ __.., .1,----- ,, I,. b.. _ k , --1..... ..._____.arain v .1%.4 i -illitivir,.-_,_i 1 1 ix - • • e a ■ • n III,_ r' • • • , • G .4r • • . ... lin • i 4 am~~ a • • • • • rtl:-1:4 � Huh SI I r ___JiL • • » a • iL.Y L. • • a Y • •• . Y Y \ ____ .aa_ -'�� • „.„6 • •-• oil - at( C -- —� I -'�_ ' I • {(y 14 •t. 4 �IIf Y M - i — • y id bl; s: it a D•.Y • �-•- 0 O O r'1 .• : •� -.1 •---1••+-- _ .- to O O CD CNI ' N N p 00 t\ . I.tl; • a ,b—Li I ♦ • • • • gi). • b...--". .-....‘s �� a ••..„ -■ . J J J J J • ar^I S S S S 2 4 I,. . ■a Q a I. ��JJJ,,,J�� •L a .• W W W W W r'- •a • ■ L V r OZZZZZ O O O O _„..--C — liii N N - • • Y a • / ,,7 i a a y k lil 111 M x le • a k • . 412 •• w Vic! ZV:Z l LOOZ/ZZ/Z 8MP'£0-S0'Z00L0\SO'ZOOLO\geosioid L0 I may have low pressure in areas with close proximity to a tank, or high pressures in areas located below the 100-psi pressure line from a particular tank. Much of the District actually falls within sub-zones created by PRVs and served directly by transmission lines. ' Existing Pressure-Reducing Valves The District currently employs 19 pressure-reducing stations within its system. However, as indicated I above, the District operates the distribution network as a high-pressure system. The valve settings are, therefore, higher than would typically be expected. Table I11-2 lists an inventory of the District's pressure- reducing stations. The numbering and location for each valve are as noted on Exhibit 3. The inlet pressures and HGLs were figured based on static conditions. Table III-2 depicts a few PRVs that are not providing a significant reduction in pressure. IPRV 307 is currently set for a downstream HGL of 5162. The pressure zone to which PRV 307 contributes has an ideal HGL of 5000. Therefore, the present setting is 75 psi higher than ideal. Under static I conditions, and with PRV 304 locked in the open position, pressures downstream of PRV 103 would rise beyond acceptable limits, to well above 200 psi. Since PRV 103, PRV 307, and the Public Service PRV (#601)contribute to the same zone, it is recommended that the pressure setting of all three be adjusted to the same HGL. This translates to a revised setting for PRV 307 of 93 psi and Public Service PRV revised setting of 120 psi, which corresponds to a HGL of 5100. With the connection of the new 14" transmission I line east of Public Service Company and at Platteville, this pressure setting should provide more than adequate service pressures. Table III-2,Pressure Reducing Valves No. Location Size Elevation Pressures(psi) Hydraulic Grade Pressure Capacity (in) In Out In Out Zone Drop(psi) (gpm) I 101 LCR 19/LCR 6 14 5050 185 107 5477 5297 78 8,500 102 WCR 15/WCR 42 12 4946 205 117 5420 5216 88 7.000 103 WCR 25/WCR 42 12 4742 205 173 5216 5142 5000 32 7,000 P 201 WCR 39/WCR 44 3 4730 145 135 5109 5042 4860 10 460 202 WCR 43/WCR 44 6 4790 100 70 5109 4952 4860 30 1,800 203 WCR 53/WCR 48 6 4760 85 50 4952 4876 4860 35 1,800 I 204 WCR 41.5/WCR 48 8 4668 155 115 5109 4934 4860 40 3,100 302 WCR 39/WCR 42 8 4797 149 135 5142 5109 5000 14 3,100 303 WCR 35/WCR 42 6 4738 175 135 5142 5050 4860 40 1.800 i 305 WCR 15/WCR 22 8 4925 154 135 5282 5237 512(1 19 3.100 306 WCR 19/WCR 26 10 4885 160 1(15 5282 5128 5120 55 4,900 307 WCR 19/WCR 26 6 4885 160 120 5128 5162 5000 40 1,800 ' 308 WCR I5/WCR 14 8 5050 100 50 5282 5166 5210 50 3,100401 WCR 9/WCR 38 14 5060 176 96 5467 5282 5120 80 8.500 402 WCR 9/WCR 38 14 5060 176 88 5467 5263 5120 88 8,500 I 501 WCR 9/WCR 42 6 4942 197 161 5397 5314 36 800 601 WCR 19.5/WCR 34 6 4793 135 125 5105 5082 5000 10 1,800 602 WCR l6/WCR 11 2 4970 130 55 5270 5097 5120 75 208 603 WCR 4I/WCR 50 2 4665 120 110 4942 4919 4860 10 208 I 44 PRVs 202 and 204 both contribute to the same zone, upstream of T-1. These PRVs should both be set at the same downstream HGL. Because a portion of the area downstream of the PRVs is in pressure zone 2 with a HGL of 5000, it is recommended that the setting for PRV 204 be adjusted upward to match that of PRV 202 with a downstream HGL of 5044. This coincides with a revised setting on PRV 204 of 163 psi. Table III-3 summarizes the recommended modifications to the District's PRVs. Table