(Final) Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary - PrintTh e 2018 Kalispell WFPU provides a guide for short-term,
near-term, and long-term capital improvements that will be
the basis for planning, fi nancing, designing, constructing, and
implementating of solutions to meet the City’s foreseeable water
system needs for years to come. As the City cycles through the
planning process, some uncertainties and changes can be expected.
However, the approach methodology and investment the City has
made in this planning eff ort provides City staff with a proactive
planning approach for responding to future challenges and
maintaining a clear vision and consistent direction for the Utility!
SUSTAINABLE WATER UTILITY
Prepared By:
ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
690 N Meridian Rd, Suite 218 Kalispell, MT 59901 | (406) 257-8990
WA
T
E
R
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
City of
KALISPELL
Montana
JUNE 2018
93
DESIGN &
CONSTRUCTION
SUSTAINABLE
WATER UTILITY
PROACTIVE
PLANNING
UNDERSTANDING
OF THE EXISTING
SYSTEM
MODEL UPDATE
& CALIBRATION
SYSTEM
EVALUATION
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
PLANNING
INTRODUCTION
Proactively addressing system challenges is critical to ensure sustainable system
operations. Water system challenges come in many forms including population
growth, increasing water demands, aging infrastructure, increased regulatory
requirements, emerging technological trends, and eff ective capital improvements
planning. Th e 2018 Kalispell Water Facility Plan Update (WFPU) provides a guide
for short-term (0-5 years), near-term (5-15 years), and long-term (15+ years) capital
improvements to the City of Kalispell’s (City) municipal water supply system. Th e
recommended improvements included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) will be
the basis for future planning, fi nancing, designing, constructing, and implementation
of solutions to meet the City ’s water system needs. Th is document serves as an
Executive Summary to the 2018 Kalispell WFPU report.
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$7,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
To
t
a
l
O
P
P
C
(
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
0-5 Year Planning Period
Condition Assessment Growth & Development Optimization Rehabilitation & Repair
Studies Transmission Storage Supply
Short-Term CIP Project Categories &
Opinion of Probable Project Cost (OPPC)
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 18
Facility Type Existing Additional Facility Improvements
Major Distribution Pipeline (miles)
(size 12-inches to 14-inches)25 35 miles of 12-inch major distribution main
Transmission Main (miles)
(size 14-inches to 18-inches)13 22 miles of transmission main ranging from 14-inches to
18-inches in diameter
Pressure Zones 2 None
Pressure Reducing Stations 1
1 new Pressure Reducing Station to allow emergency flow
from the Upper Zone to the Lower Zone
Storage Reservoirs
(Volume)4 (6.5 MG)3 new elevated storage tanks
(9.4 MG total system storage)
Proposed Distribution System Improvements to Serve FBO Conditions
Th e hydraulic model was used to develop the infrastructure necessary to serve the FBO water distribution system. A summary of
improvements necessary to provide water service for the FBO planning horizon include:
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 17
")P
#*
!.
Fa
r
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Old Reserve DR
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤A93
£¤2
Foys Lake
£¤A93
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
")548
")292
£¤93
W-W-01Northwest Well #1
W-T-01Northern Region of Upper Zone
UV35
")503
")424 W-M-02 West Reserve TransmissionMain Phase 1
W-M-01
Four Mile TransmissionMain Phase 1
W-RR-05
ConradDrive R&R
W-RR-036th St W R&R
W-RR-062nd Ave W
(North) R&R
W-RR-042nd Ave W
(South) R&R
W-RR-02
1st Ave NW R&R
W-CA-02Small Diameter CA
W-CA-03Backbone CA
W-RR-0110th Ave W and
2nd St W R&R
W-CA-01
Noffsinger TransmissionCA
W-RR-08
7th AveWN R&R
Whitefish River
Stillwater
R
iver
AshleyCre e k
Flathead Ri v e r
Recommended Water Storage Facilities
!.W-T-01 1 MG Elevated Water Storage
Tank (Northern Region of Upper Zone)
Recommended Booster Stations
#*W-O-03 Buffalo Hill Booster Station #1-3(Station Upgrades)
Recommended Supply Wells
")P W-W-01 Northwest Well #1
Pressure Zones
Upper
Lower
Recommended CIP Transmission
Improvements
W-M-01 Four Mile Transmission MainPhase 1
W-M-02 West Reserve TransmissionMain Phase 1
Water Main
Existing Water Main
Recommended Condition Assessment
W-CA-01 Noffsinger Transmission CA
W-CA-02 Small Diameter CA
W-CA-03 Backbone CA
Recommended Rehabilitation and Repair
W-RR-01 10th Ave W and 2nd St W R&R
W-RR-02 1st Ave NW R&R
W-RR-03 6th St W R&R
W-RR-04 2nd Ave W (South) R&R
W-RR-05 Conrad Drive R&R
W-RR-06 2nd Ave W (North) R&R
W-RR-08 7th Ave NW R&R
#*
Ash
le
yCreek
Stillwater River
Short-Term Proposed Capital Improvements
&,
"5
"5
"5
"5
"5
"5
"5
"5"5
"5
"5
#*#*
!.
