Loading...
H3. Reso 5928 - ROI Public Hearing 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan UpdateKALISPELL City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758 To: Doug Russell, City Manager From: Susie Turner, Public Work Director Re: Resolution of Intent and Call for Public Hearing for the 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update Meeting Date: August 5, 2019 BACKGROUND: Since 2018 the City of Kalispell has worked to update the 2008 facility plans for water, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment plant utilities. To date, the 2018 Water Facility Plan and the 2019 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan have been completed and adopted by Council. The 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan, is the remaining utility to be updated, and focuses on the collection and conveyance portions of the sewer system. The proposed 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan provides a guide for planning, maintenance, operations, and capital improvements to meet the City's foreseeable wastewater system needs for present and future sustainability. In March of last year, AE2S Engineering was contracted by the City to update the facility plan for the collection and conveyance portion of the City's sewer system. The update was finalized in June of 2019, and a work session was held on July 8, 2019, that provided an overview of the Draft 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update. As part of the consideration for adoption of the 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update, a public hearing process is applicable and will begin with the passage of the proposed resolution that establishes a date for the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt Resolution 5928, calling for a public hearing on September 3, 2019 for the 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by Council. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5928 and Public Hearing Notice Kalispell 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update RESOLUTION NO.5928 A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S "2019 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE". WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell, as a municipal government of the State of Montana, owns and operates water and wastewater utilities under the statutory authority of the state; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and prudent for the City to adequately plan for future development of its water and wastewater utilities; and WHEREAS, the City last approved the Wastewater Facility Plan Update in March 2008; and WHEREAS, the City contracted the services of a private engineering firm with specific expertise in utility planning to study and recommend planning details on the future water and sewer system requirements that will service existing and new development within the City; and WHEREAS, the City received and reviewed the resulting study, referred to as the "2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update," and has circulated the plan to the local engineering, construction and development community requesting input and comments on the proposed supplemental facility plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to state regulation and its own internal procedures, the City shall make the proposed plan amendment available to the public for its review and hold a public hearing to receive and consider comment on the plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public Hearin. On September 3, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers in the Kalispell City Hall, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update. SECTION 2. Notice of Public Hearing. The City Clerk is hereby, pursuant to the requirements of state law, directed to publish a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and hereby fully incorporated herein. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019. Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Kalispell, Montana (the "City") will hold a public hearing on the proposed 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update on September 3, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers in Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana. The Plan relates to recommended planning details on the future water and sewer system requirements that will service existing and new development within the City. The proposed 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan Update is available for download on the City of Kalispell website and accessed at: http://www.kaliWell.com/or may be purchased as a hard copy at cost from the Kalispell Public Works Department. Further information may be obtained from the City of Kalispell Department of Public Works, located at Kalispell City Hall, 201 First Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana, and can be reached by telephone at (406) 758-7720. All interested persons may appear and offer comments and evidence at the hearing as scheduled above or may elect to file written comments with the City Clerk prior to such hearing to citycouncilgkalispell.com, or PO Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903. Dated this 5th day of August, 2019. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Publication Dates: August 11, 2019 August 25, 2019 q m LU _, F h� .h 2. Alp Lu u LL trea DUNE 2019 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE FOR KALISPELL Kalispell, MT JUNE 2019 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. Name: Jonathan Lance Lehigh Date: June 1, 2019 Registration Number: 32817 Prepared By: Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 1050 East Main Street, Suite 2 Kalispell, MT 59715 T, �JONATHANftl n; H- I u eEi�9 C No. 32817 PE IN P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2-S Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Table of Contents June 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tableof Contents......................................................................................................1 Listof Tables.............................................................................................................. v Listof Figures........................................................................................................... ix Listof Appendices.................................................................................................. A Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.................................................................. xii Chapter1 Introduction............................................................................................1 1.1 Adopting the Facility Planning Process........................................................ 2 1.2 Project Objectives and Deliverables............................................................ 2 1.3 Previous Studies................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Existing System.......................................................................................4 2.1 Overview of Existing Sewer Collection and Conveyance Facilities ......... 4 2.1. 1 Municipal Sewer Gravity Collection............................................................. 4 2. 1.2 Force Main Conveyance System................................................................. 9 2. 1.3 Municipal Lift Stations................................................................................... 1 1 2.1.4 Instrumentation and Controls......................................................................14 2.2 Overview of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility ................................ 14 Chapter 3 Basis of Planning..................................................................................16 3.1 Planning Periods............................................................................................. 16 3.2 Study Service Area........................................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Population and Growth Rates.....................................................................19 3.2.2 Land Use Plan and Growth Projections.......................................................21 Chapter 4 Wastewater Characterization.............................................................24 4.1 Existing Wastewater Flow Analysis...............................................................25 4. 1.1 Average Annual Flow...................................................................................25 4.1.2 Maximum Monthly Flow...............................................................................26 P05610-2017-003 :y F1E2-S Page i Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Table of Contents June 2019 4. 1.3 Maximum Daily Flow.....................................................................................27 4. 1.4 Peak Hourly Flow and Peaking Factor Evaluation.....................................28 4. 1.5 Rainfall and Seasonal Wastewater Variations............................................37 4. 1.6 Infiltration and Inflow....................................................................................41 4. 1.7 Kalispell WWTF Wastewater Customers.......................................................43 4. 1.8 Per Capita Wastewater Flow.......................................................................50 4. 1.9 Existing Wastewater Flow Analysis Summary and Takeaways ..................52 4.2 Future Wastewater Flow Projections...........................................................56 4.2. 1 Decreasing Peaking Factor.........................................................................56 4.2.2 Equivalent Growth Projection Method.......................................................57 4.2.3 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Projection Method......................................58 4.2.4 Land Use Projection Method.......................................................................59 4.2.5 Future Wastewater Flow Projections Summary and Takeaways ...............60 Chapter 5 Wastewater Collection System Model Update.................................63 5.1 Existing Model Conversion and Development..........................................63 5.2 Hydraulic Model Calibration........................................................................64 5.2. 1 Dry Weather Flow Calibration......................................................................65 5.2.2 Wet Weather Flow Calibration....................................................................72 5.3 Future System Model Development........................................................... 76 5.3. 1 Future System Flows......................................................................................77 Chapter 6 Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria ...................................... 78 6.1 Force Main Design Parameters...................................................................78 6. 1.1 Force Main Velocity and Diameter.............................................................79 6. 1.2 Force Main Friction Loss................................................................................80 6.2 Gravity Main Design Parameters.................................................................80 6.2. 1 Gravity Main Velocity and Depth of Flow..................................................80 6.2.2 Gravity Main Diameter and Minimum Slope..............................................81 6.2.3 Gravity Main Friction Loss.............................................................................82 6.2.4 Gravity Main Level of Service......................................................................83 6.3 Lift Station Design Parameters.....................................................................84 P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page ii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Table of Contents June 2019 6.4 Dry Weather Parameters..............................................................................84 6.5 Wet Weather Parameters.............................................................................85 6.6 Peak Hour Design Factors.............................................................................85 6.7 Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria Summary..............................85 Chapter 7 Existing System Evaluation..................................................................88 7.1 Dry Weather Analysis.....................................................................................88 7. 1. 1 Dry Weather Gravity Main Analysis.............................................................88 7. 1.2 Dry Weather Lift Station and Force Main Analysis......................................89 7.2 Wet Weather Analysis...................................................................................91 7.2.1 Wet Weather Gravity Main Analysis............................................................91 7.2.2 Wet Weather Lift Station and Force Main Analysis....................................93 7.2.3 1/1 Analysis and Considerations....................................................................95 7.3 Summary of Existing System Evaluation...................................................... 95 Chapter 8 Risk Based System Assessment.......................................................... 97 8.1 Risk Assessment Process................................................................................ 97 8.2 Likelihood Assessment...................................................................................98 8.2.1 Physical Condition (Recorded Structural Defects)....................................98 8.2.2 Performance (Percent Capacity Use from Hydraulic Model) ..................99 8.2.3 Maintainability (Access to Pipe for Maintenance Purposes) .................. 100 8.2.4 Reliability (Work Order History Indicating a History of Pipe Issues) .......... 100 8.2.5 Age (Pipe Age and Material).................................................................... 100 8.2.6 Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment ................................................... 102 8.3 Consequence Assessment.........................................................................104 8.3.1 Health and Safety Impact (Medical and School Proximity to Upstream Manhole).................................................................................................. 104 8.3.2 Direct Financial Impact (Depth of Bury and Location) ........................... 104 8.3.3 Public Image and Confidence (Zoning Service Area and Road Type) ................................................................................................................... 105 8.3.4 Environmental Impact (Water Body Proximity to Upstream Manhole) .. 106 8.3.5 Overall Consequence of Failure Assessment ........................................... 106 P05610-2017-003 ; y AIF-,S Page iii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Table of Contents June 2019 8.4 Overall Risk Assessment...............................................................................107 Chapter 9 Future System Evaluation..................................................................112 9.1 Future Collection System Pipeline Evaluation.........................................1 12 9.2 Future Lift Station Evaluation......................................................................1 15 9.3 Future System Evaluation Results...............................................................1 17 Chapter 10 Recommended Improvements......................................................127 10.1 CIP Project Categories..............................................................................127 10. 1. 1 Condition Assessment.............................................................................. 128 10. 1.2 Growth and Development...................................................................... 128 10. 1.3 Optimization.............................................................................................. 128 10. 1.4 Rehabilitation and Repair........................................................................ 128 10. 1.5 Studies........................................................................................................ 129 10. 1.6 Lift Stations................................................................................................. 129 10. 1.7 Gravity Mains............................................................................................ 129 10. 1.8 Force Mains............................................................................................... 129 10.2 Opinion of Probable Project Cost for CIP Development .....................130 10.2. 1 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Basis ................................................. 130 10.2.2 Estimate Classification..............................................................................130 10.2.3 Estimating Exclusions................................................................................. 131 10.2.4 Total Estimated Project Cost.................................................................... 131 10.2.5 Opinion of Probable Project Cost (OPPC) Sheets .................................. 138 10.3 CIP Timing, Prioritization, and Implementation......................................138 10.4 Recommended Capital Improvements................................................139 10.4. 1 Short -Term (0-5 Years) CIP Projects.......................................................... 141 10.4.2 Near -Term (5-15 Years) CIP Projects........................................................ 142 10.4.3 Long -Term (15+ Years) CIP Projects......................................................... 142 P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page iv Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Tables June 2019 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Sewer Gravity Main Information........................................................8 Table 2-2: Wastewater Trunk Lines.......................................................................9 Table 2-3: Force Main Information.................................................................... l 1 Table 2-4: Municipal Sewer Lift Station Summary (Location and Arrangement)..................................................................................1 1 Table 2-5: Municipal Sewer Lift Station Pump Summary (Pumps and Motors) ...........................................................................................................13 Table 3-1: Planning Period Summary................................................................ 16 Table 3-2: Kalispell Population Trends.............................................................. 19 Table 3-3: Kalispell Projected Populations (2.0 Percent Annual Growth) ...20 Table 3-4: Anticipated Growth for the 0-5 Year Planning Period .................23 Table 4-1: Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF).......................................................26 Table 4-2: Maximum Daily Flow (MDF).............................................................27 Table 4-3: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design (Smaller Peaking Factors)............................................................................................. 29 Table 4-4: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design (Larger Peaking Factors)............................................................................................. 29 Table 4-5: Dry Weather Hourly Influent Flow (9/9/17 - 9/17/17)...................31 Table 4-6: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (3/13/17 - 3/22/17)................32 Table 4-7: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (4/22/17 - 4/30/17) ................33 Table 4-8: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (6/13/17 - 6/18/17)................34 Table 4-9: PHF and Peaking Factor Evaluation Summary..............................37 Table 4-10: Monthly Rainfall...............................................................................38 Table 4-11: Monthly Wastewater Flow..............................................................39 Table 4-12: Evergreen District Monthly Wastewater Flows',2,3 .......................45 P05610-2017-003 4J4 0 041�. � Page v Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Tables June 2019 Table 4-13: Kalispell Customers Average Annual Flow (AAF) ......................47 Table 4-14: Sewer Only Customers Average Annual Flow (AAF).................48 Table 4-15: Summary of AAF for Each Group of Customers ..........................50 Table 4-16: Per Capita Wastewater Flows........................................................51 Table 4-17: Recommended Wastewater Per Capita Demands ...................52 Table 4-18: Existing Wastewater Flow Summary..............................................55 Table 4-19: Equivalent Growth Method - Wastewater Flow Projections ...... 57 Table 4-20: Per Capita Wastewater Flow Method - Wastewater Flow Projections........................................................................................ 58 Table 4-21: Recommended WWDFs for Wastewater Planning Purposes ..... 59 Table 4-22: Land Use Method - Wastewater Flow Projections ...................... 60 Table 5-1: Summary of Dry Weather Calibration Results ................................ 71 Table 5-2: Summary of RTK Parameters............................................................ 76 Table 5-3: Summary of Wet Weather Calibration Results...............................76 Table 5-4: Future System Wastewater Flows .................................................... 77 Table 6-1: Force Main Hydraulic Criteria Recommendations .......................79 Table 6-2: Force Main Friction Loss Recommendations.................................80 Table 6-3: Gravity Main Velocity and Depth of Flow......................................81 Table 6-4: Gravity Main Diameter and Minimum Slope.................................82 Table 6-5: Gravity Main Friction Loss.................................................................83 Table 6-6: Gravity Main Level of Service..........................................................84 Table 6-7: Summary of Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria..............85 Table 6-8: Summary of Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria..............86 Table 7-1: Force Main Evaluation Summary....................................................89 Table 7-2: Lift Station Summary..........................................................................94 Table 8-1: Risk Categories.................................................................................. 98 P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page A Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Tables June 2019 Table 8-2: Main Break Risk Categories.............................................................99 Table 8-3: Performance Risk Categories..........................................................99 Table 8-4: Maintainability Risk Categories.....................................................100 Table 8-5: Reliability Risk Categories..............................................................100 Table 8-6: Pipe Age Risk Categories...............................................................101 Table 8-7: Material Age Risk Categories........................................................101 Table 8-8: Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment....................................103 Table 8-9: Health and Safety Impact Consequence Factors ......................104 Table 8-10: Direct Financial Impact Consequence Factors ........................105 Table 8-11: Public Image Consequence Factors..........................................106 Table 8-12: Environmental Impact Consequence Factors ..........................106 Table 8-13: Overall Consequence of Failure Assessment ...........................107 Table 8-14: Summary Statistics of Risk Matrix by Miles of Wastewater Collection Pipe..............................................................................107 Table 9-1: Existing Lift Station Evaluation Summary......................................1 16 Table 9-2: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (CIP).........................1 17 Table 9-3: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (G&D) ......................1 17 Table 10-1: Unpaved Gravity Main Cost per Linear Foot.............................133 Table 10-2: Paved Gravity Main Cost per Linear Foot..................................133 Table 10-3: Paved and Unpaved Sewer Force Main Cost per Linear Footl34 Table 10-4: Sewer Main Connection Costs....................................................135 Table 10-5: Sewer Main Crossing Costs..........................................................135 Table 10-6: Sewer Lift Station Facility Costs....................................................135 Table 10-7: Total Estimate Project Markup Summary...................................138 Table 10-8: Short-term (0-5 Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations .........................................................................................................141 P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page vii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Tables June 2019 Table 10-9: Near -Term (5-15 Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations.......................................................................142 Table 10-10: Long -Term (15+ Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations.......................................................................142 P05610-2017-003 y F1E2S Page viii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Figures June 2019 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Kalispell Location Map...................................................................... 1 Figure 2-1: Existing Wastewater System Service Area......................................5 Figure 2-2: Existing Sewer Collection System by Sewer Main Diameter........ 6 Figure 2-3: Existing Sewer Collection System by Sewer Main Material ......... 7 Figure 2-4: Existing Sewer Collection System Trunk Lines .............................. 10 Figure 2-5: Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Facility (Google Earth Aerial Image).............................................................................................. 14 Figure 3-1: Wastewater Facility Plan Study Area Boundary .......................... 18 Figure 3-2: Projected Population Growth for Kalispell....................................20 Figure 4-1: Daily Influent Wastewater Flow......................................................24 Figure 4-2: Average Annual Flow (AAF)...........................................................25 Figure 4-3: Maximum Monthly Flow(MMF)......................................................26 Figure 4-4: Maximum Daily Flow (MDF)............................................................27 Figure 4-5: Dry Weather (September Sample) Diurnal Pattern .....................35 Figure 4-6: Wet Weather (March Sample) Diurnal Pattern .............................35 Figure 4-7: Wet Weather (April Sample) Diurnal Pattern................................36 Figure 4-8: Wet Weather (June Sample) Diurnal Pattern................................36 Figure 4-9: Average Monthly Rainfall (Wet Months to Dry Months)..............38 Figure 4-10: Monthly Wastewater Flow.............................................................40 Figure 4-11: Wastewater Flow versus Rainfall..................................................41 Figure 4-12: Correlation Between Wastewater Flow and Rainfall.................42 Figure 4-13: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent ...................44 Figure 4-14: Evergreen District Average Annual Flow(AAF).........................46 Figure 4-15: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent (Less Evergreen District)...........................................................................47 P05610-2017-003 f `' r„�, � Page ix Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Figures June 2019 Figure 4-16: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent (Less Evergreen District and Sewer Only Customers) .........................49 Figure 4-17: Historical Wastewater Conversion Percentage .........................49 Figure 4-18: Per Capita Wastewater Flows compared to Population ..........51 Figure 4-19: Existing Wastewater Flow Summary............................................54 Figure 4-20: Decreasing Peaking Factors........................................................57 Figure 4-21: AAF and PHF Projection Summary...............................................60 Figure 4-22: Projected AAF by Customer Group.............................................61 Figure 4-23: Projected AAF by Customer Group.............................................61 Figure 5-1: Hydraulic Model Calibration Points...............................................66 Figure 5-2: DWF Weekday Diurnal Patterns.......................................................68 Figure 5-3: DWF Weekend Diurnal Patterns......................................................68 Figure 5-4: Lift Station 2 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows.............69 Figure 5-5: Lift Station 3 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows.............70 Figure 5-6: Lift Station 8 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows.............70 Figure 5-7: WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows ........................ 71 Figure 5-8: LS2 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows ........................... 74 Figure 5-9: LS3 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows ........................... 74 Figure 5-10: LS8 -Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows ......................... 75 Figure 5-11: WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows ..................... 75 Figure 7-1: Levels of Service - Dry Weather Flows .......................................... 90 Figure 7-2: Levels of Service - Wet Weather Flows.........................................92 Figure 7-3: Hydraulic Profile - Upstream of Lift Station 9................................ 93 Figure 8-1: City of Kalispell General Risk Matrix..............................................97 Figure 8-2: Kalispell Wastewater Mains Installation History .........................102 Figure 8-3: Risk Assessment Results (Graphical Representation) ...............108 P05610-2017-003 4 4 0 041�. -:b Page x Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update List of Appendices June 2019 Figure 8-4: Map of Risk Assessment Results...................................................109 Figure 9-1: Future System LOS at Full Buildout Flows (Prior to Modifications) .........................................................................................................1 14 Figure 9-2: Future Collection System at Full Buildout (North) ......................124 Figure 9-3: Future Collection System at Full Buildout (South) ......................125 Figure 9-4: Future System LOS at Full Buildout Flows (With Modifications) 126 Figure 10-1: Total OPPC.....................................................................................139 Figure 10-2: CIP 5-Year Summary....................................................................141 Figure 10-3: Short -Term Proposed Capital Improvements ...........................143 Figure 10-4: Near -Term Proposed Capital Improvements ...........................144 Figure 10-5: Long -Term Proposed Capital Improvements ...........................145 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Existing Collection System Mapbook Appendix B: Planning and Growth Areas Appendix C: Kalispell Risk Policy Appendix D: Opinion of Probable Project Cost Methodology Appendix E: Capital Improvement Mapbook P05610-2017-003 f ' rac.� Page A Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations June 2019 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A AACE American Association of Cost Engineers AAF Average Annual Flow ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe AC -FT Acre -Feet ADD Average Daily Demand AE2S Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. BC C-Factor Hazen -Williams Roughness Coefficient CCTV Closed -Circuit Television Inspection CFS Cubic Feet per Second CIP Capital Improvements Plan CI Cast Iron D DI Ductile Iron DIP Ductile Iron Pipe DIPRA Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association EF EPA Environmental Protection Agency FBO Full Buildout FPS Feet per Second FT Feet FT/1,000 FT Feet per 1,000 Feet G GIS Geographical Information System GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day GPD Gallons Per Day GPM Gallons Per Minute H HDPE High Density Polyethylene HGL Hydraulic Grade Line HP Horsepower HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page xii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations June 2019 I IITRI Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute I&C Instrumentation and Controls JKLMN kPa Kilopascal LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging MDD Maximum Daily Demand MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality MG Million Gallon MGD Million Gallons per Day MMD Maximum Month Demand NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NFPA National Fire Protection Association OPQ O&M Operation and Maintenance OPPC Opinion of Probable Project Costs PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program PE Polyethylene PHF Peak Hour Flow PSI Pounds per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCP RDII SCADA STL SWMM TDH US USGS VFD RSTUV Reinforced Concrete Pipe Rainfall -Derived Inflow and Infiltration Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Steel Stormwater Management Model Total Dynamic Head United States United States Geological Survey Variable Frequency Drive WXYZ WWF Wet Weather Flow WWDF Wastewater Duty Factor WWFPU Wastewater Facility Plan Update P05610-2017-003 11�% AEzS. Page xiii Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 1 - Introduction June 2019 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Kalispell (City) is located in the northwestern part of Montana in Flathead County. The City is a retail, professional, medical, and governmental hub in the Flathead Valley, and boasts many nearby outdoor attractions including Glacier National Park, Flathead Lake, Whitefish Mountain Ski Resort, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and several other state and national forests and parks.' A map identifying the location of Kalispell is provided as Figure 1-1. LINCOLN 'L.-. TOOtE Hilt COUNTY COUNTY CIACTER COU HTY nhby FLATHEAD COUNTY .Cut lank - heater .o.. i Chinook C OU HIY •Shelby BLAINE Kalispell PONDENA COUNTY LIBERTY COUNTY COUNTY Conrad SANDERS 'ALE COUNTY Chotsau Fort Berrien C OU NTT' TM Poison TETON COUNTY C40UT17AU COUNTY i Scabey Plentywood PANIHS SHICPAN COUNTY COUNTY ROOBEYHT Mglq VALLEY COUNTY COUNTY la-. PXILUPS Glasgow ❑ COUNTY WON Pow meson Ggat Foils FOUS fERGUS COUNTY Uperlor C A 1 C AOF Jordan COUNTY SIaIRM1Q RC OiEUM COUNTY GARFIELD MINEAFI MISSOUTA Ltw1E M❑NTANd �ewlstown wlnnen COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY RK C IARR BASIN BASIN J., Mlssoulo COUNTY COUNTY T a 0 r Helena White Sulphur POW HL Spring' N4u S5EL5XHL COUPARY • 0R9 AD wATR • Harlawton COQNIY FiomiltoP Deer Lodge• COUNET MEAGHER • Roundup •PhlRpsbur 6°WdeR WND 9 Townsend COUNTY 1.UNTOuxrT • RY-gal- • Ana condo GOLDEN RAVALII DEER LODGE VALLEY COUNTY COUNTY lutle JERFEN5ow COUNTY YELLowsmw SILVER COUNTY GALLA110 11y 11mt7er COUNTY "Ow COUNTY COUN rY Columbus BllingT hpiemtln A IfvkRgrton REAVENHEAD Vlrglnto CITY STIIIWAIRR CARRON COUNTY Dillon • COUNTY COUNIN • MADfsON COUNTY PARK COUNTY led Ladoe • MCCONE RICHLAND COUNTY 0 COUHIY Sldney. x QC �Ircl� DAwsoN � COUNTY Glendive PRAIRIE WRlavx COUNTY ferry WIBAU% • LO LINTY ROSEBUD COUNTY x' MRRS City Laker H:Shpm Farsy}h FRIION TREASURE CUSIER COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY 11kaloko Hardin N C A N Id COUNTY sia MORN FOwOER COUHrr RIVER COUNTY WYOMING � Figure 1-1: Kalispell Location Map 1 City of Kalispell. Welcome to the City of Kalispell. 2015. P05610-2017-003 S yA� Page 1 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 1 - Introduction June 2019 1.1 Adopting the Facility Planning Process Municipal wastewater utilities must continuously plan to identify system challenges. Wastewater system challenges come in many forms, such as population growth, increasing wastewater flows, aging infrastructure, increased regulatory standards and requirements, emerging technological trends and technological advancements, and effective capital improvements planning. Facility planning provides policymakers and the public with a detailed report on infrastructure needs and the recommended actions to accommodate those needs. Facility planning helps establish priorities for the construction and implementation of necessary improvements. Lastly, a facility plan can be used as a tool to pursue and support requests for capital improvement funding. For these reasons and many others, the City has adopted the Facility Planning process for its wastewater collection system. The City recognizes that prudent management of annual operation and maintenance budgets, optimizing short-term capital improvement expenditures, and maximizing the benefits of long-term capital improvements requires a consistent direction for the utility, which can be attained through a robust planning process. As the City adopts and cycles through the planning process, some uncertainties and changes can be expected. The impacts of these changes can be best managed through a continued proactive planning approach. Responding to future challenges will be most appropriately accomplished through a fluid planning process that enables the City to maintain a clear vision and consistent direction for the Kalispell wastewater collection system. The 2019 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update (WWFPU) will provide a guide for short- term, near -term, and long-term capital improvements to Kalispell's wastewater collection system. The recommended improvements included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) will be the basis for planning, financing, designing, constructing, and implementation of solutions to meet Kalispell's wastewater collection system needs for years to come. 1.2 Project Objectives and Deliverables Key objectives of the WWFPU are as follows: 1) Provide an updated planning and service area map for the City's future wastewater collection system. 2) Characterize current wastewater flow patterns. 3) Project future wastewater flow by usage. 4) Provide a comprehensive, calibrated, up-to-date wastewater collection system hydraulic model utilizing InfoSWMM and InfoSewer by Innovyze® that is integrated with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), and facilitates continuous updates as the collection system is replaced, improved, and expanded. P05610-2017-003 sy FIE zS Page 2 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 1 - Introduction June 2019 5) Identify and describe wastewater collection system infrastructure improvements required to meet new service and population growth over the identified planning horizons. The planning horizons for this analysis is threefold: A short-term period to determine wastewater collection system needs for fiscal years 2019 through 2023 (0-5 years), a near - term period (5-15 years), and a long-term period (15+ years). 6) Evaluate the City's wastewater collection system in terms of overall risk and identify projects or assessment activities to better manage and ultimately mitigate risk. 7) Provide a recommended CIP packet that includes detailed descriptions of recommended CIP projects, maps of the project, categorization of the project (i.e., lift stations, gravity main, etc.), a proposed schedule, and engineer's opinion of probable project cost (OPPC). 