III-3,Recommended PRV Modifications PRV No. Recommendation New HGL out 204 Adjust setting to 163 psi out 5044 302 Adjust Setting to 95 psi 5017 307 Adjust setting to 93 psi out 5100 ' Future Pressure-Reducing Valves The current system configuration requires several of the improvements delineated on Exhibit 6 to connect to the system via PRV. In order to maintain the sub-zones presently defined by the existing pressure- reducing stations, new PRVs will need to be located as follows: • Beebe Draw Subdivision— several PRVs will likely be necessary to complete the distribution system within the subdivision. These PRVs should be located along the boundary between zone 2 and zone 2A. Setting for the PRVs should be set below the predominant HGL of zone 2 (i.e. 5000) such that the PRVs will only operate under low pressure conditions (e.g. fire situation). E. Storage Storage for the District's service area is provided at five locations: Carter Lake Filter Plant and Tank sites 1, 2, 3, and 5. The total storage volume available in the District's tanks, including half of the storage at Carter Lake, is 19.35 million gallons (MG). In addition, most of the towns served by the District provide storage on their own. A summary for each individual site, as well as the storage provided by the towns, is shown in Table III-4. The relationship between the District's four tank site locations is illustrated in Figure 111-13. t 45 I ' Table I1I-4,Water Storage Tank Inventory Name Diameter Height Base HWL Volume ' (ft) (ft) Elevation Elevation (gallons) CLFP 32 5479 5511 5,000,000 Tank 1A 50 40 4840 4880 600,000 I Tank lB 109 40 4840 4880 2,800,000 Tank 2A 56 40 4975 5015 750,000 Tank 2B 120 40 4975 5015 3,000,000 1 Tank 3A 25 40 5100 5140 150,000 Tank 3B 56 40 5101 5141 750,000 Tank 3C 134 48 5097 5145 4,300,000 1 Tank 5 92 138 5162 5300 2,000,000 Total District Storage 19,350,000 Dacono 65 40 5190 1,000,000 ' Frederick 50 20 5100 2,800,000 Firestone 5100 1,700,000 Kersey 4745 200,000 LaSalle 4770 550,000 Gilcrest 4745 400,000 Platteville 40 45 4900 500,000 ITotal Town Storage 7,150,000 Total System Storage 26,500,000 I CWCWD Tanks I 5550 , 5500 -® ' 5450 - 5179 5400 5350 1 I 5300 E 5250ll I4 5200 j 5150 40 40 m 5162 I W 5100 5100 5101 5097 5050 1 5000 40 40 ' 4950 4975 4975 4900 4850 _ 40 40 I4800 E _..4840 4840 CLFP Tank 1A Tank 1B Tank 2A Tank 2B Tank 3A Tank 3B Tank 3C Tank 5 Figure II1-13,CWCWD Tanks I 46 I I A portion of the constructed volume for Tank 3C of 5 MG has been allotted to the Town of Firestone. I Construction of this tank was completed in 1997. Both Fredrick and Firestone participated in the project, and therefore were entitled to a portion of the storage. However,Fredrick has since constructed a 2.8 MG I storage tank and no longer shares in the storage of Tank 3C. The storage previously dedicated to Fredrick has now become the District's storage. If the District's arrangement with Firestone continues, the projected storage for Firestone should be included in the quantity required at the T-3 site. I Current and projected storage requirements were calculated based on the criteria outlined in Section II of I this report. The criteria vary for the Tri-Town Area and the remainder of the District. The East District Storage was sized based on providing one maximum day worth of storage, whereas the South District Storage will provide 25% of maximum day for equalization, one average day, and fire flow volume. The Iprojected recommended storage volumes are shown in Table I1I-5, which is broken into the District customers and the wholesale customers (towns). A detailed discussion of each tank site recommendation Iwill follow. Table III-5,Recommended Storage Volumes I Storage Current Recommended Storage(MG) Tank Storage(MG) 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 District Storage Requirements I CLFP 5.00 1 3.40 0.99 1.14 1.32 1.68 1.98 2 3.75 1.08 1.23 1.43 1.82 2.15 I 3 5.20 4.95 5.39 5.94 7.06 7.96 5 2.00 0.24 0.37 0.53 0.85 1.16 TOTAL 19.35 7.26 8.13 9.22 11.41 13.26 I Dacono 1.00 Town Storage Requirements* 0.91 1.56 2.34 3.90 5.46 Fredrick 2.80 2.49 4.18 5.62 7.85 9.52 Firestone 1.70 2.80 3.17 3.62 4.55 5.48 I Kersey 0.20 