(Final) Kalispell WWFPU Report_2019WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Fi
n
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
JUNE 2019
P05610-2017-003
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE
FOR
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: __________________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________________________ Registration Number: __________________
Prepared By:
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
1050 East Main Street, Suite 2
Kalispell, MT 59715
CL
N L
N
R
O AIS
M O NTANA
P
R
O
FES E N G
EE
JONATHAN L. LEHIGH VIALL
I
No. 32817 PE
IDESNE
Jonathan Lance Lehigh
June 1, 2019 32817
June 1, 2019
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... i
List of Tables.............................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... ix
List of Appendices .................................................................................................. xi
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations .................................................................. xii
Chapter 1 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 ...................................................................................11
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page ii
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page iii
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 I/I 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page iv
8.4 Overall Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 107
Chapter 9 Future System Evaluation .................................................................. 112
9.1 Future Collection System Pipeline Evaluation ......................................... 112
9.2 Future Lift Station Evaluation ...................................................................... 115
9.3 Future System Evaluation Results ............................................................... 117
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Sewer Gravity Main Information ........................................................ 8
Table 2-2: Wastewater Trunk Lines ....................................................................... 9
Table 2-3: Force Main Information .................................................................... 11
Table 2-4: Municipal Sewer Lift Station Summary (Location and
Arrangement) .................................................................................. 11
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 Flows1,2,3 ....................... 45
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page vi
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page vii
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 ...................................... 116
Table 9-2: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (CIP) ......................... 117
Table 9-3: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (G&D) ...................... 117
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 Foot 134
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page viii
Table 10-9: Near-Term (5-15 Years) Capital Improvement
Recommendations ....................................................................... 142
Table 10-10: Long-Term (15+ Years) Capital Improvement
Recommendations ....................................................................... 142
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Figures
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page ix
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Figures
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page x
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
List of Appendices
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page xi
Figure 8-4: Map of Risk Assessment Results ................................................... 109
Figure 9-1: Future System LOS at Full Buildout Flows (Prior to Modifications)
......................................................................................................... 114
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page xii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
__________________A__________________
AACE
AAF
ACP
AC-FT
ADD
AE2S
American Association of Cost Engineers
Average Annual Flow
Asbestos Cement Pipe
Acre-Feet
Average Daily Demand
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
__________________BC__________________
C-Factor
CCTV
CFS
CIP
CI
Hazen-Williams Roughness Coefficient
Closed-Circuit Television Inspection
Cubic Feet per Second
Capital Improvements Plan
Cast Iron
__________________D__________________
DI
DIP
DIPRA
Ductile Iron
Ductile Iron Pipe
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association
__________________EF__________________
EPA
FBO
FPS
FT
FT/1,000 FT
Environmental Protection Agency
Full Buildout
Feet per Second
Feet
Feet per 1,000 Feet
__________________G__________________
GIS
GPCD
GPD
GPM
Geographical Information System
Gallons Per Capita Per Day
Gallons Per Day
Gallons Per Minute
__________________H__________________
HDPE
HGL
HP
HVAC
High Density Polyethylene
Hydraulic Grade Line
Horsepower
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page xiii
_________________I__________________
IITRI
I&C
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute
Instrumentation and Controls
________________JKLMN_____________
kPa
LiDAR
MDD
MDEQ
MG
MGD
MMD
NAVD 88
NFPA
Kilopascal
Light Detection and Ranging
Maximum Daily Demand
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Million Gallon
Million Gallons per Day
Maximum Month Demand
North American Vertical Datum 1988
National Fire Protection Association
__________________OPQ__________________
O&M
OPPC
PACP
PE
PHF
PSI
PVC
Operation and Maintenance
Opinion of Probable Project Costs
Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
Polyethylene
Peak Hour Flow
Pounds per Square Inch
Polyvinyl Chloride
__________________RSTUV__________________
RCP
RDII
SCADA
STL
SWMM
TDH
US
USGS
VFD
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
WWDF
WWFPU
Wet Weather Flow
Wastewater Duty Factor
Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Introduction
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 1
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.1 A map identifying the location of Kalispell is provided as Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Kalispell Location Map
1 City of Kalispell. Welcome to the City of Kalispell. 2015.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Introduction
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 2
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Introduction