1.3 Previous Studies The following reports were utilized in preparation of this WWFPU: • In 2016, a Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update was prepared by KLJ to update the south Kalispell infrastructure. The primary purpose of the 2016 update was to incorporate the growth areas in south Kalispell as identified in the City's 2011 Growth Policy Update. This facility plan update evaluated both water and wastewater existing system capacity and identified areas of potential system upgrades based on identified growth patterns. In 2014, the Westside Interceptor Project Preferred Route Assessment was prepared by Robert Peccia and Associates to evaluate several potential routes for the proposed Westside Sewer Interceptor. The purpose of the route assessment was to size an interceptor to serve the north and west areas of the City and identify a route that would provide the maximum benefit to the City while minimizing overall costs to ratepayers. In addition to the route assessment report, there were two addenda, with the first being prepared on December 1, 2014 and the second being prepared on February 23, 2016 that were utilized in preparation of this facility plan update. • In 2017, the City Planning Board prepared the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035 document, which outlined a strategy intended to guide growth over the next 20 years. The City's Planning Department staff utilized the land use maps and growth patterns presented in the document to support the planning areas presented in this WWFPU. P05610-2017-003 ; y HEzS Page 3 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 CHAPTER 2 EXISTING SYSTEM The existing wastewater collection and treatment system for the City's sewer service area includes the following components: • Approximately 120 miles of sewer gravity main • Approximately 25 miles of sewer force main • Approximately 2,600 sewer manholes • 36 sewer lift stations • One municipal wastewater treatment facility A map showing the existing wastewater system service area is shown in Figure 2-1. The components identified above provide sewer service to the City's existing population of approximately 22,761 people via 9,148 residential, commercial, and industrial connections, of which 8,280 are City water and sewer customers with the remaining 868 connections being sewer only. The City also provides service to the nearby Evergreen Water and Sewer District through an interlocal agreement. The following sections provide an overview of the existing major components of the City's sewer collection, conveyance, and treatment system. 2.1 Overview of Existing Sewer Collection and Conveyance Facilities The City sewer collection and conveyance facilities include manholes, gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations. These facilities collect sewer flows from residential, commercial, and industrial users and convey them to the City's owned and operated wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The collection system facilities are described in the following sections. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 provide overviews of the existing sewer collection system by sewer main sizes and materials, respectively. Appendix A provides a detailed mapbook of the sewer main sizes and materials. 2.1.1 Municipal Sewer Gravity Collection The sewer gravity collection system network consists of approximately 120 miles of sewer gravity main varying in size from six inches up to 36 inches in diameter, with around 65 percent of the system consisting of 8-inch pipe. The sewer gravity main in the collection system consists primarily of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (86 miles). However, there is a substantial amount of clay pipe (22 miles), primarily in the older downtown area. The remaining pipe within the collection system consists of approximately 13 miles total of asbestos cement pipe (ACP), concrete, cast iron pipe (CIP), slip -lined CIP, ductile iron pipe (DIP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), high -density polyethylene (HDPE), and some small sections of unknown pipe material. Sewer gravity main information, including size and material, is included in Table 2-1, which is based on the City's GIS database. P05610-2017-003 ; y HIEZS Page 4 Glrirk Dr LeA 1 • , 9: O r•� Gruel 111 Old ReAS"n 548 93 0 1 I hroe Mlle 1 �shleylC, _11fq vie Y, re Loro- Fhx•SUN, VArk ® \ t Foys 4a(ce . 93 � r � a Y } Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) C rater Main Type } Iy \ Force Main art I Gravity { Wastewater System r 503 Wastewater Treatment Facility � .any ? Wastewater Lift Station F rater Serivice Area i4 Evergreen � h SPrrhr? �'r Re�riar. ir 93 Existing Wastewater System Inclu P43 r1h, n93 � R-k Ci Ciu LID k:C-C E. I n (D Old Rqz@"A 548 )irq Vie Y, 171' KOJI& P& T-meh Al"IL 7' C; lu vergi, Oil 2 r f7 I hr@e Mle f-o - rr Firk Loro -hN. , 93 :ull Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ater Main Type :orce Main Gravity Wastewater System Nastewater Treatment Facility Nastewater Lift Station 3meter -4" Ki-hella 9 fka'Wo'�,Pef 14" - 18" 20" 2 "' - 24" 27" - 30" 503 93 FklIA F, z 7 T � _ Q ril 0 .. Old Rose"A 548 } N/ m� 3 FYh 9 [�5 r Buma5' HIIGi.U' I hrpe We f -- wil View r,� 2 a tir. i r Loro -k N. I f 503 -, iTY �f' 2 Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ?water Main Type Force Main Gravity ig Wastewater System Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Lift Station Material — Asbestos Concrete (ACP) — Cast Iron (CIP) — Clay — Concrete — Ductile Iron (DIP) — High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) — Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) — Reinforced Concrete (RCP) Igo 503 T f�R�yer y £ o• 00 �N � Q a C FA l0 N N O 0 0 0 l0 I, l0 Ln r- Lq IL d MAN CO 00 M 4 O L6 O O N c I M O N cI W aN U i ( � �t Ln M Ln �t M o m 00 N co -1 � co -1 N m 00 Q 61 O LnM Mc '.0 m 00 3° s cMI l0 N N N rl M M m U 1O N a 3 Ln L � O o M M o Q rf rf M O N a he o m M coo o r- r- co `^ O,Ln � M � Ln N u � l0 � N LO O M It -:, m rrf 00 nj O 00 � ':J LLn 00 ram+ M N Ln r-I -i-i CC LU i. Ln rn . . . . c-I p . . . . . . MO N �0 O H � N O cc 41 • LLn Ln _3. Ci M M O O O � U O rl cI N CuLU t m M O • N � CC O m c I Ln m Ln I- r-I m00 Q0 N -j Cu N 1 I, i `1 M ci l0 M Ln -i -i c�-ICu O O l0 l0 00 00 r, I- r, M m m � oO Cu M LLn l0 Ln dl l0 r ! Ln N I� Ln d. N c-I N N (`7 CD :3 O 41 to co O N c-I c-I Ln l0 c-I c-I 00 c-I O N C-4 � N r\ N O M t.0 M m _ U C N O • .� t H .`-.. O LO O 0_ Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 The City has previously identified a total of seven trunk lines that are the primary gravity sewer conveyance routes within the City (A-G). In addition to these seven trunk lines, the recently installed Westside Sewer Interceptor has been added which will serve existing and future development both north and west of the City. These trunk lines are summarized in Table 2-2 and are shown in Figure 2-4. Table 2-2: Wastewater Trunk Lines A From the Hwy 93 and Northridge Dr. intersection south along N. Meridian, to 1011 Ave. W. Alley, to the WWTF B Along 111" St. W. from 81" Ave. E. to 2nd Alley W. Connects to Trunk Line A at 1" Ave. W. and 171" St. C From the 51" Ave. E. and 2nd St. E. intersection west to 1" Alley W., south to 111" St. W. Connects to Trunk Line B. D From Whitefish Stage Rd. at the W. Evergreen Dr. intersection south to the west end of Fairway Boulevard. Connects to Lift Station #9. E Along N. Main St. south to W. Center St., along 51" Ave. W. Connects to Trunk Line A at 101" St. W. F From Auction Rd. and Demersville Rd. intersection west to Hwy 93. Then northwest along Hwy 93 to the intersection of Hwy 93 and Twin Acres Dr. G From Hwy 93 and Ponderosa Lane intersection south along Hwy 93 to Lift Station 36 Westside Sewer From Hwy. 93 north of Reserve Dr., west along Reserve Dr., south through future development routes, east along Two Mile Dr., south through existing downtown Interceptor residential to Trunk Line A. 2.1.2 Force Main Conveyance System The sewer force main conveyance system network consists of approximately 25 miles of pipe varying in size from two inches up to 14 inches in diameter. The sewer force main in the conveyance system consists primarily of PVC pipe (21 miles). HDPE is the second most common force main material in the system (3 miles). The remaining force main consists of approximately 1.3 miles total of asbestos cement pipe (ACP), cast iron pipe (CIP), ductile iron pipe (DIP), and steel. Sewer force main information, including size and material, is included in Table 2-3, which is based on the City's GIS database. P05610-2017-003 AE�S Page 9 G 3 V LL C.Inlh i.i �� rp hhMar R 93 LIDCiub _ T Q � ril 0 ' Q` k.i'{{'I'17 .. rt Old Reuwj&A 548 r I hr0e We f -- I �38 29 �4�C � I— Loro- P►'ia ' r Eww Ryrs Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Fay LOke `".? 4 water Main Type I Foys Lake r Force Main Gravity 3 Wastewater System Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Lift Station water Main Trunk Lines Line A Line B Line C Line D Line E Line F Line G 047 fICLVo' R,Per Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 Table 2-3: Force Main Information Length of Pipe by Material (feet) Pipe SCH. PVC Total Total Diam. 80 STEEL Length Length (inches) ACP CIP DIP HDPE PVC PVC CASING STEEL (feet) (miles) 2 - - - 1,658 420 184 - - 2,262 0.4 4 - - 1,146 2,723 7,104 - - - 10,973 2.1 6 1,483 2,137 1,040 2,209 14,029 - - - 20,899 4.0 8 - 667 - 3,836 15,296 - - - 19,799 3.7 10 - - - 6,774 6,164 - - - 12,938 2.5 12 - - - - 17,821 - - 234 18,055 3.4 14 - - - - 48,260 - 149 - 48,409 9.2 Total (feet) 1,483 2,804 2,186 17,200 109,094 184 149 234 133,334 - Total (miles) 0.3 0.5 0.4 3.3 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 25.3 2.1.3 Municipal Lift Stations The 36 municipal sewer lift stations transfer wastewater from one location to another within the sewer collection and conveyance system. Table 2-4 summarizes each lift station's number, location, arrangement type, and age. Figure 2-4 shows the locations of each lift station within the sewer system. Lift Stations Number 1 and Number 26 are stormwater lift stations and were not included in the table but are shown on the figures for reference. The City also has stormwater Lift Station 18A, which is not included in the table, but is located at the same approximate location as municipal sewer Lift Station 18. Table 2-4: Municipal Sewer Lift Station Summary Location and Arrangement) Lift Lift Station Station Location Lift Station Arrangement Age 2 18th Street East between Hwy 93 and Airport Road Below Grade Self Priming Packaged System Rebuilt 1997 3 SE Corner of Hwy 93 & Grandview Dr. Intersection Wetwell/Drywell Packaged System Rebuilt 2009 4 South of Liberty Street in El Dorita Addition 3 Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1982 5 intersection of Kelly Road and Eagle Drive Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1981 5A At end of Eagle Drive Submersible Packaged System 1998 6 Cooper Lane — Two Mile Vista Apts. Submersible Packaged System 1989 7 Woodland Park Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1986 8 Sunnyside Drive and 7th Ave. West Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1989 9 West of Fairway Blvd. Wetwell/ Drywell 1996 P05610-2017-003 ; y AErS Page 11 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 10 West Nicklaus Ave. in Glacier Village Greens West Wetwell /Drywell Packaged System 1995 11 East Nicklaus Ave. in Glacier Village Greens East Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1996 12 Buffalo Stage South of Bruyer Way Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1993 13 Juniper Bend Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 1994 14 Parkway Drive and Summit Ridge Drive Submersible Packaged System 1994 15 Belmar North of Bluestone Submersible Packaged System 1996 16 274 Buttercup Loop Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2000 17 Home Depot Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2002 18 2271 Pintail Court Submersible Packaged System 2004 191 91 Blue Crest Drive Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2004 20 188 Palmer Drive Submersible Packaged System 2004 21 830 12th Avenue West Submersible Packaged System 2005 22 106 Cemetery Road Below Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2005 23 1994 Teal Drive Submersible Packaged System 2005 241 179 Empire Loop Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2005 25 Willow Glen & Russell Drive Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2005 27 Highway 93 & Four Mile Drive Submersible Packaged System 2005 281 134 Auric Drive Submersible Packaged System 2006 29 135 Triple Creek Drive Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2018 30 122 Moes Run Submersible Packaged System 2007 31 Flathead Valley Community O.T. Building Submersible Packaged System 2007 32 Flathead Valley Community A & T Building Submersible Packaged System 2007 33 351 Lupine Drive Above Grade Self Priming Packaged System 2007 34 3391 U.S. Highway 93 South Submersible Packaged System 2007 35 310 Four Mile Drive Submersible Packaged System 2008 36 2686 Hwy 93 North (along Stillwater River) Submersible Packaged System 2008 37 201 1st Ave East/City Hall Sewage Pump Station Vertical Turbine 2008 38 Spring Creek Estates (5/08) —180 Westland Dr. Submersible Packaged System 2008 39 Silverbrook — (2008) —177 West Swift Creek Way Submersible Packaged System 2008 40 Ashley Heights — 334 Bismark Street Submersible packaged system 2008 41 125 Treeline Road — Cabela's Shopping Area Submersible packaged system 2013 'Abandoned For each of the above lift stations, the operational information is included in Table 2-5, which lists the available pumping capacity in gallons per minute (gpm), pump motor horsepower (HP), generator capacity, and equipment manufacturers. P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2-S Page 12 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 Table 2-5: Municipal Pump Type Station Sewer Lift Station Pump Summary No. of Avera . ge Motor Type No. of Pumping (Pumps MotorPumping HP and Motors No. 2 (Manufacturer) Gorman Rupp Pumps 2 Rate (gpm) 490 (Manufacturer) WEG Motors 2 (EA) 10 Size (kW) 45 Type (Manufacturer Generac 3 Cornell 2 460 WEG 2 20 65 Generac 4 Gorman Rupp 2 165 Dayton 2 3 35 Generac 5 Gorman Rupp 2 355 Dayton 2 10 35 Generac 5A Meyers 2 Unknown Meyers 2 3 n/a NA 6 KSB 2 260 KSB 2 5 35 Generac 7 Gorman Rupp 2 180 Dayton 2 10 35 Generac 8 Hydromatic 2 85 Dayton 2 5 35 Generac 9 Cornell 2 253 WEG 2 10 100 Kohler 10 A-C Pump 2 360 WEG 2 30 100 Kohler 11 Gorman Rupp 2 170 Dayton 2 5 n/a NA 12 Gorman Rupp 2 195 Dayton 2 5 35 Generac 13 Gorman Rupp 2 105 Dayton 2 10 35 Generac 14 Goulds 2 25 Goulds 2 5 n/a NA 15 Flygt 2 240 Flygt 2 1 n/a NA 16 Gorman Rupp 2 185 Dayton 2 5 70 Kohler 17 Gorman Rupp 2 140 Dayton 2 7.5 40 Generac 18 Flygt 2 140 Flygt 2 5 50 Generac 191 Gorman Rupp 2 220 Dayton 2 7.5 40 Generac 20 Gorman Rupp 2 98 Gorman Rupp 2 2.7 20 Generac 21 Meyers/Franklin 2 43 Meyers 2 2 n/a NA 22 Gorman Rupp 2 485 Dayton 2 40 100 Cummins 23 Flygt 2 144 Flygt 2 3 25 Generac 241 Gorman Rupp 2 250 Dayton 2 8 30 Generac 25 Gorman Rupp 2 44 Gorman Rupp 2 2 11.5 Sentry Pro 27 KSB 2 21 KSB 2 2 15 Generac 281 Vaughn 2 53 Vaughn 2 3 20 Generac 29 Gorman Rupp 2 1,300 WEG 2 40 100 Generac 30 Gorman Rupp 2 80 Gorman Rupp 2 3 7.25 Generac 31 KSB 2 60 KSB 2 3 20 Cummins 32 KSB 2 70 KSB 2 3 20 Cummins 33 Gorman Rupp 2 225 Dayton 2 10 50 Generac 34 KSB 2 250 KSB 2 60 200 Cummins 35 Gorman Rupp 2 180 Dayton 2 10 50 Generac P05610-2017-003 ,00FIE ,4S Page 13 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 36 Gorman Rupp 2 820 Gorman Rupp 2 34 150 CAT 37 Federal 2 20 Federal 2 1 n/a NA 38 Gorman Rupp 2 35 Hydromatic 2 3 15 Generac 39 Gorman Rupp 2 370 Gorman Rupp 2 3 12 CAT 40 Hydromatic 2 20 Hydromatic 2 10 10 Generac 41 Flygt 2 65 Flygt 2 5 25 CAT/Olympian 'Abandoned 2.1.4 Instrumentation and Controls Currently, primary lift station sites use data loggers to track pump run times and basic data. The system provides operational staff the ability to monitor seasonal variations at the station and adjust parameters as appropriate. 2.2 Overview of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility The City's wastewater is treated in an advanced wastewater treatment and biological nutrient removal (BNR) facility that began operation in 1992. The plant is located at 2001 Airport Road in the south part of Kalispell. Upgrades to the plant were constructed in 2009 and consisted of increased capacity, a modification of the BNR facility to the modified Johannesburg process, and odor control improvements. An aerial view of the plant is shown in Figure 2-5. i_ �I Figure 2-5: Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Facility (Google Earth Aerial image) P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 14 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 2 - Existing System June 2019 The current plant has capacity for an average daily flow of 5.4 million gallons per day (MGD). The City previously had an interlocal agreement with the Evergreen Water and Sewer District that reserved treatment capacity at the plant for an average daily flow of 0.782 MGD. This flow was used for analysis of the collection system; however, the City has since modified the agreement to reserve an average daily flow of 0.805 MGD from Evergreen. The plant has equalization capacity to handle infiltration and inflow (I/I) entering the collection system during wet weather events. Treated effluent from the plant discharges to Ashley Creek. P05610-2017-003 )on EZS Page 15 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 CHAPTER 3 BASIS OF PLANNING To plan for future growth of the existing sewer collection system, an evaluation needs to occur to quantify how much growth can be expected during different timeframes in the future. This is accomplished by evaluating future growth in specific planning periods, which helps guide the timing of capital improvement projects required to meet future growth conditions. 3.1 Planning Periods The establishment of planning periods is an important component in the development of the WWFPU. A total of three planning periods were established, including short-term, near -term, and long-term periods. These planning periods follow the same methodology set forth in the 2018 Kalispell Water Facility Plan Update. The short-term planning period was established to determine wastewater system needs from 2018 through 2023 (0-5 years). A near -term planning period from 2023 through 2033 was identified to complete CIP planning for the 5 to 15-year planning horizon. Finally, a long-term planning period was identified to capture major infrastructure projects necessary to accommodate full buildout (FBO) of the City. This long-term growth will occur beyond 15 years to the point where FBO occurs, estimated to be within a timeframe of 50 years. For this WWFPU, the FBO was assumed to coincide with the 2015 Annexation Boundary, as shown in the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map, dated February 2017. Capital improvement projects determined in this planning effort were placed into the three different planning periods based on different criteria and discussions with City staff. This process is further discussed in Chapter 10. The three different planning periods utilized in this evaluation are defined as shown in Table 3-1. Short -Term 0-5 2018-2023 Near -Term 5-15 2023-2033 Long -Term 15+ (FBO) 2033 and beyond 3.2 Study Service Area For systems experiencing significant growth, such as Kalispell, defining the study service area is necessary to provide a framework to: 1) define system capacity milestones, 2) develop appropriate phasing of capital improvements, and 3) strategically integrate improvements with P05610-2017-003 11�% AIIE:Zs.Page 16 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 existing infrastructure. The ultimate goal of this approach is to maximize the economic benefit of the improvements. There are two service areas that utilize the City's wastewater collection and treatment system: the area within and adjacent to Kalispell city limits and the area within the Evergreen Water and Sewer District (hereafter referred to as Evergreen District in this report). The Evergreen District operates under an interlocal agreement to discharge up to 0.805 MGD to the City. However, throughout the duration of this study, the previous agreement flowrate of 0.782 MGD was utilized in the wastewater analysis. The agreement states that the Evergreen District may request approval of volume rate increases from the Kalispell City Council. The service area within and adjacent to Kalispell city limits provides service to two user groups: City water and sewer customers and "sewer only" customers. The "sewer only" customers are generally those that have their own water supply but connect to the City's sewer system due to a failing septic system, inability to have on -site wastewater treatment, or for other reasons. These customers waive their right to protest annexation when they connect to the City's sewer system. Most of the "sewer only" customers are located within Kalispell city limits. The City's study service area (serving both City of Kalispell water and sewer customers and "sewer only" customers) was evaluated for future growth trends. The Evergreen District is considered separate from the Kalispell study service area. The study service area was developed by reviewing current planning documentation, considering previously completed facility plans, evaluating geographical boundaries, and discussions with City staff. Ultimately, this resulted in using boundaries already established from the recent planning efforts performed for the City, which include the following: 1) The 2015 Annexation Boundary was presented in the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035 document, adopted by Kalispell City Council Resolution No. 5821A, dated July 3, 2017. 2) The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map (dated February 15, 2017) established the "Growth Policy Planning Area" and was prepared as part of the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035. The Growth Policy Planning Area extends to a larger land area outside the 2015 boundary and is primarily used as a means of policy coordination between the City and Flathead County. These boundaries establish the future growth areas and provide consistency between recent planning efforts. The study service area boundary used for the WWFPU is the 2015 Annexation Boundary and is presented in Figure 3-1. Areas of future growth within the City have been identified for each planning horizon. Individual maps showing anticipated growth areas for each planning horizon can be found in Appendix B. P05610-2017-003 � RIE Page 17 r l 93 4 -----,-----,------- jt�tie,tlye Dr .� 1 1 1 - 1 1 � � A F,. � snzl�4 .♦ K r Mlle Y / 1 ,-YF 1 ♦ 1 Y � D 2 1 ' .. E, I r Lone Pm FOLVS 4aPe{:'° 93 C T. O x � 1 s J a _ F 1 _ L eY � ' ��thead Riy r 1 1 1 • Wit: � +�. 1 Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) - - — - -- - - - ,fi '� 1 1 Rd Kalispell Current City Limits - 503 Evergreen Service Area .� 0-5 Year Growth f 93 b 5-15 Year Growth1 E Growth Policv Plannina Area (GPPA1 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 — Basis of Planning June 2019 3.2.1 Population and Growth Rates For predicting growth trends of Kalispell's study service area, an estimated annual population growth rate was evaluated based on historic U.S. Census Bureau population trends, recent growth patterns and trends, and Kalispell Planning Department estimates. The past trend of population growth in Kalispell is presented in the table below and is based on U.S. Census Bureau data since 1960. Over the years, the growth rate has experienced wide variations from a very slow 0.1 percent per year between 1970 and 1980 to a relatively fast growth rate of 4 percent per year between 2000 and 2010. The average annual growth rate for the past 56 years is 1.7 percent per year, as shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Kalispell Population Trends PeriodPercent Average Area of Kalispell Year Population Population Population City Limits Growth for the Growth per Year (sq. miles) 1960 10,151 - - 1970 10,526 3.7% 0.4% 1980 10,648 1.2% 0.1% 1990 11,917 11.9% 1.2% 4.4 2000 14,223 19.4% 1.9% 5.5 2010 19,927 40.1% 4.0% 11.8 2016 (Estimate) 22,761 14.2% 2.4% 11.9 56-Year Historical Average Growth Rate = 1.7% Plotting the historic population data on a graph and utilizing a best -fit polynomial trend line to complete an estimate into the future indicates a projected annual growth rate of 2.45 percent, as shown in Figure 3-2. P05610-2017-003 �y AEzS Page 19 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 90,000 r - 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 0 40,000 a 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Year Historical Population - - - * Annual Average Growth � 2.00% Growth - Planning Historical Population Trend Figure 3-2: Projected Population Growth for Kalispell For this report, a 2.00 percent annual growth rate will be used to estimate future population projections, which is consistent with the rate currently utilized by the Kalispell Planning Department. This falls between the historic average annual growth rate and the population trend line and therefore appears appropriate for planning purposes. Population projections for the end of each of the identified planning horizons are provided in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Kalispell Proiected Populations (2.0 Percent Annual Growth 2023 (5 years) 25,155 2033 (15 years) 30,724 2068 (50 years, assumed FBO) 61,871 Per U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 population data for Kalispell, the average household size of owner -occupied housing units is 2.41 persons, while the average household size of renter - occupied housing units is 2.08 persons. The City of Kalispell has historically used 2.50 persons per dwelling unit as an average, and this number will continue to be used for this evaluation as it is a conservative estimate for owner -occupied housing units. Multi -family units will be estimated at 3/4 of a dwelling unit, resulting in an estimate of 1.90 persons per multi -family unit on average. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 20 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 3.2.2 Land Use Plan and Growth Projections The land use plan and growth projections presented below follow the same methodology set forth in the 2018 Kalispell Water Facility Plan Update and provide consistency between that planning document and this WWFPU. The information associated with each planning horizon is based on data provided by the City of Kalispell Planning Department. For each planning horizon, the City identified areas of Kalispell expected to experience growth within current City limits or expected to be annexed into the City based on development trends and permit applications. The zoning associated with each growth area assigns land use designations to guide the type of development that will occur on a parcel of land. The land use designations used by the City are as follows: • Commercial • Neighborhood Commercial • Industrial • Urban Mixed Use • High Density Residential • Urban Residential • Suburban Residential • City Airport, Government Facility • Public/Quasi-Public, Open Space, Green Space Land use designations serve as a guide for development in the future. For residential growth, the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035 document summarizes the densities associated with different land use categories: Low -density suburban residential development can occur at a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. Housing types include single-family homes (5,000 square feet minimum lot size), patio homes, and townhomes. Medium -density urban residential development can have densities of 4 tol2 dwelling units per acre. Housing types include single-family homes (2,500 square feet minimum lot size), patio homes, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and limited mixed use. High -density residential development can have densities up to 20 dwelling units per acre (or up to 40 dwelling units per acre in certain cases). Housing types include patio homes, triplexes and four-plexes, multi -family condominiums or apartments, and mixed use. Within these parameters, the Planning Department established average numbers of development density to assign to each land use based on anticipated future growth and supported by past development trends, as follows: P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 21 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 Known growth areas based on owner/developer conversations Semi -known growth areas based on typical density numbers for land use type Unknown growth areas filled in with assumed/potential growth The Planning Department used average densities to assign the number of dwelling units (DU) to land with different residential land uses: Suburban Residential = 3 DU per acre Urban Residential = 8 DU per acre High Density Residential = 10 DU per acre The numbers prepared by the Planning Department were then used to calculate wastewater flow projections for the different planning periods. The Planning Department provided GIS shapefiles for each land area planned for development during each planning period. For each land parcel, an estimate was provided of how much development is anticipated to be residential growth (with an assigned number of dwelling units per acre) and how much area within that parcel is anticipated to have commercial or industrial development, based on the zoning/land use assigned to each parcel. This information was then entered into the wastewater system model so wastewater flows could be assigned to each parcel. Land use designations were not consistent across all data sets provided by the City. Therefore, modified land use categories were created to provide a consistent designation for all data sets during the data analysis process. For example, if the provided land use for a parcel is labeled as "central business," the modified land use assigned to it is "general commercial." Similarly, a property currently labeled as "residential/professional" was assigned a modified land use designation of "neighborhood office." There were only a few modified labels used in the analysis, while there were many provided labels in the original data sets that varied between existing designations, future designations, and the land use growth policy label. Creating a modified land use designation reduced the variety of labels and provided consistency across planning periods and data sets. The maps in Appendix B show the different land areas anticipated for development within each planning period. These land areas were assigned a map number that corresponds to a table in the upper right corner of each map that identifies the future land use, commercial/industrial acres of growth, and residential dwelling units planned within each area. These map numbers are unique to each planning period; one parcel of land may have a different number from one planning period to the next. Table 3-4 lists the different types of growth anticipated within each parcel for the 0-5 year planning period. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 22 Table 3-4: Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 3 - Basis of Planning June 2019 Period 1 Neighborhood Commercial 10 0 35 2 Suburban Residential 0 60 377 3 Urban Residential 0 150 195 4 Urban Mixed Use 10 75 47 5 Urban Mixed Use 40 0 553 6 Urban Residential 0 10 94 7 High Density Residential 0 100 27 8 Urban Residential 0 150 631 9 Urban Mixed Use 7 0 195 10 High Density Residential 0 120 159 11 Commercial 8 0 161 12 Public or Open Space 0 50 229 13 Neighborhood Commercial 5 0 7 14 Urban Residential 0 40 285 15 Urban Residential 0 40 571 16 Urban Residential 0 70 646 17 Urban Residential 0 20 186 18 Commercial 0 50 47 19 Industrial 28 0 113 20 Urban Mixed Use 0 120 26 21 Urban Residential 0 130 275 22 Public or Open Space 10 0 38 Total 118 1,185 4,895 Table 3-4 can be explained as follows: • For the Map Number 4 parcel in the 0-5 year period, for example, the total acreage of the parcel is 47 acres. • During the 0-5 year planning period, 10 acres of commercial or industrial growth is expected to occur on the parcel along with 75 residential dwelling units. • The total area column (far right) is the total land area extents of the properties identified within each map number. This value does not indicate total acres developed within the 0-5 year planning period. A map summarizing the growth areas for each planning period was previously provided as Figure 3-1. This map also shows the current Kalispell city limits, the 2015 Annexation Boundary (which corresponds to FBO), and the larger Growth Policy Planning Area. P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2-S Page 23 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 CHAPTER 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION Wastewater characterization involves the analysis of existing wastewater flows to better understand the City's wastewater generation trends. Wastewater characterization is necessary to assess the capabilities of the City's existing facilities to adequately address current wastewater needs and ensure the design and functionality of proposed wastewater system components can sufficiently accommodate future wastewater needs. This chapter provides an overview of the City's historical wastewater generation trends and defines recent wastewater generation and wastewater forecasting trends. Additionally, this chapter presents the City's projected future wastewater needs for the different planning periods identified in Chapter 3. The City's average total wastewater flow trends are shown in Figure 4-1, which represents the City's daily wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) influent flow rate over the past 12 years. 10.0 9.0 8.0 0 7.0 3 6.0 0 5.0 v 4.0 v 3.0 A2.8 2.0 1.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Wastewater Flow Historical Average Figure 4-1: Daily Influent Wastewater Flow Figure 4-1 will be reviewed in detail in the following sections to determine the City's past wastewater trends as well as anticipated future wastewater flows. Results from the wastewater analysis were incorporated into the hydraulic collection system model to evaluate both existing and future collection system performance. The model was also used to determine future recommended collection system capital improvements. P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 24 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1 Existing Wastewater Flow Analysis The following sections outline various wastewater flow terms. Each of the flow terms are used for a specific purpose in wastewater system planning. Additionally, all flow terms presented hereafter in this chapter are represented in terms of million gallons per day (MGD) unless otherwise stated. 4.1.1 Average Annual Flow Average Annual Flow (AAF) is calculated by taking the annual wastewater influent flow volume divided by the number of days in a given year. The AAF 12-year historic average is 2.8 MGD, the 2017 AAF is 3.0 MGD, and the largest AAF occurred in 2011 at 3.1 MGD. The 12-year historical AAFs are provided in Figure 4-2, which includes all flows from the City, Evergreen District, and Sewer Only Accounts. 4.0 3.5 0 l7 3.0 2.8 2.5 0 2.0 Me 3.1 1.5 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 0 1.0 0.5 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Average Annual Flow (AAF) AAF 12-Year Historic Average Figure 4-2: Average Annual Flow (AAF) P05610-2017-003 y RIFF Page 25 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1.2 Maximum Monthlv Flow Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF) is defined by taking an average of the daily flows for each month and selecting the month when the maximum flows occurred during each calendar year. This is commonly referred to as Average Wet Weather Flow (AWWF) for regulatory purposes. The MMF 12-year historic average is 3.6 MGD, where the largest MMF occurred in March of 2017 at 5.2 MGD. The 12-year historical MMFs are provided in Figure 4-3 and shown in Table 4-1. The MMFs include all flows from the City, Evergreen District, and Sewer Only Accounts. 6.0 5.0 0 l7 4.0 3 0 i 3.0 2.0 1.0 we 3.6 5.2 4.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.0 2.7 2.9 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF) MMF 12-Year Historic Average Figure 4-3: Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF) Table 4-1: Maximum Mon M M F 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.6 4.3 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.8 2.9 5.2 Month of JUN MAR JUN MAR JUN JUN JUN MAY JUN FEB FEB MAR Record P05610-2017-003 0 y AE4s Page 26 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1.3 Maximum Dailv Flow Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) is defined as the largest amount of wastewater generated in a given day over a one-year timespan. The MDF 12-year historic average is 5.7 MGD, while the largest MDF occurred in 2017 at 8.7 MGD. The 12-year historical MDFs are provided in Figure 4-4 and shown in tabular form in Table 4-2. The MDFs include all flows from the City, Evergreen District, and Sewer Only Accounts. 10.0 9.0 p 8.0 l7 7.0 0 6.0 5.0 4.0 N 3.0 M 2.0 1.0 0.0 8.5 8.7 5.6 6.4 4.6 6.1 5.4 5.0 ❑ 5.8 3.9 4.4 4.5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) -MDF 12-Year Historic Average Figure 4-4: Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) MDF 5.6 3.9 6.4 4.6 6.1 5.4 5.0 4.4 8.5 5.8 4.5 8.7 Day of 4/6 5/24 7/1 3/23 6/21 6/8 6/6 5/22 6/18 2/9 5/22 3/16 Record As shown in Table 4-2, the MDF generally occurs during a spring or summer month. This is common (and expected) and is typically attributed to Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) influences from a significant rain event and/or snowmelt occurring during the spring and summer months. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 27 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1.4 Peak Hourly Flow and Peaking Factor Evaluation Peak Hourly Flow (PHF) is the largest volume of wastewater flow to be received during a one - hour period expressed as a volume per unit of time. The Kalispell WWTF should be sized to accommodate the PHF. Three methods were explored for evaluating PHF for the City, which are provided below. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Ratio of Peak Hourly Flow to Design Average Flow 2. Metropolitan Council Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design 3. Kalispell Hourly Wastewater Flow Records - Original 4.1.4.1 MDEQ Ratio of Peak Hourly Flow to Design Average Flow MDEQ has design standards for public sewage systems which contains an equation to calculate peak hourly flow. The equation is as follows, where the variable "Y' is population in thousands. 18+ V-P Design Peak Hourly Flow = 4+ V-P * Design Average Flow The equation allows a peaking factor to be calculated based on population. Once the peaking factor is calculated, it is multiplied by the design average flow, or in this case the AAF, to calculate a design PHF. In 2016, the US Census population estimate for the City was 22,761. Using the 2016 US Census Estimate, the 2016 peaking factor is 2.6. However, Evergreen District contributes wastewater to the Kalispell WWTF, therefore the Evergreen District population should also be considered. It's estimated that Evergreen District had a population of approximately 8,577 in 2016 (assumed 2.0 percent annual growth from 2010 Census population of 7,616). This equates to a total service population of 31,338 people in 2016, with a respective peaking factor of 2.5. 4.1.4.2 Metropolitan Council Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design The Metropolitan Council is the regional policy -making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan region in Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) division provides water and wastewater services to the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area.3 2 Fair, G.M. and Geyer, J.C. "Water Supply and Waste -water Disposal" 1st Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, (1954), P. 136 3 Metropolitan Council. Who We Are. hops://metrocouncil.org/About-Us/The-Council-Who-We-Are.aspx. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 28 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 The Council developed a 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan in partnership with local communities, watershed management organizations, and other stakeholders.4 Included in this plan were PHF factors for sewer design with different degrees of expected I/I, which are provided as Table 4-35 and Table 4-46. These tables were both considered for this WWFPU and compared to the other peaking factor methods. Table 4-3: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design AAF .. Smaller Peaking Factors acto 0.00-0.11 4.0 1.90-2.29 2.8 0.12-0.18 3.9 2.30-2.89 2.7 0.19-0.23 3.8 2.90-3.49 2.6 0.24-0.29 3.7 3.50-4.19 2.5 0.30-0.39 3.6 4.20-5.09 2.4 0.40-0.49 3.5 5.10-6.39 2.3 0.50-0.64 3.4 6.40-7.99 2.2 0.65 - 0.79 3.3 8.00 - 10.39 2.1 0.80 - 0.99 3.2 10.40 - 13.49 2.0 1.00 - 1.19 3.1 13.50 - 17.99 1.9 1.20 - 1.49 3.0 18.00 - 29.99 1.8 1.50 - 1.89 2.9 Over 30.00 1.7 Table 4-4: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design Larger Peakin Factors <0.10 4.5 2.51- 3.00 3.2 0.11-0.20 4.4 3.01-3.50 3.1 0.21-0.30 4.3 3.51-4.00 3.0 0.31-0.40 4.2 4.01-4.50 2.9 0.41-0.50 4.1 4.51-5.00 2.8 0.51-0.60 4.0 5.01-6.00 2.7 0.61-0.70 3.9 6.01-8.00 2.6 0.71-0.80 3.8 8.01-10.00 2.5 0.81-1.00 3.7 10.01-12.00 2.4 1.01-1.20 3.6 12.01-16.00 2.3 1.21-1.50 3.5 16.01-20.00 2.2 1.51-2.00 3.4 20.01-30.00 2.1 2.01- 2.50 3.3 > 30.00 2.0 4 Metropolitan Council. 