0.57 0.66 0.79 0.92 1.26 LaSalle 0.55 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.83 0.89 Gilcrest 0.40 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.60 I Platteville 0.50 0.97 1.08 1.25 1.66 2.23 *all towns based on 25% MDD + ADD + Fire Flow © 2,500 gpm for 2 hrs Total Towns 7.15 I 8.99 11.93 14.94 20.29 25.44 I Tank Site 1 I The District's T-1 zone recommended storage volume was sized based on providing one maximum day demand worth of storage, which is summarized in Table III-6. The Town of Kersey's storage requirement was set based on providing 25% of the maximum-day demand for equalization, fire storage I (2,500 gpm for 2 hours), and one average day demand as an emergency supply. I I 47 I ' Table II1-6,Recommended T-1 Zone Storage (million gallons) IAvailable 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 District 3.40 0.99 1.14 1.32 1.68 1.98 Kersey 0.20 0.57 0.66 0.79 0.92 1.26 ITotal 3.60 1.56 1.80 2.11 2.60 3.24 I As illustrated in Table I11-6, this volume will adequately serve the District customers through the end of the 20 year planning period. However, reviewing Table III-6, the Town of Kersey is currently operating on an internal storage deficit. Any storage shortage experienced within the Town is compensated by the IDistrict's facilities. The existing tanks will satisfy Kersey's storage needs beyond the 20-year planning period. Since the District's tank benefits the Town of Kersey, it may be possible for the District to I recuperate some the construction costs for the tank by approaching Kersey to purchase additional storage in this tank. ITank Site 2 Storage requirements in the T-2 Zone are interrelated to storage within the nearby towns, just as Ti is I associated with Kersey. The Town of LaSalle is similarly associated with T-2. The recommended storage volume for the District is based on providing one maximum day worth of storage. The recommendation for the Town of LaSalle, however, is like that of Kersey, 25% of the maximum-day Idemand for equalization, fire storage (2,500 gpm for 2 hours), and one average day demand as an emergency supply. The available storage and recommended storage is shown below in Table I11-7. ITable 111-7,Recommended T-2 Zone Storage (million gallons) I Available 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 District 3.75 0.88 1.01 1.17 1.49 1.77 LaSalle 0.55 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.88 0.96 I Gilcrest 0.40 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.64 Platteville 0.50 1.04 1.17 1.35 1.81 2.44 Total 5.20 1.64 1.79 1.98 2.37 2.73 T-2 Zone is shown to have adequate capacity up through the year 2035, considering the District independently. However, when the Town of LaSalle is considered independently, storage for the Town is Ishown to be 0.41 MG less than the 2035 projected requirement. Any storage shortage experienced within the Town is compensated by the District's facilities. The existing tanks will satisfy LaSalle's storage IIneeds beyond the 20-year planning period. The Towns of Gilcrest and Platteville are near Tank Site 2; however, service to these towns is provided at Ia higher hydraulic grade. Although direct service from Tank Site 2 is not possible, the storage at Tank 2 allows the District to provide peak demands to these towns which is reflected by reduced flows to the I Tank. The above table indicates Platteville's available storage is below the current and future recommended volumes. Gilcrest's storage is also below the recommended levels, although not to the I 48 I Iextent of Platteville's. The deficiencies in the towns' storage are provided by the District's storage and, as shown above, the total storage available for this area is above the recommended volume through 2035. I Tank Site 3 IThe current available storage volumes for Tank Site 3 and those towns serviced by the Tank Site 3 are listed in Table III-8. The towns are listed independently although they may provide joint storage. ITable I11-8,Recommended T-3 Zone Storage (million gallons) I District Available 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 5.20 4.16 4.51 4.94 5.81 6.50 Dacono 1.00 0.98 1.70 2.57 4.30 6.04 I Fredrick 