!.!.!.
Fa
r
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Old Reserve DR
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤A93
£¤2
Foys Lake £¤A93
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
")548
")292
£¤93
UV35
")503
")424
WhitefishRiver
Stillw
a
ter
River
AshleyCreek
Fla thead River
Water Storage Facilities!.Buffalo Hill Elevated Storage Tank (0.1 MG)!.Sheepherder Reservoir (2.0 MG)!.Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 (1.7 MG)!.Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 (2.7 MG)
Booster Stations#*Buffalo Hill Booster #1#*Buffalo Hill Booster #2
Control Valves&,Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
Upper Zone Wells
"5 Grandview Well #1
"5 Grandview Well #2
"5 Section 36 Well (2018)
"5 Silverbrook Well
"5 West View Well
Lower Zone Wells
"5 Armory Well
"5 Buffalo Hilll Well
"5 Depot Park Well
"5 Noffsinger Spring Well
"5 Old School Well #1
"5 Old School Well #2
Pressure Zones
Upper
Lower
Water Main Pressure Zones
Upper
Lower
"5
#*#*!.
!.
!.
SUBSTANTIAL AREA
GROWTH
Steady growth with increasing
intensity has placed strain on
City utilities during periods of
peak demand.
INCREASED WATER
DEMANDS
OPERATIONAL
PRESSURES
REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
Water production
continues to increase with
demands in 2015 breaking
production records.
City operators have adapted
to increasing demands by
implementing creative
solutions to maintain the
current level of service.
With increasing demand
the City needs to position
itself to continue meeting
regulatory requirements.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 2
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
SYSTEM CHALLENGES
Th e City’s current water supply comes from a number of groundwater wells within the city limits, which
supply water to the distribution system and storage reservoirs. Currently, the water distribution system is
divided into an Upper and Lower Pressure Zone containing a total of four storage reservoirs.
FoFFysyy Lakekk ¤££££££££££££££££££££££££££
)""""""""
Water StorageFacilities.!!BuffaloHillElevatedStorage Tank (0.1MG).!!SheepherderReservoir (2.0MG).!!BuffaloHillReservoir#1(1.7 MG).!!BuffaloHillReservoir#2(2.7 MG)
BoosterStations*##BuffaloHillBooster#1*##BuffaloHillBooster#2
ControlValves,&&Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
UpperZoneWells5""GrandviewWell #15""GrandviewWell #25""Section36Well(2018)5""SilverbrookWell5""WestViewWell
Lower Zone Wells5""Armoryrr Well5""BuffaloHilllWell5""DepotParkWell5""Noffsinger SpringWell5""Old School Well#15""Old School Well#2
PressureZones
Upper
Lower
Water Main PressureZones
Upper
Lower
Water Storage Facilities
!.Buffalo Hill Elevated Storage Tank (0.1 MG)!.Sheepherder Reservoir (2.0 MG)!.Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 (1.7 MG)!.Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 (2.7 MG)
Booster Stations#*Buffalo Hill Booster #1#*Buffalo Hill Booster #2
Control Valves
&,Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
Upper Zone Wells
"5 Grandview Well #1
"5 Grandview Well #2
"5 Section 36 Well (2018)
"5 Silverbrook Well
"5 West View Well
Lower Zone Wells
"5 Armory Well
"5 Buffalo Hilll Well
"5 Depot Park Well
"5 Noffsinger Spring We
"5 Old School Well #1
"5 Old School Well #2
Pressure Zones
Upper
Lower
Water Main Pressure Zones
Upper
Lower
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2
Buffalo Hill Elevated
Storage Tank
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1
Sheepherder Reservoir
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 3
PROACTIVE PLANNING
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2023 2030 2033 2040 2050 2060 2068
Ac
r
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Year
Establishing Planning Periods
Th e establishment of planning periods is a critical component in the development of
the WFPU. A total of three planning periods were established, including a short-term,
near-term, and a long-term period. For this report, full build-out (FBO) was assumed to
coincide with the 2015 Annexation Boundary, as shown in the fi gure on the next page.