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. hops://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater- W ater/Planning/2040-Water-Resource s-Policy-Plan.aspx. 5 Metropolitan Council. 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, Table Al. Page 61. May 20, 2015. 6 Metropolitan Council. 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, Table A2. Page 62. May 20, 2015. P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 29 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 As previously mentioned, the 2017 AAF for Kalispell was 3.0 MGD. Using this value in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4, peaking factors of 2.6 and 3.2 were determined. Ultimately the peaking factor of 3.2 was utilized because it provided a larger, more conservative value for planning, and provides considerations for I/I susceptibility. 4.1.4.3 Kalispell Observed Hourly Wastewater Flow Records - Original The City of Kalispell provided hourly WWTF influent flow records for four sample periods in 2017. The sample periods are as follows: • September 9, 2017 - September 17, 2017 (Dry Weather - September) • March 13, 2017 - March 22, 2017 (Wet Weather - March) • April 22, 2017 -April 30, 2017 (Wet Weather -April) • June 13, 2017 - June 18, 2017 (Wet Weather - June) These sample periods were selected based on rainfall records. There was 0.0 inches of rain recorded during the dry weather - September sample period, 1.13 inches of rain recorded during the wet weather - March sample period, 1.04 inches of rain recorded during the wet weather - April sample period, and 0.96 inches of rain recorded during the wet weather - June sample period. The dry weather period shows great consistency regarding wastewater generation throughout the day, with 10:00 am through 4:00 pm showing the largest amount of wastewater generated, and 2:00 am through 8:00 am showing the least amount of wastewater generated. The wet weather sample periods show slightly more variability, which is likely attributed to rainfall that occurred over those periods. The hourly flow records for the dry weather sample period and wet weather sample periods are provided in Table 4-5, Table 4-6, Table 4-7, and Table 4-8, respectively. Additionally, these hourly flow records are plotted and represented as diurnal patterns in Figure 4-5, Figure 4-6, Figure 4-7, and Figure 4-8 The PHF was determined by selecting the maximum quantity of wastewater that was registered over a one -hour timespan. Once the PHF rate was identified, the PHF rate was divided by 3.0 MGD, which was the 2017 AAF. The dry and wet weather PHF rates and associated peaking factors are defined on the following pages under Table 4-5, Table 4-6, Table 4-7, and Table 4-8. P05610-2017-003 ,inAIIE Page 30 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM Table 4-5: 52,591 72,556 98,504 123,251 143,444 143,301 143,825 132,698 130,330 117,072 116,789 115,311 113,559 112,246 111,882 105,211 100,713 85,868 78,195 63,623 57,320 54,330 52,120 49,395 56,885 65,905 97,300 126,696 131,255 142,884 137,003 127,432 122,702 117,030 113,086 117,389 112,618 121,185 127,005 125,167 107,017 92,358 73,670 60,917 52,243 48,165 51,226 54,866 Weather 75,725 117,047 136,368 135,714 137,207 136,636 130,543 127,929 119,206 117,217 113,651 114,742 121,416 117,374 123,585 121,742 106,623 91,814 73,320 63,122 57,514 50,396 54,628 59,139 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Influent Flow (9/9/17 - 9/17/1 82,767 83,293 77,441 116,973 117,937 107,676 131,157 133,589 120,776 135,977 134,379 128,594 134,682 131,428 135,556 134,230 136,014 135,098 127,731 128,407 134,878 123,931 123,961 129,521 120,506 115,060 131,900 116,992 116,652 122,319 109,572 118,137 121,489 115,908 118,208 122,099 117,254 119,908 120,400 117,661 MTM"F120,415 125,490 125,037 119,460 122,552 120,556 114,949 110,875 110,842 105,735 90,820 96,221 89,367 73,801 77,601 77,340 60,026 61,454 63,327 55,728 57,719 57,469 49,543 54,791 56,706 57,108 56,655 51,078 53,253 55,530 55,829 71,861 56,939 53,577 96,924 73,627 65,899 116,989 100,567 97,071 133,456 127,082 121,336 139,446 142,250 137,993 135,984 146,215 143,288 136,455 145,354 137,550 133,495 134,567 134,536 127,301 128,457 125,350 122,566 122,742 126,093 120,984 120,155 119,501 120,978 115,552 116,503 117,892 114,817 118,293 114,706 114,403 122,837 113,049 112,655 126,818 107,769 108,516 116,816 98,297 99,477 101,807 88,704 90,121 89,188 76,304 75,887 69,915 61,179 61,441 57,543 58,925 56,791 53,145 54,708 55,978 52,226 52,808 57,154 49,886 50,721 50,577 54,555 Notes: 1 The table is conditionally formatted, where dark blue values represent the largest quantities of wastewater generated, and dark red values represent the least amount of wastewater generated. 2 The dry weather PHF during the sample period occurred on Saturday, September 16, 2017. 3 Dry weather PHF = 146,215 GPH = 3.5 MGD As shown in the table, the dry weather PHF rate recorded during the sample period was 3.5 MGD. The peaking factor can be calculated by dividing 3.5 by 3.0 (2017 AAF), which equates to 1.2. P05610-2017-003 y AE2-S Page 31 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Table 4-6: Wet Weather Hourlv Influent Flow (3/13/17 - 3/22/1 8:00 AM 196,235 270,726 291,554 334,870 313,536 244,668 261,340 254,989 236,693 234,765 9:00 AM 220,555 294,620 316,556 360,264 335,026 259,033 270,215 281,189 264,851 262,939 10:00 AM 245,417 314,983 330,453 374,180 350,591 281,789 294,180 307,36 , 281,281 11:00 AM 246,442 344,498 330,689 377,591 352,678 308,912 322,633 305,935 285,485 277,506 12:00 PM 251,193 367,662 329,334 376,028 325,093142,635 39,955 311,299 280,196 280,307 1:00 PM 252,207 386,367 331,502 377,21802,64 2,6333,14945,213 305,432 284,655 275,297 2:00 PM 255,593 376,951 333,155 375,718 346,583 333,341 302,466 278,591 273,177 3:00 PM 257,842 364,988 329,551 386,869 342,008 332,356 332,730 292,103 273,078 269,750 4:00 PM 256,749 352,481 332,682 391,007 335,276 332,231 323,675 289,409 265,245 273,787 5:00 PM 264,400 350,805 336,393 394,044 334,509 330,488 319,870 287,705 266,644 268,825 6:00 PM 281,278 352,937 340,307 394,638 326,828 333,298 318,229 283,463 263,988 264,959 7:00 PM 311,406 357,535 350,680 397,380 326,862 345,432 316,577 281,879 269,228 270,267 8:00 PM 334,634 362,011 354,498 398,924 321,546 357,8801 312,110 286,931 269,744 270,810 9:00 PM 351,442 359,485 365,675 1405,926 319,226 359,523 323,029 289,640 276,110 278'73� 10:00 PM 357,343 356,374 377,886 400,253 I 314,435 352,494 325,355 290,817 278,082 279,861 11:00 PM 347,215 349,137 405,865 391,053 307,446 340,722 315,584 284,507 271,083 274,603 12:00 AM 318,436 330,877 414,395 373,537 296,908 326,058 300,987 268,948 255,353 257,018 1:00 AM 288,691 311,003 388,425 346,548 286,014 309,809 275,188 246,712 235,848 235,649 2:00 AM 267,861 286,489 361,629 325,954 269,886 291,526 251,597 229,300 228,462 221,968 3:00 AM 247,554 274,966 344,291 307,350 253,282 280,694 240,050 215,863 225,907 207,497 4:00 AM 241,538 266,352 330,052 296,201 246,069 273,658 232,407 206,210 215,173 198,937 5:00 AM 235,252 264,579 320,188 293,106 242,442 265,388 229,842 205,415 210,286 196,278 6:00 AM 242,228 262,038 315,489 286,036 237,568 260,475 223,222 204,292 206,094 194,378 7:00 AM 252,671 273,035 320,994 j 295,134 238,758 256,973 233,924 214,286 214,342 205,569 Notes: 1 The table is conditionally formatted, where dark blue values represent the largest quantities of wastewater generated, and dark red values represent the least amount of wastewater generated. 2 The wet weather PHF during the sample period occurred on Wednesday, March 15, 2017. 3 Wet weather PHF = 414,395 GPH = 9.9 MGD As shown in the table, the wet weather PHF rate recorded during the sample period was 9.9 MGD. The peaking factor can be calculated by dividing 9.9 by 3.0 (2017 AAF), which equates to 3.3. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 32 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Time Table 4-7: Wet Weather Hourly Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Influent Flow 4/22/17 - 4/30/17 Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 8:00 AM 101,491 95,926 121,367 123,768 134,765 145,873 141,758 120,818 119,697 9:00 AM 126,843 120,711 159,475 156,840 169,641 180,931 171,037 138,635 131,476 10:00 AM 154,556 140,224 175,667 179,802 189,298 198,258 190,394 166,326 158,677 11:00 AM 180,416 169,637 180,107 177,590 197,692 195,356 193,289 189,519 187,194 12:00 PM 188,403 184,193 177,381 174,013 207,183 191,726 189,536 197,894 198,269 1:00 PM 184,350 186,323 172,253 176,007 217,716 193,758 188,720 203,967 203,605 2:00 PM 176,050 183,778 170,328 179,854 207,809 189,851 180,191 197,691 202,029 3:00 PM 165,919 176,894 167,773 191,005 199,078 181,002 176,748 188,308 195,293 4:00 PM 162,077 8 941 160,049 181,656 195,855 185,752 175,408 211,527 191,875 5:00 PM 154,758 171,713 158,785 172,810 188,493 181,347 180,313 193,611 182,156 6:00 PM 154,009 164,150 154,350 204,628 184,179 174,879 191,517 180,097 179,676 7:00 PM 149,945 167,995 155,630 204,648 200,570 180,175 190,974 174,860 177,391 8:00 PM 151,618 166,958 158,124 203,687 200,804 179,004 185,437 175,244 180,905 9:00 PM 153,742 170,553 176,606 202,869 197,846 181,454 186,565 177,914 184,432 10:00 PM 150,319 173,273 ` 179,618 187,356 204,357 182,571 177,500 172,893 192,545 11:00 PM 149,561 165,607 167,756 179,064 196,637 181,659 178,582 170,016 185,387 12:00 AM 145,849 153,621 152,713 166,436 177,481 167,473 162,916 166,129 169,968 1:00 AM 128,865 134,760 135,712 144,168 154,993 151,653 151,601 147,893 151,491 2:00 AM 119,699 110,865 115,154 124,098 138,020 127,061 132,234 139,926 132,620 3:00 AM 103,703 98,632 99,550 109,691 124,544 117,959 126,503 123,594 114,710 4:00 AM 94,607 94,509 98,072 107,636 120,538 114,958 117,595 120,668 109,132 5:00 AM 95,231 88,711 88,839 98,398 115,573 106,336 120,144 113,242 106,174 6:00 AM 90,447 91,086 95,329 97,529 118,420 108,006 114,667 112,619 110,008 7:00 AM 91,932 98,981 100,256 108,092 123,923 113,691 115,434 110,060 115,890 Notes: 1 The table is conditionally formatted, where dark blue values represent the largest quantities of wastewater generated, and dark red values represent the least amount of wastewater generated. 2 The wet weather PHF during the sample period occurred on Wednesday, April 26, 2017. 3 Wet weather PHF = 217,716 GPH = 5.2 MGD As shown in the table, the wet weather PHF rate recorded during the sample period was 5.2 MGD. The peaking factor can be calculated by dividing 5.2 by 3.0 (2017 AAF), which equates to 1.7. P05610-2017-003 ; y AE2-S Page 33 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Table 4-8: Wet Weather Hourlv Influent Flow (6/13/17 - 6/18/1 8:00 AM 89,090 - 101,448 96,790 101,348 86,646 76,658 9:00 AM 121,960 133,555 126,011 127,778 105,224 94,288 1 10:00 AM 133,092 155,653 147,109 150,065 127,212 112,686 11:00 AM 149,611 161,297 149,824 155,841 147,541 141,441 12:00 PM 149,461 161,228 153,426 159,103 159,180 151,897 1:00 PM 147,267 153,594 149,436 155,614 159,045 154,055 2:00 PM 148,831 144,765 145,316 149,186 150,150 154,162 3:00 PM 150,429 141,596 142,545 143,763 143,817 144,115 4:00 PM 149,538 F 138,738 143,066 139,926 139,040 140,496 5:00 PM 171,077 134,915 139,692 138,112 134,218 134,380 6:00 PM 197,977 126,268 131,611 129,704 127,232 127,468 7:00 PM 182,933 126,498 135,013 135,862 130,244 131,785 8:00 PM 159,261 129,484 136,041 140,703 124,385 128,667 9:00 PM 156,017 132,558 132,418 143,903 123,598 130,033 10:00 PM 160,594 129,829 135,479 137,311 119,311 132,203 11:00 PM 149,504 128,509 134,901 132,553 119,158 134,017 12:00 AM 135,961 131,636 127,178 126,412 117,050 124,506 1:00 AM 117,303 114,906 113,287 118,559 112,697 116,640 2:00 AM 98,658 97,989 95,441 131,123 95,948 96,803 3:00 AM 89,608 86,135 85,361 120,569 85,148 85,638 4:00 AM 80,760 74,501 81,794 102,434 78,252 74,251 5:00 AM 73,859 70,771 84,189 87,793 69,585 71,318 6:00 AM 71,891 65,363 75,353 76,590 69,332 73,246 7:00 AM 82,462 76,186 76,878 76,896 J& 74,735 74,604 Notes: 1 The table is conditionally formatted, where dark blue values represent the largest quantities of wastewater generated, and dark red values represent the least amount of wastewater generated. 2 The wet weather PHF during the sample period occurred on Tuesday, June 13, 2017. 3 Wet weather PHF = 197,977 GPH = 4.8 MGD As shown in the table, the wet weather PHF rate recorded during the sample period was 4.8 MGD. The peaking factor can be calculated by dividing 4.8 by 3.0 (2017 AAF), which equates to 1.6. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 34 450,000 400,000 _ 350,000 x 0 300,000 0 250,000 x Q 200,000 ° ° 150,000 FE 0 100,000 50,000 [Il 450,000 400,000 _ 350,000 x 0 300,000 o 250,000 Q 200,000 ° 150,000 FE 0 100,000 50,000 Ell Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 ci ci ci ci ci ci Time Saturday 9/9/17 Sunday 9/10/17 Monday 9/11/17 Tuesday 9/12/17 Wednesday 9/13/17 Thursday 9/14/17 Friday 9/15/17 Saturday 9/16/17 Sunday 9/17/17 Figure 4-5: Dry Weather (September Sample) Diurnal Pattern Q a Q a Q Q a Q a Q a a Q a Q a Q Q a Q a Q a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X l0 T r,4 N O X l0 T N N O X l0 T N N O X l0 T N N O ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci Time Monday 3/13/17 Tuesday 3/14/17 Wednesday 3/15/17 Thursday 3/16/17 Friday 3/17/17 Saturday 3/18/17 Sunday 3/19/17 Monday 3/20/17 Tuesday 3/21/17 Wednesday 3/22/17 Figure 4-6: Wet Weather (March Sample) Diurnal Pattern P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2.S Page 35 450,000 400,000 350,000 x 300,000 0 250,000 x Q 200,000 ° ° 150,000 M 0 100,000 50,000 [li 450,000 400,000 _ 350,000 x 0 300,000 o 250,000 Q 200,000 ° 150,000 FE 0 100,000 50,000 L7 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Q a Q Q a Q a a Q a Q Q a Q a a Q a Q Q a Q a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 X M N -1 ci ci ci ci ci ci Time Saturday 4/22/17 Sunday 4/23/17 Monday 4/24/17 Tuesday 4/25/17 Wednesday 4/26/17 Thursday 4/27/17 Friday 4/28/17 Saturday 4/29/17 Sunday 4/30/17 Figure 4-7: Wet Weather (April Sample) Diurnal Pattern Tuesday 6/13/2017 Wednesday 6/14/2017 Thursday 6/15/2017 Friday 6/16/2017 Saturday 6/17/2017 Sunday 6/18/2017 Q a a Q a a Q Q a a Q a a Q Q a Q Q a a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pp M O M N n N M T M O M N n CV M ci ci ci ci ci Time Figure 4-8: Wet Weather (June Sample) Diurnal Pattern P05610-2017-003 y AE2.S Page 36 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1.4.4 Peak Hourly Flow Summary A summary of the PHF evaluation is provided below in Table 4-9. Table 4-9: PHF and P MDEQ 3.0 MGD MCES 3.0 MGD Factor Evaluation Summ 2.5 7.5 M G D 3.2 9.6 MGD Kalispell Records 3.0 MGD 3.3 9.9 MGD (Original) Recommended Peaking Factor 3.3 1=6 62► I CIII The City of Kalispell should use a peaking factor of 3.3 for planning purposes. This is considered a city-wide peaking factor for planning purposes. The 3.3 peaking factor will be used to plan for future PHF rates. There is more general information on future peaking factors, and how peaking factors are a function of population presented in Section 4.2.1. 4.1.5 Rainfall and Seasonal Wastewater Variations Wastewater systems commonly experience higher wastewater flows during spring and summer months. This is typically attributed to wet weather events such as snow melt and rainfall, as well as increased water demands. To evaluate seasonal variations, rainfall was compared to wastewater generated to see if there was a correlation between the two data series. Table 4-10 and Figure 4-9 show rainfall data, and Table 4-11 and Figure 4-10 show wastewater data. P05610-2017-003 '�y AEzS' Page 37 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 2007 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.9 2.6 1.0 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.3 2008 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.6 3.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.4 1.3 2.5 2009 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.8 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.3 1.4 2010 1.6 0.4 0.6 2.0 2.4 4.2 0.9 1.4 1.8 0.5 2.5 2.2 2011 2.4 1.2 1.1 1.8 1.9 3.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.4 0.7 2012 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.9 6.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 2.7 1.5 1.2 2013 0.9 0.2 0.9 1.4 3.0 2.7 0.3 1.3 2.4 0.3 2.5 1.6 2014 1.4 1.1 2.4 1.2 1.2 5.2 0.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 2.5 2.4 2015 2.4 1.1 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.5 2.4 2016 1.5 0.8 1.3 1.6 3.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.9 4.9 0.6 1.8 2017 1.0 2.8 2.7 2.4 0.8 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.6 2.3 AVG 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.8 3.00 ; 2.50 2.00 c 1.50 1.00 m cg� 0.50 NOR o�ei Oo� °,ems S� Month Figure 4-9: Average Monthly Rainfall (Wet Months to Dry Months) P05610-2017-003 y AE2-S Page 38 O Ol LO M 00 M N O l0 M c I I- LD N Lf1 M r-I Lf1 M 1.0 M Lf1 Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N l0 00 O l0 -t O r-I r-I 1.0 I- l0 (Y•f l0 l0 M �* cA U) M N I- l0 N N N N N N N N N N N N I- Ol N Ol I- Ol 00 LO �t �* lD lD Lq l0 M M l0 :� rV N N 00 :� N N N N N N N N N N N N ro l0 00 I- �t Ln 00 Ln rn �t rn o to I� to to M M Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N Lf1 (.0 N r-I l0 61 O r-I l0 1.0 r-I U) O� 00 Il LD n n O0 I: 1� (Y•f Lq Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N ri r-I N M r-I Lf1 Lf) 00 O �t M O O Ol :� r� ri ri N M I� lz� Lq 1-0 M N ('A N M M M N N N N N Lf1 LO U) N N 01 Lf) O O ::J- ,::J: to M l0 rq Il l0 l0 Lq Il O� M N J N M �t (Y•I N rn N N N 00 -1 l0 01 �t (YI I- N O �t M l0 Cl Cl O l0 00 :� rl� rl� 00 lz� W N N N M N N M N N N N Na M ,::J- Ol M M 00 r-I 00 l0 r-I O ri lz� rl� C� ri l0 Ol l0 l0 O0 00 l0 M N N M N M N N N oV N Lf1 M l0 �t 00 -zl- c-I l0 �t r- r-I 00 O� O O� M l0 ri Uf Izzi: l0 N l0 c-I N M N M N -zl- N N M M N Ln M N N Lf1 Ql l0 O N Lq I� Ol 00 N N N N N M N N N M N N Ol 00 1.0 00 Ol N l0 M 00 U) O I:zj- ci l0 l0 I� ri `�: M Uf Izzi: Izzi- M N N N N N N N N N N N l0 I- 00 Ol O r-I N M � Lf1 l0 I- O O O O r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N 7C"r r3 fr y 00 � � o •U � � � O N O o � � Ln � Lf) N yw � LD N � �•' � O r-+ N � bA cd Lf) M 00 c� C C M o O O � bA O cn � O M U U (mj � � � N N N 0, C M cd p M C C CY) r� y ,Qn n O ou Qn v a� p N C Ca a� N N > Q (") O O O N O 10 LO O IL o � N o Q a a a a � o v a 3 o ❑ 3 N a, a H E a O N O Z dl dl � oN o U U O m � � o 3 O � � Q v x. � ° N 3 o � N O � n � CA Q CC } ci cc COI O Q O O N � � ca � c _ O Q O Q U O ■ Ora i 7 LL O N ra 7 C Cl) 0 p O O Cal O O O O O O O CD to Ln M N c-I O (OE)W) AeQ aad suolleE) uoill!N o IL Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 To gain a better understanding on the influence rainfall has on wastewater flows, I/I was studied further in the following section. CNW.�Ia�i"IW91 MOVOTO IB onIMO A I/I is a critical consideration when evaluating collection system capacity. With the presence of groundwater, infiltration can influence the system during dry weather. This is referred to as groundwater infiltration (GWI), which is included in AAF. During and after rain events, flows within the collection system increase in response to the rainfall. This increase in wastewater flow is known as rainfall derived infiltration and inflow (RDII). The RDII flow component is combined with peak sanitary flows to define the total wastewater flow conveyed by the wastewater collection system and treated at the WWTF. This peak wet weather flow condition is a worst -case scenario in evaluating a collection system. Selecting the RDII flow component can be difficult to justify because other events can contribute to large wastewater flows such as draining swimming pools, irrigation -related activities, and other circumstances. The approach utilized in this WWFPU is to correlate observed wastewater flow data with observed rainfall data from usclimatedata.com (Figure 4-11). 16.000 11 IIJ0.000 14.000 - - 0.500 0 c� 12.000 - - 1.000 � N 10.000 1.500 o 8.000 — 2.000 v 6 6.000 — 2.500 v � Ln 0 4.000 3.000 2.000 3.500 0.000 4.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 4-11: Wastewater Flow versus Rainfall P05610-2017-003 J% AE s* Page 41 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 As shown in Figure 4-11, there are some spikes in wastewater generated on days where the City experienced a significant rain event. In an effort to try to gain a more representative 1/1 component, an average of the wastewater flows during respective rainfall events were calculated to condense the data set. The results from this process are shown in Figure 4-12. 9.0 • 8.0 7.0 • 0 l7 6.0 • 3 - 5.0 • • • 4.0 3.0 �& ( p p ° O �v • 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 Rainfall (in) Figure 4-12: Correlation Between Wastewater Flow and Rainfall The results shown in Figure 4-12 provide a relatively strong correlation between rainfall and wastewater flow. The graphic generally shows that wastewater flows increase with increased rainfall, meaning that the City is susceptible to 1/1. On March 16, 2017, the City experienced their MDF for the year of 8.7 MGD. The City experienced heavy rainfall for three consecutive days (cumulative total of 0.78 inches) prior to this flow reading. Based on the historical wastewater and rainfall data, the City will continue to experience wastewater flow spikes of nearly 3-times their AAF unless 1/1 is mitigated. It is recommended that the City try to minimize 1/1 entering the wastewater collection system. The following suggestions provide methods to further reduce I/L- • Remove all direct and indirect connections between the storm and sanitary sewer systems. Utilize smoke testing and other methods to identify connection locations. Ensure customer sump pumps are discharging to the storm sewer system. P05610-2017-003 :; AE2-S' Page 42 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 • Utilize pipe inspection technology such as leak detection and sewer televising to identify cracks in collection system pipes where groundwater infiltration is occurring. Make repairs to cracked, collapsed, and damaged pipes and structures. Reducing I/I provides many cost -savings benefits such as lower wastewater treatment costs, lower electrical and pumping costs, and smaller diameter pipes (because the pipes only need to convey sanitary sewage compared to storm and sanitary sewage). However, I/I is extremely difficult to locate and mitigate. Many municipalities have made significant investments towards I/I reduction and not experienced the benefits to justify the investment. In some cases, it could be more cost effective to implement a dedicated conveyance system to convey sanitary sewage and I/I rather than invest in multiple I/I reduction projects. Because this WWFPU only included comparing city-wide rainfall data to city-wide wastewater flows, it is recommended that the City conduct a separate I/I study to evaluate I/I in more detail. Included in that study could be items such as deploying multiple flow meters and rain gauges in dedicated sanitary sewersheds, televising sewers, inspecting manholes, smoke testing, and a cost -benefit analysis. A thorough I/I study will help the City determine the most cost-effective solution for managing I/I. 4.1.7 Kalispell WWTF Wastewater Customers Previous sections have included various analyses of wastewater flows recorded by the Kalispell WWTF. The Kalispell WWTF receives wastewater flow from three "groups" of customers, which are (1) Evergreen District (2) City of Kalispell, and (3) Sewer Only customers. All three groups of customers contribute wastewater throughout the collection system and WWTF. These three groups are defined in more detail below. 4.1.7.1 Water Metered Compared to Wastewater Generated In order to properly convert water meter records into estimated wastewater flow, water meter records were compared to the WWTF daily influent records. Figure 4-13 below shows water metered compared to WWTF daily influent, which is represented as the AAF. P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 43 501 0 l7 3.5 0 Q" 3.0 0 0 2.5 WE 2.0 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Annual Average Water Metered Annual Average Wastewater Generated i ♦ i 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Figure 4-13: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent As shown in Figure 4-13, the WWTF daily influent is not always below the water metered records. This is because Evergreen District and the Sewer Only customers do not receive water directly from the City of Kalispell, but they do contribute to the overall wastewater total. A similar graphic to Figure 4-13 is represented in Section 4.1.7.3, which shows estimated annual wastewater generated by City water customers only. 4.1.7.2 Evergreen District Evergreen District initially entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Kalispell in 1990 in which Evergreen District conveys sewage to be treated at the Kalispell WWTF. The agreement has been updated serval times since 1990, with the latest being in February 19, 2019. The current Agreement delineates the provision of services and responsibilities of Kalispell and Evergreen District with respect to municipal wastewater services that may be provided to properties located within the delineated service area. As of the most current agreement update, Kalispell has agreed to receive and treat an average daily sewage volume rate of 0.805 MGD. However, the wastewater characterization analysis was conducted utilizing the previous agreement amount of 0.782 MGD. Monthly wastewater flow records were provided by the City of Kalispell to be evaluated for this WWFPU. The monthly wastewater flow records are provided as Table 4-12, and the AAF is represented in Figure 4-14. P05610-2017-003 :; AEzS* Page 44 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Table 4-12: Evergreen District Monthly Wastewater Flows 0.50 v a Ln 0.30 0 0 0.20 0 0.10 1 11 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 0 AAF Historic AAF ......••• Linear Trend (AAF) 2006 2007 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 4-14: Evergreen District Average Annual Flow (AAF) 4.1.7.3 City of Kalispell City of Kalispell customers are defined as sewer customers who receive water service from the City of Kalispell. Water meter records were analyzed to gain a better understanding of wastewater flows generated by customers living within the City of Kalispell. Water meter records for 8,280 customers from 2007 - 2016 were evaluated to estimate existing wastewater flow. For the time period of 2007 - 2016, the average daily demand (ADD) was compared to the WWTF daily influent records (represented as AAF), less the Evergreen District AAF. This comparison is provided in Figure 4-15. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS. Page 46 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 — Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Annual Average Water Metered Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen) 4.0 0 3.5 3.0 .�' ��. �� �� _�~ v 2.5 a c 2.0 0 1.5 1.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Figure 4-15: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent (Less Evergreen District) Once the flows from Evergreen District were subtracted from the Kalispell AAF, it appears that total wastewater generated by Kalispell customers is approximately 78.5 percent of total water metered (on average). However, this percentage still doesn't include sewer only customers from Kalispell. The wastewater conversion percentage used to convert water meter records to wastewater flows is estimated to be approximately 71.5 percent, where sewer only customers make up the differential between 78.5 percent and 71.5 percent (7 percent). Water consumption and estimated wastewater flows for the sample period are presented in Table 4-13. Table 4-13: Kalispell Customers Average Annual Flow (AAF) 6�C torner Clajss General Commercial of I Nurnbejp Account 1,041 Water ll Metered (m illion gallons) 3,820 Wastewater Generated (million gallons) 2,732 Wastewater Generate (MGD) 0.68 Single Dwelling 5,672 5,684 4,064 1.01 Public Institutional 86 258 184 0.05 Light Industrial 48 56 40 0.01 Neighborhood Office 316 409 292 0.07 Multiple Dwelling 1,026 1,178 843 0.21 Industrial 91 1 348 1 249 0.06 Total 8,280 11,753 1 8,404 2.09 Sample Period Size 4,018 Days Wastewater Conversion Percentage 71.5% Average Annual Flow (MGD) 2.09 P05610-2017-003 :; REzS Page 47 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.1.7.4 Sewer Only Customers The City of Kalispell provided water meter records (from 5/1/17 - 5/31/18) for 868 sewer only customers, where the customers were represented in four customer classes. Sewer only customers do not receive water from the City, but the customers are provided sewer service by the City. Wastewater flows were estimated for the sewer only customers by applying a "wastewater conversion percentage" to the water meter records. The wastewater conversion percentage to convert water meter values to wastewater values was 71.5 percent. Water consumption and estimated wastewater flows for the sample period are presented in Table 4- 14. Table - 4 14 Sewer n S Only Customers Average Annual o�� C t A A 1 Flow AAFCustomer Class Of Metered Generated Generated Number Inside Commercial 35 4,658,000 3,330,470 8,432 Inside Residential 768 120,599,000 86,228,285 218,299 Outside Commercial 2 15,000 10,725 27 Outside Residential 63 7,029,000 5,025,735 12,723 Total 868 132,301,000 94,595,215 239,482 Sample Period Size 395 Days Wastewater Conversion Percentage 71.5% Average Annual Flow (MGD) 0.24 4.0 1.0 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Annual Average Water Metered Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen and Sewer Only Customers) Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen) 3.3 LJ L i I 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 4-16: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent (Less Evergreen District and Sewer Only Customers) 100% 90% c 80% 0 '7, 70% 0) c 60% 0 u 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen and Sewer Only Customers) — — Average Wastewater Conversion % (70.5%) 90% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 4-17: Historical Wastewater Conversion Percentage P05610-2017-003 #1 AEZS Page 49 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 — Wastewater Characterization June 2019 As shown in Figure 4-17, the percentage of wastewater generated when compared to water metered ranged from 60 percent - 90 percent from 2007 - 2016. The average percentage over this timespan was 70.5 percent, which is close to the wastewater conversion percentage that was applied to the water meter records for Kalispell customers and sewer only customers. The 10-year AAF values calculated for each respective group are presented in Table 4-15. These are the values that were used to calibrate the existing wastewater collection system model. The 2.77 MGD (2.8 MGD rounded) is the average of AAF from 2007-2016. Table 4-15: Summary of AAF for Each Group of Customers Evergreen District 1 0.44 1 16% City of Kalispell 1 2.09 1 75% 1 Sewer Only Customers 1 0.24 1 9% Tota 1 1 2.77 1 100 4.1.8 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Per capita wastewater flows (expressed in gallons per capita per day [gpcd]) were calculated by subtracting out flow from Evergreen District. This was required because the population of Evergreen District that contributes flow to the Kalispell WWTF was not well defined. For example, if 70 percent of Evergreen District customers have City provided wastewater services, and the remaining 30 percent of Evergreen District customers utilize septic systems, the calculated per capita wastewater flows would be incorrect. The equation utilized to calculate per capita wastewater flows for this WWFPU is provided below. Per Capita Wastewater Flows (gpcd) _ Average Kalispell WWTF Flow (GPD) — Average Evergreen Flow (GPD) Kalispell Population (people) Table 4-16 and Figure 4-18 on the following page show the results from the per capita wastewater flow analysis. P05610-2017-003 :; AEzS* Page 50 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 — Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Table 4-16: Per Capita Wastewater Flows Kalispell Kalispell Evergreen Difference Per Capita Year WWTF AAF DistrictAAF Wastewater Population pcd 2010 19,927 2.7 0.4 2.3 115 2011 20,396 3.1 0.5 2.6 128 2012 20,614 2.7 0.5 2.2 109 2013 21,054 2.5 0.4 2.0 97 2014 21,619 2.7 0.4 2.3 105 2015 22,031 2.6 0.4 2.2 100 2016 22,761 2.6 0.4 2.3 100 2017 23,212 3.0 0.4 2.6 110 Average 108 200 180 U 160 a tin >� 140 0 120 100 .Q U 80 0) a 60 0 � 40 C7 20 0 .................... 108 128 115 105 109 97 100 100 110 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year 25,000 23,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 0 15,000 a 13,000 a° 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 0 Per Capita Wastewater Flows Average Per Capita Wastewater Flows Kalispell Population ......••• Linear Trend (Per Capita Wastewater Flows) Figure 4-18: Per Capita Wastewater Flows compared to Population P05610-2017-003 :1 AES Page 51 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 As shown in Figure 4-18, the per capita wastewater flows from the entire City service area varied from 97 gpcd to 128 gpcd over the previous 7 years. Despite steady population growth since 2010, the per capita wastewater flows show a slightly decreasing trend, which is notable, given the City's increasing population trend. The combination of increasing population and decreasing per capita patterns could be attributed to infrastructure improvements, higher - efficiency plumbing fixtures, and conservation efforts. Table 4-17 provides the recommended per capita wastewater flows for this future planning. For comparison purposes, the per capita demands that were recommended in the Water Facility Plan Update are also provided. Table 4-17: Recommended Wastewater Per Capita Demands 0-5 Year 1 108 1 175 5-15 Year 1 105 1 170 1 61.5% FBO 1 101 1 165 The reason the estimated percentage to convert metered water to wastewater of 71.5 percent does not equal the per capita conversion percentage of 61.5 percent is due to water loss (or Non - Revenue Water [NRW]) in the system. The recommended per capita water demands shown above in Table 4-17 above represent water production planning values and therefore do not account for NRW. 4.1.9 Existina Wastewater Flow Analvsis Summary and Takea The following bullet points represent a summary and the primary takeaways of the existing wastewater flow analysis. Figure 4-19 and Table 4-18 on the following pages present the existing wastewater flow summary in graphical and tabular form. • AAF is calculated by taking the total wastewater flow in a given year and dividing the flow by the number of days in a year. From 2006 - 2017, the City had an average AAF of 2.8 MGD. In 2017, the City had an AAF of 3.0 MGD. • MMF is defined by taking an average of the daily flows for each month and selecting the month when the maximum flows occurred during a given year. From 2006 - 2017, the City had an average MMF of 3.6 MGD. In 2017, the City had an MMF of 5.2 MGD. MMF is established by selecting the largest daily flow in a given year. From 2006 - 2017, the City had an average MDF of 5.7 MGD. In 2017, the City had an MDF of 8.7 MGD. P05610-2017-003 :; AE2.S* Page 52 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 • When estimating future PHF, it is recommended for the City to utilize a peaking factor of 3.3. This peaking factor will decrease over time as the City continues to grow and provide service to more customers. This is outlined more in Section 4.2.1. • Based on hourly flow records at the WWTF in 2017, the largest amount of wastewater is generated between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm, and the least amount of wastewater generated is between 2:00 am through 8:00 am. • From 2010 - 2017, the estimated average per capita wastewater flow for the City is 108 gpcd, with the max of 128 gpcd occurring in 2011. • Since 2007, June has seen more rainfall on average than any other month. June also produces more wastewater on average than any other month. • Based on the historical wastewater and rainfall data, it is estimated that the City has experienced and will continue to experience wastewater flow spikes of nearly 3-times their AAF unless I/I is further mitigated. • Further study of the effects I/I has on the wastewater collection system is recommended. A study will help the City identify a cost-effective solution to mitigate and reduce I/I. • The City provides wastewater service to three groups of customers, including the Evergreen District, the City of Kalispell, and sewer only customers. The approximate percentage breakdown of wastewater flow is: o Evergreen District - 16 percent o City of Kalispell - 75 percent o Sewer Only Customers - 9 percent P05610-2017-003 :; AEzS* Page 53 N = o- N Qa o a u a a a LL o N � a a a3, 3 y a, a Ln LL N O 0 0) N U o 0 QQ . x • U o o � N E } 3 N E CC LL m 0 M Go N 0 3 > Q $" N _O LL - ram+ CC } 0 3 } _ n � o LL m c 2 .� o� r~ do LL � � Q Q o N 30 U E O O 2 00 c O O O } bo N f6 ci o) LL Q Q O I I O N Q0 co O O O CD O CV O n O Lq O Lq O i O of r a m ri o 10 (agW) /yea aad suolleg uoilpw o IL GN c c, 0 — N � M N 00 M 00 lD lD Ln Ln lD Ln O z N Q N �, r4 r� _j LO LO Q a N N L6 M rM N N N N N N N rM N Q L N (\ •i = -q00 c O a u IL d v rn iD iD 00 r� Ln Ln Ln M 00 Ln iD 'Ct z M CO -j Lr) N Ln N t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N L N N •� U -q a `m ui 3 lD 00 (M 00 � (M N ri lD N U 00 co al 00 a N M M N N N N N N N N N N N Q M LLJ LL c-I N N H H 3 a lD lD 00 00 r� n Lr) M N L11 lD I, N ~ I� z O 00 Lr) 00 N N M N N M N N N N N N N N M N O 00 Q Q H a V� n Cl (M M U1 M U Q al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N -q CC ^� N N U1 I� 00 r-4� N 00 n U� U� U� n N Z I4 z al Lr) O N N N N N M M N N N N N N N Q M c-I L6 lD O W Lr) M -1 00 n r-� -1 .-1 .--I U M z r-, rj Zt 00 ram+ N M 'z* M M qt M N N N N N M N M c-I N U� lD CC � U1 lD I" r-4� 00 lD —1 00 n IZ� (M IZ� n M lD z Ln N N N N N N M M N N N N N N N z M c-I N lD c-I •� LQ Lq M c-I I� lD n lD � � � U n Lq CO M Q M lD N WN N M M N N N N N N N N N N LL M c-I N M GO I� 00 al 00 .-1 Lq IC:j: r--� U� M (M N 00 N U - z M N zt -q N N N N M M M N N N N N N N M M c-I r4 lD r� CC I" 00 O 00 01 I� dl dl n r-4� n r-4� 00 r4� w O of N dl N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N M N rN -q M Lr) N dl dl O O dl o0 tD n r-4� O lD U z O 4 tD � M N N M M M M N N N N N M N O M N N U c-I OLL O O - p � co } C O u C O u LL a — O n 7 0 c ci ccO Gj — '� O 'gyp O L O G O C) ate--+ � ate--+ 7 O O O O tLoEi O N (10 cXc .f6 X ru�N 10 C U O N j' � C) QQ Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.2 Future Wastewater Flow Projections Historical wastewater trends and data are frequently used to project future wastewater flows. Wastewater flow projections are crucial when sizing future infrastructure and developing capital improvement plans. For this facility plan, future wastewater flow projections were estimated using three separate methods: Equivalent growth projection method, where population and wastewater flows grow at an equivalent rate; • Per capita wastewater flow projection method, where population projections utilize a per capita per day wastewater flow factor to estimate future wastewater flows; Land -use projection method, where anticipated land use type and either associated number of dwelling units or area (acres) is multiplied by a wastewater duty factor (WWDF). These three methods were used to calculate AAF for the established planning periods, and are outlined in greater detail in Section 4.2.2 through 4.2.4 and summarized in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.1 Decreasing Peaking Factor As previously stated in Section 4.1.4.1, MDEQ has design standards for public sewage systems which contains an equation to calculate peak hourly flow. The equation? is as follows, where the variable " Y' is population in thousands. 