2.80 2.73 4.61 6.22 8.70 10.55 Firestone 1.70 3.08 3.49 3.99 5.03 6.06 Total 10.70 10.95 14.31 17.72 23.84 29.15 IT-3 Zone is shown to have adequate capacity for typical rural "District" demands up through the year 2035, considering the District independently. However, when the Towns of Dacono, Fredrick, Firestone, Iare included the available storage is inadequate by 2010. None of the above listed towns have adequate storage for the current condition without the assistance of the District's available storage. The storage I requirements determined for the District and Towns were calculated similarly to those computed for Tank Site 1 and 2. The recommended storage volume for the District is based on providing one maximum day worth of storage. The recommended storage volume for all towns is based on 25% of the maximum-day Idemand for equalization, fire storage (2,500 gpm for 2 hours), and one average day demand as an emergency supply. IThe joint venture between Central Weld County Water District and the Towns of Frederick and Firestone for construction of the 5 MG tank has proven to be beneficial for all involved parties and can only be I classified as highly successful. Because of the undeniable interdependent nature of the Tri-Town Area, the obvious approach for resolving storage shortages in the region is joint cooperation between the affected entities. This cooperation will also reduce the overall storage required as fire protection storage Ion the order of 0.30 MG is included in the requirements for every town shown in Table III-8. Should joint storage be available for Dacono, Firestone, and Fredrick, the recommended storage can be reduced I by 0.60 MG. If the District is willing to solely provide the fire demands required for all the towns serviced by Zone 3, the overall storage requirement could be reduced by 1.5 MG, a significant cost savings. This new total demand is shown in the last row of Table 11I-8. I The Town of Dacono currently pulls approximately 89% of its water from the T-3 Zone, including that I pumped to fill their own storage tank. However, most of the existing Town and its proposed growth are within the T-5 Zone. The Town's water storage could therefore come from both locations. Should the proposed location for Dacono's service come from Zone 5, the T-3 Zone storage requirements would Ichange to reflect that shown in the following table. I 49 I Table III-9,Alternate T-3 Zone Storage (million gallons) I Available 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 District 5.20 4.16 4.51 4.94 5.81 6.50 Fredrick 2.80 0.98 1.70 2.57 4.30 6.04 I Firestone 1.70 2.73 4.61 6.22 8.70 10.55 Total 9.70 7.87 10.82 13.73 18.81 23.09 CLFP 5.00 ' Total w/CLFP 14.70 7.87 10.82 13.73 18.81 23.09 Because of the significant growth of the Tri-Town area, the storage provided for Zone 3 will not meet the Irecommended volume by 2010. However, if the District's share of the Carter Lake Tanks is included, the available storage would be adequate through 2015. The Towns should be encouraged to either participate Iin a joint storage tank or provide additional storage of their own. Tank Site 5 IRecently, a new 2.0 MG storage tank was constructed near the intersection of I-25 and WCR 8. This tank is intended to serve the southern portions of the District, including the Town of Dacono, because they are I located at a slightly higher elevation than the Towns of Fredrick and Firestone. Service to the tank is provided by the Dacono Pump Station. Table III-10 summarizes the recommended storage volume for this zone. Similar to the rest of the District, storage for District rural customers was based on one Imaximum day demand. I Table III-10,Recommended T-5 Zone Storage (million gallons) Available 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 IDistrict 2.00 0.23 0.37 0.54 0.88 1.22 I Since the majority of the growth for Dacono is occurring in the T-5 Zone, it may be advantageous to provide the required Dacono storage near, or at, the T-5 Tank site. The summary of storage requirements for this alternative solution can be found in the following table. Under that scenario, the available storage Ifor this area should be