For this planning effort, a 2.0 percent annual growth rate is used to estimate future population projections, which is consistent with the
rate currently utilized by the City’s Planning Department. Future water use for each planning period was then calculated and used to
determine future infrastructure need and anticipated project timing.
RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DENSITIES
The City Planning Department used average
densities to assign the number of residential
DU to each area depending on future land use.
• Suburban Residential = 3 DU / Acre
• Urban Residential = 8 DU / Acre
• High-Density Residential = 10 DU / Acre
The fi gure on the following page contains the
number of added dwelling units, commercial
acres, and industrial acres for each respective
planning period.
SHORT-TERM GROWTH 0-5 YEARS (2018 – 2023)
LOOKING AT GROWTH AND DEMAND MULTIPLE WAYS
NEAR-TERM GROWTH 5-15 YEARS (2023 – 2033)
LONG-TERM GROWTH 15+ YEARS (2033-Beyond)
UNDERSTANDING FUTURE GROWTH
A collaborative approach which involved City
Planning was used to determine anticipated areas
of future growth as well as redevelopment for each
planning period. These areas identifi ed by City
Planning staff were then populated with estimated
residential dwelling units (DU) and developable
commercial and industrial acres.
Short-Term
Near-Term
Long-Term
Acres Developed Historical Population Average Annual Growth
2.00% Growth - Planning Historical Polynomial Trend
CIPs identifi ed within this WFPU were divided into short-
term (0-5 year), near-term (5-15 year) and long-term (15+)
timeframes. Specifi c project timing was determined using
the hydraulic model, detailed demand trend charts for supply
wells and storage tanks, and anticipated system growth maps
developed by the City Planning Department.
Th e project team developed a prioritization process for
short-term CIPs, using a project scoring methodology with
nine prioritization factors applicable to the types of projects
identifi ed in this update. Th e prioritization process resulted
in a ranking for short-term projects, with the highest score
refl ecting the highest priority for the City.
CIP PRIORITIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects Project Category Project
Rank
OPPC
Four Mile Transmission Main (Phase 1) Transmission 1 $ 3,761,875
1 MG Elevated Water Storage Tank
(Northern Region of Upper Zone)
Storage 2 $ 6,526,787
Noffsinger Transmission Condition Assessment Condition Assessment 3 $ 199,824
West Reserve Transmission Main (Phase 1) Transmission 4 $ 616,766
Northwest Well #1 Supply 5 $ 1,800,345
Buffalo Hills Flow Control Upgrades Optimization 6 $ 137,815
Backbone CA Condition Assessment 7 $ 140,027
10th Ave W and 2nd St W R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 8 $ 531,440
1st Ave WN R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 9 $ 617,558
6th St W R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 10 $ 147,228
2nd Ave W (South) R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 11 $ 353,972
2nd Ave W (North) R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 12 $ 301,432
7th Ave WN R&R Rehabilitation & Repair 13 $ 657,892
Buffalo Hill Booster Station Upgrades Optimization 14 $ 435,174
Small Diameter CA Condition Assessment 15 $ 138,341
Water Rights Adjudication Studies 16 $ 59,557
North Town Center Water Rights Studies 17 $ 6,866
Noffsinger Spring Water Rights Change Application Studies 18 $ 23,346
Water Distribution Control System Updates Optimization 19 $ 164,280
Conrad Drive R&R* Rehabilitation & Repair NR $ 326,542
Meters R&R (Ex. City Project) Rehabilitation & Repair NR $ 550,000
Lower Zone Reservoirs Roof R&R (Ex. City Project) Rehabilitation & Repair NR $ 3,941,568
New Meters (Ex. City Project) Growth & Development NR $ 228,000
Misc. Contract Main Upsize Growth & Development NR $ 750,000
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $22,416,645
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 16
*Project previously identifi ed by City Staff
as part of a larger short-term project.
Projects identifi ed for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were divided into eight categories briefl y summarized below.
Th e development of these categories provided the conceptual framework for CIP development, project prioritization and
timeframe progressions, and correlated projects to the City’s present fi scal resources (i.e. what type of project makes the best
use of the available capital improvement budget).
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING
CONDITION ASSESSMENT (CA)
Used to identify high-risk degradation of
a pipeline before failure, or to verify that
there is viable life remaining in a segment
of pipeline so that financial resources are
spent strategically on its replacement or
rehabilitation.
REHABILITATION & REPAIR (R&R)
Rehabilitation and repair projects are
generally associated with pipe segments that
experience high break rates, water quality
issues, are undersized (cannot attain fire flow
goal), or require frequent maintenance.