18+ � Design Peak Hourly Flow = * Design Average Flow M4+ � The equation allows a peaking factor to be calculated based on population. As population increases, the peaking factor decreases. Once the peaking factor is calculated, it is multiplied by the design average flow, or in this case the AAF to calculate a design PHF. In Figure 4-20, this equation (yellow dashed line) was charted against population to show the relationship between peaking factor and population. This equation was adjusted (green dashed line) to reflect the recommended PHF peaking factor of 3.3, which was suggested in Section 4.1.7.5. Fair, G.M. and Geyer, J.C. "Water Supply and Waste -water Disposal' 1st Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, (1954), P. 136 P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 56 70,000 60,000 50,000 c 0 +� 40,000 a 30,000 0 a 20,000 10,000 0 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 r, M-1 M M r' M-1 M M r' M-1 M M r' M-1 M M � M-1 M M � ci ci N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M l0 l0 l0 l0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3.50 3.00 2.50 0 U 2.00 `J- tin 1.50 Y m 1.00 a 0.50 0.00 � Population Peaking Factor (MontanaDEQ) — — — Peaking Factor (Modified) Figure 4-20: Decreasing Peaking Factors Based on the population projections and the peaking factor (modified) line shown above, the estimated peaking factors for the respective planning periods are: • Existing (2017) = 3.3 • 0-5 Year (2023) = 3.2 • 5-15 Year (2033) = 3.1 • FBO (2068) = 2.8 4.2.2 Equivalent Growth Projection Method The City of Kalispell indicated that an annual growth percentage of 2.0 should be used for population planning. The equivalent growth projection method assumes that population and AAF grow uniformly at 2.0 percent, starting from the observed population and wastewater flows in 2017. Table 4-19 provides a summary of the equivalent growth projection method. Table 4-19: Equivalent Growth Method - Wastewater Flow Proiections �. Description 2017 0-5 Year 5-15 Year :• Population Projections Population* 23,212 26,140 31,865 63,727 Wastewater Flow Projections Average Annual Flow 3.0 3.3 4.1 8.1 Peak Hourly Flow 9.9 10.8 12.8 22.6 Peaking Factor 3.3 F 3.2 3.1 2.8 * Kalispell population only. Does not include Evergreen District population. P05610-2017-003 ; y AE2-S Page 57 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.2.3 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Projection Method The per capita wastewater flow projection methodology involves projecting the AAF and PHF through the establishment of three factors: 1) Population projection(s) 2) Per capita wastewater flow (quantity of wastewater generated per person per day) 3) PHF peaking factor Even though Kalispell has experienced steady population growth since 2010, per capita wastewater flows have shown a decreasing trend (refer to Figure 4-18). As such, decreasing per capita wastewater flows of 108, 105, and 101 were selected for the 0-5 year, 5-15 year, and FBO planning periods, respectively. These decreasing values are recommended for the following reasons: • Cities commonly experience population growth while wastewater flow trends stay relatively flat, which results in decreasing per capita wastewater flow trends. This is likely attributed to infrastructure improvements, technological advancements in the wastewater industry, higher efficiency plumbing fixtures, and various conservation efforts. • It is recommended for Kalispell to initially plan for 108 gpcd for the 0-5 year planning period, which was the average per capita wastewater flow Kalispell experienced from 2010 - 2017. • The 108, 105, and 101 recommended wastewater per capita wastewater flows are approximately 61.5 percent of the water per capita demands (recommended in the WFPU). A summary of the per capita wastewater flow projection method is provided in Table 4-20. Table 4-20: Per Capita Wastewater Flow Method - Wastewater Flow Proiections �• 2017 Population Projections Population* 23,212 26,140 31,865 63,727 Wastewater Flow Projections Average Annual Flow** 3.0 J 3.4 1 4.0 1 7.2 Peak Hourly Flow 9.q Al 10.9 12.6 20.0 Peaking Factor 3.2 3.1 2.8 * Kalispell population only. Does not include Evergreen District population. * * Total AAF includes Kalispell population times the per capita demands of 108, 105, and 101 for the respective planning horizons plus projected AAF from Evergreen District P05610-2017-003 ,inAIEzS Page 58 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 — Wastewater Characterization June 2019 4.2.4 Land Use Projection Method The first component of the land use projection method was to analyze historical water usage by land use class and land use area (in acres) to determine how much water the various land use classes use per acre. The water use was then multiplied by the wastewater conversion percentage to estimate wastewater generated by land use class. The planning areas provided by the City contained projections within the broad land use categories of residential (in dwelling units [DU]), commercial (in acres), and industrial (in acres). Once the wastewater generation estimates by land use class were calculated, they were aggregated into three groups: (1) Residential (gpd/DU), Commercial (gpd/acre), and Industrial (gpd/acre). The results from this process are shown in Table 4-21. Table 4-21: Recommended WWDFs for Wastewater Planning P Residential Single Dwelling 5,672 1,011,459 83% 178 200 gpd/DU Multiple Dwelling 1,026 209,696 17% 204 Commercial General Commercial 1,402 679,833 90% 485 500 gpd/acre Neighborhood Office 408 72,785 10% 178 Industrial Public Institutional 844 45,832 39% 54 Light Industrial 135 9,943 8% 74 200 gpd/acre Industrial 267 61,915 53% 232 Because the future land use planning projections provided by the City contained three land use types, and residential in terms of dwelling units rather than acres, aggregated wastewater duty factors (WWDFs) were generated based on weighted averages of the historical WWDFs. For example, general commercial and neighborhood office were combined to form a commercial WWDF, and industrial, light industrial, and public institutional were combined to form an industrial WWDF. The recommended WWDFs are as follows: • Residential: 200 gpd/DU • Commercial: 500 gpd/acre • Industrial: 200 gpd/acre A summary of the land use method wastewater flow projections are provided in Table 4-22. P05610-2017-003 11% AIEzS' Page 59 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 Table 4-22: Land Use Method - Wastewater Flow Pro'ections * 2017 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 10.00 9.00 0 QD 8.00 6.7 7.00 ° 6.00 0.29 711 5.00 4.2 Q 4.00 3.0 3•4 0.29 5.59 � 3.00 0.27 0.29 v 2.00 3.28 2.54 > 2.25 Q 1.00 10 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.64 Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO ❑ Evergreen District ❑ City of Kalispell ❑ Sewer Only Customers Figure 4-22: Projected AAF by Customer Group From 2007 to 2016, the AAF has been between 64 percent and 89 percent of the Average Daily Demand (ADD) (water produced), with the average being approximately 75 percent. To further validate the AAF projections, the projected AAF for the respective planning horizons were charted against a 60 percent - 90 percent range of the projected ADD. The 60 percent low -end range value and the 90 percent high -end range value were selected based on the percentages experienced between 2007 and 2016. Additionally, 60 percent and 90 percent are also 15 percent below and above the 75 percent 10-year average. The results from this validation exercise are provided in Figure 4-23. 12.0 10.0 0 8.0 v 6.0 c 0 6.7 c� 4.0 c 0 2.0 3.4 0.0 Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO 60%- 90% Range • • • Projected ADD (From WFPU) O Projected AAF O 75% (Average) Figure 4-23: Projected AAF by Customer Group P05610-2017-003 '�1 AEzS. Page 61 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 4 - Wastewater Characterization June 2019 As shown in Figure 4-23, the projected AAF for each planning period falls within the 60 percent - 90 percent ADD range. Most importantly, the projected AAF for the 0-5 Year and 5- 15 Year planning periods align within ±1.5 percent of the 75 percent historic average ADD value. There is more variation with the FBO planning period, but the projected AAF still falls within the historic 60 percent - 90 percent ADD range. As a result, it is still recommended to use the 6.7 MGD AAF projection for the FBO planning period because it was calculated based on land use projections provided by the City. The following bullet points provide recommendations and main takeaways from the future wastewater flow projections analysis. • The City should plan for the following AAFs over the respective planning periods. 0 0-5 Year (2023) = 3.3 MGD 0 5-15 Year (2033) = 4.2 MGD o FBO (2068) = 6.7 MGD • The City should plan for declining Peaking Factors, with the following values recommended for the planning periods: o Existing (2017) = 3.3 0 0-5 Year (2023) = 3.2 0 5-15 Year (2033) = 3.1 o FBO (2068) = 2.8 • The City should plan for the following PHFs over the respective planning periods: 0 0-5 Year (2023) = 10.8 MGD 0 5-15 Year (2033) = 13.2 MGD o FBO (2068) = 18.5 MGD • The City should further study the impacts of I/I on the wastewater collection system and WWTF. A more -detailed study solely focusing on I/I impacts will help the City identify the most cost-effective solution for mitigating and reducing I/I. • The City should review and modify the wastewater flow projections based on how the City grows and develops, and wastewater flows experienced at the WWTF. P05610-2017-003 ,in AIIE Page 62 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 CHAPTER 5 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MODEL UPDATE Hydraulic capacity is a key performance metric for wastewater collection systems. The pipes and various other structures in the collection system should be engineered for design flows without causing surcharging, incurring damage through scour, requiring unintended flushing, creating excessive operation and maintenance activities, or otherwise negatively impacting the level of service. Hydraulic modeling is an efficient tool for evaluating the capacity of a wastewater collection system under a broad range of conditions. The following chapter provides an overview of the data sources used to update the hydraulic model of the City's wastewater collection system. 5.1 Existing Model Conversion and Development InfoSWMM® (Executive Suite 14.6) hydraulic modeling software was used for development and calibration of the existing system model. InfoSWMM® is a fully GIS integrated collection system modeling and management software application. Inf6SWMM8, which runs on the EPANET hydraulic engine, integrates wastewater network modeling with ArcGIS. InfoSWMM was chosen to model the existing system because of its ability to: • Calibrate with real flow data; • Expand as new data becomes available in the future; • Dynamically route spatially allocated wastewater flows through the system; and • Evaluate Infiltration and Inflow (I/I). The following information was provided by the City and incorporated into the hydraulic model: • GIS data available from the City's GIS database and the Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) was used to develop the collection system pipe network. GIS information included gravity mains, manholes, force mains, and lift stations. Available as-builts and record drawings of gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations were used to verify the CMMS network as well as develop facility elements (i.e. lift stations) within the model. • A number of sources were used to determine elevations within the hydraulic model. A four -step approach was used based on the following prioritized order: P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 63 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 1. Invert elevations obtained from the 2018 manhole invert survey. 2. Invert elevations from as -built information provided in the City's CMMS database. 3. Invert elevations interpolated between two known manhole invert elevations. 4. Invert elevations based on a known invert elevation and extrapolated using 10 State Standards recommended minimum slopes for sewer pipe. • Hourly influent WWTF flow rates from the City's SCADA system were used to create diurnal wastewater flow patterns. Hourly wastewater flow rates from the City's web -based Mission Communications system at several key lift stations were used to calibrate both dry and wet weather flows. This InfoSWMM model was used to evaluate the existing collection system under current flow conditions to help identify deficiencies in the system that may need to be addressed in the short- term, as well as to isolate sources of UI_ The information gathered through the InfoSWMM modeling process was used for the risk analysis discussed in Chapter 8. The model can be further expanded in the future through additional flow monitoring efforts to further narrow down sources of I/I. 5.2 Hydraulic Model Calibration Wastewater flow consists of dry and wet weather flow components. The dry weather flow (DWF) component is classified into groundwater infiltration (GWI) and base sanitary wastewater flow (BSWF). GWI represents the groundwater that infiltrates into the collection system through defective pipes, pipe joints, and leaking manhole walls regardless of rainfall. BSWF represents sewage from residential, commercial, and industrial areas conveyed to the sanitary sewer system. The wet weather flow (WWF) consists of rainfall derived inflow and infiltration (RDII), which is flow that makes its way into the collection system as a result of rainfall. Isolating each of these components of wastewater flow can be used to understand the sources of flow and the relative quantities of each flow component within the sewer system. Additionally, it determines if RDII and groundwater flow components are excessive enough to cause capacity issues and other operational problems. Model calibration is a process used to adjust the modeled physical system or the flow representations to closely match observed measurements and ultimately enables the model to predict the wastewater flow components and system performance. Examples of adjusting the physical system include changing roughness coefficients or varying the diversion amounts between separate sub -basins. Examples of adjusting the flow representation include changing the base flow volume or the diurnal pattern. The calibration process ends when the target calibration range is achieved or no further benefit comes from the adjustments. The following P05610-2017-003 `�y FIEzS' Page 64 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 sections describe the dry and wet weather calibration processes and how calibration was performed for the wastewater collection system model. 5.2.1 Dry Weather Flow Calibration DWF is the average flow that occurs on a day not influenced by rainfall. Selection of the dry days to develop the DWF is important since this typical day becomes the basis of WWF calculations. Wet weather responses are the deviations from the DWFs. DWF is determined by selecting days on which several conditions are met including the following: • No rainfall occurred on that day • No rainfall occurred on the preceding days • Flow volumes were within a specified range (not less than 85 percent of the average or more than 115 percent of the average) The day of the week is also considered since significant changes may occur in the flow patterns from weekday to weekend. Dry days for both weekdays and weekends were defined and the volume of flow and shape of the hydrograph was determined. The DWF is composed of BSWF and GWI and their relationship is represented by the following formula: DWF BSWF + GWI BSWF represents sewage from residential, commercial, and industrial areas conveyed to the sanitary sewer system. The volume of BSWF produced is generally a function of the population and land use category in the area. It is also strongly related to the actual water consumption in the area. To determine the BSWF, customer water meter data was geo-referenced and allocated throughout the system. Water consumption data was obtained during winter months when no outside irrigation typically occurs. 71.5 percent of the water demands were assumed to be returned to the sanitary sewer system (Section 4.1.7). Three lift stations (Lift Stations 2, 3, and 8) and the WWTF were chosen as the locations with which to calibrate. These particular points were chosen based on their consistent flow volume, flow rate, and data availability. A map of these calibration points and their respective service areas is shown in Figure 5-1. The week of September 9 - 15, 2017 was selected as the time frame for dry weather calibration. This week had no significant rainfall and there was no significant rainfall in the prior week. For the dry weather calibration period selected, groundwater infiltration flows were assumed to be minimal. In order to calibrate the DWF data, the areas that contributed to each calibration point needed to be determined. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 65 L7A P43 (D dip Y O k:c.c E. I n rt Old Rqz@"A 548 )irq Vie Y, rl' 4 L oro -hN. 'r 4 Fop,4j� p r 0 llii_ = Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ewater Main Type Force Main Gravity ng Wastewater System Lift Station Calibration Point Non -Calibration Point >ration Contributing Mains — Lift Station 2 — Lift Station 3 — Lift Station 8 — WWTF Ki-hella 9 f ICLVo'�,P ,Per Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 — Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 Weekday and weekend diurnal curves for each calibration area (Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3) were created for the DWF based on hourly flow monitoring data and input into the hydraulic model. The Lift Station 8 (LS8) service area is comprised mainly of residential areas, which leads to the peak flows occurring in the morning and evening as is typical in residential areas. The Lift Station 2 (LS2) and Lift Station 3 (LS3) service areas contain a mixture of residential and commercial causing peak flows to generally occur midday compared to the typical residential morning and evening peaks. These effects can be observed in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. Within the United States, goals and achievements for sanitary sewer hydraulic model calibration have not been standardized. Therefore, goals for dry weather calibration were taken from the United Kingdom's Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG8) and consisted of the following: • The shape of the modeled and metered data curves should be similar. • The timing of the peaks, troughs, and recessions of the modeled and metered curves should be similar. • Peak flows should be plus or minus 10 percent of measured values. • Volumes should be plus or minus 10 percent of measured values. 8 WAPUG, Code of Practice for the hydraulic modelling of sewer systems, 3rd Edition WAPUG 2002 www.wai)u2.or2.uk. P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 67 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 Weekday DWF Diurnal Patterns Figure 5-2: DWF Weekday Diurnal Patterns Weekend DWF Diurnal Patterns Figure 5-3: DWF Weekend Diurnal Patterns P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 68 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 In addition to flow, hydraulic models are typically calibrated for flow depth within the pipes and at manholes. However, flow depths were not available. Therefore, only flow parameters were used in model calibration. The diurnal curves were adjusted within the model until the timing of the both the peak and low flows closely matched the lift station and WWTF flow data. Graphs of the modeled and metered dry weather flows for each of the calibration points are shown in Figure 5-4 through Figure 5-7. 120 100 80 60 a 0 w 40 20 O� LS2 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows Figure 5-4: Lift Station 2 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows P05610-2017-003 ry Ads Meter Model Page 69 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 LS3 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows 400 350 300 250 200 c Meter w 150 Model 100 50 Figure 5-5: Lift Station 3 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows LS8 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows So 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Figure 5-6: Lift Station 8 - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows Meter Model P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 70 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,000 500 Meter Model Figure 5-7: WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows Once the model data visually closely matched the metered data, the hourly multipliers were further adjusted to meet the numerical calibration goals. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the calibration results as well as the calibration goals. Table 5-1: Summary of Dry Weather Calibration Results Modeled.. Flow Meter Volume difference) Peak Flows difference) (% ±10% of measured (% ±10% of measured Calibration Goal values values LS2 -0.03 % -4.26 LS3 -1.99% -3.34% LS8 -0.11 % -8.38 WWTF 5.79% 7.24% P05610-2017-003 JJJ ■ 04L. � Page 71 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 5.2.2 Wet Weather Flow Calibration Following dry weather calibration, the hydraulic model was calibrated for wet weather conditions. June 13-16, 2017 was chosen for calibrating the model to wet weather flow because during this time period the City experienced a wet weather event (rainfall) large enough to measurably see the flow effects at each calibration point. Additionally, the City did not experience any significant rainfall in the week prior, which allows the effects of this specific rainfall event to be directly viewed rather than any residual effects from prior rainfall events. The following steps followed within the hydraulic model for wet weather calibration: • Establish the contributing area for each individual calibration point (these areas are typically referred to as sewersheds). • Input rainfall information into the model. • Input calibration parameters for each contributing calibration area and adjust the model until it closely matches meter data. During wet weather flow (WWF) calibration, the following goals from the WaPUG were attempted to be met: • The shape of the modeled and metered curves should be similar. • The timing of the peaks, troughs, and recessions of the modeled and metered curves should be similar. • Modeled peak flow should be within -15 percent and +25 percent of measured values. • Modeled volumes should be within -10 percent and +20 percent of measured values. WWF analysis is performed to determine how the collection system responds to rainfall events. Understanding these responses allows subsequent efforts to be focused primarily in areas with the greatest WWF responses, which indicate the greatest density of defects in the system. Excessive WWF resulting from rainfall -derived inflow and infiltration (RDII) can result in peak flows that exceed the capacity of the collection system possibly leading to Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). SSOs can create serious issues for the public and environment. RDII is the additional flow (over and above DWF) that occurs as a direct result of rainfall. It is composed of: • The inflow component of I/I from defects directly connected to the surface. It is water that enters the sewer system directly via depressed manhole lids and frames, downspouts, sump pumps, foundation drains, and cross -connections with storm sewers. P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 72 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 • The infiltration component of I/I from defects activated by saturated soils or elevated ground water tables. It refers to runoff that infiltrates into the soil before entering a sanitary sewer system through damaged pipe sections, leaky joints, or poor manhole connections. Of these two components, the inflow response most often dominates the peak flow of the RDII hydrograph. In considering the hydraulic capacity of the system, the inflow rate has the greatest effect on peak flows. Incorporating rainfall and flow data into the model is completed by breaking the flow data into distinct DWF and RDII components. The DWF component was analyzed during the DWF calibration to construct a DWF pattern used to simulate the system. The RDII component is then analyzed to determine RDII events and to calibrate parameters of the RTK synthetic unit hydrograph (described below) so that the RDII flow simulated by the RTK method closely matches the RDII flow obtained in the breakdown of flows. The calibrated RTK parameters and dry weather flow patterns are then used in the model to carry out detailed dynamic flow routing through the sewer system. The RTK hydrograph is based on a set of parameters, which consist of the following: • R (Percent) - the fraction of rainfall volume that enters the sewer system (areas with greater than five percent are typically problem areas) • T (Hours) - the time from the onset of rainfall to the peak of the unit hydrograph • K - the ratio of time to recession of the unit hydrograph to the time to peak Each of the RTK parameters has a fast (subscript 1), medium (subscript 2), and slow (subscript 3) response variable that is adjusted within the model to properly replicate the hydrograph created during a rainfall event. During the calibration process, RTK parameters were adjusted and reviewed graphically until the model results closely matched the metered data. The numerical parameters were then checked to verify they met the calibration goals. If they did not match, the RTK parameters were further adjusted until they were met. Different RTK parameters were assigned to the service area of each calibration point. In addition, the City noted the downtown region typically experiences greater effects from rainfall, so the downtown area was broken out separately and assigned more aggressive RTK factors than the newer outlying areas. A summary of these parameters for each flow meter area is provided in Table 5-2. Graphs of the modeled and metered wet weather flows for each of the calibration points are shown in Figure 5-8 through Figure 5-11, and Table 5-3 provides a summary of the wet weather calibration results for each calibration point. P05610-2017-003 ,inAIEzS Page 73 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 LS2 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows 250.00 - 0.100 200.00 0.200 0.300 150.00 0.400 brio 0.500 Meter w 100.00 0.600 Model 0.700 Rainfall (in) 50.00 0.800 0.900 1.000 , ti� ti� ti� �� ti� ti� o o o o o o o o <1 Figure 5-8: LS2 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows LS3 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows 600.00 - 0.100 500.00 0.200 400.00 0.300 0.400 a. 300.00 0.500 Meter r° 0.600 Model 200.00 0.700 Rainfall (in) VV 100.00 0.800 0.900 1.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 5-9: LS3 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 74 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 0 30.00 w 20.00 10.00 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 LS8 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Meter 0.600 Model 0.700 Rainfall 0.800 0.900 1.000 Figure 5-10: LS8 - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows 4,000 - 3,500 0.100 0.200 3,000 0.300 2,500 0.400 a. 2,000 0.500 Meter w 0.600 Model 1,500 0.700 Rainfall 1,000 0.800 500 0.900 - 1.000 Figure 5-11: WWTF - Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows P05610-2017-003 � RIE Page 75 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 Table 5-2:ummar S o f RTK Parameters ±10% of measured ±10% of measured Calibration Goal values values LS2 -1.65 % -3.48% LS3 -6.02% -8.20% LS8 -6.16 % -4.69 WWTF 2.96% 5.49% Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 5 - Wastewater Collection System Model Update June 2019 InfoSewer was chosen to model the future system and existing system improvements because InfoSewer: Utilizes the commonly accepted peaking factor method which is typically used to size future systems; • Can quickly evaluate future pipe size and layouts; and • Does not require the parameters and flow data that InfoSWMM utilizes. 5.3.1 Future System Flows Boundaries for future growth were established and provided by the City. These boundaries, along with elevation data, were used as the basis for laying out future pipelines to service new developments. After the general layout of the future pipelines was established, future flows were allocated to the system. The recommend Land Use Method discussed in Chapter 4 was used to establish future wastewater flows within the model. Future system wastewater flows were estimated for three planning periods: 1) 0-5 years; 2) 5-15 years; and 3) full buildout. A GIS shapefile containing the estimated number of residential, commercial, and industrial lots to be added during each planning interval was provided by the City Planning Department. Wastewater loading data sets were developed within the hydraulic model for each of these timelines. A summary of the future system flows at each time interval used within the hydraulic model are presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4: Future Svstem Wastewater Flows Description• Average Annual Flow (MGD) 3.3 4.2 6.7 The average daily loadings during each planning time period were spatially distributed using InfoSewer Demand Allocator®. The InfoSewer Demand Allocator® module uses GIS technology to assign land use flow data (gpd/ac) to a designated junction within the wastewater collection system network. For each junction in the FBO area, algorithms in the software determine the area of influence, or area served by each node and adjacent pipe segments. The allocation tool then superimposes the land use polygon and corresponding consumption data over the area of influence to determine the total demand at each node. P05610-2017-003 ,in AIEzS. Page 77 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 - Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Design parameters identify the features and performance requirements of wastewater collection system infrastructure and provide the standard against which system performance is assessed. The design parameters and criteria presented within this chapter were used to evaluate the performance of the existing Kalispell wastewater collection system and to conceptualize system improvements (gravity mains, force mains, and pumping facilities) necessary to maintain system reliability and accommodate future growth and development of the system. Design parameters and evaluation criteria are established herein for sizing gravity mains, force mains, and pumping facilities. The criteria were established based on industry standards, MDEQ regulations and standards, existing City codes, and engineering judgment. Generally, the design parameters that govern system capacity and should be defined by each utility, include: 1. Force Main Design Parameters: velocity, diameter, and friction factor; 2. Gravity Main Design Parameters: velocity, maximum depth of flow, diameter, minimum slope, friction factor, and level of service; 3. Lift Station Design Parameters: firm capacity and peak hour flow; 4. Peak Hour Design Factors; 5. Dry Weather Parameters; and 6. Wet Weather Storm Event Parameters. 6.1 Force Main Design Parameters Force mains are sized to meet maximum flow conditions, which MDEQ defines as: • Design Peak Hourl.. Fes: the largest volume of flow to be received during a one -hour period expressed as a volume per unit time (i.e. gallons per minute). Force mains are designed to carry wastewater from lift stations to the wastewater treatment facility or to other gravity mains or sewer interceptors without excessive pressure loss. The following subsections establish the parameters used for evaluating and estimating the size and capacity of force mains. P05610-2017-003 ,inAIIE Page 78 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 — Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 6.1.1 Force Main Velocity and Diameter Minimum and maximum velocity guidelines for the analysis of the force mains are discussed in this section. Existing force mains that exceed these criteria will not necessarily be identified for replacement unless there are known existing problems within the collection system. However, if new pipelines are planned to replace old deteriorated pipelines, then the new pipelines should be sized appropriately to meet these guidelines. The force main cleaning velocity refers to the minimum velocity (or flowrate) required to keep solids suspended within the pipe. Operations below this velocity will allow for solids to build up within the force main and potentially lead to excess formation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas. Velocity is also recommended to remain below a maximum to reduce overall system headloss, reduce system pressures, and reduce the occurrence of pressure transients within the force main. This reduces the frequency of force main breaks and the amount of leakage from the pressure system. MDEQ and other publications recommend a cleaning velocity of 2 ft/s to keep solids suspended while pumping. When no wastewater is flowing through the force main solids may settle. A minimum velocity of 3 ft/s is recommended based on the desire to resuspend settled solids. However, the City requires a minimum velocity of 4 ft/s. MDEQ states that the maximum velocity shall not exceed 8 ft/s. Based on this design parameter, it is recommended that existing force mains be considered for replacement with larger diameter pipes if the velocity exceeds to 8 ft/s. Note, higher velocities will be accepted to avoid upsizing pipe diameters for a minor violation of this velocity criterion. MDEQ also states that the minimum diameter for raw wastewater force mains is 4 inches. Larger diameter force mains shall be assessed or designed based on the minimum and maximum velocity criteria. Table 6-1 summarizes the recommended force main evaluation criteria. Force Main ulic Criteria Recommendations Minimum Velocity 4 ft/s Maximum Velocity 8 ft/s - Minimum Diameter 4 inches P05610-2017-003 ; y AEzS Page 79 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 - Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 6.1.2 Force Main Friction Loss Headloss, along with velocity, is an important design parameter for determining force main sizing requirements and pump sizing. MDEQ states friction losses must be based on the Hazen - Williams formula or other acceptable methods. The "C" value must be 100 for unlined iron or steel pipe for design. For smooth pipe materials (i.e. PVC, polyethylene, lined ductile iron) a high "C" value not to exceed 120 may be used. New smooth -walled pipe typically has a "C" value of 140 to 150. Pump design should take this higher "C" value into consideration as this will affect the operating point and horsepower of the pump. Design "C" values for force main are summarized in Table 6-2. Table 6-2: Force Main Friction Loss Recommendations Design C-factor for smooth pipe 120 (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) Design C-factor for other pipe 100 (unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) 6.2 Gravity Main Design Parameters Gravity mains are designed to carry wastewater from service connections to lift stations or the treatment facility. The following subsections establish the parameters used for evaluating and estimating the size and capacity of gravity mains and provide support for the development of improvements. 1. Velocity and Flow Depth; 2. Diameter and Minimum Slope; 3. Gravity Main Friction Losses; 4. Gravity Main Level of Service. 6.2.1 Gravity Main Velocity and Depth of Flow Gravity mains must be designed to prevent deposition of solids within the main. MDEQ suggests a minimum velocity of 3.0 ft/s when flowing full based on Manning's formula "n" value of 0.013. City standards require a minimum velocity of 2.5 ft. Both MDEQ and City standards list the maximum sewer velocity of 15 ft/s. P05610-2017-003 � RIIE Page 80 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 - Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 Capacity of a gravity main is the measured ratio of depth of flow to diameter of the pipe. MDEQ lists the capacity of gravity main by the following classification: • Building Connections: 70 percent • Laterals and Mains: 80 percent • Interceptors: 90 percent The City has defined maximum design flow depths based on the diameter of gravity main which are presented in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Gravitv Main Velocitv and Depth of Flow Diameter of Sewer Main (inches) Depth of Flow / Diameter <_ 10 70 > 10 - 15 73 > 15 - 21 75 >21-27 77 > 27 80 Minimum Velocity 2.5 ft/s Maximum Velocity 15 ft/s 6.2.2 Gravity Main Diameter and Minimum Slope MDEQ and City Standards require gravity mains to have a minimum diameter of 8-inches. In order to maintain the minimum velocity of 3.0 ft/s, minimum sewer slopes are defined by MDEQ and presented in Table 6-4. The City does not allow upsizing gravity mains to utilize minimum slopes in order to meet elevation restrictions. P05610-2017-003 0y AEzS Page 81 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 — Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 Table 6-4: Gravity Main Diameter and Minimum Slope Diameter00 Feet 8 inch 0.40 10 inch 0.28 12 inch 0.22 14 inch 0.17 15 inch 0.15 16 inch 0.14 18 inch 0.12 21 inch 0.10 24 inch 0.08 27 inch 0.067 30 inch 0.058 33 inch 0.052 36 inch 0.046 39 inch 0.041 42 inch 0.037 Minimum Diameter 8 inches 6.2.3 Gravity Main Friction Loss Friction loss is an important design parameter for determining gravity main sizing requirements. As stated in Section 6.2.2, MDEQ suggests designing for minimum velocity of 3.0 ft/s when flowing full based on a Manning's formula "n" value of 0.013. Manning's "n" is known as the friction factor for calculating flow in open channel conduits such as gravity main. Lower Manning's "n" values are applied to smooth -walled conduits and correlate to higher flow. Larger Manning's "n" values are applied to rough -walled conduits and correlate to lower flow due to higher friction losses. The value of 0.013 is recommended by numerous publications and agencies and is generally applied to all pipe materials as the design -life friction factor. This application is widely practiced within the industry for evaluation of existing system capacity and design of future gravity mains. With increased use of smooth -walled pipes (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.), it is becoming more recognized within the industry that the actual Manning's "n" value is likely lower than the traditionally accepted factor of 0.013. A field measurement study completed by P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2.S Page 82 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 — Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 Bishop9 on 25 PVC gravity mains (8-inch and 10-inch and in service) showed Manning's "n" value ranged from 0.007 to 0.014 with an average of 0.009. Neale and Price10 recommend using Manning's "n" value of 0.009 based on laboratory tests completed on 8-inch and 12-inch PVC pipe. The Handbook for PVC11 cites the work completed by Bishop and Neale and Price and also recommends using a Manning's "n" value of 0.009. Several factors can increase the friction factor for gravity main in service. Increased friction can be caused by solids deposition, joint separation, protruding connections, cracks, and misalignment. Haestad12 suggests a range of Manning's "n" values between 0.009 and 0.014 depending on size and condition of the sewer. Based on review of publications, consideration of pipe material, and unknown pipe conditions within the City's collection system, Manning's "n" values were applied in the model based on two broad pipe categories as shown in Table 6-5. For master planning purposes, all smooth - walled pipes were given a Manning's "n" value of 0.011 and all other pipes were given a Manning's "n" value of 0.013. Table 6-5: Gravitv Main Friction Loss Design Manning's-n friction factor for smooth pipe 0.011 (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) Design Manning's-n friction factor for other pipe 0.013 (VCP, unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) 6.2.4 Gravity Main Level of Service Levels of Service (LOS) help identify deficiencies within the existing and future collection system. Different LOS ranges have been developed and range from LOS-1 through LOS-4, with LOS-1 being best case with pipes having a maximum depth of flow to diameter ratio of less than 50 percent. LOS-4 is the worst case with pipes flowing 100 percent full and wastewater surcharging at the nearest manhole structures. Table 6-6 describes each LOS that was used for analysis of the collection system. ' Bishop, Ronald R., "Hydraulic Characteristics of PVC Pipe in Sanitary Sewers (A Report of Field Measurements). 1978. Reports. Paper 598. https://digitalcomtnons.usu.edu/water rep/598. 