adequate until about 2015. At that time additional storage will be required. The actual location will depend on whether the growth occurs in an area that can served from Dacono's tank, or whether it will have to served from the 2.0 MG tank site. Table III-11,Alternate T-5 Zone Storage I (million gallons) Available 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 District 2.00 0.23 0.37 0.54 0.88 1.22 I Dacono 1.00 0.98 1.70 2.57 4.30 6.04 Total 3.00 1.21 2.07 3.11 5.18 7.26 I 50 I F. Distribution System General ' The distribution system, for the time being, was shown to have relatively few problems with regard to meeting the current demands while maintaining adequate pressures. However, several locations were shown to have inadequate pressures where lines demonstrated head losses beyond those recommended. This is primarily because of inadequate line sizing. The software program H2ONET 3.1 was utilized in the analysis of the system. The model was calibrated to actual measured pressures in varying locations throughout the District. Several models were created with the growth projections allotted as described in Section II. The deficient pressures could then be ' pinpointed and modifications made to the model to rectify problematic areas. As mentioned in Section II, many water utilities have adopted regulations covering the design and layout of water distribution lines. Based on the system analysis, it is recommended that the District and the towns adopt regulations that require a 12-inch grid system every half mile, with alternating 8-inch and 6-inch lines within each quarter-section, for urban-type development regions. In rural areas a minimum line size of 4-inch lines is recommended. The analysis also revealed that the smaller lines encountered throughout the District were limiting factors, when considering future growth. A multitude of the distribution lines will require paralleling and/or upsizing as shown in Exhibit 6. The improvements shown are only those that require line sizes greater than 4-inch diameter or are located along a new route. In order to project the anticipated growth, it was necessary to modify nearly all lines within the District of 2-inch diameter or less. This indicates that the ' minimum line size for any future installation should be of 4-inch diameter or greater. Taps, which are to be located in questionable regions, should be analyzed for viability to ensure the integrity of the surrounding system is not compromised. Fire Flows ' The District was originally intended to provide domestic water service to a rural area. Little thought was given to providing fire protection. Ordinarily, fire protection service from a domestic water system is provided only in a municipal-type configuration. Consequently, the regions of Central Weld's system, which are capable of supplying fire flows, are limited. The locations within the system that are suitable for provision of fire flows are those located along main transmission lines and those adjacent to larger ' distribution lines. Locations within close proximity of storage tanks are also normally afforded fire protection service. As mentioned in Section II, the fire flow values used in this analysis were 2500 gpm for commercial and 1000 gpm for residential. Each modeling scenario was run based on projected MDD, and all ' shortcomings identified and resolved. Preceding the manipulation of the system for improvement ' 51 i recommendations due to MDD, fire flow scenarios were run to ensure additional improvements were not necessary. Locations at which fire flows were considered include the following: • Beebe Draw Subdivision (residential of 1000 gpm) • Master meter locations at Dacono,Frederick, and Firestone(commercial of 2500 gpm) • Western corner of the Tri-Town Grid system @ Highway 52/I-25 (residential of 1000 gpm and commercial of 2500 gpm, considered separately) • Intersection of WCR 8 and WCR13 (commercial of 2,500 gpm) In all cases, the piping modifications necessary to accommodate the MDD were capable of supplying the fire flows described. However, referring to Exhibit 2, the Tri-Town cities are currently in the process of expanding their