SUPPLY
Increase the overall water supply available
to the distribution system, which ensures
the City maintains its current level of
service and can adequately provide water
to existing and future customers.
GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
Provide the necessary infrastructure
to serve both existing and future
customers. These projects primarily
consist of “backbone” water
transmission mains in the near-term.
STORAGE
Increase the overall water storage
capacity of the system, ensure
adequate fire flow, and supplement
water supply during periods of peak
demand planned maintenance or
emergencies.
TRANSMISSION
Consists of large diameter transmission
main (12-18 inches) that originate from
sources of supply and convey large
volumes of water throughout the entire
distribution system.
OPTIMIZATION
Improve system water quality, promote
network efficiency, help with pressure
management, or eliminate facilities to
reduce operating costs and improve
overall network performance.
STUDIES
Studies provide more detailed
information so that the City
can make informed decisions
regarding the cost and timing of
future projects.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 15 City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 4
£¤2
£¤A93
£¤93
Foys Lake
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
D
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
Old Reserve DR
£¤93
£¤2
£¤A93
")548
")292
")503
")424
Whitefi
s
h
Rive
r
Stillw
a
te
ver
AshleyCreek
F la t h e ad Rive
Kalispell Current City Limits
0-5 Year Growth
5-15 Year Growth
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Growth Policy Planning Area (GPPA)
LLaakkeekkk
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
vverr
SHORT-TERM GROWTH
25,200 People
Estimated Added Growth
+ 1,185 Residential Dwellings
+ 90 Commercial Acres
+ 28 Industrial Acres LONG-TERM GROWTH
61,900 People
Estimated Added Growth
+ 15,023 Residential Dwellings
+ 633 Commercial Acres
+ 100 Industrial Acres
NEAR-TERM GROWTH
30,800 People
Estimated Added Growth
+ 2,875 Residential Dwellings
+ 331 Commercial Acres
+ 20 Industrial Acres
Water use characterization is critical when assessing the performance of the existing and future
distribution system. Understanding how water is currently being used can help refi ne water
conservation goals and establish strategies to bett er position the utility to meet future water needs.
HOW MUCH WATER DO WE USE?
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
m
g
d
)
4.0 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.1 3.7
13.0
9.6 10.0
8.4 8.4 8.8 9.1 8.8
11.4
8.7
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(m
g
d
)
ADD MDD
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
m
g
d
)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
TOTAL WATER PRODUCTION
AVERAGE DAY AND MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMANDS
SEASONAL WATER DEMAND VARIATIONS
(Represented in Maximum Monthly Demands)
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 5
Peaking factors are calculated by dividing
Maximum Day Demand (MDD) by the
Average Day Demand (ADD). Based on
past trends, a peaking factor of 3.0 is
recommended for system design.
* 2007 was not considered due to data validity
OVER THE PAST 10-YEARS THE MDD
HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED DURING
THE SUMMER MONTHS
Risk from each pipe segment was
determined by combining the
scores from the of likelihood and
consequence of failure assessments.
Th e majority of the City’s water
system is in the lower risk range,
which corresponds to a level one or
two risk and thus, does not require any
current immediate action. Th e map
to the right presents a specifi c area of
water mains in the core downtown
area and their respective risk levels.
RISK ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
US 2
LIBERTY ST
SUNNYSIDE DR
8TH ST W
5T
H
AVE E
6TH
AV
E
W
N
E
6TH ST W
3R
D AV
E
EN
5TH ST E
TRILLIUMWAY
2
N
D
A
VE EN
8T
H
AVE ENGLENWOOD
DR
7TH ST E
1ST
AVE W
11 TH S T E
6TH ST E
6
T
H
AV
E
EN
8TH ST E
US
9
3
2ND ST E
3R D S T E
NO
R
T
H
WES
T
L
N
9TH ST E
E NE VAD A S T
E CALIF ORNIA ST
LA
W
R
E
N
C
SUNNYVIEW L N
11T H ST W