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 3
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 4
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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 2-1
EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
SERVICE AREA
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Serivce Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Existing Wastewater System Includes
Sanitary Sewer Only Customers
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 2-2
EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
BY DIAMETER
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Main Diameter
≤ 4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
20"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
36"
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Main Material
Asbestos Concrete (ACP)
Cast Iron (CIP)
Clay
Concrete
Ductile Iron (DIP)
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC)
Reinforced Concrete (RCP)
Unknown
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 2-3
EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
BY MATERIAL
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
503
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 8
Table 2-1: Sewer Gravity Main Information
Pipe
Diameter
(inches)
Length of Pipe by Material (feet) Total
Length
(feet)
Total
Length
(miles) ACP CIP CLAY CONCRETE UNKNOWN DIP HDPE PVC RCP
6 563 - 9,351 562 - - - 3,470 - 13,946 2.6
8 25,153 770 58,219 13,746 - 146 435 314,333 - 412,801 78.2
10 2,566 379 13,155 2,491 - 61 - 24,382 - 43,034 8.2
12 1,464 - 12,779 909 - - - 53,404 - 68,555 13.0
15 - 1,969 6,427 1,464 - - - 13,574 - 23,434 4.4
16 - - - - - - - 46 - 46 0.0
18 - 1,362 16,191 - - - 601 8,217 19 26,390 5.0
20 - - 138 - - - - - - 138 0.0
21 - - 366 - - - - 2,560 - 2,926 0.6
24 - - - - - - - 10,917 3,501 14,418 2.7
27 - - - - - - - 8,660 - 8,660 1.6
30 - - - - - - - 14,973 3,345 18,318 3.5
36 - - - - 357 - - 22 3,445 3,823 0.7
Total
(feet) 29,745 4,480 116,626 19,172 357 207 1,036 454,558 10,309 636,489* -
Total
(miles) 5.6 0.8 22.1 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 86.1 2.0 - 120.5
*This includes 4,729 feet of sliplined pipe throughout the collection system.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 9
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
Trunk Line Location
A From the Hwy 93 and Northridge Dr. intersection south along N. Meridian, to 10th Ave.
W. Alley, to the WWTF
B Along 11th St. W. from 8th Ave. E. to 2nd Alley W. Connects to Trunk Line A at 1st Ave. W.
and 17th St.
C From the 5th Ave. E. and 2nd St. E. intersection west to 1st Alley W., south to 11th 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 5th Ave. W. Connects to Trunk Line A at
10th 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
Interceptor
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
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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 2-4
EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
TRUNK LINES
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/19/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Trunk Lines
Line A
Line B
Line C
Line D
Line E
Line F
Line G
Westside Interceptor
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 11
Table 2-3: Force Main Information
Pipe
Diam.
(inches)
Length of Pipe by Material (feet)
ACP CIP DIP HDPE PVC
SCH.
80
PVC
PVC /
STEEL
CASING STEEL
Total
Length
(feet)
Total
Length
(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
Station
No.
Location Lift Station Arrangement Lift Station
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 12
Lift
Station
No.
Location Lift Station Arrangement Lift Station
Age
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
1Abandoned.
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 13
Table 2-5: Municipal Sewer Lift Station Pump Summary (Pumps and Motors)
Pumping
Station
No.
Pump Type
(Manufacturer)
No. of
Pumps
Average
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Motor Type
(Manufacturer)
No. of
Motors
Motor
HP
(EA)
Generator
Size
(kW)
Type
(Manufacturer
) 2 Gorman Rupp 2 490 WEG 2 10 45 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 14
1Abandoned
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.
Figure 2-5: Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Facility (Google Earth Aerial Image)
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Existing System
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 15
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 16
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.
Table 3-1: Planning Period Summary
Planning Period Timeframe (years) Years
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 17
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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwat
er
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 3-1
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Kalispell Current City Limits
Evergreen Service Area
0-5 Year Growth
5-15 Year Growth
Growth Policy Planning Area (GPPA)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 19
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
Year Population
Percent
Population
Growth for the
Period
Average
Population
Growth per Year
Area of Kalispell
City Limits
(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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 20
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 Projected Populations (2.0 Percent Annual Growth)
Year Estimated Future Population
2023 (5 years) 25,155
2033 (15 years) 30,724
2068 (50 years, assumed FB0) 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 ¾ of a dwelling unit, resulting in an estimate of 1.90 persons per multi-family unit
on average.
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 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Year
Historical Population Annual Average Growth
2.00% Growth - Planning Historical Population Trend
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 21
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 to12 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:
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 22
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Basis of Planning
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 23
Table 3-4: Anticipated Growth for the 0-5 Year Planning Period
Property
Map
Number
Future Land Use
Year 0-5 Growth
Commercial/
Industrial
(Acres)
Residential
(Dwelling
Units)
Total
Area
(acres)
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 24
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.