10 Neale, Lawrence C., and Robert E. Price, "Flow Characteristics of PVC Sewer Pipe." Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division ASCE. June 1964. Pages 109-129. 11 Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association. "Handbook of PVC Pipe Design and Construction." 2001. 12 Haestad Methods, et. al. "Wastewater Collection System Modeling and Design." 2004. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 83 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 — Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 LOS-1 < 50% Sewer main is below 50% capacity and considered to have adequate capacity. 50% to Design Sewer main is below the Design Capacity and LOS-2 Capacity" considered to have adequate capacity. Sewer main is above the Design Capacity but does not LOS-3 Design Capacity to 100 surcharge. Identified for possible future capacity concerns. LOS-4 > 100% (surcharged) Sewer main is surcharged during peak flows. Identified for possible mitigation or capital improvements. *Maximum depth of flow in the pipe divided by the diameter of the pipe, calculated during peak hour flow. **Design Capacity varies between 70 percent and 80 percent based on diameter per City Standards (Refer to Table 6-3). 6.3 Lift Station Design Parameters Appropriate lift station capacity should be provided to meet the following conditions within the wastewater collection system: Design Peak Hourly Flow: the largest volume of flow to be received during a one -hour period expressed as a volume per unit time (i.e. gallons per minute). Pump station capacity guidelines are based on firm capacity, which is defined as the capacity of the system with the largest pump out of service. The City equips all lift stations with an on - site, backup power generator. City standards require lift stations meet the requirements of MDEQ Circular 2 with the wet well sized to accommodate a maximum of 6 starts per hour. MDEQ states that when only two pumps are provided for a lift station, they must be the same size, with firm capacity to handle peak hour flow. They should be sized to maintain the established minimum force main velocity and to deliver uniform flow to minimize hydraulic surges. 6.4 Dry Weather Parameters The existing system will be analyzed using the calibrated InfoSWMM model as discussed in Chapter 5. The following dry weather parameters will be used for analysis of the existing system: Dry weather flow equal to the average annual flow: 3.0 MGD • Diurnal Patterns: as presented in Section 5.2.1. P05610-2017-003 ; y AE2.S Page 84 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 — Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 6.5 Wet Weather Parameters The existing system was analyzed using the calibrated InfoSWMM model as discussed in Chapter 5 during various design storm wet weather events using a Type I distribution of rainfall based on City Standards. The following wet weather parameters were used for the analysis of the existing system: • Dry weather flow equal to the average annual flow: 3 MGD • Peak Wet Weather Hourly Flow: 9.9 MGD • Diurnal Patterns: as presented in Section 5.2.1. • Design Storm Attributes as presented in Table 6-7: Table 6-7: Su of Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria Precipitation Frequency Atlas NOAA Atlas 2, Volume IX, 1973 Duration 24 hours Distribution NRCS Type I Recurrence 2-yr event 5-yr event 10-yr event Depth 1.4 inches 1.7 inches 2.0 inches 6.6 Peak Hour Design Factors A peaking formula that mirrors the MDEQ peaking formula is typically recommended for calculating peak hour design factors. This results in a declining peaking factor as the flows move downstream through the system within the hydraulic model. The peaking factor is applied to the allocated average daily flow at each model node. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, the City of Kalispell has seen higher peak flows than the MDEQ peaking formula would calculate. As a result, this formula within the model was increased by 28 percent to match existing peak flows experienced at the WWTF. The InfoSewer model was used for evaluation of the existing system and future development under future flow conditions and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 9. 6.7 Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria Summary Table 6-8 summarizes the wastewater system design parameters and evaluation criteria presented in the previous subsections. This includes recommendations for sizing gravity mains, force mains, and pumping facilities. P05610-2017-003 ,inAIIE Page 85 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 - Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019 Table 6-8: Summary of Design Parameter and Evaluation CriteriaGravity Force Main Parameter Recommendation Main Parameter Recommendation P05610-2017-003 ; y AE2-S Page 86 Minimum Velocity 4 ft/s Maximum Velocity 8 ft/s Minimum Diameter 4 inches Design C-factor for smooth pipe (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) 120 Design C-factor for other pipe (unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) 100 Minimum Velocity 2.5 ft/s Maximum Velocity 15 ft/s Minimum Diameter 8 inches for laterals and mains Minimum Slope Per MDEQ recommendations <_ 10 inches: 70% Design Capacity (by diameter) >10 - 15 inches:73% (depth of flow / diameter as %Capacity) >15 - 21 inches: 75% >21- 27 inches: 77% >27 inches: 80% Design Manning's-n friction factor for smooth 0.009-0.011 pipe (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) Design Manning's-n friction factor for other pipe 0.013 (VCP, unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) Level of Service LOS-3 or better (Peak Flow is less than Full Capacity) Minimum Number of Pumps 2 Firm Capacity Peak Hour Flow (at buildout) (each pump in a 2-pump system) Considerations for Emergency Operations Emergency backup power Wet Well Size Sized for a maximum of 6 pump starts per hour Average Annual Flow 3.0 MGD (existing) (includes base flow and normal ground water) Diurnal Peaking Factors Based on hourly pattern (varies by area as developed during calibration) Peak Wet Weather Hourly Flow 9.9 MGD (existing) (Includes Base Flow and I/I) Peaking Factor RTK factors (as determined during calibration) Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 6 - Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria June 2019uture System Parameter Recommendation y NOAA Atlas 2, Volume IX, 1973 Design Storm Duration: 24 hrs (for Wet Weather Evaluation) Recurrence: 2 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr Depth: 1.4", 1.7", 2.0", Distribution: NRCS Type I Average Annual Flow 6.7 MGD (buildout) (includes Base Flow and normal ground water) Peak Wet Weather Hourly Flow 18.5 MGD (buildout) (Includes Base Flow and I/I) Peaking Factor MDEQ Peaking formula a (modified: increased by 28/) Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 CHAPTER 7 EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION This chapter presents the evaluation of the City's existing wastewater collection system and its ability to accommodate peak flows and meet performance criteria under various flow conditions. Evaluations, findings, and recommendations for addressing any deficiencies identified in the City's existing wastewater collection system are summarized in this chapter. These recommendations are used, in part, for the development of the CIP. The recommended CIP is described in further detail in Chapter 10. 7.1 Dry Weather Analvsis The InfoSWMM model was utilized to simulate dry weather flows. Dry weather flows used in model calibration were scaled up to reflect an annual average flow of 3.0 MGD based on the analysis discussed in Chapter 4. Dry weather scenarios were simulated under the assumption of no rainfall and utilized the calibrated diurnal patterns applied to the average daily flows. Slopes, velocities, and depth of flow were evaluated following criteria established in Chapter 6 and described in further detail in the following section. 7.1.1 Dry Weather Gravitv Main Analvsis Invert elevations were assigned to model nodes and used to calculate gravity main slope. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the information used in model development. The analysis showed a number of existing gravity mains having a slope that does not satisfy the current recommended standards. However, upon further review of these particular mains, the slope can be attributed to discrepancies in the data sources used in model development, such as actual survey vs. as -built plan information. In most of the cases the discrepancies are minor and did not cause hydraulic issues. An evaluation of gravity main velocities was also conducted. According to MDEQ and 10 States Standards, the minimum slopes discussed previously are set to ensure minimum velocities are met during full flow conditions. Full flow conditions typically occur during wet weather events or if a pipe is near hydraulic capacity. The dry weather analysis showed a majority of the mains are not flowing full, therefore minimum velocities were not achieved. However, velocities would increase as the depths of flow in the pipelines increase. In addition, no gravity mains had velocities greater than the maximum allowed. Depths of flow in the gravity mains and at the manholes were also evaluated. Each main segment was assigned a LOS based on the depth of flow. Figure 7-1 provides a LOS overview of the existing system during dry weather flows. Dry weather modeling results showed four areas that had surcharging (LOS-4); however, all of these areas were surcharged due to elevation discrepancies and are not attributed to capacity. These areas include the following: P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS. Page 88 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 • 8-inch gravity main in the alley between 81h Ave. E and Woodland Ave., from 91h St. to loth St. • 8-inch gravity main serving the Hampton Inn and surrounding stores along Highway 2. • 8-inch gravity main along Underhill Ct. north of W Arizona St. • 8-inch gravity main along Claire Ct. southeast of Triple Creek Dr. These elevation discrepancies should be investigated by City staff when completing routine maintenance or inspection and are not a concern for system capacity. 7.1.2 Dry Weather Lift Station and Force Main Analysis Both lift stations and force mains were evaluated based on the criteria discussed in Chapter 6. The dry weather analysis results showed the lift stations have adequate capacity. However, there were several force mains that did not satisfy the minimum velocities required by the City (4 ft/sec). A list of the lift stations associated with the force mains not meeting minimum velocity requirements is provided in Table 7-1. Table 7-1: Force Main Evaluation Summary Lift Station Velocity (ft/s) LS2 3.13 LS6 2.95 LS9 1.03 LS 13 2.68 LS18 3.57 LS22 3.10 LS23 3.68 LS25 2.05 LS30 2.04 LS34 0.71 Although these particular force mains are not meeting minimum velocities, they are not considered a major concern at this point. However, the City should be cognizant that these force mains could be more susceptible to solids deposition. Therefore, further monitoring of these force mains is recommended. Pump curves were not available for this analysis, so average pumping rates provided by the City were used. Actual pumping rates may differ from the model, which would affect the velocities shown above. P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 89 2 V s ' LL - Gldrk Dr CC G 3 N N k tLeR Mrihal Rw6 93 N 7 _ 00 IF � Club p ' T O ' '• r�� rD z p Old ReAS"n 548 WhZ -.-. ,.. E - 93 vergr erl 1 0 2 r f7Fk I hrOP M119 f-- 1 -. ri I Q J1 �s111ey1(�",r )Ifq virw r,� 5'Yi �.l�k'_t�i r. Peek 2 r.,; a a� Foys 4a1c_e I+. 93 I \ I Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ?water Main Type Force Main Gravity ig Wastewater System Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Lift Station of Service Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter - LOS-1 : <50% - LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity - LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100% iy eh 503 4 " 4 �latheO'dRtiyer Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 7.2 Wet Weather Analysis The InfoSWMM model was utilized to simulate various wet weather scenarios. Varying rainfall depths ranging from a 1-year to a 10-year storm event utilizing an SCS Type I rainfall distribution pattern were selected to stress the collection system. Chapter 5 summarizes the parameters used in the wet weather analysis. 7.2.1 Wet Weather Gravity Main Analysis Similar to the dry weather evaluation, both velocities and depths of flow in the gravity mains were evaluated. Slopes were not evaluated again under wet weather conditions, as this analysis is the same as the dry weather conditions. Analysis of the velocities during wet weather events showed similar results to the dry weather analysis, with most of the pipelines not flowing full and minimum velocities not being met. However, velocities would increase as the depths of flow in the pipelines increase. In addition, no gravity mains were identified with velocities greater than the maximum allowed. Depths of flow in the gravity mains were evaluated under the various wet weather rainfall events. Each gravity main segment was assigned a LOS based on the depth of flow. A sensitivity analysis of the different rainfall events was completed to determine the hydraulic capacity threshold in which a particular area increases from one LOS to another (i.e. when a particular area starts to experience surcharging or capacity issues). The difference between the rainfall events was considered negligible with the 10-year rainfall event producing the worst - case results. Therefore, the 10-year rainfall event was primarily utilized to determine LOS. Figure 7-2 provides a LOS overview of the existing system under the 10-year rainfall event. As expected, the four areas identified as being surcharged (LOS-4) in the dry weather analysis are shown as being surcharged in the wet weather analysis. However, no additional areas within the model were identified as surcharged. One additional segment was identified as a LOS-3 which is at hydraulic capacity. This area is described in further detail below: The gravity main section directly upstream of Lift Station 9: This segment consists of two 15-inch diameter mains that combine into an 8-inch diameter main. Figure 7-3 shows the hydraulic profile of the mains in this segment during a 10-year rainfall event. Although it doesn't appear that this area is experiencing surcharging, it should be an area to watch as upstream pipes continue to age and I/I continues to increase. This particular area was explored in further detail in the future analysis to confirm results. P05610-2017-003 11% AIEzS' Page 91 2 V s ' LL - Gldrk Dr CC G 3 N N k tLeR Mrihal Rw6 93 N 7 _ 00 IF � Club p ' T O ' '• r�� rD z p Old ReAS"n 548 WhZ -.-. ,.. E - 93 vergr erl 1 0 2 r f7Fk I hrOP M119 f-- 1 -. ri I Q J1 �s111ey1(�",r )Ifq virw r,� 5'Yi �.l�k'_t�i r. Peek 2 r.,; a a� ' Foys 4a4c_e I+. r� 93 I Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ?water Main Type Force Main Gravity ig Wastewater System Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Lift Station of Service Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter - LOS-1: <50% - LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity - LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100% iy eh 503 4 " 4 �latheO'dRtiyer 3007 3002 2997 Y W 2992 2987 2982 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 Link — Node — Head — Ground Level 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Soo 550 Distance (ft) Figure 7-3: Hydraulic Profile - Upstream of Lift Station 9 7.2.2 Wet Weather Lift Station and Force Main Analysis Lift stations and force mains were also evaluated under a 10-year rainfall event based on the criteria discussed in Chapter 6. For the purposes of this report and based on the information available, all pumps were assumed to operate at the capacity provided by the City. As a result, velocities in the force mains remained the same during both wet weather and dry weather evaluations. However, the flows into the lift stations increased significantly under the wet weather analysis. A summary of the lift station capacities and the modeled peak flows under existing conditions during a 10-year rainfall event are presented in Table 7-2. As shown in Table 7-2, the peak hourly flows into Lift Stations 3 and 9 during a 10-year rainfall event currently exceed their firm capacities. Depending on the sizes of their wet wells, the lift stations may be able to operate without causing surcharging upstream. However, further evaluation of these lift stations is recommended to determine if modifications are necessary. P05610-2017-003 11% RIIE:Zs.Page 93 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 Table 7-2: Lift Station Summary Station Firm CapacityLift LS2 490 360 LS3 860 1,084 LS4 165 11 LS5 355 212 LS6 260 37 LS7 180 63 LS8 85 66 LS9 400 395 LS10 360 135 LS 11 170 11 LS12 195 121 LS 13 105 36 LS15 240 15 LS 16 185 62 LS 18 140 29 LS 19 220 23 LS20 98 5 LS22 485 222 LS 23 144 18 LS24 250 76 LS 25 44 9 LS28 53 9 LS 29 1,300 61 LS30 80 12 LS33 225 18 LS34 250 85 LS35 180 32 LS36 820 108 LS38 35 7 LS39 370 211 P05610-2017-003 ; y FAEZS Page 94 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 7.2.3 1/1 Analysis and Considerations One of the primary reasons for developing and calibrating the Inf6SWMM model was to identify areas of the collection system that contributed significant I/I, as well as provide the City with a working tool that could be further refined as additional data is collected. Results from the wet weather hydraulic analysis showed significant I/I enters the system which eventually impacts the WWTF, confirming the results and recommendations presented in section 4.1.6. However, the data available and used for wet weather model calibration greatly generalizes the collection system into fairly large sewersheds. This information is helpful in understanding the contribution of I/I at the WWTF but is not accurate in determining the I/I flow characteristics for smaller areas within the collection system (i.e. the downtown region). Therefore, the City should conduct continuous rainfall and sewer flow monitoring at specific predetermined locations throughout the collection system during periods of wet weather. The primary objective of continuous rainfall and flow monitoring is to obtain necessary information to accurately measure localized rainfall and flows. The data can be further refined to quantify infiltration during high groundwater periods and for rainfall related inflow during wet weather periods. Continuous monitoring should be conducted for a minimum of ten consecutive weeks, typically early spring to the latter parts of summer. This monitoring period allows for the collection and documentation of seasonal high groundwater and provides the opportunity for adequate wet weather events to occur. Continuous monitoring should be setup in a fashion to distinguish flows from the various subsystems (i.e. break the sewersheds into smaller refined areas based on wastewater contribution). Ultimately, data collected from continuous rainfall and flow monitoring could be added into the Inf6SWMM model to determine which subsystems contribute the most I/I along with developing the most appropriate and cost-effective mitigation strategy. 7.3 Summary of Existing System Evaluation Based on the Inf6SWMM existing system analysis and available data, the existing system is considered satisfactory and does not have substantial deficiencies. The following are areas that were identified as being potential issues. These were noted and further investigated under future loading conditions to determine their validity as potential CIPs: P05610-2017-003 11% AIEzS' Page 95 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 7 - Existing System Evaluation June 2019 • Gravity main upstream of Lift Station 9: o Currently shown as LOS-3 during wet weather events; o Two 15-inch diameter pipes combining flow into an 8-inch diameter pipe (confirmed with City Staff via as-builts); • Lift Station 3: o Currently shown as being under capacity during a 10-year rainfall event. o The City currently has Lift Station 3 in their existing CIP to be modified and upgraded. • Lift Station 9: o Currently shown as being very near capacity during a 10-year rainfall event. o Further investigation should be done to determine if pump capacities provided are accurate. P05610-2017-003 )on E2S Page 96 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 CHAPTER 8 RISK BASED SYSTEM ASSESSMENT The purpose of this chapter is to explain the risk assessment process undertaken for the City's wastewater system network. The assets included in this analysis include the complete wastewater mains network. The risk assessment results in a documented, consistent approach to the quantification of risk exposure resulting from wastewater system asset failures to residents, businesses, and commercial areas of the City served by the network. The risk assessment process is not intended to be a static tool and should be revisited by City staff periodically to reevaluate system risk and reprioritize efforts depending on system change. The assessment is the basis for making recommendations for executing pipe replacements (Rehabilitation and Repair) and further inspection (Condition Assessment) of assets to refine and mitigate risks within a framework of risk management practice and risk tolerance acceptable to City officials. Appendix C provides the wastewater utility risk program policy. 8.1 Risk Assessment Process The risk assessment used data available from the City's GIS and Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to perform a system wide assessment. Collecting new field data (e.g., soil or groundwater conditions) was not part of this scope of work; therefore, this risk assessment exercise is considered a "desktop" evaluation. This framework evaluates the system based on a set of likelihood and consequence factors in order to develop a risk matrix showing wastewater mains of high risk to the City. A matrix, shown in Figure 8-1, considers the combination of likelihood and consequence ratings and illustrates the risk rating assigned to each component of the collection system. Risk exposure ranges from "Insignificant" to "Catastrophic." Table 8-1 describes all five levels of risk. High F Major Major c Catastrophic Ar D Moderate Moderate Major Catastrophic Catastrophic C Insignificant • Moderate Major Major B Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate Major • A Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 8-1: City of Kalispell General Risk Matrix P05610-2017-003Page 97 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Table 8-1: Risk Categories Level 5 Catastrophic Immediate Response Needed Level 4 Major Include on 0-5 Year CIP Level 3 Moderate Include on 5-15 Year CIP Level 2 Minor No Current Action Required Level 1 Insignificant No Current Action Required After identifying risk factors with data available for inclusion into the risk assessment, the following processes were used to perform the risk assessment. 8.2 Likelihood Assessment Based on the factors identified in the overall risk policy, the following were identified as applicable and with sufficient data to be used as likelihood factors: • Physical Condition — Recorded structural defects • Performance — Percent of capacity use from the hydraulic model • Maintainability — Access to pipe for maintenance purposes • Reliability — Work order history indicating a history of pipe issues • Age — Pipe age and material combination The combination of these factors was used to determine a composite "likelihood of asset failure" for each component of the wastewater collection system. Each of these factors was weighted based on the relative importance of each factor. Explicitly known information such as documented breaks and work orders were weighted higher than assumed conditions such as age. 8.2.1 Physical Condition (Recorded Structural Defects) This data set was developed based on a combination of Cityworks data maintained within the City's maintenance management system and historic failure information contained in the GIS asset notes. This data was aggregated with City GIS data by pipe ID, with each pipe assigned a total count of failures. These failures were then given a risk factor based on this count. Table 8-2 provides the risk categories for wastewater main break history. P05610-2017-003 � RIIE Page 98 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Table 8-2: Main Break Risk Categories 5 3+ Breaks 20 4 2 Breaks 10 3 1 Break 5 2 Recorded break that has been repaired 2.5 1 No Breaks 1.25 The risk factors ranged from 1 (no breaks) to as high as 5 (3+ breaks per pipe segment). These counts were based on first-hand knowledge through closed-circuit television (CCTV) video footage of the pipe interior and staff visual confirmation of these defects. 8.2.2 Performance (Percent Capacity Use from Hydraulic Model) This factor used the maximum depth to diameter ratio (d/D) during a 10-year rainfall event under existing flow conditions as produced by the hydraulic model to assess the capacity of the mains to manage a reasonably frequent storm event. Risk factors were distinguished by the fullness of a pipe as a percentage modeled under the design event. The highest factor (5) represents a flow condition in a circular conduit where the volumetric efficiency of the conduit to convey flow begins to diminish with increasing depth of flow. This decreased efficiency occurs as water depth in a circular conduit exceeds approximately 85 percent of the pipe diameter. Lower risk factors (1 - 4) represent flow conditions modeled for the design event where the depth of flow is a smaller percentage of total conduit diameter, and hence, has a lower likelihood of having problems conveying the design flow event. Table 8-3 provides the risk categories and scoring based on performance criteria. Table 8-3: Performance Risk Categories 1 0-25 % 1 2 26-50% 2 3 51-75 % 4 4 76-85% 8 5 >85 % 16 Overall, the 10-year d/D indicates the pipe in the system generally performs well, with only a few small isolated pipes showing significant capacity issues. P05610-2017-003 � RIIE Page 99 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 8.2.3 Maintainability (Access to Pipe for Maintenance Purposes) Maintainability was calculated using the pipe proximity to a manhole, as manholes are used for wastewater pipe maintenance. Each pipe was assessed to determine maximum distance to the nearest manhole and then scored based on the following factors. Table 8-4 provides the risk categories for wastewater pipe maintainability and the associated scoring. Table 8-4: Maintainabiliq Risk Categories Risk Factor Proximity to Manhole Scoring for Aggregation 1 <200 feet 0.75 2 200-400 feet 1.5 3 400+ feet 3 8.2.4 Reliability (Work Order History Indicating a History of Pipe Issues) Reliability was assessed by aggregating the total corrective work orders on each pipe for cleaning, flushing, root removal, and grease removal. The last six years of CMMS data (since the City began using Cityworks) was aggregated by pipe ID and assessed for risk as follows. Table 8-5 provides the risk categories for wastewater main reliability and the associated scoring. Table 8-5: Reliability Risk Categories Risk Factor Work Order Quantity 1 0-4 Work Orders 1.25 2 5-9 Work Orders 2.5 3 10-14 Work Orders 5 4 15-19 Work Orders 10 5 20+ Work Orders 20 8.2.5 Age (Pipe Age and Material) Pipe age was calculated based on current year less install year. This age was then assigned a risk factor based on Table 8-6 and Table 8-7. P05610-2017-003 ; y AE2-S Page 100 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Table 8-6: Pine Aae Risk Ca 1 >50% of estimated useful life remaining 0.75 2 25-50% of estimated useful life remaining 1.5 3 15-25% of estimated useful life remaining 3 4 5-15% of estimated useful life remaining 6 5 <5% of estimated useful life remaining 12 Table 8-7: Material Ate Risk Categories ACP 55-85 Cl 60-75 Cl (Slip Lined) 45-75 Clay 75 Concrete 55-90 CRS-PI 75 DIP 75 DR35 PVC 75 HDPE 75 PVC 75 RCP 85 Slip Lined 45-75 Null 75 Much of the pipe inventory of the City is less than 40 years old and is PVC (see Figure 8-2). For this reason, pipes with an age less than 35 years old were assigned a risk factor of 2 or less. P05610-2017-003 )on E2S' Page 101 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 - Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Linear Feet of Sewer Mains by Install Year and Material 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 III il...li.11l � I ... lllllllll I I 11�11 1 1 1�bl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 'b 'b 'b 'b 111 ■ AC ■ AC (CONCRETE) ■ CIP ■ CIP (SLIP LINED) ■ CLAY ■ CONCRETE ■ UNKNOWN ■ DIP ■ PVC DR35 ■ HDPE ■ PVC ■ PVC SDR 35 ■ RCP ■ SLIP LINED Figure 8-2: Kalispell Wastewater Mains Installation History 8.2.6 Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment The overall likelihood of failure (LoF) is the sum of the aggregation scoring for the five risk factors listed above, and the results are shown in Table 8-8. There is a large majority of the wastewater system which is deemed to have a low to moderate likelihood of failure. Areas deemed to be of higher likelihood of failure exist in the core downtown business district and in residential and commercial areas surrounding the downtown core. This is due to the age of pipe, history of failures, and number of work orders on those pipes. This desktop assessment of LoF is predicated primarily upon desktop evaluation, and the limits of available data should be recognized. While producing an overall composite picture of low to moderate likelihood of failure, it does not suggest further main failures are unlikely. Likelihood of failure will change with time as pipe ages, conditions change in the collection system, and new stresses are applied to the network. As a result, periodic updating and re-evaluation of LoF P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 102 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 - Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 is warranted, and a living process to update the assessment with improved data on pipe condition is an important action to plan. Additionally, continued use of CCTV combined with a systematic means to evaluate CCTV footage to obtain first-hand knowledge of pipe condition should be performed and perhaps even increased. LikelihoodTotal Table 8-8: Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment Score Linear Feet Percent System 5 358,625 of 57.03 6 111,405 17.72 7 32,587 5.18% 8 12,492 1.99 9 15,335 2.44% 10 4,594 0.73 11 465 0.07 12 596 0.09 13 289 0.05 14 1,170 0.19 15 446 0.07 16 59,642 9.48 17 8,134 1.29 18 11,645 1.85 19 1,702 0.27% 20 3,087 0.49 21 1,349 0.21 22 443 0.07 24 1,133 0.18% 25 1,809 0.29% 26 537 0.09% 27 367 0.06 35 732 0.12% 44 279 0.04 Totals 628,863 100% P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2-S Page 103 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 8.3 Consequence Assessment Based on the factors identified in the overall risk policy, the following were identified as applicable and with sufficient data to be used as consequence factors: • Health and Safety Impact — Medical and school proximity to upstream manhole • Direct Financial Impact — Depth of bury and location • Public Image and Confidence - Zoning service area and road type • Environmental Impact — Water body proximity to upstream manhole The combination of these factors was used to determine a composite "consequence of asset failure" for each component of the wastewater collection system. Based on the results of the pairwise tool from the wastewater risk assessment, it was determined that the overall algorithm for consequence of failure would weight the direct financial impact as the least, and the health and safety as the highest. Each of these factors is discussed in detail below. 8.3.1 Health and Safety Impact (Medical and School Proximity to Upstream Manhole) The health and safety impact was assessed by using a proximity script that looked at the distance of manholes to medical facilities and schools, and then applied that distance to the downstream pipe. If that pipe gets blocked, then the upstream manhole is at risk of an overflow. For purposes of this analysis, Table 8-9 was used to assign the consequence factor for Health and Safety Impact. 5 Within 25 feet of School or Medical Facility 32 4 Within 50 feet of School or Medical Facility 16 3 Within 100 feet of School or Medical Facility 8 2 Within 200 feet of School or Medical Facility 4 1 >200 feet from School or Medical Facility 2 8.3.2 Direct Financial Impact (Depth of Bury and Location) There are many factors that influence the direct cost to the City of repairing a sewer main failure. Many of these are unable to be assessed in the course of the risk assessment as they are time or situation specific, and not constant for each pipe, or the data is not available to assess at the pipe level. Depth of bury and physical location data are available and can be assessed at the pipe level. Gravity sewer mains range in depth of bury from a standard cover to upwards P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 104 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 of 20 feet in some locations. As excavations get deeper, they become exponentially more expensive, so this was used as a direct correlation to cost of repair. In addition, in the downtown area, most of the sewer mains are in alleyways which increases the cost of the excavation by limiting the access to the area to perform the excavation. For purposes of this analysis, Table 8-10 was used to assign the consequence factor for Direct Financial Impact. Table 8-10: Direct Financial Impact Consequence Factors 5 >20-ft depth and within downtown area 16 4 >20-ft depth or >10-ft depth and within downtown area 8 3 >10-ft depth 4 2 7 to 10-ft depth 2 1 <7-ft depth 1 8.3.3 Public Image and Confidence (Zoning Service Area and Road Type) Zoning was used to assess the impact to the City's public image and confidence. The impact to public image of excavation in the central business district is much higher than the impact in low -density residential area. Reference was made to the Kalispell zoning district designations. Zoning designations identified by City ordinances were used. Zoning classifications deemed to require similar wastewater needs were aggregated together. Within an aggregation there may be some variations in wastewater use amongst the various land use types, however the consequences of having a main fail in those areas in terms of economic, environmental and social impact were considered to be similar, and hence, deserving of a common risk factor. The risk factor increases as the zoning districts designation trends towards more intensive land use and greater concentration of facilities and infrastructure within the designation. Therefore, low density or public land use received the lowest scoring in this category, and the Central Business District received the highest risk factor scoring. The zoning areas and roads were categorized as shown in Table 8-11. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 105 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Table 8-11: Public ImaLe Conseauence Factors 5 Highway or Central/Core Business (B-3, B-4, B-5) 26.7 4 Principal Arterial or Medical (H-1, KRH, PUD/MED) 31.3 3 Minor Arterial or B-2, B-2(PUD), PUD/COM, PUD/MFR. PUD/SFR 6.7 2 Collector or R-5, RA-2 3.3 1 All Local Roads and All Others 1.7 8.3.4 Environmental Impact (Water Body Proximity to Upstream Manhole Environmental impact was assessed through the use of a proximity script that looked at the distance of manholes to water bodies, then applied that distance to the downstream pipe. If that pipe gets blocked, then the upstream manhole is at risk of an overflow. In addition, pipe size was incorporated as a reflection of the size of flows through the pipe. The larger pipe would likely result in a larger overflow, therefore causing greater impact. For purposes of this analysis, Table 8-12 was used to assign the consequence factor for Environmental Impact. Table 8-12: Environmental uence Factors 5 >_24" and within 50 ft of water body 16 >_24" and within 100 ft of water body OR 4 >_16" and within 50 ft of water body 8 <16" and within 50 ft of water body OR 3 >_ 16" and within 100 ft of water body 4 2 <16" and within 100 ft of water body 2 1 Not within 100 ft of water body 1 8.3.5 Overall Consequence of Failure Assessment The overall consequence of failure (CoF) is the aggregated scoring of the four factors and is shown in Table 8-13. There is a large majority of the wastewater system that has been assessed as having a low -to- moderate consequence of failure. While no failure is `inconsequential', given the resources, capabilities and experience of City water/sewer crews even failures designated as `moderate' consequence are within the capabilities of the Public Works Department to effect prompt repair and minimize widespread impacts. Hence, the desktop consequence analysis and risk assessment appear to fit conditions as they exist today. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 106 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Since the consequence of failure is heavily dependent upon changes in the affected physical environment, consequence of failure ratings are generally more static than the likelihood of failure. However, given the rapid growth and development of the City, it is possible that consequences of failure will change in relatively short periods of time. Therefore, it will be appropriate for the City to periodically review and re-evaluate consequence ratings so the analysis remains relevant in periods of rapid development. Table 8-13: Overall Conse uence of Failure Assessment 1etEE7Perce;t o ConsequenclffW 7Linear Fe nt of System >_10 518,911 82.52 11 to 20 67,605 10.75% 21 to 30 2,834 0.45% 31 to 40 38,238 6.08% >40 1,274 0.20 Total LF 628,862 100% 8.4 Overall Risk Assessment Risk from each pipe segment was determined as outlined earlier, as the combination of LoF and CoF. The results are detailed below in Figure 8-3 which is a graphical representation of the risks associated with the wastewater system pipe network. As indicated in Figure 8-3 and Figure 8-4, the bulk of the wastewater system is in the lower risk range, which corresponds to an Insignificant (Level One) or Minor (Level Two) risk and does not require any current action at this time. Figure 8-4 shows the risk assessment results specifically for City's downtown region, which was determined to have the highest risk relative to the entire collection system. Table 8-14: Summary Statistics of Risk Matrix by Miles of Wastewater Collection Pipe Responseor Risk Level Risk Description Risk ot System Level 5 Catastrophic Immediate Response Needed 366 0.1% Level 4 Major Include on 0-5 Year CIP 9,393 1.8% Level 3 Moderate Include on 6-15 Year CIP 20,570 3.9% Level 2 Minor No Current Action Required 94,917 18.2% Level 1 Insignificant No Current Action Required 396,770 76.0% P05610-2017-003 ; r ram. Page 107 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 — Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Sewer Mains Risk Assessment Results 50 IN. 40 1W 0 30 0 20 Ito] 0 $ • iL' �s • Ole 0 10 20 30 40 Consequence Figure 8-3: Risk Assessment Results (Graphical Representation) P05610-2017-003 )of' E2-S 50 = m Z \ vc ➢c = m � Q DG ➢G m m ➢G '^ Z - \ V \ Z .r. !2� m Z St ➢� m m Z Z '�' Z Z G AL1pORN1A Z "' W Z z w Z W OREGON St E W ASHWGtoN St 2 HS 2 Q m x WW ASHWGtoN St � � 1 x v E MOplt ANA St WOODLAND PARK RO s DG pARKIO t ANA st RK� pLIAGE st Z► Q Op CIOW MON - N`A DEPOT PARK E RAILROAD St OO p ARKR1 GENtER St " 3 ZO�CI Lb DR Z W RAILROAD�S� � - ' 15tStE W GENtER St " 7c . � C[ Y t5t St W r 3RD St E 214p 5t W 93 41H St E 9�m ,+r 5ASt\,IN 6ttl St E, 41'" �tH St E 511" St Z ,o a gtH CIO In � ➢G yG vIn 6tH G m 'n m `L 9tH St E S yG - m c, W StE St fI = ym tH 7(H v yc t SW n vc 10 c m 8tH \Sj otH W 11tH St E yG `m F KENW AI tOtH St W St E 1 RD 12tH 4gro tttH St W t3tH St E hewater Main Type = ` IVAStW Force Main m 1411A St'E vc Gravity Fm m Ing Wastewater System AR cEgr '� o COMMONS LN Lift Station O Risk v Gov 17TH S, T W a — Level One A — Level Two z t KyNnelt ��18TI ST E OO — Level Three SUNNYSIDE DR a so 1 — Level Four % F — Level Five A�N Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 - Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Due to the ease and relatively low cost of doing CCTV condition assessment, the pipe identified in the Major (Level Four) categories should have condition assessment done using a standardized methodology such as the Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) in order to accurately assess the operational and structural defects and thereby assist the City in mitigating these risks. Level Four risk areas should be assessed over the next 5 year (short-term) planning period. Results of these inspections will be the main driver for the type of rehabilitation and repair project needed (i.e. slip lining, spot repair, new sewer main, etc.). Once the main driver is identified, an overall project scope can be created which will maximize the cost efficiency for the project. The following summarizes the 5-year Level Four/Three strategy the City should follow: • Based on the risk assessment results, approximately 9,500 lineal feet (LF) of pipe was identified having a Level Four risk. The City should plan on inspecting approximately 2,000 LF per year as part of their annual condition assessment program. • By completing 2,000 LF of inspection per year the City would be able to evaluate all of Level Four pipe identified within 5 years. Furthermore, by completing the Level Four inspections over the next 5 years the City can continue to further standardize their inspection methodology as well as develop a "feel" for the various mitigation strategies. This will allow the City to better understand the identified problematic areas along with the most cost-effective mitigation strategies. • New projects identified through the annual CCTV condition assessment program should be funded through an annual sewer rehabilitation and repair CIP fund, with the understanding that some years might experience greater rehabilitation and repair costs than others. As an initial starting point, the City should plan on repairing approximately 1,000 LF per year and adjust accordingly as additional information is collected. • The City should reassess system risk approximately every 5 years or after the Level Four condition assessment/rehabilitation and repair pipes have been appropriately mitigated. Most likely, a majority of the areas identified currently as Moderate (Level Three) risk will become Level Four following the next risk assessment update. Otherwise, the City could proceed on evaluating the identified Level Three pipes and repeat the conditions assessment process. P05610-2017-003 ,inAIIE Page 110 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 8 - Risk Based System Assessment June 2019 Any pipes identified as Catastrophic (Level Five) should be considered for immediate rehabilitation and repair. As shown in Table 8-14 and Figure 8-4, only 366 LF of pipe were classified as Level Five. The Level Five area identified is an 8-inch diameter pipeline between 2nd Avenue West and 3rd Avenue West and between 2nd Street West and 3rd Street West. This project has already been identified by the City and has an existing CIP. Therefore, it has not been identified as a new CIP within this WWFPU. P05610-2017-003 )on E2S Page 1 1 1 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 CHAPTER 9 FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION This chapter presents the recommended improvements and expansions necessary to meet the City's future wastewater collection system needs as well as satisfy the performance requirements outlined in Chapter 6. The development of the CIP, scheduling, and prioritization of improvements is presented in Chapter 10. 