SM
EADOWSDR
COLLEGE AV
E
14 TH S T E
9T
H
AVE
E
N
8T
H
A
V
E
W
3RD
AV
E
E
LUPINED R
W NEVADA ST
DE
NV
E
R
AVE
AIRPORT RD
CL
AR
E
MO
N
T
S
T
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N R
D
1S
T
AV
E WN
TETON
ST
7THAVE
WN
WOODLAND
P
A
R
K
D R
1 3TH S T E
THREE MILE DR
TRA
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
NO
R
T
H
E
R
N
LIG
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
FISHTAILDR
2ND
AV
E W
9 TH S T W
BLUESTONE
C H A R L O TT EAVE
5
TH A
V
E
W
N
10
T
H
A
VE
W
12TH
AVE
W
7T
H
AVE EN
7TH ST W
1ST
AVE
EN
W WY OMING S T
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D A
VE
4TH AVE
W
W UTAH S T
W CALIF ORNIA ST
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
AN
R
D
W CENTER ST
1ST ST E
5TH ST W
4T H ST W
2ND ST W
W MONTANA
S
T
E CE N TER S T
3RD ST W
W WASHINGTON ST
1ST ST W
12TH ST E10TH S T W
HAWTHORN
AVE WCOLORADO ST
12TH ST W
10TH ST E
4T H ST E
E MO NTA NA ST
E WYOMING
ST
N
M
A
IN ST
CONWAY DR
CRESTL
I
N
E AV E
MISSIO
N
STW ARIZONA ST
L
SANTA FE
ST
BI
S
M
A
R
K
S
T BOIS
E
AV
E
V
A
LL
E
Y
VIE
W
D
R
BELM
A
R
18THST E
HERRY
LN
8TH
AV
E
W
N
NORTHRIDGE DR
WEDGEWOODLN
GRANDVIEWDR
OYS L AK E R D
APPLEWAY DR
ASH
L
E
Y
D
R
GA
R
L
A
ND
S
T
RO
SE
W
O
OD
DR
AUSTIN ST
5
TH AVE
EN
4TH AV
E
E
RIV
4TH
AV
E E
N
2ND
AV
E
E
HERITAGEWAY
1S
T AVE
E
2ND
AV
E
WN
6T
H
AVE E
6T
H
AV
E
W
9
T
H
A
V
E
W
7TH
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
3R
D
AV
E
W 7T
H AVE
E
TWOMILEDR
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
DR
SHERWOODL N
N WOODLANDPARKRD
I
T
E
FIS
H
S
TA
GE
SALEM
ST
17TH ST
W
ALISHCT
2 1 S T ST E
WESTERN
DR
WOODLANDPARK
L
O
O
P
OVERD
HUSKY ST
MERIDIAN
RD
E RAILRO A D
ST
S
E MERIDIAN RD
DARLINGTON
ST
BEGGPARKDR
GRE
ATVIEW
RYAN
LN
9
3
A
LTER
N
A
TE
£¤2
£¤93
£¤A93 A
shleyCreek
v er
C
RIVV
SSTT
vvvvv eerr
Level 5: 0 miles
Level 4: 1.6 miles
Level 3: 4.3 miles
Level 2: 21.7 miles
Level 1 : 113.2 miles
Level 5: Catastrophic
Immediate Response Needed
No areas of catastrophic
risk were identified in
this analysis.
Level 4: Major
Included on Short-Term CIP
Level 3: Moderate
Included on Near-Term CIP
Level 2: Minor
No Current Action Required
Level 1: Insignifi cant
No Current Action Required
Water Main
Risk Breakdown
1.2%3.2%
16%
79.6%
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 14
As the City continues to grow and provide water service to additional customers, it is important to
make appropriate investments to keep the water system maintained and operating at a high-level.
A risk assessment of the City’s water main network was completed to achieve the following:
Likelihood vs. Consequence of Failure
A risk assessment is comprised of assessing the likelihood of failure and consequence of failure. Th e risk assessment
completed for the City consisted of fi ve risk levels, ranging from “Insignifi cant Risk” to “Catastrophic Risk. ”
RISK ASSESSMENT
Develop a
Comprehensive
Understanding of
Watermain Risk
Develop a
Prioritization
of Water Main
Improvements
Risk
Management &
Risk Mitigation
Informed &
Defendable
Decisions
Smart Investments
for Appropriate
Infrastructure
Assessment,
Replacement, and
Maintenance
F Major Major Catastrophic Catastrophic Catastrophic
D Moderate Moderate Major Catastrophic Catastrophic
C Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Major
B Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate Major
A Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate
1 2 3 4 5
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
Consequence
VSLIKELIHOOD ASSESSMENT
Th e process of “screening” each individual water main
segment through the likelihood of failure components. Th is
process provides a bett er understanding of how susceptible
the water main segment is to failure. Factors identifi ed and
used in the Likelihood Assessment include:
CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT
Th e process of “screening” each water main segment through the
various consequence of failure components. Th is process provides
a bett er understanding of how critical the water main is to the water
system, as well as the over-arching consequence that could burden the
water storage facilities and distribution system in the event of a failure.