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.
2.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Wastewater Flow Historical Average
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 25
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.
Figure 4-2: Average Annual Flow (AAF)
3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.1
2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0
2.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Average Annual Flow (AAF)AAF 12-Year Historic Average
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 26
4.1.2 Maximum Monthly 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.
Figure 4-3: Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF)
Table 4-1: Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF)
Parameter
Year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
MMF 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
Record
JUN MAR JUN MAR JUN JUN JUN MAY JUN FEB FEB MAR
3.4 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.6
4.3 3.7
2.7
3.7 3.8
2.9
5.2
3.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF)MMF 12-Year Historic Average
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 27
4.1.3 Maximum Daily 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.
Figure 4-4: Maximum Daily Flow (MDF)
Table 4-2: Maximum Daily Flow (MDF)
Parameter
Year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
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
Record 4/6 5/24 7/1 3/23 6/21 6/8 6/6 5/22 6/18 2/9 5/22 3/16
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.
5.6
3.9
6.4
4.6
6.1 5.4 5.0 4.4
8.5
5.8
4.5
8.7
5.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Maximum Daily Flow (MDF)MDF 12-Year Historic Average
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 28
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.
1. 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 equation2 is as follows, where the variable “P” is population in
thousands.
𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑃𝑐𝑎𝑘 𝐶𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑘𝑦 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟=(18 + √𝑃
4 + √𝑃)∗𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑐 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟
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. https://metrocouncil.org/About-Us/The-Council-Who-We-Are.aspx.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 29
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 (Smaller Peaking Factors)
AAF PHF Factor AAF PHF Factor
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 Peaking Factors)
AAF PHF Factor AAF PHF Factor
<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. https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-
Water/Planning/2040-Water-Resources-Policy-Plan.aspx.
5 Metropolitan Council. 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, Table A1. Page 61. May 20, 2015.
6 Metropolitan Council. 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, Table A2. Page 62. May 20, 2015.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 30
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 31
Table 4-5: Dry Weather Hourly Influent Flow (9/9/17 – 9/17/17)
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
8:00 AM 52,591 56,885 75,725 82,767 83,293 77,441 71,861 56,939 53,577
9:00 AM 72,556 65,905 117,047 116,973 117,937 107,676 96,924 73,627 65,899
10:00 AM 98,504 97,300 136,368 131,157 133,589 120,776 116,989 100,567 97,071
11:00 AM 123,251 126,696 135,714 135,977 134,379 128,594 133,456 127,082 121,336
12:00 PM 143,444 131,255 137,207 134,682 131,428 135,556 139,446 142,250 137,993
1:00 PM 143,301 142,884 136,636 134,230 136,014 135,098 135,984 146,215 143,288
2:00 PM 143,825 137,003 130,543 127,731 128,407 134,878 136,455 145,354 137,550
3:00 PM 132,698 127,432 127,929 123,931 123,961 129,521 133,495 134,567 134,536
4:00 PM 130,330 122,702 119,206 120,506 115,060 131,900 127,301 128,457 125,350
5:00 PM 117,072 117,030 117,217 116,992 116,652 122,319 122,566 122,742 126,093
6:00 PM 116,789 113,086 113,651 109,572 118,137 121,489 120,984 120,155 119,501
7:00 PM 115,311 117,389 114,742 115,908 118,208 122,099 120,978 115,552 116,503
8:00 PM 113,559 112,618 121,416 117,254 119,908 120,400 117,892 114,817 118,293
9:00 PM 112,246 121,185 117,374 117,661 128,700 120,415 114,706 114,403 122,837
10:00 PM 111,882 127,005 123,585 125,490 125,037 119,460 113,049 112,655 126,818
11:00 PM 105,211 125,167 121,742 122,552 120,556 114,949 107,769 108,516 116,816
12:00 AM 100,713 107,017 106,623 110,875 110,842 105,735 98,297 99,477 101,807
1:00 AM 85,868 92,358 91,814 90,820 96,221 89,367 88,704 90,121 89,188
2:00 AM 78,195 73,670 73,320 73,801 77,601 77,340 76,304 75,887 69,915