service areas to regions beyond their current master meter locations. The broad expansion of each town will likely necessitate the implementation of additional master meters, or direct water service provision by the District. Therefore, it will likely be necessary to provide fire flows throughout the entire Tri-Town area, and at least to the areas delineated in Exhibit 2. Completion of the grid system will assist in providing fire flows to the entire area. However, as mentioned in Section III-C, the sub-zone created by the PRVs prior to T-3 will not allow the storage tank to augment fire flows in all portions of the District. In order for flow from the tank to be beneficially utilized by the entire Tri-Town grid, all PRV stations need to be equipped with a reverse-flow, check valve by-pass. If fire flows are requested with magnitudes exceeding those described, or are to be provided at questionable locations, they should be specifically modeled under current existing conditions to ensure system adequacy. Year 2006—System Analysis ' Exhibit 4 is a schematic representation of Central Weld's system during the peak hour of 2006. Deficient pressures, as well as inordinately high head losses, are as noted in the legend. The areas adjacent to TA and T-3 comprise the majority of the insufficient pressure regions. This is due primarily to proximity to the tanks and is an issue that cannot be resolved through line sizing. Individual pressure booster pumps have been used at many of the affected locations. This practice will have to be perpetuated in order to continue tap sales at these locations. The intersection of WCR 42/WCR 53 is exhibiting low pressures. This location was identified in the 2003 Master Plan and can be addressed by the installation of a 6-inch line along WCR 53 from WCR 42 to WCR 46. ' Another area of low pressure is in the Dos Rios Estates subdivision. This is due to a combination of small lines in the development, a large demand at the Carriage Estates development, and limited line capacity supplying the South Greeley Pump Station. The supply to the area is currently supplemented by an emergency connection to the City of Greeley. Another area exhibiting low pressures is located along WCR 21 from WCR 18 to WCR 20. Pressure problems can be attributed to the small line sizes servicing the area and resulting high head losses. The installation of an 8-inch line to replace the 3-inch line in WCR 20 from WCR 19 to WCR 21 is recommended to increase pressures to the area. Another inadequate line size along WCR 21 exists from t 52 I ; i 4 I j IP al I A."4.- . 7 8 [ I ill - / .1 . s d I Esti ct - lit sAil O Dail C) dal , . . I I ,I - a a a ( • lir Cf. . • "ear s_. ,.. ci.) g el 0,o I it.z.i. o ' E""4 r.Z g - 4.4 11111111 ar •1.10. 0 , ,..- ,..., ,..., t 5 ail I, 1 E g:::Z C) 0 8 1 t' 1 al i I ... it . -,,......- ±1 ;...NC- ;- V"-1) °C) 1:4 : •1=1 6" tit R 4 C014 Fall 4 . W14 1111111111 .. I . _ i _ _ , B, , i , i . - . ,„. .. -)ti • ill ''' i 2 1 • • 11111 ill Ea° CaTI4 Frail , I . int II . Q) . L. ' l HIM D to I 4 06 o join o U 1 i, Illi I MI! .� N M f� 1 I � Nit a • • l I . . . . . . . in mi . . ,, , . . . , . ,Ti l ' 11 � i 1, , J-----\\ ldillin _ I — ,1� I I 1 1 I / . :M1;116414.14=_W'Z••• I _ _- _ _ _c.: • • • •i. - lei-= _�.•.l �r_ ,I •'.+� • • r iM .tip"-�•`"' LH f,=�ib I � � _ _ „...kir, a�� t+i � :, wog11I ili laillP Mr. a Ind . Fntt e 51 � , � iliguilill! strt : 111111111{) ., lel 1 1• 1 %. _It i I PI II If' A r • I • Ja- . • . t - 1 . 1 . ' 1 I iiii- w-T,Tr• t -t--- a , - 1 r' ' I , glIM 1 1 2,-i . • . • • - li ��.� siiiL _ _ iiiA _ r..4H-4 INi I 11 _ ____ _ i ill r 3l,B . , . _ . g — I to 1 .. . L • i \--4 ., _ _ . 1 . . a i 4 Ea - II , , F ... no! L - )_, . I . . . • i . . I I till ,._ VINin- mig: CI 4 --H as -D- I r Sim 4 . Ism _ 1-- L , . la _ _. i ...r.-.. -icei . -A; d di . Inflailitlifill Milirriais a . is . IL I : �1 1 _ _.4, q I 1 gill f -4, a 1 ! II P ilil a mg z : • Mill i , sc Man - il. II Fr • a III • i i ‘ Ill .. lilt_ . 71111 h • in . . t__, - . 7 . , ' Iliall . I. Di 'al ., _ II 1_0 11 Illa 61 t I . • • • • lii” # ...4. • • 1 i • : i 1 % 1 L.S1 I .-.— -j I I 1 1 t 4 :\ r::•• MI 4. .