Factors identifi ed and used in the consequence assessment include:
Direct Financial Impact
Costs for replacing various
road types and pipe sizes
Reliability
Evaluation of previous
water main breaks and leaks
Service Delivery
Water service lost due
to a failure
Public Image & Confidence
Opportunity to perform
work in concentrated areas
Age
Evaluation of water main pipe
age and estimated useful life
Hydraulic Criticality
Identification of key water
mains during peak demand
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 13
WHAT IS RISK?
NOTE: Water main risk will be
routinely reevaluated which will
help City staff prioritize changes
as new information is collected.
Th ree methods for projecting future water demands were utilized for this Facility Plan. Ultimately, water demands we’re
estimated by applying water duty factors (WDFs) to the future land use plan and growth projections. WDFs are expressed
in terms of gpd / ERU for residential properties, and gpd / acre for industrial and commercial properties. WDFs were
estimated based on an evaluation of historical water use categorized by land use type. Th e following WDFs were used in this
Facility Plan, and the table below represents the total future water demands for the City for each planning period.
Understanding where the City’s water is delivered aft er
treatment, and the quantity your customers need is
important when estimating future water demands.
HOW MUCH WATER WILL WE NEED?
WHO ARE OUR CUSTOMERS
& HOW MUCH WATER ARE THEY USING?
TOTAL FUTURE WATER DEMANDS
RESIDENTIAL
420 gpd / ERU
COMMERCIAL
750 gpd / acre
INDUSTRIAL
500 gpd / acre
32.3%
3.1%
0.5%
10.0%
3.5%2.2%
48.5%
Year (Planning Period) Average Day Demand (ADD) [mgd] Maximum Day Demand (MDD) [mgd]
Short-Term 4.4 13.1
Near -Term 5.7 16.7
Long-Term 10.5 27.3
In 2016, the average per capita demand =
163 GALLONS PER
CAPITA PER DAY
TOTAL WATER USE
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 6
General Commercial
Industrial
Light Industrial
Multiple Dwelling
Neighborhood Office
Public Institutional
Single Dwelling
39
HYDRANT FLOW TESTS
12
EXTENDED PERIOD TESTS
• System Pressure
• Storage Requirements
• Storage Operation
• Transmission Capacity
• Fire Flow
• Water Source Management
• Criticality Assessment
• Emergency Water Management
Valuable Tool to Quickly Diagnose
System Challenges and Plan for Growth
MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION
Creating a model that accurately simulates a water distribution
system is essential to ensure its usefulness of the model. Actual
water usage was spatially allocated in the model to accurately
simulate the demand on the system. Numerous fl ow tests were
conducted throughout the City to ensure the model was calibrated
correctly and accurately simulates existing conditions.
“All Pipe” Model Provides Accurate Simulation
The new hydraulic model is an “all pipes” model, meaning that
it maintains a one-to-one relationship between individual
elements in the City’s GIS database and pipes in the model.
An all pipes model results in a more accurate simulation, and
enables continuous model updates and maintenance with
changes in the City’s GIS database (that reflect changes in its
infrastructure). This is critical for a City growing as fast as
Kalispell and to avoid the model becoming outdated.
The City now has a valuable tool that can be utilized
with a high degree of confidence and accuracy.
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
12
A
M
1
A
M
2
A
M
3
A
M
4
A
M
5
A
M
6
A
M
7
A
M
8
A
M
9
A
M
10
A
M
11
A
M
12
P
M
1
P
M
2
P
M
3
P
M
4
P
M
5
P
M
6
P
M
7
P
M
8
P
M
9
P
M
10
P
M
Le
v
e
l
(
f
t
)
Time of Day
Buffalo Hill Elevated Tank - Observed
Buffalo Hill Elevated Tank - Simulated
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 - Observed
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 - Simulated
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 - Observed
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 - Simulated
Sheepherder Reservoir - Observed
Sheepherder Reservoir - Simulated
MODEL UPDATE & CALIBRATION
Hydraulic Model Water Storage Level Comparison
July 25th, 2017
Th e development of an accurately calibrated model provides the City with the ability to analyze
countless scenarios and answer the looming “What If” questions as the City grows and expands.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 7
Various short-term system improvements include increased
transmission, looping, and storage directly improve available fi re fl ow.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 12
A fi re fl ow analysis was performed on individual hydrants and distribution main junctions throughout the
entire existing distribution system to analyze the transmission and distribution system piping capacity.
Excellent fire flow throughout majority of water system
97% of residential hydrants achieve a fire flow of 1,000 with 90% of the
hydrants meeting the City’s fire flow goal of 1,500 gpm
83% of the commercial and industrial hydrants achieve a fire flow goal of
2,000 gpm, with 57% achieving a fire flow greater than 3,000 gpm and 27%
meeting the City’s fire flow goal of 4,000 gpm
Hydrants not meeting the fire flow goals were further evaluated to
determine the most appropriate measure to achieve recommended fire
flow goals which includes the following:
• Water main upsizing
• Opportunistic looping
• Future growth and expansion of the system
• Maintain the current level of fire flow service (dead ends, ect.)