9.1 Future Collection System Pipeline Evaluation As discussed in Chapter 5, InfoSewer was used for the development and evaluation of the future system. The average day flows for each planning period were estimated using the Land Use Method. The MDEQ equation for peaking factor was used within the model with an increased multiplier (1.28) to match peak flows that the City has observed in recent years. Modeling scenarios were set up for each different planning period. Future wastewater flows were allocated to each scenario and proposed new pipelines were sized based on FBO peak flows. A minimum diameter of 8-inches was assumed for gravity mains with the pipelines installed at minimum slopes to meet the required velocities stated in Chapter 6, unless the surrounding topographic area required a more aggressive pipeline slope. Pipelines were generally laid out with a minimum cover depth of approximately 6 feet. Minimum cover depth exceptions were made in areas where it appeared possible to eliminate a potential lift station by going to slightly less depths over a short distance. Extending the reduced depth of cover over long distances was not considered at this level of planning and without adequate site survey data. A minimum diameter of 4-inches was assumed for force mains, and pumps were sized to meet minimum velocities. Larger diameter force mains were used to handle significant anticipated future flows in addition to keeping the maximum velocity below 8 ft/sec. The maximum ratio of depth of flow to diameter (d/D) for both the existing and proposed gravity mains were evaluated under FBO conditions prior to upsizing or rerouting of force mains. Each gravity main segment was assigned a LOS based on the depth of flow. Figure 9-1 shows the LOS analysis prior to adjusting proposed and existing infrastructure (i.e. selective upsizing and force main routing changes). Pipelines that exceeded the parameters stated in Table 6-3 were reevaluated after increasing the diameter. This iterative process was followed until all pipes satisfied the require performance parameters. This same process was followed when evaluating the existing system pipelines under future flow conditions. Flow rates at FBO were analyzed to determine the required size of future pipelines within the existing system, which in some cases required upsizing to meet future flow conditions. In some cases, there was an opportunity to reroute existing force mains to different parts of the collection system. Rerouting these particular force mains reduced the need for upsizing existing downstream infrastructure while maximizing the useful life and capacity of P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 112 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 the existing pipes. Any force main rerouting options were discussed with City staff and agreed upon prior to creating CIPs. The short-term and near -term planning periods were used to determine a relative timeframe of when these upgrades would be needed. Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 show the northern and southern existing and proposed gravity/force mains, respectively. Future wastewater loading could change depending on how development ultimately occurs. Future wastewater loading calculations varied between this WWFPU and the Preferred Route Assessment Westside Interceptor (WSI) Project Report 13 , particularly the anticipated development towards the southern end of the WSI project. The WSI Preferred Route Assessment showed more development occurring between Two Mile Drive and the WWTF versus the planning numbers provided for this study. The study service area and growth projections were developed by reviewing current planning documentation, considering previously completed facility plans, evaluating geographical boundaries, and discussions with City staff, as detailed in Chapter 3. Ultimately, this resulted in using the most recent planning and growth policy documents available to the City. is Preferred Route Assessment West Side Interceptor Project (Rep.). (2014). Robert Peccia & Associates. P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 113 � Wr D 0 C G S rD N S N_ Q m ti D Fbrlhar Rm c 00F ' 1 ZEW I ` � I Stillwater I 1 Lv Road 36 • - - - � � � R s rve Drive 1 17 st 30 rn Springcre k Rc1 111 �0 f 95� 31 on I `VERGREEN 98 2� I D Ob •�, 1� ,3j7A jk `2u7T. rj ' VV t F ' � • o 07 Full Build Out - • • Boundary) �• 22 • ` • Wastewater T-• - • Lift GD11� • Station wafer Main Type GD 1�2-i M GD 13 y GD 14 I Existing' GD 15� Future 34 • ] DT6 . Lift Station Growth and Development Lift Station1- I -. - - :• • 0 LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100% f10LVo' R,Per Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 9.2 Future Lift Station Evaluation The InfoSewer hydraulic model was used to evaluate both existing and proposed lift stations under the flow conditions associated with the three different planning periods. Pump curves for the lift stations were not available, therefore the modeled flows coming into the lift station were compared with the average pumping rates, which were provided by the City. This analysis provided guidance on sizing future lift stations along with identifying existing lift stations that will require upsizing in order to meet future wastewater needs. Existing lift stations not meeting anticipated future inflows are shown in red in Table 9-1 and were further evaluated to determine the most cost-effective upgrade strategy. Discussion with City staff helped determine site specific requirements as well as provide helpful insight and quality control of the modeled flow rates. CIPs were created for these lift stations and were placed in the appropriate planning period. Proposed lift stations that would serve multiple developments were identified and designated as a CIP (Table 9-2). For example, the proposed lift station at West Reserve Drive would serve multiple developments northeast of US HWY 93/West Reserve Drive with an anticipated FBO flow rate of 735 gpm. In general, the following criteria were followed when determining these CIP proposed lift stations: • The lift station services a large sewershed or has several other lift stations that flow into it; • The anticipated peak flow rate would require a large regional station; • The location of the station would promote future regional development; and • The lift station would require City maintenance and operation. Proposed future lift stations that generally have smaller peak flow rates and would most likely be development -driven were identified and designated as Growth and Development (G&D) lift stations (Table 9-3). These lift stations were not designated as a capital improvement project, however, their cost was generated and provided to the City for future planning purposes. The City would review these specific areas on a case by case basis to determine the most appropriate long-term strategy. In general, the following criteria were followed when determining these G&D proposed lift stations: • The lift station services a smaller sewershed; • The lift station location is highly development -driven; • The anticipated peak flow rates are relatively small; and • The lift station could be owned and operated by the developer. P05610-2017-003 � RIIE Page 115 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 show the northern and southern existing and proposed lift station locations, respectively. The approximate future sewersheds are also provided which show the applicable service area for each proposed lift station. Flow rates and the time period in which peak flows occur could change depending on development and should be confirmed by the City prior to CIP implementation. Table 9-1: Existing Lift Station Evaluation Summary Existing Lift Firm Capacity' Peak Flow — 5-yr Peak Flow — 15-yr Peak Flow — • •. LS2 490 420 425 445 LS3 860 1,130 1,355 1,600 LS4 165 55 60 90 LS5 355 265 265 270 LS6 260 80 85 175 LS7 180 110 110 115 LS8 85 125 125 170 LS9 400 745 750 860 LS10 360 335 335 355 LS11 170 30 30 35 LS12 195 "" '^^ — LS13 105 50 50 50 LS15 240 20 20 30 LS16 185 110 110 115 LS18 140 90 115 125 LS20 98 30 30 45 LS22 485 50 200 705 LS23 144 55 70 70 LS25 44 10 10 10 LS 292 1,300 2,870 5,900 LS30 80 30 30 40 LS33 225 25 110 290 LS34 250 85 155 520 LS35 180 30 45 100 LS36 820 343 991 2,530 LS38 35 10 35 60 LS39 370 210 265 925 'Existing lift station firm capacity was estimated based on information provided by the City along with data from the City's lift station monitoring website (Mission Communications, LLC.) 2The City upsized Lift Station 29 to increase capacity to accommodate flows associated with the WSI project. However, the City should consider future flows from LS3 if routed to the WSI for future sizing requirements. P05610-2017-003 in nli[ S. Page 116 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 — Future System Evaluation June 2019 Table 9-2: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary CIP Proposed CIP Lift Station Peak Flow — 5-Vr Peak Flow — 15-Vr Peak Flow — :• .p.p.p Rose Crossing — East 0 0 285 Rose Crossing — West 110 280 730 Stillwater Road 5 25 330 West Reserve Drive 20 145 465 West Springcreek Road 40 150 735 Table 9-3: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (G&D) and Peak Flow — FBO DevelopmentGrowth Lift Station •. G D-01 0 0 160 G D-02 20 75 150 G D-03 0 0 225 G D-04 20 20 45 G D-05 0 0 75 G D-06 5 25 125 G D-07 35 65 90 G D-08 10 20 65 G D-09 0 10 25 G D-10 0 0 100 GD-11 0 5 30 G D-12 0 10 185 GD-13 0 0 25 G D-14 0 0 10 G D-15 0 10 60 G D-16 0 5 10 9.3 Future System Evaluation Results The hydraulic analysis showed the need to upsize existing infrastructure along with the addition of future lift stations, force mains, and gravity main to adequately convey wastewater throughout the collection system. As shown in Figure 9-1, there were a number of areas shown as not meeting the LOS criteria, which resulted in surcharging at FBO without certain collection system modifications. Figure 9-4 shows the LOS of the future system with modifications to the collection system. P05610-2017-003 AE�S Page 117 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 One of the more significant modifications during the planning process was upsizing the existing gravity main north of Lift Station 3 and rerouting some of the anticipated future flow received at Lift Station 3 via a new force main (Four Mile Force Main) to the WSI. This modification helped alleviate both upstream and downstream surcharging that was shown under future model conditions. Furthermore, by rerouting some of the additional flow to the WSI the City can maximize their existing downstream infrastructure capacities versus upsizing or paralleling existing pipe in established roadway corridors. Other modifications included upsizing both gravity main and lift stations at select locations to accommodate future flows. The following provides a summary of the recommended projects and the timeframe that they are anticipated to be needed. Some of the projects identified could shift to a different planning period depending on how the City ultimately develops. Short -Term (0-5 Years • Lift Station 3 Main Improvements o North Influent Line Replacement, Four Mile Force Main and Gravity Main: The project consists of removing approximately 300 LF of 8-inch diameter PVC pipe and replacing with 18-inch diameter pipe upstream of Lift Station 3. In addition, this project consists of installing approximately 1.75 miles of 12-inch diameter force main and 1,560 LF of 12-inch gravity main from Lift Station 3 to the Westside Interceptor (WSI). The purpose of this project is to reduce the flows through Trunk Line A and prevent upsizing of significant lengths of existing piping in developed areas. ■ The sizing of the Four Mile Force Main (12-inch) assumes all flows during the future peak flow conditions will be pumped to the WSI and none of the flows during peak flow conditions will be going through the existing force main. Again, this helps prevent downstream upsizing of existing piping in developed areas particularly during periods of peak flow. During non -peak flow conditions, this lift station would continue to operate as it currently does with flows being pumped through the existing force main. o Lift Station 3: The City has identified the need to upsize Lift Station 3. The existing system analysis indicated that peak wet weather flows into the lift station are approximately 1,130 gpm. Peak flows for the 5-15 year planning period are anticipated to increase to approximately 1,355 gpm, with peak flows at FBO of approximately 1,600 gpm. Construction on this lift station is planned within the short-term planning horizon and should consider future peak flow rates along with the Four Mile Force Main. P05610-2017-003 11% AEzS' Page 118 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 • Lift Station 9 Improvements o Influent Line Replacement: The project consists of removing approximately 220 LF of 8-inch PVC pipe directly upstream of Lift Station 9 and replacing with 15-inch diameter PVC pipe. o Lift Station 9: Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 9 currently pump at an average rate of 400 gpm. The existing system analysis indicated that peak wet weather flows into the lift station are approximately 433 gpm. Peak flows for the 5-15 year planning period are anticipated to increase to approximately 750 gpm, with peak flows at FBO of approximately 860 gpm. Therefore, the City should plan to rehabilitate this lift station with new electrical, pumps, and piping to handle future peak flow rates. • Rose Crossing West Improvements o Force Main: This project consists of installing approximately 2,000 LF of 6- inch diameter force main. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments located along Rose Crossing. The force main would connect to the existing 18-inch gravity in Rose Crossing. o Rose Crossing West Lift Station: This project consists of constructing a lift station that could handle an estimated future peak flow rate of approximately 730 gpm. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments along the west portion of Rose Crossing as well as conveying wastewater from the proposed Rose Crossing East Lift Station discussed below. • Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Study o The City should conduct a more detailed I/I study, specifically in known areas of I/I (downtown) in order to refine and identify specific locations or sewersheds contributing significant I/I. The initial part of this study would determine the relative area of the highest I/I. Once that has been determined, there are several ways to attempt to locate sources of I/I, such as smoke testing. Smoke testing, which consists of forcing smoke into the collection system, can help locate areas of I/I by identifying points within the system where the smoke escapes. This method can locate problems in connected lines, including sections of line not known to exist or thought to be unconnected. Another potential method for determining I/I is to further calibrate the InfoSWMM model. This process would include installing flow monitors at strategic locations within the collection system, as well as rain gauges in the specific monitoring area. Collected flow and rainfall data can be incorporated into the existing model and calibrated. This can provide additional detail within the study area by correlating both rainfall and wastewater flows directly with the monitored sewersheds. Results can be used to focus on areas where model and monitoring data indicates P05610-2017-003 11% AE:ZS' Page 119 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 the highest sources of I/I. Typically, this is a multi -year effort and could include policy changes to existing users (i.e. direct rooftops connections to the collection system would need to be replaced with future building modifications, etc.). Near -Term (5-15 Years • Bluestone Sewer Main Upsize o The project consists of removing approximately 400 LF of 8-inch diameter PVC pipe and replacing with 12-inch diameter pipe to adequately handle future wastewater flows. • West Reserve Drive Sewer Improvements o Force Main and Gravity Main: This project consists of installing approximately 5,100 LF of 8-inch diameter gravity main and approximately 2,850 LF of 6-inch diameter force main. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments northeast of US HWY 93/ West Reserve Drive. o Lift Station: This project consists of constructing a lift station with an estimated peak flow rate of approximately 470 gpm. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments northeast of US HWY 93/ West Reserve Drive. • West Springcreek Road Sewer Improvements o Force Main and Gravity Main: This project consists of installing approximately 3,500 LF of 8-inch and 12-inch diameter gravity main and approximately 1,900 LF of 6-inch diameter force main. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments near West Springcreek Road. o Lift Station: This project consists of constructing a lift station with an estimated peak flow rate of approximately 735 gpm. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments near West Springcreek Road. • WSI Gravity Main Extension o This project consists of installing approximately 350 LF of 30-inch and approximately 5,800 LF of 36-inch diameter gravity main. The purpose of this project is to lessen future flows that would otherwise go exclusively into Trunk Line A by adding an additional major trunk line from where the WSI/Trunk Line A connects and extending to the WWTF. In general, the proposed main extension would parallel Trunk Line A. At the downstream connection point P05610-2017-003 ,in RIE Page 120 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 near the WWTF, both the proposed and existing 36-inch diameter mains would flow into a new common headworks structure, with single 54-inch gravity main flowing to the WWTF. o The 54-inch gravity main improvements into the WWTF are part of an existing City CIP project. • Lift Station 36 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 36 currently pump at an average rate of 820 gpm. Peak flows for the 5-15 year planning period are anticipated to increase to approximately 991 gpm, with peak flows at FBO of approximately 2,530 gpm. As a result of the significant increase in flow at full buildout, it is anticipated that a significant expansion of this lift station would be required. However, this should be further investigated in preliminary design. Long -Term (15+ Years): • Lift Station 22 Improvements o Influent Line Replacement: The project consists of removing approximately 55 LF of 8-inch diameter PVC pipe and replacing with 15-inch diameter pipe. o Lift Station: Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 22 currently pump at an average rate of 485 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 700 gpm at FBO. As a result of the significant increase in flow at full buildout, it is anticipated that a new lift station or a lift station upsize would be required. However, this should be further investigated in preliminary design. • Rose Crossing East Sewer Improvements o Force Main and Gravity Main: This project consists of installing approximately 2,100 LF of 8-inch and approximately 80 LF of 12-inch diameter gravity main and approximately 4,400 LF of 4-inch diameter force main. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments along the east portion of Rose Crossing. o Rose Crossing East Lift Station: This project consists of constructing a lift station with an estimated peak flow rate of approximately 290 gpm. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments along the east portion of Rose Crossing. P05610-2017-003 11% n11E Page 121 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 • Stillwater Road Sewer Improvements o Force Main and Gravity Main: This project consists of installing approximately 150 LF of 10-inch diameter gravity main and approximately 1,300 LF of 4-inch diameter force main. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments along Stillwater Road. o Lift Station: This project consists of constructing a lift station with an estimated peak flow rate of approximately 330 gpm. The purpose of this project is to provide a means for conveying wastewater from new developments along Stillwater Road. • Lift Station 8 Improvements o Based on information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 8 currently pump at an average rate of 85 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 170 gpm at FBO. The City currently has plans to replace these pumps with larger 220 gpm pumps salvaged from the recently abandoned Lift Station 19, therefore, this project is not included in the CIP. • Lift Station 12 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 12 currently pump at an average rate of 195 gpm. Peak flows for the 5-15 year planning period are anticipated to increase to approximately 300 gpm, with peak flows at FBO of approximately 340 gpm. As a result, this lift station should be planned for rehabilitation, new electrical, pumps, and piping. It should be noted, that this lift station improvement was moved into the Long -Term planning period based on the following. • Limited future area growth potential - the existing sewershed is largely developed with limited area for future growth. • The existing lift station has no known issues and can adequately handle existing wastewater flows (based on discussion with City Staff). • The model utilized a higher peaking factor based on I/I at the WWTF. In this particular area the model might be slightly overpredicting future peak flows rates. o This lift station should be monitored closely to ensure sufficient capacity. The City should move this CIP into the Near -Term planning period if flows increase. P05610-2017-003 ,in AEzS Page 122 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 9 - Future System Evaluation June 2019 • Lift Station 33 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 33 currently pump at an average rate of 225 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 290 gpm at FBO. As a result, this lift station should be planned for replacement of pumps, motors, wiring, and piping. • Lift Station 34 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 34 currently pump at an average rate of 250 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 520 gpm at FBO. As a result, this lift station should be planned for rehabilitation, including new electrical, pumps, and piping. City discussions indicate sufficient wet well capacity for future flows. • Lift Station 38 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 38 currently pump at an average rate of 35 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 60 gpm at FBO. However, discussions with City staff indicate that this lift station will be abandoned in the future with the addition of new gravity mains. As a result, a CIP was not included for this lift station. • Lift Station 39 Improvements o Based on the information provided by the City, the pumps in Lift Station 39 currently pump at an average rate of 370 gpm. Peak flows into this lift station are anticipated to increase to approximately 925 gpm at FBO. As a result, this lift station should be planned for rehabilitation, including new electrical, pumps, and piping. City discussions indicate sufficient wet well capacity for future flows. P05610-2017-003 * y AEzS Page 123 ;ed Wastewater Lift Stations CIP Lift Station Growth and Development Lift Station Approximate Sewershed ;ed Wastewater Main by Diameter < 4„ 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" - 18" 21 " - 24" 27" - 30" 36" 3 � m 1 D� v FRbuhdup L.. 93 :. ,`06616 LM1 - T T I o - .- I•• a jj/�1,tt o00 D11�1u1� T 93 � I 1 T t , - D 1 J ' 12 �� 11Ti11� �1 4 I t'8M1ghd �611e52fy ,cmjuloA �38 r 2 y � Df a Ln auu rF, / 4.hu! F, a Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) water Main Type Force Main Gravity g Wastewater System Wastewater Treatment Facility Lift Station Force Main Gravity ;ed Wastewater Lift Stations CIP Lift Station Growth and Development Lift Station Approximate Sewershed ;ed Wastewater Main by Diameter < 4„ 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" - 18" 21 " - 24" 27" - 30" <r.1 4 7 [LNJ Uutmlo MII unror v0t':iuh — Al- 2 Lawmnc� = /Zwatey ti Na rA S ' 93 iE 0 COMp1OK a I tl �0• D 1 CA 9@i i D99 CA 9 D I 1 1 CD ti "34 � JJ - � GD 16 l • Wr D 0 C G 3 rD N 3 N_ Q N ti D f�tl1 � hhMar RDa c GOP 1 7 � � C7uh _i _ , �- Q. I:C-C E. � . v Old Revs"A I I D WhZ _ 548 — — 71 I,�IJ 4 I Kekiape I Yr�ufh :� r 93 I xlnwe is �4lF �L C.—• I I -I I - D 2 r f7 I hLpp hAla f -- y T wog �"' 13 )Ifq View rl. Qshley��e,k �5a vir . 2 ; t /Loro uh^s. • 0 ' \ Foys flake CAW f "likC of 93 � rYY11 I Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) ig Wastewater System — I — B Wastewater Treatment Facility Lift Station used Wastewater Lift StationsI— CIP Lift Station 1 — Growth and Development Lift Stationp ?water Main Type Existing Future Dh 503 c •r icity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter 93 - LOS-1 : <50% Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 CHAPTER 10 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS This chapter presents recommended CIP projects identified in the course of assessing the current wastewater collection system and evaluating short-term, near -term, and long-term needs. The recommended wastewater collection system improvement projects represent the results o£ 1) The existing and future system evaluations (Chapter 7 & Chapter 9); 2) The risk -based system assessment (Chapter 8); and 3) Multiple meetings with City staff. An all-inclusive list of identified improvement projects was compiled for a comprehensive CIP evaluation. Cost estimates were generated for each project and the projects were placed into their respective planning periods to facilitate spending capital dollars in the most cost-effective manner possible. This chapter includes descriptions of the CIP project categories, cost estimate methodology, implementation considerations, and a summary of each recommended improvement. 10.1 CIP Project Categories Projects within the CIP were divided into eight categories: • Condition Assessment • Growth and Development • Optimization • Rehabilitation and Repair • Studies • Lift Stations • Gravity Mains • Force Mains The development of these categories provided the conceptual framework for CIP development, project prioritization and timeframe progressions, and correlated projects to the City's present fiscal resources (i.e., what type of project makes the best use of the available capital improvement budget). Each category is described in the following subsections. P05610-2017-003 AEzS Page 127 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 10.1.1 Condition Assessment Condition assessment is a process used to identify degradation of a pipeline before failure, or to identify viable life remaining in a segment of pipeline to avoid spending money on unnecessary replacement or rehabilitation. There is a wide range of utility investment in condition assessment. The potential advantage of a robust condition assessment program is more efficient use of capital. For the purposes of this WWFPU, condition assessment was assumed to be CCTV performed by City Staff. Currently, the City has been televising collection system pipelines for a number of years and has the staff and equipment to continue this type of condition assessment process. The City should follow a standardized methodology such as the PACP in order to accurately assess the operational and structural defects and thereby assist the City in mitigating these risks. The condition assessment projects identified were based on the results of the wastewater collection system risk assessment described in Chapter 8. 10.1.2 Growth and Development Projects identified for the growth and development category provide the necessary infrastructure to serve both existing and future customers. Growth and development projects meet three needs: 1. Service for future development. 2. Provide wastewater conveyance in already developed areas. 3. Infill and redevelopment. The timing of the need for growth and development projects can be difficult to predict. For this reason, the City treats this class as its own separate category, and the prioritization of improvements is evaluated as growth occurs. Therefore, infrastructure projects driven by growth and development are not included as specific capital improvement projects. The City will typically utilize a cost -share approach with developers to install upsized sewer main and lift stations for actively developing areas of the City as development occurs. 10.1.3 Optimization Projects identified for the optimization category promote network efficiency and movement or eliminate facilities to reduce operating cost and improve overall network performance. These projects include SCADA upgrades and lift station improvements. 10.1.4 Rehabilitation and Repair Rehabilitation and repair projects are generally associated with pipe segments that experience high break rates, significant leakage, are undersized (experience surcharging), or require P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 128 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 maintenance. A risk assessment process utilizing these factors in a structured and systematic process was used as a means of identifying pipe segments with highest risk, measured through a consequence and likelihood of failure assessment, and then generating projects to mitigate the risk. Depending on the risk scoring, some of the rehabilitation and repair projects would undergo condition assessment first to better refine the scope of the risk mitigation project to be completed. The rehabilitation and repair projects identified were based on the results of the wastewater collection system risk assessment described in Chapter 8. 10.1.5 Studies The objective of study projects is to perform additional analysis and develop better information so the City can make informed decisions regarding future projects. 10.1.6 Lift Stations Projects identified for the lift station category were based on the evaluation criteria described in Chapter 6 in conjunction with the existing and future system analysis. These projects consist of existing lift stations that are anticipated to be under capacity prior to full buildout and new lift stations that will serve future growth areas. 10.1.7 Gravity Mains Projects identified for the gravity mains category were determined through the hydraulic modeling analysis. The identified projects consist of existing gravity mains that are shown to be surcharging in the hydraulic model prior to full buildout as well as new gravity mains that serve future growth areas. 10.1.8 Force Mains Projects identified for the force mains category were determined through the hydraulic modeling analysis. The identified projects consist of existing force mains that are not anticipated to be able to meet future flows following modifications to lift stations as well as force mains that will be required to service future lift stations. P05610-2017-003 0AEzSy Page 129 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 10.2 Opinion of Probable Project Cost for CIP Development This section describes the methodology used to develop the Opinion of Probable Project Cost (OPPC) for the various types of projects outlined in the WWFPU and contains the following information: • Opinion of Probable Project Cost Basis • Estimate Classification • Estimating Exclusions • Total Estimated Project Cost • Total Opinion of Probable Project Cost 10.2.1 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Basis The OPPC values were based on the total capital investment necessary to complete a project from engineering design through construction. All estimates are based on engineering experience and judgment, recent bid tabulations for projects of similar scope, and input from area contractors and material suppliers. All costs are presented in 2018 dollars and inflated for each CIP project based on the estimated year it will be bid or constructed. Total estimated project costs were divided into five main components, as follows: • Hard Costs - The actual physical construction of the project (i.e., excavation, materials, labor, restoration). • Soft Costs - Fees not directly related to labor and building materials (i.e., architecture and engineering fees, permitting/environmental, contract administration, legal). • Property Acquisition Costs - The cost to obtain property, right-of-way, and easements. • Contingency - Amount added to the estimated cost to cover both identified and unidentified risk events that occur on the project. • Inflation - The application of the average annual inflation rate anticipated between the time an estimate is prepared and when the project is bid or projected for construction. The sum of these five components is the total OPPC. The OPPC values are based on the preliminary concepts and layouts of the wastewater system components developed as a result of the hydraulic modeling of the system and corresponding recommendations. The estimate is to be an indication of fair market value and is not necessarily a reflection of the lowest bid. Fair market value is assumed to be mid -range tender considering four or more competitive bids. 10.2.2 Estimate Classification P05610-2017-003 in nl[ S. Page 130 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) provides guidelines for applying the general principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates (i.e., cost estimates that are used to evaluate, approve, and/or fund projects). The purpose for following a classification process is to align the level of estimating with the use of the information. The estimates provided in the WWFPU are classified in accordance with the criteria established by AACE cost estimating classification system referred to as Standard Practice 18R-97. In accordance with AACE criteria, the OPPC values are representative of Class 4 estimates. A Class 4 estimate is defined as a study or feasibility estimate. Typically, the engineering effort is from 1 to 15 percent complete. Class 4 estimates are used to prepare planning -level effort cost scopes or complete an evaluation of alternative schemes, technical feasibility, and preliminary budget approval or approval to proceed to the next stage of implementation. Expected accuracy for Class 4 estimates typically range from -30 to +50 percent, depending on the technical complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. 10.2.3 Estimatina Exclusions Unless specifically identified, the following estimating exclusions were assumed in the development of the cost estimates: • Environmental mitigation of hazardous materials and/or disposal. • O&M costs for the project components. 10.2.4 Total Estimated Proiect Cost The following sections provide a breakdown of each of the different items included in each cost component associated with developing the total OPPC for each project. 10.2.4.1 Hard Costs Hard costs, sometimes referred to as contractor construction costs, represent the actual physical construction of a project. This section was divided into component unit costs and hard cost markups. The following sources of information were used to compile the hard cost estimates: Review of 2017 and 2018 construction bid tabs for similar projects (including the five schedules associated with the Westside Interceptor project bid in Spring 2018) • Review of current city estimates of construction costs • Review of recently bid projects for city replacement projects P05610-2017-003 11% AE:;tS' Page 131 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 • Review of the 2008 Sewer Facility Plan probable construction cost estimates • Review of historical bid prices for the City • Vendor, supplier, and contractor estimates for specific equipment and materials 70.2.4.1.1 Component Unit Costs All estimates are based on engineering experience and judgment, recent bid tabulations for projects of similar scope, cost indexing, and input from area contractors and material suppliers. For specific equipment and materials, information was requested from vendors and suppliers and the costs were increased by applying a multiplication factor to include the related costs and expenses (such as labor, connections, and miscellaneous materials) required to complete the installation. 10.2.4.1.2 Unpaved Gravity Sewer Main The pipe material assumed for new unpaved gravity sewer mains located outside public right- of-way in an easement was ASTM D3034 SDR35 PVC for pipes ranging from 8-inches to 15- inches in diameter. Pipe material for pipe sizes between 18-inches and 36-inches was assumed to be ASTM F679 PS46 PVC. Table 10-1 presents the unpaved gravity main construction costs. The cost is based on the following assumptions: • Earthwork o Trench depth of 8 feet to 12 feet to the top of pipe o Utility bedding for pipe and compaction of bedding in the trench o Full depth import backfill and compaction • 48-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 8- to 18-inch pipe sizes. • 60-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 36-inch pipe size. • Includes hydroseeding surface restoration of unpaved areas. P05610-2017-003 y AiEzS. Page 132 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 Table 10-1: Unpaved Gravitv Main Cost Der Linear Foot 8 $115 10 $120 12 $125 15 $130 18 $135 36 $195 10.2.4.1.3 Paved Gravity Sewer Mains The pipe material assumed for new gravity sewer mains located within paved public right-of- way was ASTM D3034 SDR35 PVC for pipes ranging from 8-inches to 15-inches in diameter, while pipe sizes between 18-inches and 36-inches were assumed to be ASTM F679 PS46 PVC. Table 10-2 presents the paved gravity main construction costs. The cost is based on the following assumptions: • Earthwork o Trench depth of 8 feet to 12 feet to the top of pipe. o Utility bedding for pipe and compaction of bedding in the trench. o Full depth import backfill and compaction. • 48-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 8- to 18-inch pipe sizes. • 60-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 30- to 36-inch pipe sizes. • Includes asphalt pavement removal and replacement of existing paved areas. P05610-2017-003 Table 10-2: Paved Gravitv Main Cost Der Linear Foot 8 $175 10 $180 12 $185 15 $190 18 $195 30 $235 36 $255 y AE2-S Page 133 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 — Recommended Improvements June 2019 Please note that the costs of curb and gutter or sidewalk removal and replacement are not included. 