-4 . _ iii ai !7 i 111 .....,- 111 '71111 II irt; � f...... -:iii.IL jil ...j illiiin tit"' al Jeri liniall I lisi III! ir . 7 s_iii . , . H a . __ _• .. De. it 4,tia AS MI ____: ,,,),,, . . . , it • I ifiTTM"). 11 - " . . lel- 1 ._ _1i.. _ rfi - Yid 61:S LOOZ/V 1/Z 6MP'18Pow SO PmamO\S0.ZOOLOVIOGIOM LOOZ\ WCR 14.5 south '/ mile. This 1-inch line should be upsized to a 4-inch line as long as fire flow demands are not required. The final area exhibiting high headloss is in the very southern end of the system. The services along WCR 11 from WCR 4 to WCR 8 show significant headloss due to the small diameter pipe that results in high velocities. In order to solve the current pressure problem the 6-inch line in WCR 6 should be extended to WCR 11. In addition, the 1 1/2-inch waterline in WCR 11 should be replaced with a 12-inch line when, and if, new developments are proposed for this area. These projects will dramatically improve service pressures in the area and allow for future growth. Year 2010—System Analysis Most of the pressure problems exhibited by 2010 will occur in the east portion of the District. One of those areas is the construction of a 6-inch line in WCR 51 from WCR 56 north to the existing 2-inch line. This waterline will improve the pressures in the far northern portions of the District. Another ' improvement is the installation of a 14-inch line in WCR 49 from Tank I north to WCR 50 to parallel the existing 8-inch line. The existing headlosses seen in the line serving the South Greeley Pump Station are rather high. With little to no growth expected in the service area for the pump station there is little reason to change the pump station unless emergency service from Greeley is terminated. However, due to the increased flows and reduced service pressures in the line along WCR 42, pressures around the pump station will drop below acceptable. Therefore, a proposed 8-inch line should be installed along WCR 33 from WCR 42 to WCR 48, and then along WCR 48 east to WCR 35. This supply line was also identified in the 2003 master plan. The main improvement for 2010 required to maintain tank levels at Tank Site 3 is the installation of a 30-inch supply line from WCR 13 to the tank site, with the installation of a PRV to maintain those pressures provided by PRV 308. The PRV's should provide a by-pass so that storage at TS-3 can be used in the Tri-Town area. In the Tri-Town area, the majority of the grid system recommended for construction was placed in order to serve the areas delineated in Exhibit 2 geographically. Developers in these regions should be held responsible for improvements necessary to serve the respective developments. Year 2015—System Analysis Improvement recommendations for the year 2015 are centralized at three primary locations: the Tri- Town area, along WCR 42 from WCR 25 to WCR 39, and the northeast service area. Several pipelines are recommended to be built in the Tank 1 service area. The pipelines shown as 2015 improvements are located along virgin routes and routes that will replace existing undersized pipelines. These new lines will create looping and additional capacity in the northeast, which will alleviate excessive headloss in existing lines. Construction of the new lines will also produce new locations for possible tap sales. 53 The largest single pipeline that will be needed is a 20-inch line in WCR 42 from WCR 25 to WCR 39. This line will be required in order to increase the supply to the eastern portions of the District. The line could be delayed a few years by activating the Gilcrest Pump Station. However, that would only be a temporary solution. Prior to design of the line the proposed route should be evaluated to determine the best alternative. Since there is already a 14" line in WCR 42 it may be beneficial to locate the line along WCR 44 or WCR 40. An 8-inch line should also be constructed in WCR 46 from WCR 49 to WCR 51, then north to WCR 48 to improve the pressures east of Tank 1. A 6-inch line is also recommended in WCR 51 from WCR 54.25 to WCR 58, and a 4-inch line is recommended in WCR 55 from WCR 54.5 to WCR 56 and from WCR 48 to WCR 48.5. To increase the supply to the southern