Lower Zone Available Fire Flow Upper Zone Available Fire Flow
FIRE FLOW 1,473
Fire Hydrants
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
£¤
")503
£¤93
£¤2
£¤A93
WhitefishRiver
AshleyCreek
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
£¤A93
")8 ")548
")424
£¤93
£¤2
> 1,500 gpm
1,000 - 1,500 gpm
750 - 1,000 gpm
0 - 750 gpm
1%2%
90%
7%
EXISTING HYDRANTS Hydrants Meeting Fire Flow Goal
!!Hydrant
Available Fire Flow For Not MeetingFire Flow Goal
G!.500 - 1,000 gpm
G!.1,000 - 2,000 gpm
G!.2,000 - 3,000 gpm
G!.3,000 - 4,000 gpm
Water Main Diameter
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
15"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Available Fire Flow During MaximumDay Demand
< 500 gpm
500 - 1,000 gpm
1,000 - 2,000 gpm
2,000 - 3,000 gpm
3,000 - 4,000 gpm
4,000 - 5,000 gpm
> 5,000 gpm
Water Main Recommendation
Recommend larger transmission capacity in the
Upper Zone to reduce system headloss conditions.
SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 11
WATER MAIN CAPACITY 142
Total Miles of Pipe
9 Miles Asbestos Cement
29 Miles Cast Iron
98 Miles PVC
6 Miles Other Materials
A water main capacity assessment was conducted to identify water mains that exceeded the recommended velocity and headloss criteria.
As water moves through the pipes in the distribution system, pressure is reduced due to friction between the moving water and the walls
of the pipe. Th is pressure reduction is termed headloss and is dependent on fl ow rate, pipe length, pipe diameter, pipe material, bends,
fi tt ings, and valves in the system. Water mains were considered defi cient if the following velocity and headloss criteria were experienced
during peak hourly demands.
• Velocities greater than 5 fps;
• Small diameter pipes (10-inch or less) have headlosses greater than 5 feet/1,000 feet; or
• Large diameter pipes (12-inch or greater) having headlosses greater than 2 feet/1,000
Headloss in the Lower Zone is considered relatively minor.
Water mains that did exceed the headloss criteria are
located around pumping facilities or near reservoirs. In
all cases, the headloss threshold was minimally exceeded
during periods of peak demand.
There are a number water mains in the Upper Zone that exceed
the recommended headloss criteria (highlighted in the figure
above).
Excessive headloss is largely driven by the current network
configuration, which is comprised of a complex grid of varying
sized pipe (6- to 12-inch) and material.
LOWER PRESSURE ZONE UPPER PRESSURE ZONE
£¤2
")292
w/ 4,300 Isolation valves
EXISTING WATER MAIN
SYSTEM EVALUATION
Th e water distribution system was evaluated under existing and future demand conditions using the calibrated
hydraulic model. Th e model was used to bett er understand the current limitations of the system and identify
defi ciencies. An understanding of the limitations of the existing water distribution system is critical to the
development and expansion of the system for satisfactory system performance, longevity, and to accommodate
future growth. Th e system evaluation included review of the following components:
PRESSURE – Identifies areas of high and low pressure, as well as investigates pressure fluctuations
across the system.
STORAGE – Evaluates the adequacy of storage for the existing system and determines future distribution
system storage requirements. Also, investigates current operational practices and provides recommendations
to City staff to improve system efficiency.
PUMPING CAPACITY – Evaluates the City’s ability to pump water under various conditions, in particular
when the largest pump is taken out of service for maintenance. In addition, determines the City’s ability to
transfer water from the Lower Zone to the Upper Zone under emergency conditions.
WATER MAIN CAPACITY – Identifies water mains that exceed recommended velocity and headloss criteria.
FIRE FLOW – Evaluates the ability of the distribution systems to effectively deliver fire flow during maximum
day demand, as well as identify areas that currently do not meet the City’s recommended fire flow goals.
RISK ASSESSMENT – Identifies water mains that pose a high risk of failure along with water mains that
should be further investigated to determine the most cost-effective mitigation strategy.