3:00 AM 63,623 60,917 63,122 60,026 61,454 63,327 61,179 61,441 57,543
4:00 AM 57,320 52,243 57,514 55,728 57,719 57,469 58,925 56,791 53,145
5:00 AM 54,330 48,165 50,396 49,543 54,791 56,706 54,708 55,978 52,226
6:00 AM 52,120 51,226 54,628 57,108 56,655 51,078 52,808 57,154 49,886
7:00 AM 49,395 54,866 59,139 53,253 55,530 55,829 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 32
Table 4-6: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (3/13/17 – 3/22/17)
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
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 245,417 314,983 330,453 374,180 350,591 281,789 294,180 307,361 277,542 281,281
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 251,193 367,662 329,334 376,028 352,613 325,093 339,955 311,299 280,196 280,307
1:00 PM 252,207 386,367 331,502 377,218 352,621 333,149 345,213 305,432 284,655 275,297
2:00 PM 255,593 376,951 333,155 375,718 346,583 333,341 342,635 302,466 278,591 273,177
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 334,634 362,011 354,498 398,924 321,546 357,880 312,110 286,931 269,744 270,810
9:00 PM 351,442 359,485 365,675 405,926 319,226 359,523 323,029 289,640 276,110 278,735
10:00 PM 357,343 356,374 377,886 400,253 314,435 352,494 325,355 290,817 278,082 279,861
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 252,671 273,035 320,994 295,134 238,758 256,973 233,924 214,286 214,342 205,569
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 33
Table 4-7: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (4/22/17 – 4/30/17)
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
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 162,077 188,941 160,049 181,656 195,855 185,752 175,408 211,527 191,875
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 34
Table 4-8: Wet Weather Hourly Influent Flow (6/13/17 – 6/18/17)
Time Tuesday
6/13/2017
Wednesday
6/14/2017
Thursday
6/15/2017
Friday
6/16/2017
Saturday
6/17/2017
Sunday
6/18/2017
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
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 149,538 138,738 143,066 139,926 139,040 140,496
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 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 35
Figure 4-5: Dry Weather (September Sample) Diurnal Pattern
Figure 4-6: Wet Weather (March Sample) Diurnal Pattern
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
(
G
P
H
)
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
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
8:
0
0
A
M
6:
0
0
P
M
4:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
12
:
0
0
A
M
10
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
6:
0
0
A
M
4:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
12
:
0
0
P
M
10
:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
A
M
6:
0
0
P
M
4:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
12
:
0
0
A
M
10
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
6:
0
0
A
M
4:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
12
:
0
0
P
M
10
:
0
0
P
M
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
(
G
P
H
)
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 36
Figure 4-7: Wet Weather (April Sample) Diurnal Pattern
Figure 4-8: Wet Weather (June Sample) Diurnal Pattern
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
11
:
0
0
A
M
8:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
(
G
P
H
)
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
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
8:
0
0
A
M
3:
0
0
P
M
10
:
0
0
P
M
5:
0
0
A
M
12
:
0
0
P
M
7:
0
0
P
M
2:
0
0
A
M
9:
0
0
A
M
4:
0
0
P
M
11
:
0
0
P
M
6:
0
0
A
M
1:
0
0
P
M
8:
0
0
P
M
3:
0
0
A
M
10
:
0
0
A
M
5:
0
0
P
M
12
:
0
0
A
M
7:
0
0
A
M
2:
0
0
P
M
9:
0
0
P
M
4:
0
0
A
M
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
(
G
P
H
)
Time
Tuesday 6/13/2017
Wednesday 6/14/2017
Thursday 6/15/2017
Friday 6/16/2017
Saturday 6/17/2017
Sunday 6/18/2017
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 37
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 Peaking Factor Evaluation Summary
Source 2017 AAF Peaking Factor Peak Hourly Flow
MDEQ 3.0 MGD 2.5 7.5 MGD
MCES 3.0 MGD 3.2 9.6 MGD
Kalispell Records
(Original) 3.0 MGD 3.3 9.9 MGD
Recommended Peaking Factor 3.3 9.9 MGD
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 38
Table 4-10: Monthly Rainfall
Year Total Monthly Rainfall (inches)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
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
Figure 4-9: Average Monthly Rainfall (Wet Months to Dry Months)
2.8
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Month
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 39
Table 4-11: Monthly Wastewater Flow
Year
Average Monthly Flow (MGD)1,2
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2006 3.19 2.93 2.85 3.44 2.98 3.45 3.01 2.85 2.83 2.57 2.66 2.70