transmission line that terminates at Tank 2, a 24-inch line should be constructed from the 36"line in WCR 13 along WCR 34 to WCR 15. In the southern portion of the system a 4" line should be constructed in WCR 21 from WCR 16 to WCR 20. ' Year 2025—System Analysis The most notable improvements anticipated by the year 2025 include increasing the capacity from Tank 2 to Tank 2, and to the northeast of Tank 1. To accomplish that goal it is recommended a new 12-inch line be constructed along WCR 42 from WCR 39 to WCR 49, then north to WCR 48. To improve pressures north and east of Tank 1 a 12-inch line should be constructed in WCR 50 from WCR 49 to WCR 51, then an 8-inch line north to WCR 52, a 6-inch north to WCR 54. A 6-inch line should also be extended from the 8-inch line east in WCR 52 to WCR 53. A 10-inch line is also recommended from the proposed 12-inch line in WCR 50 east to WCR 59. A short piece of 12-inch line should be installed in WCR 49 from WCR 48 to WCR 48.5. ' In the southern portion of the District a 20-inch PRV will have to be installed at the location of PRV 401 ' or one of the 14-valves should be replaced with a 24-inch valve in order to be able to fill the tanks at the Tank 3 site. Another improvement is an 18-inch line in WCR 20 from WCR 13 to WCR 15. G. Capital Improvement Plan The projected costs for the proposed improvements up through the year 2025 are summarized in Table III-15 on the following page. The costs shown are based on today's construction costs. These improvements will not be constructed for a number of years, and the substantive system modifications beyond this time may vary depending on actual sustained growth patterns. In addition to these improvements, the District should plan for construction of a new treatment plant and transmission system prior to 2025. Central Weld's share of those costs could be as high as$35,000,000. ' 54 I ' Table III-12, Capital Improvement Plan ID (Project IDia. IDIst. (ft) 'Cost I Phase I -2007-2010 I-A North Carter Lake Filter Plant Pre-treatment $3,000,000 I-B NISP $1,024,000 I 1-1 20" LCR 23, 42" to 20" Connection 20 7,920 $712,800 I-2 8" WCR 20, WCR 19-WCR 21 8 5,280 $190,080 1-3 4" WCR 24, WCR 19- WCR 21 4 5,280 $95,040 I 1-4 6" WCR 6, WCR 9.5 - WCR 11 6 2640 $71,280 I-5 4" WCR 21, WCR 14- WCR 14.5 4 2,640 $47,520 1-6 6" WCR 53, WCR 42 - WCR 46 6 10,560 $285,120 $5,425,840 I Phase 11 - 2010-2015 II-A 24 MGD South Filter Plant Expansion $12,500,000 II-B NISP $21,432,000 I II-1 30" WCR 14, WCR 13 -WCR 17 30 13,200 $1,782,000 11-2 8" WCR 33, WCR 42 -WCR 48 &WCR 33 8 21,120 $830,320 11-3 14" WCR 49, Tank 1 - WCR 50 14 2,640 $166,320 I 11-4 4" WCR 59, WCR 48.5 -WCR 50 4 2,640 $47,520 11-5 6" Connection WCR 56 &WCR 51 6 500 $13,500 11-6 4" WCR 35, WCR 38.5 -WCR 42 4 7,920 $142,560 I $36,914,220 Phase III -2015- 2020 III-A WTP & Trans. Expansion, Planning $250,000 III-B NISP $9,872,000 I III-C Zone 3 - 5.0 MG Storage $2,500,000 I-D Zone 5 - 2.0 MG Storage $2,000,000 Ill-i 20" WCR 42, WCR 25 to WCR 39 20 36,960 $3,396,400 I III-2 10" WCR 46, WCR 49 to WCR51 to WCR 48 10 15,840 $712,800 III-3 6" WCR 51, WCR 54.25 to WCR 58 6 9,240 $284,480 III-4 4" WCR 55, WCR 54.5 to WCR 56 4 2,640 $47,520 I III-5 4" WCR 55, WCR 48 to WCR 48.5 4 2,640 $47,520 111-6 24" WCR 34, WCR 13 to WCR 15 24 5,280 $570,240 111-7 4" WCR 21, WCR 16 to WCR 20 4 10,560 $190,080 I $19,621,040 Phase IV - 2020- 2025 IV-A WTP &Trans. Expansion Design $1,825,000 IV-1 20" PRV 403 @ 1-25 &WCR 38 $60,000 I IV-2 12" WCR 50, WCR 49 to WCR 51 12 5280 $285,120 8" WCR 51, WCR 50 to WCR 52 8 5280 $190,080 6" WCR 51, WCR 52 to WCR 54 6 5280 $142,560 I IV-3 10" WCR 50, WCR 51 to WCR 59 10 21120 $950,400 IV-4 6" WCR 52, WCR 51 to WCR 53 6 5280 $142,560 IV- 5 12" WCR 49, WCR 48 to WCR 48.5 12 2640 $142,560 I IV-6 18" WCR 20, WCR 13 to WCR 15 18 5280 $427,680 IV-7 12" WCR 42, WCR 39 to WCR 49 12 26400 $1,425,600 12" WCR 49, WCR 42 to WCR 48 12 10560 $570,240 I $4,336,800 I I 55 File contains oversized map Please see original file THE ENGINEERING COMPANY 4 2310 East Prospect Road, Suite B Fort Collins, CO 80525 toll free: 800.279 .7477 phone: 970.484.7477 fox: 970.484.7488 www.tec-engrs.com . — ,aw► --- Hello