70.2.4.1.4 Paved and Unpaved Sewer Force Mains The pipe material assumed for new paved and unpaved sewer force mains located within public right-of-way was DR18 C900 PVC for pipes ranging from 4-inches to 12-inches in diameter. Table 10-3 presents the paved and unpaved sewer force main construction costs. The cost is based on the following assumptions: • Earthwork o Trench depth of 6 feet to 8 feet to the top of pipe. o Utility bedding for pipe and compaction of bedding in the trench. o Full depth import backfill and compaction. • Includes a plug valve every 1,000 feet (on average). • Includes hydroseeding surface restoration of unpaved areas. • Includes asphalt pavement removal and replacement of existing paved areas. Table 10-3: Paved and U 4 (Unpaved) 6 (Unpaved) 12 (Unpaved) 6 (Paved) 10.2.4.1.5 Other Sewer Main Items Sewer Force Main Cost Der Linear Foot $80 $85 $100 $125 Additional items included in the sewer main cost estimates are presented below: • Sewer Main Connections of proposed mains to other mains in the system (Table 10- 4). • Sewer Main Crossings (Table 10-5). P05610-2017-003 11% AiEzS' Page 134 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 — Recommended Improvements June 2019 Table 10-4: Sewer Main Connection Costs Lonnecting iLipe• per • • Existing Sewer Service Connection $1,500 Existing Sewer Main Connection $4,500 Lift Station Connection $4,500 10'H x 101 x 5'W Specialty Manifold Structure $15,000 Table 10-5: Sewer Main Crossing Costs 18 - 24 Highway Bore with Space Constraints 27 - 36 Highway Bore with Space Constraints 8 - 18 Road Crossing/Bore 10.2.4.1.6 Sewer Lift Station Facilities $750 $1, 000 $400 Project costs for proposed lift station facilities were prepared for several different sizes. Costs were based on information obtained from package lift station vendors, previous construction experience, and recently bid projects for similar lift station projects. The cost is based on the following assumptions: • Wet well structures vary depending on associated capacity requirements. • Includes major components (i.e. pumps, fittings, valves, electrical, emergency generator, odor control, and communications). • Includes site access, grading, fencing, and landscaping. Project cost estimates for construction of sewer lift stations were based on planning level costs depending on overall capacity and whether it was for a retrofit of an existing lift station or construction of a new lift station facility, as shown in Table 10-6. Costs assigned to lift stations were general in definition and items such as vault assemblies associated with force mains were not included but would likely be covered as part of project contingencies if needed. Table 10-6: Sewer Lift Station Facility Costs Lift Station Size and Type Cost New Lift Station (small pumps less than 150 gpm) $500,000 New Lift Station (medium pumps 150 gpm to 500 gpm) $750,000 New Lift Station (large pumps 500 gpm to 1,000 gpm) $950,000 New Lift Station (very large pumps 1,000 gpm to 2,500 gpm) $1,500,000 Existing Lift Station Rehabilitation (small pumps) $150,000 Existing Lift Station Rehabilitation (medium to large pumps) $250,000 P05610-2017-003 FIE '4S Page 135 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 10.2.4.2 Hard Cost Markups Hard costs markups are applied to the hard costs and construction costs to calculate total construction costs. The hard cost markups are reflected in the individual capital improvement project cost estimates. Markups vary depending on the size and type of the project. • Mobilization/demobilization/insurance/permits/bonds - 0-8 percent o Mobilization costs include the administrative costs and expenses to mobilize materials, equipment, and labor to the jobsite and demobilize upon project completion. Costs associated with contractor insurance, permits, and bonding are also included. • Traffic Control - 0-5 percent o Traffic control was assigned to projects that occur in the public right-of-way, primarily gravity main replacement or force main projects. • Erosion Control - 0-1 percent o Erosion control is required for all construction projects to ensure compliance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans. • Testing and Construction Surveying - 0-3 percent o Costs associated with materials testing during construction in addition to construction surveying and staking. • Existing Utility Adjustments - 0-10 percent o This hard cost markup was only applied to gravity sewer main installation projects within urban areas where utility conflicts and associated re-routing are anticipated. 10.2.4.3 Soft Costs To adequately complete the planning, design, and construction of projects listed in this WWFPU, there are significant soft costs that will be required. Soft costs are non -construction labor costs consisting of architecture and engineering fees, permitting and environmental compliance, contract administration, legal fees, etc. Soft costs are applied to the hard costs plus the hard cost markups. A breakdown and summary of the soft costs that were included in the cost estimates are provided below. P05610-2017-003 ,in RIIE Page 136 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 • Engineering Design - 0-20 percent o Costs include preliminary engineering through final design, which involves the development of final project plans and specifications that will be stamped by a professional consulting engineer. Engineering costs include disciplines such as process, civil, electrical, mechanical, architectural, and structural. Costs also include surveying, testing, investigations, and inspections during the design phase. Examples include surveys of pipeline alignments and facility parcels, security and safety inspections, material and geological testing, and inspection services. • Construction Administration and Management - 0-10 percent o Costs include services to provide quality control, quality assurance, and construction management during the construction phase and services associated with the initial operation including training of operational, maintenance, and supervisory staff. • Legal and Administrative - 0-5 percent o Costs associated with the local and State project approval process, and any legal costs, are included in this category. Responsible tasks may include road crossing permits, construction permits, county building permits, inter -disciplinary team meetings, NEPA compliance, expenses incurred by the City, etc. 10.2.4.3.1 Property Acquisition Costs Property acquisition costs are associated with purchasing property and acquiring right-of-way or easements for the project. Costs normally consist of payments to landowners. Costs for purchasing property associated with a new lift station or lift station upgrades were generated based on average 2018 real estate values of vacant lots with utilities within Kalispell urban areas. Costs for acquiring right-of-way or easements were based on average 2017 real estate values of City easements for rural land in Kalispell with generally no utilities. This was appropriate for most of the identified CIP projects anticipated to be built outside of right-of- way. 10.2.4.3.2 Contingency A contingency is an amount added to the base cost to cover both identified and unidentified risk events that occur on the project. Depending on the project type, the contingency values ranged from 10 to 30 percent. The contingency values were added to the overall project base cost (i.e. hard and soft costs) in anticipation of uncertainties inherent to the planning -level analysis completed for the WWFPU. P05610-2017-003 AEzS. Page 137 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 — Recommended Improvements June 2019 10.2.4.3.3 Inflation Projects intended for construction several years in the future include a factor for inflationary impacts to address the general trend of cost indices, which accounts for future labor, material, and equipment cost increases beyond values at the time the estimate is prepared. For this planning -level analysis, the 2018 project costs were inflated to the construction year anticipated for each CIP project. An annual average inflation rate was generated based on historic inflation data to estimate inflation trends into the future. 10.2.4.4 Summary of Estimate Marku Table 10-7 provides a summary of suggested hard costs markups, soft costs, and contingency rate percentages. Table 10-7: Total Estimate Proiect Mar Hard Cost Markups Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 0-8 Traffic Control 0-5 Erosion Control 0-1 Testing and Construction Surveying 0-3 Existing Utility Adjustments (as applicable) 0-10 Soft Costs Engineering Design 0-20 Construction Administration and Management 0-10 Legal and Administrative 0-5 Other Property Acquisition Unit Price Contingency 10-30 Estimated Annual Inflation 2 10.2.5 Opinion of Probable Project Cost (OPPC) Sheets Appendix D provides the OPPC cost sheets used to generate estimated cost information for each proposed capital improvement project identified in this chapter. 10.3 CIP Timing, Prioritization, and Implementation Following the basis of planning detailed in Chapter 3, ClPs identified within this WWFPU were divided into short-term (0-5 year), near -term (5-15 year) and long-term (15+) timeframes. Specific project timing was determined using the hydraulic model, future wastewater flows per planning period, and anticipated system growth maps developed by City planning. P05610-2017-003 0 y AE2.S Page 138 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 Short-term project ranking and prioritization was not applicable due to the limited number of CIPs identified during this planning period. Near -Term and Long -Term projects are not ranked due to the complexity of project timing and implementation. Existing City CIPs previously identified in past planning efforts are also included in the final CIP document. 10.4 Recommended Capital Improvements A cost summary for the recommended improvements is provided as Figure 10-1. The chart provides a breakdown of the total OPPC for the upcoming five years of CIP projects, as well as the total OPPC for each of the three planning periods (0-5 year, 5-15 year, and FBO). Appendix E provides a detailed mapbook of the proposed CIP projects. $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $s,000,000 $o CIP Cost -Year Summary FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 ■ Optimization ■ LS & Gravity Main ■Studies ■ Rehabilitation & Repair ■ Lift Station Upgrades ■ Gravity Main Figure 10-1: Total OPPC 2019 to 2024to Beyond 2023 2033 2033 ■ Growth & Development ■ LS, Gravity & Force Main ■ Gravity & Force Main The following Table 10-8, Table 10-9, and Table 10-10 present the capital improvement projects recommended for consideration by the City for the short-term, near -term, and long- term planning periods, respectively. P05610-2017-003 AEzs. Page 139 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 Figure 10-3 provides an overview of the short-term recommend capital improvements costs. Figure 10-3, Figure 10-4, and Figure 10-5 provide maps of the City showing the locations of the proposed CIPs for the short-term, near -term, and long-term, respectively. P05610-2017-003 )on E2S Page 140 Ln a u $ N 0 n O L}L V1 i. C 0 1 N cl _ 7• > c ON (7 of J LL .� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v} O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O p 00 LO C fn1 O 00 LO N c-I c-I N � c-I vl c-I li F c-I t/Y t!t N th N .zT 00 n co O N O l0 N N N Ln Lf1 O —1 q* O �t -1 00 .-i Ln 00 O 'T 00 I, M O c-I ci Ln I, O 00 -1 LA I, O 00 -1 O Ln LI) l0 00 N 'T O Ln M r11 Il ci O 00 c-I rl N c-I f'r1 Lfl l0 lzz n n N n M 01 N 00 c-I O LIl M 00 -1 N c-I .-i Ln O O 'T N N 01 O 00 q* 00 l0 n m M 00 O Ol Q0 M 00 00 O rn Ln 00 Q0 M r1 co r M M M �.o rn -1 O O Q0 o Ln I� n O -1 M Lfl N N N l0 N fV M O V1 00 00 N f0 -1 M .-i N � r-ci f'r)c-I' V l .i v} v} v} if)- v} v} v} v} of v} v} v�- v} v} v� v�- v�- v� to v} v)- v). v). v} i,,� ro c c g i nnQ Qvnv na) na) nCL n n v na) na) n ro W a aaa vaa oi Y Yo v tY tY tY tY tY tY a) 0 06 a) 06 06 06 a) 0 06 06 M M 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 i 11 c > c c c > 11 c c Q U- c c c c c c C c o s cz o o 0 0 i 06 o 0 0 > > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL f6 ++ Y Y Y Y Y C C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C > m _y m m m _y > f6 f6 Y f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 G w Y Y Y 06 Y Y f6 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y > to _ _ _ _ > _ _ N Y Y _ _ _ _ _ _ to _ ._ ro ro m 3 f0 f0 r0 3 (7 fa fa _ Ln V) m fa ra fa fa r0 � ra m 0 t o V + v a) a) v vi a) a) 0 v a) a) a) a) a) a) v C7 C7 J V) = (7 = M = (D J M oc O J J K oc oc M oc M V) oc f iz v ^6 16 v v Y Y � E N a) + > c o a) n E E > E a) > 0 n E O V) c r6 v a a3 > O + a0i E cl 06 LU T a) Q cN-I Q V) 3 a) a U N 00 to z W a) -0 N a) N a) - C a) Q Q Q Q mi ate-+ ate-+ C N bo O 'T N Ln N .-i 3 O C C C C C u y O O O O O Ln O 0 a) ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ V) O U .O CEEEEETc c_a aaa 0 >E U U U aaWE U U DCO U 16 f6 f6 f6 f6 Q a) f6 E > E m a) Q aQ aQ aQ Q faU a) ) ) ) a) a E V) a = = = = Q v Ln v a) a) a) a) a) \ 0 3 0 E a3i a3i a3i a3i a3i g a) g Ln Ln V) Ln V) a 0 Y -O Y Y Y Y Y Y y f6 V) C Ln LZ > > > > O fa ra fa fa J C7 J N (7 C7 C7 C7 (D LL W N Ln I, 00 m O N co Ol .-i I, n n n n n 00 00 00 00 Cl) M lD N Lr 00 Lf1 (14 M IMAM Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Chapter 10 - Recommended Improvements June 2019 10.4.2 Near -Term (5-15 Years) CIP Projects Table 10-9: Near -Term (5-15 Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations WW-M-02 Bluestone Upsize Gravity Main $ 202,967 WW-M-03 Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension Gravity Main $ 3,936,377 WW-LS-03 West Reserve Drive Improvements Gravity Main $ 5,373,337 WW-LS-04 West Springcreek Road Improvements Gravity Main $ 3,484,419 WW-LS-06 Lift Station #36 Improvements Lift Station $ 3,083,170 Upgrades General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit) Growth & $ 1,865,061 Development Total Opinion of Probable Cost $ 17,945,331 10.4.3 Long -Term (15+ Years) CIP Projects Table 10-10: Long -Term (15+ Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations WW-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements LS, Gravity & $ 2,081,737 Force Main WW-LS-05 Lift Station 412 Improvements Lift Station $ 638,922 Upgrades WW-LS-07 Lift Station 422 Improvements LS & Gravity $ 2,479,552 Main WW-LS-08 Rose Crossing East Improvements LS, Gravity & $ 3,714,545 Force Mai n WW-LS-09 Stillwater Road Improvements LS, Gravity & $ 2,316,138 Force Main WW-LS-10 Lift Station 433 Improvements Lift Station $ 638,922 Upgrades WW-LS-11 Lift Station 434 Improvements Lift Station $ 638,922 Upgrades WW-LS-12 Lift Station 439 Improvements Lift Station $ 660,071 Upgrades General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit) Growth & $ 2,782,763 Development Total Opinion of Probable Cost $ 15,951,573 P05610-2017-003 ,00 AE�S Page 142 M1 S Clark C•, m 1 � 3 N_ No rlh or 93 ..f Rncc (P tin r u ut T Y — Q w a o W W-M-01 1 Lift Station #3 Main Improvements � r Old Ream& I 1 ? lI 548 Resrr', 93 7rAJ 71 � 1 1 I 1 ® J 1 1 enrrdo n) ` Hillier 1 hr0e We Dr T a �mPkt 2 41 @ r dgn F P Loro- P° • \ Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) water Main Type Force Main Gravity g Wastewater System Wastewater Main Wastewater Treatment Facility Lift Station emended Wastewater System Lift Station Improvement CIP Lift Station emended CIP Improvements W W-M-01 Lift Station #3 Main Improvements WW-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements WW-LS-02- Rose Crossing West Improvements h & Development Wastewater System V LL W W-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements 7 � I ti 1. vergr t_ I I _ L.,-i ire n nr W W-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements r.i:orra�rrt i}I 93 I� 1 � 1 � M 1 � — X • 1 - r ra 503 4 93 r{ Y Il® W W-LS-06 Lift Station #36 Improvements T Q O G 3 I,hrlhor Fllwa 93 _ N_ f rQ (D +If 1 1 I I ' 1 1 Q � 1 ''{' I:17 —� -- - — WW-LS-03 1 West Reserve Drive Improvements r Old RezyQ•A _ 548 Re sir, � 1 W W-LS-04 I 1 n West Springcreek — 93 _ Road Improvements 1 1 I j qw,4 c, , I 1 r� l r•uth �®®= r ' 99 r I 1 1 1 1 W I-.ar I 1 1 I , 1 � .n � FriiGeM i� 1 hr0e Mlle I)r _ y { A v . C r! ► raj — — + JmPkt isp A, nl Cft Anj View r» 2 SNI .w^_{11w_'I' Dlp 9 7 I W W M-02c F. Bluestone Upsize ,. rT ` 90 E FLesrra Dr 2 r f7{,,.. . W W-M-03 Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension I Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) 93 1 Ir 1 water Main Type — — — Force Main I 1 1 Gravity 1 \ 1 f 1 Wastewater System Wastewater Main �T� -1 \ M _—L-4 Wastewater Treatment Facility Lift Station ' amended Wastewater System C / Lift Station Improvement Near Term amended CIP Improvements WW-M-02 - Bluestone Upsize n, i WW-M-03 -Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension 503 ? {�\' WW-LS-03 - West Reserve Drive Improvements *'_ 93 WW-LS-04 - West Springcreek Road Improvements k I & Development Wastewater System fir, 2 ♦ V W-LS-14 7W, Lift Station #391mprovements ' LL CWrk Dr 1 hbrlhar 93 (p f' Cv V dip Club p a, T i Purr X W W-LS-09 1 1 o Stillwater Road Improvements 1 1 1 ct'Oe l 1 11 _ � 1 _ + _ _ _- - - - — 3piNrg Crt0 (p 1 i W W-LS-08 Old ReAS" r' Rose Crossing East Improvements E Cyr 1 1 - 71 1 1 1iI.J- 1 1 J 1(E117pR i i 1 1 93r 1 1 1 1 lr@ W W-LS-OS 1 :f Lift Station #121mprovements 2 '.Ji lirilk7 I 1 \ - — - 6utlW. HIICnh b ice. ar � � �- 1 nroe We Dr — give Park �la� ICY u �raii eta F i-hell3 g ry _ VVI 19iebiDm i) l ` f t Dri• 2 W W-LS-10 �` I " -� P"k n Lift Station #33 Improvements _ j r, t Lora / Full Build Out Annexation Boundary) (2015 + water Main Type , WW-LS-07 Force Main . * Lift Station #221mprovements Jr ' Gravity- g Wastewater System -} 1 1 \� ` 1 1 - 1 93 1 WastewaterMain 1 - WastewaterTreatment Facility % --�-4 Lift Station X" nmended Wastewater System � � -4 _ ' r_ f- Lift Station Improvement Lift Station #341mp1rovements 1 _ CIP Lift Stationp II 1_ nmended CIP Improvements ' W W-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements" R' ' W W-LS-08 - Rose Crossing East Improvements 503 ' W W-LS-09 - Stillwater Road Improvements _ k 93 •h & Development Wastewater System Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Appendices June 2019 Appendix A - Existing Collection System Mapbook P05610-2017-003 )on E2S 2 V rc LL C G N 3 - N C.Inlh i.l �� rp N f 93 v o .. Q� k:t.0 E.I ' Ir s pl,'; •a n Q� o v Old Rea.@ A Wh,� 548 o — �rR1� 93 IicE}i vergi, Oil 'L7� H ll - I hr@e Mlle f II 0 o I e / W F KI-lxlla 9 11 / S �shley��� - • ' 2 o r1Jr{ Lori F'Klp � rfl Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Fojy6 w"i ,, . lewater Main Type Ur 93 Force Main Gravity r I �rPr ing Wastewater System/ IWastewater Treatment Facility I Wastewater Lift Station i Diameter < 4, 6" 10 12" 14"- 18" 20" 21"-24' 27" - 30' ' LSU 4t L 93 cr+uecr A � � %f� Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter Force Main 8" Gravity 1 9" SCHRADERD / I CHURCH DR 81,pVC ylq �O Lh N O'p � silt rPl C !d DONNADR _ L..7 r G W 0 G . ` - AUTUMN Q`� Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Force Main 8" Gravity 1 9" LWO S $ G CP A m ES N1 811PVC n Q n 8 PVC mfi A GRp\.AVEN�P� HAC WILD PINE DR ., F � • QUq LLOW � o ( _ _ • C, Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter — 14" - 18" Force Main 8" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity 19" qr y'c v? 9,y O 4' r DONNA DR AUTUMN CT 3 ' d a d O C FRANKLIN WAY 4� . ,m do a hQ Z - J t F� Z Y U rc N CHEROKEE LN R CHESTNUT DR a WILD PINE DR - i Oj 4 � DR � � 4 k � 7 y' ! W� Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 8" 14" - 18" Gravity 10" PONDEROSAZ � � WILD PINE 2 lk- 10 L � > .( «%& . � Full Build Out (m1:Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type «dnDamke _ 1¢-1E Force Main 6 3 x z OT%;RU 10" HDPE 5Q$ ✓Y.REIERVE,DR_ B"p -.;,, re IC 8" PVC Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter — 21" 24" Force Main 8" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity 19" it a W RESERVE DR Gd 0 �C O X.PCXERCIR ? 1C . 8,. 9 Q OES RUN ? G h aL M U �a 8"PVC j o o WQ Sit Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" H -,j l•J W-F -:� f �.rr N HAVEN DR y ' r w N _ 4 q ; rw, , Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 8" 21" 24" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 10" TREELINE RD U a 50 SERVE LOOP i .. I_ _ ; 'A T2„PVC _ HUTTON RANCH RD�j� �., 3 > i' U 12" PVC 8" PVC SDR 35 V' pV G 1 yy y4 1* a �k � J � 5 Y t`j'tilly� . > AIR MILE DR ' j 4�R 8„PVG � y� h* < x VC 4T - ; 9 = .8"PVC * JF mv`,• e•. Fq y yo # F h.•vjjE6r P py ysr . m ' 0. Co. 46- Q H �O 8 AC EMIT RIDGE DR '* c + ® Z INDIAN TRAIL RD _ y F n � > COAA ONS WAY G n n Qio>- n a + Y Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 8" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 10" \�►8"PVC 0 n � O J1 a -MM GRAN DALE AVE f WHIT MOUNTAIN I c � m 8" PVC BRUYER W/ 4 �. t, p p\�N AV�IL� 'P WHITEBARKLN � U Q 3 W I z O d O 7RANRUDLN r P _. g,PVc OL 'UNTAIN PARK L' 8"PVCVELVA DR I B'PV BRUYER WAY G, rD, V. ni A� RITZMAN 0 Mal k—%v4;w. XO �F*Xel y M o-,C. r r TU 4 #CHEERY LYNN cT 8, ,G r q, KINGS1 m z r 1. f N - m Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" � Force Main 8" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 10" MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY ✓j f- : O z ■ > V Q fC - z > = "wpm i m THRI IVr.— P i BATTLE RIDGEIDR 8*V5 .� I . 8" _ f � 2A PVC g" PVC WESTLAND DR 8" PVC QVC U : Jim--FS���7C1 a 0 m � 8" PVC SHORT PINE DR 8",P,VCluwrr. 0 ° 0 p' mFv �! 8"PVC �p 8" PVC �++ U > T' ' m r ? K N FLY WAY 8" PVC 3 U W aa A LL 8" PVC CALLY LN LE DR L L a d U� PVC 0, > °o a 5 8"PVC Cr THEODORE Si VP io > a 8• 9�� a 12" PVC C do 8' 12" PVC - ACT '•, k CRFFK na a ASPEN LOOP _ . .. KONLEY'DR x Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 21" - 24" Force Main 8" 27" - 30" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity 19" +EDR� RID �INDIAI 93 w FAWMW- p . - � Tp•PV nn V � B CVP .y > - 9< SyFPwO s 8" CLALN Y ,� G UPI' OD WED If • i GEWOOD LN s...O{AMSGATE,DR� y/! Q !Q G o0 9PP02 �r '��` \m, 9 - 8"PVC " 10" CLAY• q2' C AG ti� Q 8" PVC 4 . a.., FORD WAY. fM O Q I i 2 O • a � �`SINOF'AH Si Si TRUMP D 8" PV,C. 8" PVC ` Cy��,�! r2 ,r C) SINOPAH NO y 2 I _ 8" PVC 'Pryl, - - °° C J< j�t 6ARNEGIE DR "IkLOOP ENORTN 87 AC ? a r i Y r I r �. i LOOP IEW .,' # 4' w 0. 60 PVC # # > +�.. ► , + ¢ 4y,.m, I i. WESTV VANDERBILT DR O' PVC M--, _ �1 .?r�#� z " LLY-LN mp. 8" PVC VISTA LOOP z I z - ��� r S NORTHVIEW " s ROCKEFELLER DR �, '�. CT 8" PVC z PVC n THREE MILE DRco 8='PVC I Q �NkWAY V h k•irr I { z 4 t r O!9` 4 U L U O GLENWOOD DR U o? co m J - OG + _ D < o tiV 8"IPVC LIBERTYST 0 -4 N ► Y 8" PVC PVC h 8" PVC SING'CT F . BROOK DR .� _ _ HAWTHORN Wi °° a ' SCT U- 8"PVC nENEFi '^ JUBILEE CT U So ' Jp` �� -•--• a TETON ST'U _ a do 8 P "VC -' ' 3 _ 8" PVC - ;. # W' OWSTO 8„ PVC y 4' U U _ {S PMP d � � g^PVC, 8" PVC HILLTOP AVE j8 �8 pl/ z LC ..0 1 8" PVC Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 14" - 18" Force Main 8" 27" - 30" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 10" r �y 46 .�.. •* �Za1� i � L a k 4 1,44 � . .1 1. o Ph 3 COMMONS, O U u }i A iii eF. F� `U, w i ¢ - k� P� PA/Rl0. > AYBLVD 8" PVC 10'1 PVC` • + °0 V ' UtL` GE DR ' O�J I ''. g"PVC 41, PVCti,- Sl t � � zlwaterRiv 4 �f dF U1 C. eN 44WU HERITAGEM1IV � t ko 60 CP OD IN 'EAMIX IAIy RRDD e6 + �•io 0- °Q. 0 3 Y 93 0 « �,� R Ib co o L h La y U 8" AC r 8" i�...+k•' ` a ► 1k (CONCRETE) 8" AC PVC '�! 4 L y B,PV — CON WAY DR. iU � 1 -4 • �` �'°� WESTVIEW, �� 1 # s v A I AL g,, pVG * i QL # ��f.. n z J gxs O 8„ Q PVC - �.�, • BOUNTIFUL DR � CONCRETE QJG RYDEIRD Q -ei AAt _ y y U..T �0. z _ GR8 GOB + AG � g,. U' ��'PJj `C G _' 0 God '-? n .. '� '�• r ~ +` . ` a0 SLAY PVC �1! } i ► . "1 G m UNDERHILLO Jp +R ' . Sa #, 8 8•. # R1toN _ • . g"PVC WARIZONAST AC 4COy, * ; * E w Z Y.�� y _',�`�,: Y . 4 CONCRETE COLORADO ST a : .*#"_ • L� _ a, ar'�i .,..sue oMLNG,STti J + • #' ~ ' r 4 SIC) UTAH n �F �. n < a±r �1yc.��•r'2 . 4k, IV 41 -,L 10F Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" �', w gNER'V/ P.V.0 STAFF,ORD�ST DR SUSSEX OR r � P,ICKWIEK Ei - SII WINCHESTER ST 4 r, i _ } V11 I r V C WAY � _ White'fish R- g IL + i PX io i * bill r: wateYRiveIL lip( _ { V 'u - + I MAGSTADT LN f j ID B c 4 rir • 'f 14, L1fORN1AS Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 8" 14" - 18" Gravity 10" 40P, PRINGCREEK CT OR 7, HARTT HILL DR MILKY WAY Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter - 27-30" Force Main 8" Wastewater Lift Station C' rnvitv 19" 0 Id I + or 4 117 U t '911L 0 rr r SOUTH VIEW LN r "1VC j r u t _ tr�aIL•-. W R z 8" PVC 4 8" PVC Y 8" PVC''? 4 r 8" PVC SING CT ' HAWTHORN W `SCT o __ o 1'. PVC Y 8" PVC o � � zz 8 JUBILEE CT OO o! U w a TETON ST W m a > 8"P,VG• lS"CLAY, 8" PVC a LAMBERT CT O ,"'� z l � W WYOM 1 C Y" PVELLOWSTONE ST 8r SUNBURST 8.PVC AN 1, .. -81, PVC 8" PVC TWOMILE DR d F C U z _ � 8'.. n 12"PVC a > ao rc n n 8"PVC 4 t • w f� l{� i'. U r i _ ,gym .8" PVC ` o O ,� + � � FISHTAIL DI F' - ?� M fir. 15 V { aa aU U,V * m 30' P-VC 2 �AF 10" AG n APPLEWAY DR 10" PVC 1 " J I x. #- ti8_' PVC tilln - g' PVC W CENTEI � O VIEW LN r IF MERIDIAN CT A m 8' GL Y r_ 74 8"CONCRETEkL ` ST.W GL Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" 27" - 30" olot., e ma�yy' �11^ ;fir •C': :.' uG g,. 8, IL � y ,pR110NAli him 5t `O 40 n (CONCRETE) ADS y, Z < m ■ , 5 ',4PLZ•.A - G U1 SJ�S ` L` OM,NG ` 'C•1 D Yp 1 �i (1 � {tom �.� �' •�_ -' 77. �.;�'_: � �ti d*' 01 01 P < fiwd 'CLAY 5 0 ` Y f 0 f s -- N E CA�1fORNN s1 1 a ' n '-1v-1C f (1 r— Tf n m r . w -' IP *l y 10` ?y tP+o r N y Z ➢< o o < y 5„ C1 - 1 _ G ➢ n CI n 8„ w � ➢ 'z� \ ➢ Us2 � < 15" s1.1P I,1NED ,G PAC y Z < � .�. n - . (� Q 1g'1.INED ON1ANAs1 iv, s1.1P1Epp ,�O - z. -- a'• (� 1a'C1 (sl1P a, PVG -•'fi S v �s11P �1NED) 2 O Z E1PIAGE o FEW ,' Y `-MARK DEPOT E RAILROAD sT <t , g' C1.Ay ° < m PAC OT RK Nps1, a 10' -a V ► PVC f v <. PVC , CG1 s CENTE° E R st < y (•� Rp11.o - T m n w 6„ PVG r- n PVC 2q' PVG 1s1,$1 4ti { J _ - ` �' tea., .O 0, _ •p i. � - W CENTER 5 �J , k r►� . - - # . n �r n� C 2ND st E A i.11, 60 ma3RD St,E n m- r+' ➢ Z s- +Ca �1f w o CLAY `z !� ' < ➢ ' ° r �'Ni °' #2Npst•W `L � y<- GIA� � fn yG `st Ej ym ':• � m� . - _ 31tD $1 W yG N OR'^ 0CIO r Ck _ ➢. n ym GIA� iy $' yr- y G" � ➢< n '(1 ���_ n 1 G - - 'CLAY N n T ;51 Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 14" - 18" Force Main 6" 20" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" 21" 24" 10" p o? y m+ n +�1 FGRFGpN. Olt ' Z GtON W '' x OO�ANp•PARK gp 8" PVC . F 8" PVC SHADYtGLEN DR. ' -~ ��- - - - -- rt - • Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" Y • 7 V 1 1 T Am%.j. # i 93 y 1 R j4I VA VA I N -f Z 0 _ D SAGE LN - O p c F N Q A ' Fes• � �`hZZhatey.h,ZveF Tom. P 4 F _ Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter Force Main 21" 24" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity k 2ND ST W 8 CLAY n f ➢L 8" CONCRETE 3RD ST W U rc OU ¢ a, p�G 8" CONCRETE o i 015tW { N F { 12 NCREtE * `, ��8" CONCRETE • GO Y 5tN St � U a �F `° a CONGRElE 1 � `►� 1SN St W 3 72117 orl, / j 8" AC x O ' MEADOW CT FOYS LAKE F'- 2 y 1 ITS _ �r 93 I' ALT ATE r�+' S Ir Hys� o :RL r 3 > PRIMROSE CT I PRIMROSEC � � rF ASHLEY DR SUNNYSII Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" 27" - 30" — V, PVC cfte 8" PVC SUNNY CT 16 C-' 8" PVC 'PHOENIX ST RIMPOCK FoUBui|d Out (20l5Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter Force Main 6' ---- 20' Wastewater Lift Station ~~~~~ Gravity 8' ----- 21 ' s*' lrr ----- vr ,�r | I OTT CON( 101, L vc0> : Pik LY GOMMONs•� ➢ Ik ; fr OCT U ro KyNl\Ev4 i CRETE 2 18TH ST E 10" PVC ,y „ O+ n ib ,r0 0 B GD 4iy�QJ� O . pVC a � 6 pvC k 93 o&o�t, '•+ � � � � 8., pVC � G I Ilk 0 Z 8" PVC 0 O O 3 8" PVC > RIVER GLEN CT YOUNGSLN `_' 4 h � + TREASURE A" Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Lift Station Gravity 8" 36" 8" PUG SA M U > B N � O 8„PVC. 00 PHOENIX-ST Z y U U 5' PVC I Cl GvP > 0 'IMROCKGT � JG a - > — Z o U _ G 8" PVC 8".P,VC• $ 10" PVC ���. BLUESTONE a 8" PVC !- TC,l T 'Qd 10" PVC r . - L ' DARLINGTON 8" PVC PVC C111, °G(pAUSTIN ST_.x:..�, dF h +� IL - 1 V� #' Y !� BEGG.PgR R .� SALEM ST � � � � ` � �,8" PVC GARDENWA K D a O't jQJ���Ys7%F! O •` w I wt n 12' PVC s 8" PVC '+ �� #J�IC!' O - 'V • ._GREEN CV 36„ AL 8p ^ A -. RCP C 0 LGREATVIEW _ 14" PVC ps_� � _ �JhleY Creel AIRPORT WAY rt1TEAL DR 8" PVC oVC a0 a z e a �?, GANV A$epGK o U 8" VC O�O� " w > O V PINTAIL Cr 8" PVC F� d'o F = U U O co it - O U Lr 8" PVC 8" PV8'�PVC s M # J F 3 MERGANSER DR 0A tit A93 HIDDEN TRL F • y,* .�. PIL CEMETERY RD 503 _ Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 14" - 18" I Wastewater System Force Main 6" 27" - 30" Wastewater Treatment Facility Gravity 8" 36" 10" U m 40 -o -Ik a 8„ PVC c `r n8•. U j0G J STAG N� a P ` T'- -'01 WINDRIVER DR _ CO � Y 1k •s I ' .i _ n 8" PVC 8" PVC 6" Fr_ r, o'QJG f HDPE KELLYRD ggP,VC+ •1 m., 3 > 8" PVC 10" PVC ly"pVC ; C 8„ 8" PVC 10'. PVC PVC USSELL DR - PVC- QJG 8" HDPE AG , r � d F ` 4P :�%Ii i TININ.ACRES.DR 93 • ;oG 1 i j' I I ML - I r' 1' Ashley I {Y CEMETERY RD' Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 12" I Wastewater System Force Main 6" 14" - 18" Wastewater Treatment Facility Gravity 8" aPq& 4 r r y i _R f Z $ QJG I I LL%ELF LN ` •' 4 ' 0-4—CEMETE-RY RD � 4 ov 26 4 rp _v—=mff" M - ASHLEY MDWS h # J . r J� s LOWER VALLEY RD 4-jik,' k 8" PVC 0 W r Z U �{ d U 8" PVC > a iv 8! PVC Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter — 14" - 18" Force Main 8" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity 19" IZI m- 1� 4 :4' * UL 4 217 0 1 k �• d h N r, - r M tk F A,Q oti r �GF P, 3 C w Z N Q r W Y U x 0 3 ROCKY MEADOW Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter 14" - 18" Force Main 8" Wastewater Lift Station C;rnvity 19" ROCKY CLIFF DR 5 _ _} 8" PVC P , cy o O(y x OG'r�' H �O O 8" PVC 93�' 4 V% 9G opt i8" PVC s A 0- Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Wastewater Main Type Main Diameter — 14" - 18" Force Main 8" Gravity 10" Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Appendices June 2019 Appendix B - Planning and Growth Areas P05610-2017-003 )on E2S r � Clark Dr _ rp a'� T N N_ Norther - fl w%• Pines 93 Goff �3 d Club -n 3 � � d QI nrlPn 1 Ltl Q - Sprt -9 � C�Aek � v Old Reserve DR fl Whr - j R��erv;r 3 1 A93 jj i E:el `II E•Il LFv,�r�7i;r•r�Dr 2 n . C Buffol, HiII G. • It Three Mile N Club „ La•., G� F, 1. C t1'S =) near; Wood I -. IISP@II Pat l Kt^:,Ir 1,1 R, 0 c v. 1 - 2 - `c•. ➢c - Rrd �3 z m •t" Q `^' 7 cr 0 N w dito Rirl. / toy Fol!-5,oe / Zake Ci A93 0 —, 0 Cliff Lr 4190 r Auction Rd r y 503 Kalispell Current City Limits 0-5 Year Growth City Limits 1 - i r / 7 93 0-5 Year Build Out - Areas Shaded in Green 14 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 40 15 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 40 16 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 70 17 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 20 18 COMMERCIAL 0 50 19 INDUSTRIAL 28 0 20 21 22 URBAN MIXED USE URBAN RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC OR OPENSPACE 0 0 10 120 130 0 Total 118 1185 �latheadR��er 10 URDP%1tl RCJIUCIV I ViL u LUU 9 14 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 75 f 15 INDUSTRIAL 10 0 16 URBAN MIXED USE 10 100 17 URBAN MIXED USE 2 0 S 18 URBAN MIXED USE 10 100 Clark Dr M 19 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 5 150 s 20 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 100 H 21 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 200 r ra,rin 1 Q 22 URBAN MIXED USE 80 0 93 N 23 INDUSTRIAL 10 0 24 COMMERCIAL 4 0 ] r Total 351 2875 O N LL ROSE XI O n 4 C � SpringCr sek Old Reserve DR Wh;� 548❑ i Reserve D' j� Reserve Dr N 3 _ - A93 E, Ijlr cn L I-wr1— r,[IIr - 90 2 Buffal,- HiIIGoIt Three Mile D1 clut L a•. C .Q rad plex I. 's e I oodL Pari Klnsle,la Rc Q 0 c v. v ,In7 'Jie•.v D; 2 Y•;n,aleoolw i� ��' r 9D z `d ➢ v D Brd '-S i2 ` CL L, _j Lena F'me _ C w -u eta to F'.,rl, ,L / ;�iv Foy �d J 7 Zeke Ci 93 ' / f� i d d01, i 0 O �v Auction Rd s^9n rr s 503 Kalispell Current City Limits `leek -T 5-15 Year Growth City Limits 93 Vj 5-15 Year Growth - Areas Shaded in Green C� J u 7 Fvarnraan Wnctawntar Sarvira Aran �' S Clark Dr a N S tIl Wohei 93 S F,,,. _ -If a N A C t _ - -n � 3 Y � = N — p LZ =a Old Reserve DR c 548 m 1 N 17.'J N A93 ri Ai rAJ � h Buffalo Three Mile DI Clut La, � I C �o 10 rad n Pie. r / - I �.e11Fail o v. A;hl 11n7 'Jie'.v Dc 2 Creek Whalebone Dr y m ?' D ? 6 Br shley z m m a � r A / I i SW1a Park d_ .., u o n n Fdi� Foy a, �. e s` / iake Gr A93 I C V R< 24 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 50 25 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 10 0 26 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5 0 27 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 40 28 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 10 0 29 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 300 30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 1200 31 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 220 32 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 150 33 URBAN MIXED USE 5 0 34 COMMERCIAL 0 50 35 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 75 36 INDUSTRIAL 40 0 37 URBAN MIXED USE 20 100 38 URBAN MIXED USE 20 100 39 URBAN MIXED USE 0 120 40 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 5 450 41 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 100 42 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 330 43 PUBLIC OR OPENSPACE 10 0 44 URBAN RESIDENTIAL 0 600 45 URBAN MIXED USE 150 0 46 INDUSTRIAL 30 0 Total 678 12520 K m � � o - h n - % E J p Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) w 503 Kalispell Current City Limits Q' - 15 Year to FBO Growth Area - Areas Shaded in Green tion Rd Kinshella R. \ �t Illi l E 2 Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Appendices June 2019 Appendix C - Kalispell Risk Policy P05610-2017-003 )on E2S City of Kalispell Wastewater Utility Risk Program Policy 1. Overview 1.1. Purpose The purpose of the Risk Program Policy is to: • Provide a utility -wide approach for the assessment and treatment of risk, using a consistent risk management framework • Provide a transparent means of communication between utility staff, utility management and policy makers regarding risk of asset failure. • Identify appropriate levels of risk tolerance and operating parameters for utility management to use to manage utility functions 1.2.Objectives The objectives of the risk assessment program are: • Categorize risks of asset failures for all utility assets • Identify appropriate measures (response actions) based on degree of risk assessed (e.g., Identify high risk assets for risk mitigation) • A repeatable and transparent process • A system -wide assessment • Results need to aid staff in identifying, prioritizing and timing capital improvements and/or operating expenditures to manage risk 1.3. Scope This policy will cover risk assessment and response for wastewater mains and pump stations 1.4. Implementation Plan Assets will be assessed in the following order of priority: 1. Wastewater Mains 2. Pump Stations 2. Risk Policy For the City of Kalispell to implement a risk program with the purposes and objectives listed above, the following risk framework is established to assist in risk identification and risk response planning. This policy and framework are designed to be functional at a systematic level as well as in a case -by -case level. Additionally, the risk factors used in the framework should remain functional as improved data and information allows for more granular assessment of risk. lb - Anecdotal Lower Quality/ Resolution Qualitative Quantitative I Information Risk Assessment 2.1. Risk Framework The following likelihood and consequence factors create the basis of the risk framework. These factors cover all important aspects of the utility, but not all will be used in assessing the risk of specific asset classes (*See section 3 for application example). 2.1.1. Consequence Factors The City of Kalispell recognizes the following consequence of failure (CoF) factors for use in risk assessments: • Health & Safety of Public and Employees • Direct Financial Impact to the City of Kalispell • Public Image & Confidence • Regulatory Compliance • Service Delivery • Inter -agency Coordination • Environmental Impact • 3rd party loss / Liability • Supply Quality These factors have the following levels of impact: a a J n tlz E aLn o +. � A a°J w ❑ -L3 u � C E � � C a aJ L aJ E E v ❑ C o E u4 > J C C ❑ aJ `} — 7 a� O en tu t o -4 to E a Z, A ° d a w *' u u w u as dJ -D ° LO ° N u ury ❑ ° C C c u C ++ u is G D u r ° n ;. m -m `.E E 7 7 d ac u u' E E n 4 ° N u 6 1� N is ❑ I N d "°❑-° -a E E W 7 aJ u u - ❑ n C u E aJ E ° ^ ❑ -0 -E ❑ l3 d u u +F- N d4 C 7 m u b4 bc �a 7 C G C C � a u le E a l Q - E reO ^' - A e e Ya �i } a a u oa, Q - iJ A W lu C Ej N a1 aJ iu m el H} d. E iu raw -L3 -u C t4 W C u5 q J Ij = C a7 � �J ❑ aJ aJ E y J 7 � A O n C rl 4 E O C E E 7 ¢ � u'S Li m * 4 C 1� is -D o fiJ en U aJ ° a C dJ � �+ �+ ❑ u5 y u N ? u5 7 E ❑ d n aJ u m n E `c u° E iu aJ aJ � .0 } a - 7 E m E � n E C p a u ❑ 6 Ap S Q LR E EL E 0 C aJ SC v C as -i u C aJ -u 47 u C C C bo _ C rl C C L O! �' ❑ C C rl V C E aJ is 1O ° ti4 of .o N w E o of c _ c Ji U - E _ aJ a - �' om° aJ E of r ❑ t 7 �_ E P ++ -- .. - E S C ri E° a °} m a E c ° n -1 aJ p n w W C - E a -E n]J lu 7 0 u'S y ,5 C C w w _C J � - is - 7 is _- a E E u E ° `u u a u m 1; O d C 7 uu ❑ Ln is i u ° y 4 ❑ u aJ .0 ° , C C E r- 7 mu'q E 'Gi y° �n u'q is u u w +' is C aJ L u I ±+ C aJ C U Iai E— C } 'n _� C 7 } ury 7 � .7 L C— m _ m "n la "E -n ~ n iu E �j 6�1 E E 61 E to E ud ° u° u E ° o C C a m aJ C T3 E a`J ai E u � is 7 C C fj' a O n o E LE 2E E 7 {Y M. �f5 N � V 22 iv u C aJ J rl E 2.1.2. Likelihood Factors The City of Kalispell recognizes the following likelihood of failure (LoF) factors for use in risk assessments: • Physical Condition • Performance • Operability • Maintainability • Reliability History • Age These factors have the following levels of likelihood: en o o 10 w M as L CD ° 0 Im2 C:— D w m LD a eo r— E 1Z LO c/a QS — jo m C L CL O W CD ia go E C) 00 0.. i O JO Cl 0)-0JID CD M .� D C m Q F L L L C ID E ilJ c � stl U w OL L L OL 8 � L co E C 6 co E cz N- w j z } C CD c etS 0 mO U L O L fij CL o C."} C w } w.2 r-- E Ln m m E Ln m co w m ID L E ( ,QD O� l� V Z w C O , T O L co L Q O m r N M CL o = c cnn c3 ZT_ v -D O m -0 C ilD 0- 0 m C 4 0 � {j] C 4D L L C F- L CL z L C.i L L 2.2. Risk Table A basic risk matrix to score the combination of likelihood and consequence can be presented as: Very High High O O r Medium Z Y J Low Improbable Consequence Using the likelihood descriptions for five levels of likelihood (improbable, low, medium, high, and very high) and the consequence descriptions for five levels of consequence (low, medium, medium -high, high, and extreme), a risk category can be assigned to each section of the risk matrix. Very High F Major Major Catastrophic Catastrophic Catastrophic D Moderate Moderate Major Catastrophic Catastrophic O O s C Insignificant = Moderate Major Major Y J B Insignificant Insignificant Moderate Moderate Low A Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant AN Moderate 1 2 3 4 5 Low Consequence Extreme This results in 5 levels of overall risk. 2.3. Risk Response Plan Once the level of risk has been assessed, the next step is to determine the appropriate timing of the response to that risk. Below is a table indicting the appropriate response timing. 