2007 2.68 2.82 3.03 2.79 2.91 2.74 2.91 2.86 2.66 2.69 2.68 2.69
2008 2.66 2.82 2.86 2.83 3.06 3.45 3.42 2.72 2.48 2.32 2.30 2.25
2009 2.48 2.45 3.34 3.13 2.69 2.65 2.73 2.61 2.47 2.49 2.46 2.53
2010 2.49 2.64 2.68 2.68 2.84 3.65 3.11 2.76 2.74 2.37 2.34 2.38
2011 2.72 3.07 4.14 3.91 3.43 4.32 3.15 2.79 2.65 2.69 2.40 2.14
2012 2.16 2.23 2.51 2.68 2.77 3.72 3.25 2.80 2.68 2.48 2.51 2.53
2013 2.43 2.44 2.46 2.66 2.72 2.69 2.38 2.41 2.45 2.25 2.31 2.32
2014 2.38 2.57 3.64 2.81 2.80 3.65 2.70 2.46 2.33 2.24 2.46 2.60
2015 2.55 3.76 3.27 2.80 2.44 2.50 2.44 2.36 2.34 2.24 2.27 2.36
2016 2.40 2.90 2.61 2.61 2.83 2.70 2.53 2.51 2.49 2.86 2.76 2.53
2017 2.44 2.87 5.18 3.77 3.26 2.84 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.46 2.63 2.51
Average3 2.55 2.79 3.21 3.01 2.90 3.20 2.85 2.64 2.55 2.47 2.48 2.46
1 The table is conditionally formatted by year to show which months experienced the most and least wastewater generation. Dark blue indicates a month where
the most wastewater was generated, and dark red indicates the least amount of wastewater generated. For example, in 2006, the most wastewater was
generated in June, and the least wastewater was generated in October.
2 AMF is defined as the total quantity of wastewater generated in a given month, divided by the amount of days in that month.
3 Average (bottom row) is the 12-year average of the AMF.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 40
Figure 4-10: Monthly Wastewater Flow
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
M
G
D
)
Year
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 41
To gain a better understanding on the influence rainfall has on wastewater flows, I/I was studied
further in the following section.
4.1.6 Infiltration and Inflow
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).
Figure 4-11: Wastewater Flow versus Rainfall
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.0000.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 42
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 I/I
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.
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 I/I. 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 I/I is mitigated. It is recommended
that the City try to minimize I/I entering the wastewater collection system. The following
suggestions provide methods to further reduce I/I:
• 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.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Rainfall (in)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 43
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 44
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.
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Annual Average Water Metered Annual Average Wastewater Generated
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 45
Table 4-12: Evergreen District Monthly Wastewater Flows1,2,3
Year
Month
AVG
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2006 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.54 0.61 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.48
2007 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46
2008 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.53 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.45
2011 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.62 1.03 0.69 0.45 0.45 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.51
2012 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.50 0.71 0.60 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.46
2013 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.52 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.42
2014 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.43 0.59 0.60 0.47 0.43 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.44
2015 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.36 0.41 0.40
2016 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.37
2017 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.45 0.64 0.62 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.41
2018 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.46 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.38
AVG 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.52 0.58 0.49 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.44
1 The table is conditionally formatted by year to show which months experienced the most and least wastewater
generation. Dark blue indicates a month where the most wastewater was generated, and dark red indicates the
least amount of wastewater generated.
2 n/a represents a month where data was unavailable.
3 Data from 2009 and 2010 was not provided.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 46
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.