PRESSURE
Lower Zone Pressure Recommendations
Recommend maintaining the current level of
service
Upper Zone Pressure Recommendations
Recommend additional large transmission,
looping, and storage upgrades to stabilize
system pressures and reduce pressure swings.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 8
2
Pressure
Zones
Upper Zone
Average MDD Pressure = 84 psi
Lower Zone
Average MDD Pressure = 55 psi
• Meets pressure and fluctuation criteria
• Sizable area near the edge of the northern zone
boundary that generally operates below 50 psi,
but is considered acceptable based on the current
level of service and lack of customer complaints.
• Exceeds high, low, and pressure fluctuation criteria.
LOWER PRESSURE ZONE
UPPER PRESSURE ZONE
EXISTING PRESSURE ZONES
STORAGE 3
Ground Storage
Reservoirs
1
Elevated Storage Tank
6.5 MG
Total Storage
Volume
EXISTING STORAGE CAPACITY
Additional Storage Recommendations
Add additional storage in Upper Zone to maintain the current level of service, provide
redundancy, and continue to meet MDEQ Requirements.
Operational Recommendations
Adjust the operational high and low set-points on the Buff alo Hill Elevated Tank to promote more
fl uctuation and turnover.
System modifi cations at the Buff alo Hill Elevated Tank, such as fl ow control should be added.
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 9
SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Storage in the Lower Zone satisfies Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) storage
requirements with sufficient capacity and operational
flexibility to accommodate future demands.
Storage in the Upper Zone satisfies MDEQ storage
requirements, but lacks redundancy as well as sufficient
capacity to accommodate anticipated growth and
development in the short-term planning period.
LOWER PRESSURE ZONE UPPER PRESSURE ZONE
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
To
t
a
l
S
y
s
t
e
m
S
t
or
a
g
e
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
M
G
)
Year
+
+
+
Proposed Tank #1
Upper Zone
2022
Proposed Tank #2
Upper Zone
2041
Proposed Tank #3
Upper Zone
2061
= + 1 MG
= + 1 MG
= + 1 MG
Upper Zone Reaching Storage Capacity
= Additional Storage Needed
Lower Zone Storage Facilities
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1
Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2
Upper Zone Storage Facilities
Sheepherder Reservoir
New Tank #1
New Tank #2
New Tank #3
Storage Requirements
Total Storage Requirements
Upper Zone - Criteria 1 Storage Requirements
Lower Zone - Criteria 1 Storage Requirements
Criteria 1 Storage Requirements:
Each zone must have adequate
operational and fi re storage
Th e existing distribution system storage was evaluated for adequacy with respect to operational storage, fi re
protection storage, and emergency storage. Total system storage should be the greater of the following:
1. Th e sum of operational storage (during MDD) plus fi re storage, or
2. Th e sum of operational storage (during MDD) plus emergency storage.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068
Year
Proactive Planning
Before Need ArisesMil
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
PUMPING CAPACITY 2
Booster Stations
11
Municipal Groundwater
Wells
City of Kalispell WFPU Executive Summary | Page 10
EXISTING PUMPING CAPACITY
Source Pumping Recommendations
Add a new supply well in the Upper Zone to increase system redundancy, and lessen the Upper
Zone’s reliance on Lower Zone water supply.
Operational Recommendations
Provide larger transmission capacity in the Upper Zone to decrease system head conditions.
Add a new Booster Station Pumps (sized to meet future demand needs and emergencies)
equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs).
Upgrade both SCADA and Instrumentation and Controls system to provide operational fl exibility.
SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Satisfies firm capacity requirements without
utilizing source supply form the Upper Zone.
During emergencies, the City has the ability
to transfer water from the Upper Zone to the
Lower Zone by utilizing a pressure reducing
valve (PRV).
The Upper Zone has a firm capacity
deficit, but utilizes source supply
from the Lower Zone (transferred via
the booster stations) to satisfy firm
capacity requirements.
Booster station performance varies
significantly depending on system
conditions, which can become
problematic during emergencies.
Currently, system head conditions
exceed the design shutoff head for
several of the booster pumps.
LOWER PRESSURE ZONE UPPER PRESSURE ZONE BOOSTER PUMPING
Th e existing system pumping capacity was evaluated to meet the fi rm capacity requirements as established by MDEQ which states
the following: In pressure zones with storage, the system must have adequate fi rm capacity to supply maximum day demand (MDD)
for the zone service area.
A new well should be constructed
and in operation by 2023 to meet
required fi rm capacity needs.
The City should
start planning
to add an
additional
supply well in
the Upper Zone
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 total system along with each Zone
was evaluated separately.
Upper Zone MDD
Lower Zone MDD
Total MDD
Upper Zone Well Production (Firm Capacity)
Lower Zone Well Production (Firm Capacity)
Total Well Production (Firm Capacity)
New Well Planning
New Well Constructed