5 I Immediate response to reduce risk 4 Risk should be addressed in 0-5 year CIP 3 Risk should be addressed in 5-15 year CIP 2 _ No current action needed 1 No current action needed Each asset assessed in the level, 3, 4 and 5, risks should be ranks, and included on the appropriate project planning efforts. In addition to the timing of the response, the overall likelihood and consequence play a role in how to address the risk. Consequence is often difficult to reduce, and the best method to manage the associated risk is to ensure the likelihood of failure is managed to ensure a minimal risk of failure. Condition assessment practices are an effective strategy to ensure likelihood of failure in known rather than assume through a desktop exercise. If the likelihood begins to increase, proactive replacement may be the only option to reduce the risk of a catastrophic failure. High likelihood/lower consequence assets on the other hand generally require either replacement or a change in operations and are easily done through standard capital planning. 3. Risk Program Application 3.1. Wastewater Mains Risk Assessment As part of the wastewater facility plan, a wastewater mains risk assessment was completed for all buried mains. They were assessed in the following manner. Likelihood Assessment Based on the factors identified in the overall risk policy, the following were identified as applicable and with sufficient data to be used as likelihood factors: • Physical Condition — Recorded Structural Defects • Performance — Percent of capacity use from Hydraulic Model • Maintainability — Access to pipe for maintenance purposes • Reliability — Work Order history indicating a history of pipe issues • Age — Pipe Age and Material Combination The combination of these factors was used to determine a composite "likelihood of asset failure" for each component of the wastewater collection system. Each of these factors was weighted based on the relative importance of each factor. Explicitly known information such as break and workorders were weighted higher than assumed condition such as age. Physical Condition — Recorded Structural Defects This data set was developed based on a combination of Cityworks data maintained within the City's Maintenance management system, and historic failure information contained in the GIS asset Notes. This data was aggregated with City GIS data by pipe ID, with each pipe assigned a total count of failures. These failures were then given a risk factor based on this count. 1 No Breaks 1.25 2 Recorded break that has been repaired 2.5 3 Single pipe break on pipe 5 4 Two pipe breaks on pipe 10 5 3+ breaks on Pipe 20 The risk factors ranged from 1 (no breaks) to as high as 5 (3+ breaks per pipe segment). These counts were based on first-hand knowledge through CCTV video footage and staff visual confirmation of these defects. Performance - % Capacity Use from Hydraulic Model This factor used the 10 Year d/D as produced by the hydraulic model to assess the capacity of the mains to manage a reasonably frequent storm event. Risk factors were distinguished by the percent full a pipe was modeled under the design event. The highest factor (5) represents a flow condition in a circular conduit where the volumetric efficiency of the conduit to convey flow begins to diminish with increasing depth of flow. This occurs as water depth in a circular conduit exceeds approximately 85% of the pipe diameter. Lower risk factors (1 - 4) represent flow conditions modeled for the design event where the depth of flow is a smaller percentage of total conduit diameter, and hence, a lower likelihood of having problems conveying the design flow event. 1 0-25% 1 2 26-50% 2 3 51-75 % 4 4 76-85 % 8 5 >85 % 16 Overall, the 10 Year d/D indicates the pipe in the system generally performs well, with only a few small isolated pipes showing significant capacity issues. Maintainability— Access to pipe for maintenance purposes Maintainability was calculated using the pipe proximity to a manhole, as manholes are used for wastewater pipe maintenance. Each pipe was assessed to determine maximum distance to the nearest manhole and then scored based on the following factors. Risk Factor Proximity to Manhole Scoring for aggregation 00400 feet Reliability — Work Order history indicating a history of pipe issues Reliability was assessed by aggregating the total corrective workorders on each pipe for cleaning, flushing, root removal, and grease removal. The last 6 years of CMMS data (since Kalispell began using Cityworks) was aggregated by pipe ID and assessed for risk as follows. 1 2 3 4 Age — Pipe Age and Material Combo 0-4 Work Orders 1.25 5-9 Work Orders 2.5 10-14 Work Orders 5 15-19 Work Orders 10 =>20 Work Orders 20 Pipe age was calculated based on current year less install year. This age was then assigned a risk factor based on the following tables: Factor 1 IM V DescriptionRisk >50% of estimated useful life remaining aggregation .75 2 25-50% of estimated useful life remaining 1.5 3 15-25% of estimated useful life remaining 3 4 5-15% of estimated useful life remaining 6 5 <5% of estimated useful life remaining 12 Material Estimated AC Cl CI(Slip Line) Clay Concrete Useful Life 55-85 60-75 45-75 75 55-90 CRS-PI 75 DI 75 DR35 PVC 75 HDPE 75 PVC 75 RCP 85 Slip Lined 45-75 Null 75 Much of the pipe inventory of Kalispell is less than 40 years old and is PVC. Hence, for this assessment, with an age less than 35 years old such pipe was assigned a risk factor of 2 or less. Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment The overall likelihood of failure (LoF) is the sum of the aggregation scoring for the five risk factors listed above, and the results are shown in the following table. There is a large majority of the wastewater system which is deemed to have a low to moderate likelihood of failure. Areas that are deemed to be of higher likelihood of failure exist in core downtown business district, and in residential and commercial areas surrounding the downtown core. This is due to the age of pipe, history of failures, and number of work orders on those pipes. This desktop assessment of likelihood of failure is predicated primarily upon desktop evaluation and the limits of available data should be recognized. While producing an overall composite picture of low to moderate likelihood of failure, it does not suggest further main failures are unlikely. Likelihood of failure will change with time as pipe ages, conditions change in the collection system, and new stresses are applied to the network. As a result, periodic updating and re-evaluation of likelihood of failure is warranted, and a living process to update the assessment with improved data on pipe condition is an important action to plan. Additionally, continued use of CCTV combined with a systematic means to evaluate CCTV footage to obtain first-hand knowledge of pipe condition should be performed and perhaps even increased. LikelihoodTotal Linear Feet 358,625 Percent5 57.03% 6 111,405 17.72 % 7 32,587 5.18% 8 12,492 1.99 % 9 15,335 2.44% 10 4,594 0.73% 11 465 0.07% 12 596 0.09% 13 0.05 % 14 1,170 0.19% 15 446 0.07% 16 59,642 9.48 % 17 8,134 1.29% 18 11,645 1.85 % 19 1,702 0.27% 20 3,087 0.49 % 21 1,349 0.21% 22 443 0.07% 24 1,133 0.18% 25 1,809 0.29% 26 537 0.09% 27 367 0.06 % 35 732 0.12% 44 279 0.04 % 628,861 100 % Consequence Assessment Based on the factors identified in the overall risk policy, the following were identified as applicable and with sufficient data to be used as consequence factors: • Health and Safety Impact — Medical and School Proximity to Upstream Manhole • Direct Financial Impact — Depth of Bury and Location • Public Image and Confidence - Zoning Service Area and Road Type • Environmental Impact — Water Body Proximity to Upstream manhole The combination of these factors was used to determine a composite "consequence of asset failure" for each component of the wastewater collection system. Based on the results of the pairwise tool from the water risk assessment, it was determined that the overall algorithm for consequence of failure would weigh the direct financial impact as the least, and the health and safety as the highest. Health and Safety Impact — Medical and School Proximity to Upstream Manhole The health and safety impact was assessed by using a proximity script that looked at the distance of manholes to medical facilities and schools, and then applied that distance to the downstream pipe. If that pipe gets blocked, then the upstream manhole is at risk of an overflow. For purposes of this analysis the following table was used to assign the consequence factor for Health and Safety Impact. ,isk ription Scorin3 actor DescAggregs 5 4 Within 25 feet of School of Medical Facility Within 50 feet of School of Medical Facility 32 16 3 Within 100 feet of School of Medical Facility 8 2 Within 200 feet of School of Medical Facility 4 1 > 200 Feet of School of Medical Facility 2 Direct Financial Impact — Depth of Bury and Location There are many factors that influence the direct cost to the City of repairing a sewer main failure. Many of these are unable to be assessed in the course of the risk assessment as they are time or situation specific, and not constant for each pipe, or the data is not available to assess at the pipe level. Depth of bury and physical location data are available, and can be assessed at the pipe level. Gravity sewer mains range in depth of bury from a standard cover to upwards of 20 feet in some locations. As excavations get deeper, they become exponentially more expensive, so this was used as a direct correlation to cost of repair. In addition, in the downtown area, most of the sewer mains are in alleyways which increases the cost of the excavation by limiting the access to the area to perform the excavation. For purposes of this analysis the following table was used to assign the consequence factor for Direct Financial Impact. 5 >20ft depth and downtown area 16 4 >20ft depth or >10ft and downtown 8 3 >10 feet depth 4 2 7-10 ft Depth 2 1 <7 ft depth 1 Public Image and Confidence - Zoning Service Area and Road Type Zoning was used to assess the impact to the city's public image and confidence. The impact to public image of excavation in the central business district is much higher than the impact in low -density residential area. Reference was made to Kalispell Zoning district designations. StreamlineAM used the zoning designations identified by City Ordinances. Zoning classifications deemed to require similar wastewater needs were aggregated together. Within an aggregation there may be some variations in wastewater use amongst the various land use types, however the consequences of having a main fail in those areas in terms of economic, environmental and social impact were considered to be similar, and hence, deserving of a common risk factor. As the zoning districts designation trends towards more intensive land use, and greater concentration of facilities and infrastructure within the designation, the risk factor is increased. Thus, low density or public lands use receives the lowest scoring in this category, and the Central Business District receives the highest risk factor. The zoning areas and roads were categorized as follows for the public image factor: 5 Highway or Central/Core Business (B-3, B-4, B-5) 26.7 4 Principal Arterial or Medical (H-1,KRH, PUD/MED) 13.3 3 Minor arterial or B-2, B-2(PUD), PUD/COM, PUD/MFR, 6.7 PUD/SFR 2 Collector or R-5, RA-2, 3.3 1 All local roads and All Others 1.7 Environmental Impact —Water Body Proximity to Upstream manhole Environmental Impact was assessed through the use of a proximity script that looked at the distance of manholes to water bodies, then applied that distance to the downstream pipe. If that pipe gets blocked, then the upstream manhole is at risk of an overflow. In addition pipe size was incorporated as a reflection of the size of flows through the pipe. The larger pipe would likely result in a larger overflow, therefore causing greater impact. 5 >=24" and within 50ft of water body 16 4 >= 24" and within 100ft of water or >16= and 8 within 50ft 3 <16" and within 50 feet or >=16" and within 100ft 4 2 <16" and within 100 feet 2 1 not within 100 feet 1 Overall Consequence of Failure Assessment The overall Consequence of failure (CoF) is the aggregated scoring of the 4 factors and is shown in the following table. There is a large majority of the wastewater system that has been assessed as having a low -to- moderate consequence of failure. While no failure is 'inconsequential', given the resources, capabilities and experience of City Water/Sewer crews even failures designated as significant as 'moderate' consequence are within the capabilities of the Public Works Department to effect prompt repair and minimize widespread impacts. Hence, the desktop consequence analysis and risk assessment appear to fit conditions as they exist today. Since the consequence of failure is heavily dependent upon changes in the affected physical environment, consequence of failure ratings are generally more static than the likelihood of failure. However, given the rapid growth and development of Kalispell, it is possible that consequences of failure will change in relatively short periods of time. Therefore, it will be appropriate for the City to periodically review, and re-evaluate consequence ratings so the analysis remains relevant in periods of rapid development of the City. 11 to 20 �767,605 518,911 82.52% 10.75% 21 to 30 2,834 0.45% 31 to 40 38,238 6.08% > 40 1,274 0.20% Total LF 628,861 100% Overall Risk Assessment Risk from each pipe segment was determined as outlined earlier, as the combination of LoF and CoF. The bulk of the wastewater system is in the lower risk range, which corresponds to a level one or two risk and thus does not require any current action. Sewer Mains Risk Assessment Results 50 2% 0 30 0 s a� J 20 10 9 0 10 :60 &s•. • • • • . .. 20 30 40 Consequence There is one pipe currently classified as posing a maximum degree of risk exposure, however, this pipe was also identified by the City as failing and is currently programmed for replacement. There are about 30,000 feet, or about 5.7% of the total network, which pose moderate to major risk exposure as defined by the assessment and should be addressed in CIP planning efforts. Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Catastrophic Major Moderate Immediate Response Needed Include on 0-5 Year CIP Include on 6-15 Year CIP 366 9,393 20,570 0.1% 1.8% 3.906 Level 2 Minor No Current Action Required 94,917 18.2% Level 1 Insignificant No Current Action Required 396,770 76.0% Due to the ease, and relatively low cost of doing CCTV condition assessment, the pipe in the moderate and major categories should have condition assessment done using a standardized methodology such as PACP in order to accurately assess the operational and structural defects and thereby assist the city in mitigating these risks. The risk assessment does not evaluate the optimal scope of work for projects, instead it assesses and determines drivers for projects. Once a driver is identified, an overall project scope is evaluated to maximize the cost efficiency. Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Appendices June 2019 Appendix D - Opinion of Probable Project Cost Methodology P05610-2017-003 )on EzS M n M N N N IO 10 of V M N N N N E n M (o M n N R O O c} of O N M (o n V N n M M N M M (o (o (o (o of r N LO O7 m H3 H3 fA fA fA fA fA fA fA � M M R N r m W N pN n n M o n M M Co O) V V O n c co O o M M LO } O) M V O of O7 N O N N n M co Lq O N O N OV N CM LL 'O fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA - - - - - - - - - - - - - m m m m m m fA N V O (o N O I(l of n C O N M O Ip(J co Q N } O LL N N � U3 H3 fA H3 fA fA fA co N � R y O O N U LL > m J O N N M O M 00 M a LL c0 co fA O N M oroui fA fA O fA O of o ro N�o fA fA V r v fA m M fA (a M N � � O N O N M Nlriro W � O N oM M N (o no1 O O - N 10 In MIN MIN 10 O Gov of rn r V M m �o Lo M Cl >-N <» t» <» t» t» <» E» E» E» E» v> N � W M p O M O of O O O I(J M N O O n of N of O of O } LL � H3 fA H3 fA M H3 fA fA fA H3 H3 co fp � LL U N M M N N O n N (o of M M n M H M n O M V O) V of of M (o M M m O) of n O V ln�rnrno V (o n M of of M M (o (o No O N (o of (o ro�noo O W N M N N 10 O N N O �o M In N N M (o N roonnNnMrnN m 0 n N of V M M N M of V M (o O (o n O) 10 of m�oln O) M 0 N of N of O N O N (o O) 10 01 N O U U M M M M A N 10 M M M N M N (o M _ _ _ CV � N f0 C O y N R R N N O O O O O O N N V O O N V O O V V O O V V O O V N O O O R c C N N 0 0 C c N 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 N 0 U LL U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a N N N a Q N N N O) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q Q oN 'O �C N OI O U C � Q ❑ R m m c 2 o o R R (0 R O a. R R a' a' R O a' R O a' R a' N R R R a. a. R R a. a. R R a. a. R a. R a. N O R O R R 022 R LL R 0 0 O W N W W O W N > O W LL W !0 J J W W W W W W W R 'o W 'oU W > > > > > O O y O O O (!J O R O O O R 0 R 0 R E c o o 0 0 N t0 0 0 t0 t0 0 0 t0 t0 -O t0 LL m "(ry m (ry (ry m m(ry m (ry '� m m cncn .yp W ntnnnt .y0 > = mn"n0 = - - nnnnnn - - - — _t0 _ nn U > 00 n n 0�� V- � t m E ttt m m m E tt 0 m m n n �� -- m -- m m -- m m --m m m ca co c (D Of Of W 0 w of of of of of of of of of o m >m > N m R uJ N � m o �= o U n m E E c L U o R E U R w a p C - O R 0 N F v E - .O LL ` O `m o ui w `o- N a 0 Q N R a R 12 0 O V N N N 00 j O`R O N N R N a 7 p _ R N O O O O O fl. a C 0n R O 0 L C ~ N O n O C m� R C R R 0O R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R U ti � M N LU J a 0 m co z w z O a 2 O U F- C) C) C) C) C) c CO Itt CO CO CO c O C� Cl Lf) C� C� Lf U CNv0000Nt��r L � � d a O H a F- C) C) C) C) C) c C)C) C) C) C) c U V/ 0 C)LOLOCDCDc r V C) 00 CM C) C) Lf T! r r r LO LO r }' ~ QQu J J J LU W- LU? N N H N� O LCf N Lf) CO a z CA r a Cy . m Z U a� c� a o �- > z Q Co O C d Co � c g c U) C. o co a W 0 OC. i > C 0 - c O 0 LL u L � U LU U) c H o> o ? �'>rnU c a o c a_CDL co E o U 2 2 c a Q% O > L c O O S Cn ccCl) Co 00 CO COO_ c L Cn C C, U,C N N C10 X 5 CR r r r w J c I C) C) r,- co c co r O C` r� 4 06 CA P- C) r CO r Lf m ER ER d 000 1 0 0 0 0 1 CO N r C 0 U L d a E w 1II 0 U 0 d a E w co ., I C) N 00 r r CO 100 N M r CO m I O (fl 00 00 Cli Lf) 00 CO C) CO r C) 1 00 r f1- C) M r 'C N N Ef} 0 0 o C) C) 00 LO C) J J J J J J J LL J I J Chi 1 O r r in � in in A r co LC) f� Yull 0 0 0 LE C O co c W E N W J Q H O H m N F- Z W Z O a 2 O U F- O O O O r CO N Co C) C) cc r ti M C MI LO LO LO LO Cfl 00 CA CX V CA O M M LC) r� C` (p r r M Ef} Ef} E! L J Cf> Cf> Cf> Ef} Qi ~ O H a O O O o 0 0 0 H O O O CO N r C' (� 0 LO C) C) N U 00 O O 70 r V V CD r ^+ W /\%� 4 Z E ~ 4-0 LL Q Q CO CO CO U N Z J W W W CO ti CO r r r c � _ H co Z Q d m O °>' ~ co CL C ( W s 0 a) a) O � U 0 a S s W CO c U c .= a) O > v U i r co - U a) co U { E U CL N N •� o Lo CO CO CO S �LL s incnrww r N M W (0 O m (h CS N ti 00 C' t (h C` i N OLI r Cf} C! ea 0 000 O r CO Lf c a) E Cu CA (a a I � i co I � O �= a i Co - i D i � •� L .0 c i N I Q E -Ci 0 4 j L)-C S. r Lu U L V O co d E rn W O r r � O SIN I .I o AZ LL I J CO (h m a) CL 0 a d E rn W r c!. r c S_ I c c � I T Co C C i O a i � R M R Iy 0 U co J r c O M AZ CO M N O O N N a) (o C O co N L 0 O cZ5co o O c C_— 6 U O C "a O U L co Co 0 O O Co L Co O O -0 L L L E Q Z U M � M E N W J a 0 m co z w z O a 2 O U H U) O U L J F- O a_ F- U 0 � N Q F- (1) CV z E N z W Z a c� `'J 0000000 00co00Itto C) LO LO C) C) C) C) 00 m m m 00 Lfi N O O O O 00 Lfi r C7 N a co N O 0) LO 0 m Efl N Efl 00 O LO 00 LO Ef} r O O M M rqtt Efl UD} r Ef} Efl Ef} Ef} Ef} Ef} - 04 r r - O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Efl N r M C) LO LO LO O O O r m cM LO O O O r N N LO O O Ef} Ef} Ef} Lfi r Efl Efl � LL LL LL Q Q LL cn cn cn cn cn J J J LU LU J J J J J J O O O N r O r r r r r O LO r O C' cM Lo r r 4 co Q > > c c c U) z c9 co co U c co H a a) a) a) a) a) a) cA cA U) O O U V 0 O Q U U) LU UUU H > > > C Z >j a_ a_ a- O (3) Q-� rnrnrnU �U)m ._ -- LLLLLL E (B > co � % .r- Q Q Q J = Or zt t � _ cnn cnn cnn O) c x r� LL LL LL _I fn coMcocoui N 0 0 m o � 3 T 9 4) 7 C C O a) U i U) 7 0 Q U p O O U c U c a 0 O �=- �.U5 >_ LU LU co co co a lC) m r 6 r ch r c U') 0) LO 6 Ef} Ef} Ef} 0 0 000 O 00 LC r U) U) u r r c 0 0 m c a) E a) 0) co c co C co c O c 4 V CLM U U) L O Q z G C 0 a _�0 OL LU U 0 0 0 U 0 co d a E N W 6 1.4 Ef} 0 Cp r r r Ef} 0 0 a d a E N W r` Ch cM Eo Ef} 0 LO N C O U U (3) O a_ r` co co Eo Ef} 0 0 m r` co co Ef} OL +�+ x 0 co a N E E E W rn W W W J H O H m o co co ti 00 o � r LO Nt W N z g O a O U O O O O O N I-- O CO O O N O Ch Cb Cb (A N cc O CD CD cc I� LO I� co -.I-r N I- r r r O o0 Lf) Lf) O o0 N ti 00 (fl co, CO Lf) M N N O co �Itt O ti m O m mItt O 00 Lf) �Itt co U N Cf> Cf> LO 00 LO r Ef} N LO r 00 LO LO Cf> Cf> I� L J 60!) mm 60!) 60!)00 60!) 60!) N N /R Q r W F O r F- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O CO N r CO O 00 LO O O (, t O 0 0 0 C) r O N N co 0 0 0C.) r r Lf) Lf) O fi N Z � � LO ~ LL Q Q co co co co co co co co LL co W ? J W W J J J J J J J J J J r r r r r r r r r r r N N H N N z Q a IJ N E 0 L E 0 cn J E z O > Q. Co o: H o a O U Ca o co W c oO p O n W ~ c o E T 0 W L (� 0 a' 5 N /2 -E-t3 �O n CO E U (1) J U 2 r L c N cow U cn O CO cf) O CO co co � co � CO =L X= a) cn J r W J z I r N CO � Cd 0 0 m c a) c � c O O CO C coo O N L O E O o O O a O C ccoo C ) co N 0 O 00 0 W 0 0 m a) E a� co c co c co c 0 Co > L �_ C�0 E ' T) Q E p � 0 O Q � Cc •L U a) O (V L _gym 0 W U __j (B Q U 0 0 m co O Z3: m 0 0 co O U U N 0 co 0 m O CO CO CD N co CD CDI� CD CD 0 0 m co J r m 0 0 0 cLC x co d d a••+ E E N W W W J H O m 04 LO O co O Hco O Lc) O N W N Z O a 2 O U O O O I-- N ti M N CDN N CD CD CD O LO I-- co N O� Lo O r 0 O I-- Lf) Lf) CD I-- CO LC> N 00 co M O r LO I� 00 4 4 O r% ti N r M V CD r M CT I- r U O Cfi Cfi LO N CO N r CO CO N O CO O M r L J M r Ef} 6f 6f 6f Cf> NR Cf> EF> Ef} Ef} Ef} O H a_ H O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O CO N r CO O 00 LO O O U N O LO O O O r O O N U 00 O CD CDr 0 O C f> LO LO O Ef} O 4 4O o a) N c m E ~ }' LL Q Q co co co co co co co co LL U N ? J W W J J J J J J J J J Q W LO r r r r r r r r r r LO co co co O Z r r Q V E Z U > E Z co SZ Q. CT O C) a O QI c r U � � co O COj LO 0 L O O U Q. LW L ^� � O CU Cl) U 0 a: �U•� v Ca a O a) 0 o N U a a> a U) cn L oUU ocn 00 CX � co r Co J " CO M o. � cn J W J Z r N CO � W Cd m F 0 3 m \ `) V! O N UO L O �- E c a� o o C 0 c O ccoo(jU Co N U O C 4a � wF-- Cd -6 U "O 0 3 m C C� C O co C co C co C O Co Z5 —M c 'c O E.E c a� Q 'E O Q •S_ V a� CO _5 �o u1 U O 0 3 m O c O 0 a d m E W r co r Lf) ea co ea 0 N co J r 0 U Cl) Lf ) N co Cl) co LO LO O Cb N LO a r +�+ 0 +�+ Cl) e c O U U 0 0 M O C O co c M O N () co O co 7-0 Q J Q H O H m co H Z W Z O a O U H U) O U L J Q% H O H a F- U N N 0 F- a c� � W H Z Q a O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N M 0 0 0 0 O O M N 0 0 0 0 O r 4 r O O O O co 1� 6f 1� 6f O N LO O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO O LO O O O O r I-- 00 00 O LO O O LO � O LLLLLLLLQLLLL� J J J J W J J J O LO qtt 00 N O O r O O N CO O O O O 00 00 co N CO N co Q.a> a Q a co ccoo m > O .� Q- > Co � to O a LO o 6 � r co co g C) i U r �co Q. �a) L L N 0 O Q C a) i L.L U U) U) a� a �mE T O O 7 > U U co co U 'a> co rY1 (n a) Q CoO q U U> O L V o o LO LO coU � _ (n co co 0'- 00 Q Q 0� S N 00 J CO CO o .� = = .X8= LO r Itt N LO r I-- O O 00 O O O Nt qtt Nt r N Ef> Ef} -0 CO N r CO U) U) U) U) J J J J r r r r m r N I-- a I-- Lo 0( LO LO Co r O O co 6 O I� N r 0 000 0 O r CO Lf U J r J r c m c a> E a) co c co G co C O c 4 L _ M Q � � y O U a> Q z O O G z i L U L n _QC, c O M ea O U w O co d E w a d CL O a d E w CD coN N ea ea co O co co co 00 CD 00 co co LO N N r r N O O LO CDr ea — ti ti ea ea 60 ea O O -.0- CD O O O O N r O ea O 00 co ea co J Q I-- M r � O O ti T i co co O 0 m m A a jr U � E N W J Q H O H m co H z W z O a O U H U) O U L J F- O a F- U N � N F- (1) N z E Z W H z Q d E O CL E O w W L c// m co V/ Z N z O H a U N LU LW r LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 Itt r CO I -- I-- N ti O O O ti LO LO N I� I� CO CO LQ C C Lf> I� N r M r LO — CO O O N CO N CO 00 M I-- O r 00 LO r O M r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO N r CO r N 00 O O O r r LO 6f � CD 460!)-o rn LLLLLLQLLCo Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) LO LO N CO O r 00 O O O 00 Cfl O N N r • • c>o >> co a Q. co a c ? O O O r C Co 'co O N L LO L N LL O (� U Q. �: N L N E N Cl) O (n T 2: i O r- m U O N U co L — (n co U) a- U C 2 O `. c L N coa�rn c LO U m M a> O �. � CO o L co co�00U r a U U) 00 J r cl) - _(n m ti O O 00 r 00 00 Cfl Itt O O 00 O L() Cfl lt: Cl Cl) O 1� O 0) 00 1� 0) r r r ci O O O O r 00 LO CO CO CO J r J r J r fit: c a> E a� co C co C c0 C O Mn c0 Q E O Q •L U N Co N � Co 00 m Cl LO 00 00 O O O M LO CV r r O r O O O O O O r O E9 O LL U J Q N CO m O co LO m c O L cu a O a d E w wl I CC) LO CO 00 O Cl) I-- r CO r � O O N CO J r O O U a� 0 LO CO O ti CO m LO CO O ti Co W E 0 L Q N r 0 cn J J H O H m H Z W Z O a 2 O U H U) O U J H O H F- U) O U F- z H Z H Z Q d Z O F- a U N W 0 W H W H 0 O O O LO N C) C=� O C) C 0 LO N Ef} J r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O LO LO LO LO 0 0000 Cc N r M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) J J J J r r r r is E w 0 0 o c C) C)O c C) C)c O N N Ef} Ef} Ef} H 0 000 0, O r 00 Lf CO CO U J r J r c O � .. 7 N co SZ O LO r n (n Vc a C m C� co J O U Coco E c Co 2 N co C Cl) C p O . 4 O co O Co c Coo N U C L Co O Cn E c cn -0 i _ a) O O �_ o U N Q N C z G fn o o O o C)coo ,o v -C L coo coC co U N a> a) � c a U)� o _ U p � E F _ (n a O M O 0) r— C fn J J W F W c)a r Co -6 U "O L Co O O O r N M is E w 0 0 O K} CD CD O LL J O is E w 0 0 (11} 00 Cb CD 0 N 0 0 7 7 co co i U C a� c O U cu N O i O i cu (o (o O O Ln O CC) cc CO 6r} CC) CO CO N Ef} NER CO J r 0 w r_ N LO N N 6r} N Nt CO L N N C0 O N N � N � N r O O CO N N Lj N N Ef} C4 O 7 co a) CCU c E o � � N C OCU .L C C 0 o .0 O co -p 0 U o co C co Coco L 0 U j, co :� U co o co � io co 0 0 c O Q>->-zQ E E 75 N cLa W w w C L O m CD co C 0 Z 00 CD �C W Cfl 00 co Z 60!) 60!) y O s a as O N U O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O Ef> O O O O CD CD CD O1� OItt O O O 0 0 LO LO 0 00 �Itt Cfl r•+ U O O f) CO r s 00 CO co 00 00 A J L L 60!) 60!) 60!) 60!) - - - 60!) CO O v � O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O y O A O CO N r CO O 00 LO O N O r U N v v o O O N z V a +, N J J J J J J J J � W ? J O r r r r r r r r O Z Q V It E Z U V/ E 0 L CL E 0 cn LE O F- a O oLQ f U N C f N W f 0 e E � f S LU 2 S c J f � S > f O f C N co c in O L o Cl) I � � co J fnJZ � r f LU Ca O O a 11 = S= = fv _ C u fll u co a co 6 � 7 fli � co co - CO C j O 6 O Co > J V �_ coo ) E p 0 Q o U a O a Q 0 U co L •- U 6 U v o fll L co � � co o ( co a O a CT (o E rn w CD co ea O O O O Ef> 00 00 m N N m co co co r r O ea 0 N LE M O a, C 0 co E 2 N LU � J r a � O m co u � z u w O a O - U 0 �oo� �cC'°( c O Z U 0 LO (D LO - m 0 L J Cfi m m Ef} Ef} H u F- u o a o000 F- C)C)C) U) O O O CO N r C' - U o 0 C) C) C) lie m o 0 O »� o o N _ z �Itt LO u O � m u � � ~ IL Q co co co U)u W J J J J_ LU u N r r r r c LO H z a c� N E 0 /L ii E N 0 aW co J z O Q coo a> a a_ o a_ O c C0 O C W U W Q C C �_ O E C U H z U) O C N O ,O 2)Co i a r ° u) E U C 0 � Cc c U 0 0 c ccv >,c� cam° oc 0 z C')cA O U o0 o� cU L- c a) co 0 co J N U O c �U)U)U) O O O" 4 Cl) J r J z W F N M (9 U Z W H O O r N 00 Co m co l 0000 N C ( 4 1 OT 00 U') r Ef} Ef} 000 O r 00 U') U) U) U) I J r J J r r c a� E a� is C co G co co i I � O i Co O U) co i C C -- i E •U) i c Q 1 E o Q U � i is �U� C O C3 w U O M W o U') co O N � Ef} O O CA LL J U-) O co LL d a E rn w 0 O co � N 10 Ef} O N U) J O co N_ co r 00 co (fl L N 0000 Cfi Y) O co 00 L I- 00 Cfi O co 00 c r N O c N C` (9 C C O +J � C s= c u O O O C co U C z O U co f c c . 4 O i U O 0 Q C O w O C c0) i i L Q % O O O L6 CO � 6Fi N W J Q H O H m co H Z W Z O a O U H U) O U L Q O a_ F- 0 U C) IRT � CD ~ N Z �+ H W � Z Q a O O O O O LO LO O O O O N O V O 00 O N lzt O CO r LO 6r} LO � � � LO LO O O O r N CO O O r r Ef} LO O 60 LO O ti 60 LL LL LL Q cn J J J W J O N O r r I-- 00 O O N Itt o mQ. ;coa �? o a c W 0 i U Q. �: N W CO L 0- N U) E _ � L N T .T o > co (n O O c co L U v O U � E U > O o O — W Co 0LO 0) co Lo c0 U o co fn o L co = r 0 (6 � -Cl) J � co fn —1 04 00 r ,t J Z r N CO � LO W CO O 00 cc 00 Itt O 00 O Nt Nt 00 N O Lf) CO r I� M O Cl�� 0 0 LE 00 00 CO N r CO Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) J J J J r r r r c N C C � O C co O N Q � O E c 0 O C 0 c O a ccoo(jU co C N 0 O Qo M 0 W Co -0 U -0 x Q E W s co � co m co Lf) I� cl 00 N r r LO O LO N I� r r r Ef} ea ea -0 O r 00 Lf ) co co co r r r 0 0 m Cu E a� z� co c co co C O C N � CO 'E L p Q c � .0 a •L U � Cc N r 0 W U C6 Q U 0 co Q E W O m rn 00 co cc m 0CC)O CT 00 r r co Ef} O O O O O O r O EA O 00 co LL J Q N CO LO LO 0 0 co Me c O Co Co 0- co O O M -0 0 a Q E W 0o Lci r 00 N 00 00 Lf) O co O ea ea 0 N co J r 0 0 c O U co 0 N O O ea 0 0 LE Cl)04 04 I co 00 00 c') I c') C O co M 0 0 V) E N W H co 0 U L J Qi ~ 0 H U co 0 C 0 N z E N Z W Z Q V l- J m Z U O O O O O O O O O O N O V V O co 00 lzt Nt O O 6 ti 6r� 6r� O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 N O O O EA r LO LO O Ef} 4 4 O ��LO 60 �U- QQU) J J W W J O O r r r O LO N r r Z Co Q. Q_ > C3 C Q O a L? �? U o Co c LO G co W a> Q Q i 0 N O L.L W L (n C W U > U c U •ccQ > o `� V! W U � N ccoom Q O > o O W �U co f% oU LO coU oU 0 L Z— Ca 00 �L— r C U)R Q% = o F" U) J W J Z r N co � LO W Cd H O O N Itt N C,O O r 0 0 0 N cc Cfl cc 1 O N I� 00 CO O — 00 6 0000 CO N r CO U) U) U) U) J J J J r r r r m c U) O U coco O L O E a> o O o U C O O 0 co U co N U O 0M0� W I Cd -6 U "O O x Q E W N co co m CO Lr 00 N 00 00 m o rnc�eaea ea 000 O r co co co co r r r m C C� C co c co C co C O Co > Z5 —M O Q •S_ V a) CO Fo Fmo u1U--i O 0 co Q m E W O ti 0 N N 6r} O O O r O N � 60- O O O O O O r O 6r} O Cb co LL J Q O co m N r m O :_ O co O O =:6 0� Q 0 a Q m E W O O r � co O � Lf) (A ea N ea 0 N m co J r O U U .Q 0 co 0 M O 0 U IN LO m m cc N 00 m cc CA 00 W E 0 L Q M M 0 cn J J H O H m H Z W Z O a 2 O U H U) O U J H O H F- U) O U F- z H Z H Z Q d Z O F- a U N W 0 W H W H 0 O O O LO N C) C=� O C) C 0 LO N Ef} J r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O LO LO LO LO 0 0000 Cc N r M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) J J J J r r r r is E w 0 0 o c C) C)O c C) C)c O N N Ef} Ef} Ef} H 0 000 0, O r 00 Lf CO CO U J r J r c O � .. 7 N co SZ O LO r n (n Vc a C m C� co J O U co E c co 2 N co C Cl) C p O 4 O O co. CCo c Co O Cn E c cn -o i o _ a) p O �_ o U N Q N C z G fn o o O C)coo oco ,o -C va L co cco o N a) a) a U)� _ U p � E Fn� _ (n a O Co O (n 0) r- C fn J J W W c)a r Cd -6 U "O L Cd O O O r N M is E w 0 0 O K} CD CD O LL J O is E w 0 0 (11} 00 Cb CD 0 N 0. 01 7 7 co co i U c a� c O U CCScu N O i O i co O O Ln O CC) cc CO 6r} CC) CO CO N Ef} NER CO J r 0 w r_ N LO N N 6r} N Nt CO L N N 00 O N N � N � N r O O CO N N Lj N N Ef} C4 O 7 co a) CCU c E o � � N C OCU .L C C 0 o .0 O co C� 0 U o Co C co Q L co 0 U j, co :� U co o co � io co o o c O Q>->-zQ W E 0 L CL M 0 cn J J H O H m N H Z W Z O a 2 O U H in O U J H O H F- in O U F- z H Z H Z Q d Z O F- a U N W 0 W F- LU H 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O LO LO O O L9 L9 N ti N N �Ef}Ef} 60!)- 6� 0 0000 O CO N r CO O CD 0 0 N ea J J J J co r r r r r is E w 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Itt O O 00 N 4 co � Ef} -0 O r 00 LO CO CO CO r r r O � .. 7 N co Q O LO r n (n VQ a C m Ca J O U Co E co Co co 7 a Cl)O 0 C :- a) O Co O Co Coo N U M ,> co Co O (n E c cn E -0 '� N a> o O o U a) a c 0 _� o O Q U) o o c 0 o U co co co N 0 co �U) Cl) U �C•o� �aCM r Cd -6 U "O C6 Q U Cd O O O r N M is E w O O K} 0 0 C CO 0 O LL J C) is E w O Cf} 0 0 K} co 00 CO 0 N No c 04 00 CO 00 L � N 0 7 co 0 7 co � co T U C a) O T Co O U N o c o co co C6 C6 C6 O O O L6 CO 57 0 00 O N r � N N O O N N O 7 N a) Co c E O � � 0 i C O O O 0 Co U •— O 7 co Co c .co Co 'i_ 0 i co 4-- OL co � O 4-- O E Q Z It m Z U J H O H m N F- Z W Z O a 2 O U H Cn O U J H O H F- U) O U F- z H Z H Z Q d Z O F- a U W 0 W F- LU H O O O O O c O O O O O c O O O O LO u C C V C4 r- LO LO Ef} Ef} N N O o 0 0 0 O CO N r ' O O O 0 LO N Ef} J J J J U r r r r c O 7 co Q t� O LO r n (n _0CQ C m CU Cam' C a) co J CU O U C C E C c - � � a � Cll c [ c U 0 O L o co c C�CS •' N C S. cu O E C Np N _ p C: O C � � fn O � o C O C .0 O U u U L C�CS — C�CS — r- C _ U O C 3U)CO E�Fn•� cn J J o W r c0 -6 U Z Cd O O r CV is E w O O_ O O O O O O O O O O O Itt O O Cb N 4 CO N N r 6 -0 O r co LO CO CO CO I J r J r J r O 7 co C CV C Cu Z� co c co c i co I � O Co D) co .U) c i N •� I � Q � i p Q U � L cQ �a)CU i O O u1 U i (u Q U O M is E w O O O C) 60!) C) � r 6 Ef} O O O O O O r O 60!) O Oo Co IL U J Q O co O is E w III O O O CD � r r r Ef} � 0 N co J r O O r r 60 O r CO r r r r M Cf> N co J r A 0 0 0 7 7 � C O co CO J O Z U � CU O � O T •� � Q C O O co U CU 4L c 0 0 o � O 7-00 4— O O O L6 CO 0 AW CC r CO co N Ef} r c'i co N 0 00 O r C) N O O N N O 7 N CU Co c E O CV L O O a U O •6 Ca �_ co 7 Co C •� U c co L c O co O O co L L L Q co E d d a � ++ E E N LU w w J H O H m O O co C N z Z M W Z r �} O a 2 O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N o o r r U L J r r ER ER m 0 F- O 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O N O O O O O O U O O O r O N U O r 70 O O Ef} a) N z O co E Z co co co co co J J J N W J r O H Z a c� iJ 0 0 m z 1 O F- LU 0 W H 1 I O Q E 0 NC m cn T 1 � � I ��C °V V/ U e r 1 � W H O O r N 0 0 c = a� E u a� u m c m 6 � - m \ U) � O c 6 O +J a) m > i C C 'E c u o O U) Q 'E o U 0 C CO C CO Q - O U m o U c m a- 2 c J U O C � m� ] 0 w� w U 6 U O (6 Q U O M 0 0 m 0 0 m a d a E rn w r N 0 O N co J r r O N r..: 0 0 co J r 0 0 m c 0 �a c 00 N N f` N O O O N N � a) Co E c O c O U) O p C (A m O CO co Co 0 S U - �O a> 0 m � U) i co Co +J C •C U j O C a U Co O m O o a) cc 0 C 0 O c cocoELa c Q Z Q (6 O CO L, Al 1� W a) O °' -0 i 4J U 4J +' X O 4J Q a) L Q- LnLn O N ,cn .- Ln 4J o Q- O cB f6 4J + Ln f6 U cn N a� C: a) +, E f6 Q C: QJ \ UA cnLn O 4J LL O m v — E Ci N J O 'a f6 4i Q U Ln 4- N bA O O 4i llA N •+J 4-Ln N Ln 4J 4- E O Q 4J Ln a O Ln 4J L N N O i N -a XO —_ a O vi n 4J i Q `n -a "a Ln O C) O 4J a"' U O O +, cn U 4J '+� U O L O LL J 41 cn 4J cn 4J O Q-aQ 4J Ln Q- L L � N f6 >, +- O a nJ O U C) U O 0 � " 4J a ii Q O 4J a a O a Q 4J O O +J a d —_ 0 Ov > U O `nLn UA cn Q1 Ln 4J +� O 0 � +� cn � p U a .� iJ � � -0 xU Q *' Q O N E ~ p Ln a iJ X a 4J O ~ U O n 0 Q aJ Co �c� Q � Q O O O cn +� Ln +a, C) Ln 'n O a� -C 0 Ln °J a) a) )mC) ��°��c- E � cn 4J 4J }' *' c6 can Ln O Q- O Q 4J N C) Q a� +J c6 w a a +J N a O O 4J O d a O 4J -a O Ln � "a d Q Ln LE Ln 4) - O U O Ln Q Needed Capacity and Associated Timeframe Est. Lift Station Cost2 and Est. Construction Peak Flow — 5- yr (gpm) Peak Flow — 15- yr (gpm) Peak Flow — FBO (gpm) Sewershed Service Area Size (Acres) Anticipated Forcemain Diameter (in.) 2021 2029 204( 0 0 160 88 4 $ 463,' 20 75 150 165 4 $ 318,362.40 0 0 225 162 4 $ 463,' 20 20 45 400 4 $ 318,362.40 0 0 75 58 4 $ 463,' 5 25 125 81 4 $ 318,362.40 35 65 90 136 4 $ 318,362.40 10 20 65 114 4 $ 318,362.40 0 10 25 166 4 $ 373,012.29 0 0 100 60 4 $ 463,' 0 5 30 378 4 $ 373,012.29 0 10 185 174 4 $ 373,012.29 0 0 25 81 4 $ 463,' 0 0 10 94 4 $ 463,' 0 10 60 187 4 $ 373,012.29 0 5 10 74 4 $ 373,012.29 $ 1,591,812.00 $ 1,865,061.46 $ 2,782,' ind Development sewershed maps for locations. ig costs are estimated at $300, 000 (in 2018 dollars) for regional lift stations with small pump sizes. No separate costs for markup, engineer) 'e included. Inflation has been included based on the anticipated construction year. Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update Appendices June 2019 Appendix E - Capital Improvements Mapbook P05610-2017-003 )on E2S Lift Station #39 Improvements W W-LS-06 Lift Station #36 Improvements J W W-LS-03 QWest Reserve Drive Improvements 3 � o � Q W W-LS-09Zff 5' Stillwater Road Improvements rI111M IM _ 548 c W W-LS-04 West Springcreek Road I 1 A93 Improvements I I I P � J Ka1l�po-1 1 I Wulh d - i I �ahlrn bID J h \ {,,, fh�ee kl F � 1m% - -- Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) (water Main Type Force Main Gravity t Ig Wastewater System Wastewater Main Wastewater Treatment Facility - Lift Station emended Wastewater System Lift Station Improvements CIP Lift Station emended CIP Improvements WW-M-01 Lift Station #3 Improvements W W-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements WW-LS-02 - Rose Crossing West Improvements W W-M-02 - Bluestone Upsize WW-M-03 - Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension WW-LS-03 - West Reserve Drive Improvements • W W-LS-04 - West Springcreek Road Improvements W W-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements • W W-LS-08 - Rose Crossing East Improvements • W W-LS-09 - Stillwater Road Improvements`' s WW-LS-08 m Rose Crossing East Improvements v: i r W W-LS-05 Lift Station # 12 Improvements W W-M-01 L'- Lift Station #3 Main Improveme 35 2 _ � r.-anwcrl I -I: W W-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements W W-M-03 • `.� �: West Side Interceptor (WSI) lad Gravity Main Extension W W-LS-07 Lift Station #22 Improvement m a WW-LS-11 Lift Station #34 Improvemer 93}_ � I � I % -- ♦— f- W W-M-02 Bluestone Upsize 503 _ W W-LS-10 93 Lift Station #33 Improvements Y o 400' Highway Bore FOURIMILE DR 12" l a: �wt Ling 27" _ 6 ffo iORSE LN BUFFETT DR gall Y Ir4 8rr A._ I HUTTON .r�� r. 93 :r 250' �HiighwyBore 00,L41 O' VISTA Id N HAVEN D XD.GF_ E DR go :EU O`. z H Uj tn IIX O NORTHRIDGE4o A PARKRIDGE DR 9 90 p90 o O Nv'� LISH O, ^�' 'ASH y W? N WEDGEWO ODRAMS OD LN GATE DR , �" o �0 0� z o 3 i �t�J pQ Z m _Q UKEDR �•�. GAO Q� 9 a i p FORD P� O-.,TRUMP DR W IAIAW CARNEGIE ce = CW t' YJ Z Z SINOPAH ST ry ce LU ' qV Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) O Wastewater Lift Station r Main Type �e Main Recommended CIP Improvements WW-M-01 - Litt Station Improvements rvity w A4\I M.-,l ..-J= �IL , \/ jr e ` \ . . OAF - -AM � . - k a , g� 4. � : 'Tie »toExi -W -r � �. Ivity wsAnnexation Boundary) 0 Recommended Litt Station ,mprovemen! . Main Type Recommended CIP Improvements ©Mai° _LS-0 »mom z rImprovements il r +f no T-. NOB HILL LOOP Build Out (2016 Annexation Boundary) Recommended Lift Station • r Main Type CIP Litt Station e Main Recommended CIP Improvements vity WW-LS-02 - Rose Crossing West Improvements $rr - •^41 -BLUESTONE � � IIIAti• rry ' - �P�`� >ti DARLINGTON 90 �Cft B hql MP 1 � o F GARDENWAY ' • ~ ; +� p 41 V FFZ GREEN CV t t • S MEADOWS DR dp IF + w ?shleP. y Cheek a —iULU 11 lr' 0 - s: IL LU U G ... .' hP o C-CT �• o i OL #. SCOOT CTI,+ r , y I lipAl - yt Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) O Wastewater Litt Station r Main Type �e Main Recommended CIP Improvements WW-M-02-Bluestone Upsize rvity mAStW 811 y ;1DE DR 81` '7 yh LIP W > . i t A114L f .ter. r � 0j. sill 93 will Ord �y t W } IL # '* �� 1 i 100' Road Bore .-�7-. 1TIiE 2 W 40 t3tN $1 ` m m V 0 5 1 O A- OWN � - ,m BLUESTONE y �.4 �I I Z t I -- 'ally T'}!f � � , f� 1 . - *,. .� . Z DARLINGTON40 'MG G PARK D � = � ..WAY R O{ OGARDEN =� ,All %- GREEN CV A i iAlk S. F flsh'Iey Creek P� S MEADOWS DR L"ic- _--,.GREATVIEW ' JEAL 6R J� Qom. 4r c-� o C CT U W W J 9 `. 4 Y mQV�* ,T COOTO �. 4k I VA i G ulld Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) O Wastewater Treatment Facility Main Type O Wastewater TIT Station Main my Recommended CIP Improvements —IMIM-MJYF - We tClrl a. (WCl) (7—vi1v Moir, Fvten,i,n 7 a 250' Highway Bore Tie In to Existing 18" ` OOR . o v P ( m 4 eFrL a IDGE RD v rn Z )UR DR v� N_RESERV.E DR TREELINE RD 90 ' M1L 150' Road Bore l RESERVE LOOP 'HUTTON RANCH RD Id Out (2015 Annexation Boundaryt R ended Lift Station .in Type CIP Lift Station Main Recommended CIP Improvements ✓ W W-IS-03- West Reserve Drive Improvements water System Growth B Development Wastewater System 1(ffl NOB HILL LOOP 29 9 9 I. a jaw 9P . OR COUNTRY WAY N N MISSION 2 i 0 O��r�y 61 MISSION�P 02 ,4� WAY GO py y MISSION WAY ° 0 a +. " z M O N 70 W � 7 # t 0 N_ Q tol GRANRUD LN > G BRUYER, Q RPNo PEE sv � V G 1JJ ELVA DR 00 (9 � H BRUYER WAY O 12" a Y U 0� kl RITZI o 19 RNO VILLAGE WOO Ds o LOOP �� 9 9 I _ t Tie Into Existing 24" 90 k w - FOUR MILE DR- - Build Out (2016 Annexation Boundary) Recommended Lift Station • r Main Type CIP Litt Station e Main Recommended CIP Improvements vity WW-LS-04 -West Springcreek Road Improvements 0 \ 0 15" IF I NE 93 A-�M- III =,V�Pw AML. A& i l w W� 00V40 t 15" Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) O Recommended Lift Station Improvements r Main Type Recommended CIP Improvements ce Main W W-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements Ivlty 100' Road Bore r re Lift Station �1 W Q H N 2 N ti' F NOB HILL LOOP = 3 G COUNTRY WAY Z W O 1W W Z a 44 ROSE CROSSING $„ a m 9 W V) O w a3 0 Z tARDELL DR oe W W U Id Out (2015 Annexation Boundaryt R ended Lift Station .in Type CIP Lift Station Main Recommended CIP Improvements ✓ _ W W-LS-08- Rose Crossing East Improvements water System Growth B Development Wastewater System w W IIX i` O 04�G� +� U 47 r IIW RESERVE D54 �544 '1 t Tie In to Existing 10" I 1 %I x Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary) Recommended CIP Improvements W W-LS-09 -Stillwater Road Improvements r Main Type �e Main Growth & Development Wastewater System Wastewater Main rvity