0.48 0.46 0.45
0.51
0.46 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.38
0.44
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
2006 2007 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
m
g
d
)
Year
AAF Historic AAF Linear Trend (AAF)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 47
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)
Customer Class
Number
of
Accounts
Water
Metered
(million gallons)
Wastewater
Generated
(million gallons)
Wastewater
Generated
(MGD)
General Commercial 1,041 3,820 2,732 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 91 348 249 0.06
Total 8,280 11,753 8,404 2.09
Sample Period Size 4,018 Days
Wastewater Conversion Percentage 71.5%
Average Annual Flow (MGD) 2.09
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Annual Average Water Metered Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 48
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 Only Customers Average Annual Flow (AAF)
Customer Class
Number
of
Accounts
Water
Metered
(gallons)
Wastewater
Generated
(gallons)
Wastewater
Generated
(gallons per day)
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
4.1.7.5 Kalispell WWTF Wastewater Customers Summary
The three “groups” of customers, which are (1) Evergreen District, (2) City of Kalispell, and
(3) Sewer Only Customers were evaluated individually in preceding sections. It was necessary
to evaluate the groups of customers individually to build the wastewater collection system
model. It was also important to evaluate the groups of customers individually to try to
appropriately estimate a wastewater conversion percentage. Figure 4-16 shows the annual
ADD and AAF with Evergreen District subtracted from the total, and the AAF with Evergreen
District and sewer only customers subtracted from the total. Figure 4-17 shows the percentage
comparison between ADD and AAF.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 49
Figure 4-16: Water Metered Compared to WWTF Daily Influent (Less Evergreen
District and Sewer Only Customers)
Figure 4-17: Historical Wastewater Conversion Percentage
3.1
2.8
3.3
2.7 2.7
3.0 2.8
2.6
3.2 3.0
2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0
2.4
2.0
1.8
2.0 1.9 2.0
2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3
2.6
2.2
2.0
2.3 2.2 2.3
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
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
)
Year
Annual Average Water Metered
Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen and Sewer Only Customers)
Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen)
68%74%
61%
76%
90%
68%63%
77%
60%65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
%
Year
Annual Average Wastewater Generated (Less Evergreen and Sewer Only Customers)
Average Wastewater Conversion % (70.5%)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 50
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
Kalispell WWTF
Wastewater Customers
Average Annual Flow [AAF]
(MGD) Percent of Total Flow
Evergreen District 0.44 16%
City of Kalispell 2.09 75%
Sewer Only Customers 0.24 9%
Total 2.77 100%
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.
𝑃𝑐𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑟 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟𝑟 (𝑔𝑛𝑐𝑐)= 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑐 𝐾𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑟𝑛𝑐𝑘𝑘 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝐶 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟 (𝐶𝑃𝐶)−𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑐 𝐶𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑔𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑛 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟 (𝐶𝑃𝐶)
𝐾𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑟𝑛𝑐𝑘𝑘 𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑘𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑛 (𝑛𝑐𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑐)
Table 4-16 and Figure 4-18 on the following page show the results from the per capita
wastewater flow analysis.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 51
Table 4-16: Per Capita Wastewater Flows
Year Kalispell
Population
Kalispell
WWTF AAF
(MGD)
Evergreen
District AAF
(MGD)
Difference
(MGD)
Per Capita
Wastewater
Flows (gpcd)
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
Figure 4-18: Per Capita Wastewater Flows compared to Population
115 128
109 97 105 100 100 110
108
5,000
7,000
9,000
11,000
13,000
15,000
17,000
19,000
21,000
23,000
25,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
g
p
c
d
)
Year
Per Capita Wastewater Flows Average Per Capita Wastewater Flows
Kalispell Population Linear Trend (Per Capita Wastewater Flows)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 52
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
Planning
Period
WWFPU
Recommended Per Capita
Wastewater Flows (gpcd)
WFPU
Recommended Per Capita
Water Demands (gpcd)
Conversion
Percentage
0-5 Year 108 175
61.5% 5-15 Year 105 170
FBO 101 165
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 Existing Wastewater Flow Analysis Summary and Takeaways
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.
• MDF 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 53
• 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 54
Figure 4-19: Existing Wastewater Flow Summary
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
M
G
D
)
Year
Average Annual Flow (AAF)Maximum Monthly Flow (MMF)Maximum Daily Flow (MDF)
AAF 12-Year Historic Average MMF 12-Year Historic Average MDF 12-Year Historic Average
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 55
Table 4-18: Existing Wastewater Flow Summary
Month Year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
January 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4
February 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.8 2.9 2.9
March 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.7 4.1 2.5 2.5 3.6 3.3 2.6 5.2
April 3.4 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.8
May 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.8 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.8 3.3
June 3.4 2.7 3.5 2.6 3.6 4.3 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.5 2.7 2.8
July 3.0 2.9 3.4 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.6
August 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6
September 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5
October 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.5
November 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.8 2.6
December 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5
Average Annual Flow 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0
Minimum Monthly Flow 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4
Month of Record OCT SEP DEC FEB NOV DEC JAN OCT OCT OCT JAN JAN
Maximum Monthly Flow 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 Record JUN MAR JUN MAR JUN JUN JUN MAY JUN FEB FEB MAR
Minimum Daily Flow 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.2
Day of Record 12/25 12/1 12/25 2/4 12/25 12/25 1/15 12/25 10/18 12/25 12/25 12/25
Maximum Daily Flow 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 Record 4/6 5/24 7/1 3/23 6/21 6/8 6/6 5/22 6/18 2/9 5/22 3/16
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 56
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 equation7 is as follows, where
the variable “P” is population in thousands.
𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑃𝑐𝑎𝑘 𝐶𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑘𝑦 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟=(18 + √𝑃
4 + √𝑃)∗𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑐 𝐶𝑘𝑛𝑟
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.
7 Fair, G.M. and Geyer, J.C. “Water Supply and Waste-water Disposal” 1st Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York, (1954), P. 136
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 57
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 Projections
Description 2017 2023 2033 2068
0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
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 3.2 3.1 2.8
* Kalispell population only. Does not include Evergreen District population.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
20
4
7
20
4
9
20
5
1
20
5
3
20
5
5
20
5
7
20
5
9
20
6
1
20
6
3
20
6
5
20
6
7
Pe
a
k
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Population Peaking Factor (MontanaDEQ)Peaking Factor (Modified)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 58
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 Projections
Description 2017 2023 2033 2068
0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
Population Projections
Population* 23,212 26,140 31,865 63,727
Wastewater Flow Projections
Average Annual Flow** 3.0 3.4 4.0 7.2
Peak Hourly Flow 9.9 10.9 12.6 20.0
Peaking Factor 3.3 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 59
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 Purposes
Land Use Class
Dwelling
Units or
Area
AAF
(gpd)
AAF
%
WWDF
(gpd/DU)
(gpd/acre)
Recommended
WWDF
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
200 gpd/acre Light Industrial 135 9,943 8% 74
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 60
Table 4-22: Land Use Method – Wastewater Flow Projections
Description 2017 2023 2033 2068
0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
Population Projections
Population* 23,212 26,140 31,865 63,727
Wastewater Flow Projections
Average Annual Flow 3.0 3.4 4.2 6.7
Peak Hourly Flow 9.9 10.9 13.3 18.5
Peaking Factor 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.8
* Kalispell population only. Does not include Evergreen District population.
4.2.5 Future Wastewater Flow Projections Summary and Takeaways
A summary of the future wastewater flow projections is provided in Figure 4-21. It is
recommended to utilize the land use method for future wastewater system planning. This
method utilizes Kalispell land consumption projections for how the City believes they will
develop in the future, so it is the most consistent projection method with the Kalispell future
land use plans. The 0-5 year and 5-15 year wastewater flow projections under the land use
method align or are slightly greater than the other two projection methods. There is more
variation for the FBO wastewater flow projections between the three methods due to the long-
range planning period. It is recommended that the City review the future projected wastewater
flows and the wastewater system capital improvements plan on a recurring basis to ensure the
planning numbers align with real population and wastewater flow statistics. This allows
Kalispell to stay on top of necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate growth. The
recommended wastewater flow projections are also provided by customer group in Figure 4-22.
Figure 4-21: AAF and PHF Projection Summary
3.0 3.4
4.2
6.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
AA
F
(
M
G
D
)
Equivalent Growth Method Summary
Per Capita Demand Method Summary
Land Use Method Summary
9.9 10.9
13.2
18.5
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
24.0
Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
PH
F
(
M
G
D
)
Equivalent Growth Method Summary
Per Capita Demand Method Summary
Land Use Method Summary
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 61
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.
Figure 4-23: Projected AAF by Customer Group
0.48 0.52 0.64 0.78
2.25 2.54
3.28
5.59
0.27 0.29
0.29
0.29
3.0 3.4
4.2
6.7
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
F
l
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Evergreen District City of Kalispell Sewer Only Customers
3.0 3.4
4.2
6.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Existing 0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
(
M
G
D
)
60% - 90% Range Projected ADD (From WFPU)Projected AAF 75% (Average)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Wastewater Characterization
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 62
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.
o 0-5 Year (2023) = 3.3 MGD
o 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
o 0-5 Year (2023) = 3.2
o 5-15 Year (2033) = 3.1
o FBO (2068) = 2.8
• The City should plan for the following PHFs over the respective planning periods:
o 0-5 Year (2023) = 10.8 MGD
o 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 63
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. InfoSWMM®, 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:
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 64
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 I/I. 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 65
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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System Lift Station
Calibration Point
Non-Calibration Point
Calibration Contributing Mains
Lift Station 2
Lift Station 3
Lift Station 8
WWTF
Westside Interceptor (Not Included in Calibtation)
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 5-1
EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
INFOSWMM CALIBRATION POINTS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 67
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.wapug.org.uk.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 68
Figure 5-2: DWF Weekday Diurnal Patterns
Figure 5-3: DWF Weekend Diurnal Patterns
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM
Weekday DWF Diurnal Patterns
WWTF
LS2
LS3
LS8
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM
Weekend DWF Diurnal Patterns
WWTF
LS2
LS3
LS8
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 69
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.
Figure 5-4: Lift Station 2 – Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS2 -Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 70
Figure 5-5: Lift Station 3 – Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
Figure 5-6: Lift Station 8 – Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS3 -Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
Meter
Model
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS8 -Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 71
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
Flow Meter
Modeled vs Metered
Volume
(% difference)
Modeled vs Metered
Peak Flows
(% difference)
Calibration Goal ±10% of measured
values
±10% of measured
values
LS2 -0.03% -4.26%
LS3 -1.99% -3.34%
LS8 -0.11% -8.38%
WWTF 5.79% 7.24%
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
WWTF -Metered vs Modeled Dry Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 72
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 73
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 74
Figure 5-8: LS2 – Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Figure 5-9: LS3 – Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
-
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000 -
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS2 -Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Rainfall (in)
-
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000 -
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS3 -Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Rainfall (in)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 75
Figure 5-10: LS8 – Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Figure 5-11: WWTF – Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
-
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000 -
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
LS8 -Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Rainfall
-
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000 -
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
WWTF -Metered vs Modeled Wet Weather Flows
Meter
Model
Rainfall
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 76
Table 5-2: Summary of RTK Parameters
Calibration
Point R1 R2 R3 Rtotal T1 T2 T3 K1 K2 K3
LS2 0.014 0.035 0.025 0.074 0.75 12.0 36.0 8.0 5.0 6.0
LS3 0.008 0.018 0.015 0.041 1.00 20.0 42.0 6.0 1.0 2.0
LS8 0.001 0.005 0.040 0.046 0.50 12.0 24.0 12.0 2.0 7.0
Downtown1 0.003 0.006 0.025 0.034 0.75 4.0 24.0 2.0 4.0 5.0
WWTF1 0.001 0.005 0.004 0.010 0.75 4.0 24.0 2.0 2.0 5.0
Note: Subscripts 1, 2, and 3 represent the fast, medium, and slow response variables, respectively.
1The downtown region was separated out within the model and calibrated to the WWTF flows based on historical
evidence that the downtown region has higher I/I due to aging infrastructure. The RTK factors in the downtown
region were adjusted slightly higher than the surrounding areas to better represent higher I/I.
Table 5-3: Summary of Wet Weather Calibration Results
Calibration
Point
Modeled vs Metered
Volume
(% difference)
Modeled vs Metered
Peak Flows
(% difference)
Calibration Goal ±10% of measured
values
±10% of measured
values
LS2 -1.65% -3.48%
LS3 -6.02% -8.20%
LS8 -6.16% -4.69%
WWTF 2.96% 5.49%
The InfoSWMM model was considered calibrated for both DWF and WWF conditions and
was used to identify existing system deficiencies, specifically related to I/I. InfoSewer, which
is discussed in the following section, was used to size and develop both future and existing
system improvements under future flow conditions.
The City can continue to expand the InfoSWMM model as new areas develop and future flow
data become available for model calibration. Furthermore, the InfoSWMM model can be a
powerful tool for isolating I/I sources with more targeted flow and rainfall monitoring efforts.
5.3 Future System Model Development
The existing system InfoSWMM model was converted to InfoSewer® (Pro Suite 7.6) for
evaluation of the proposed future system as well as the existing system improvements under
future flow conditions. InfoSewer is a fully GIS integrated collection system modeling and
management software application. InfoSewer, which runs on the EPANET hydraulic engine,
integrates wastewater network modeling with ArcGIS.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Wastewater Collection System Model Update
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 77
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 System Wastewater Flows
Description 2023 2033 2068
0-5 Year 5-15 Year FBO
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 78
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 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).
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 79
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.
Table 6-1: Force Main Hydraulic Criteria Recommendations
Force Main Parameter Criteria
Minimum Velocity 4 ft/s
Maximum Velocity 8 ft/s
Minimum Diameter 4 inches
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 80
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
Force Main Parameter Criteria
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
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 81
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: Gravity Main Velocity 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 82
Table 6-4: Gravity Main Diameter and Minimum Slope
Diameter of Gravity Main Minimum Slope in Feet per 100 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 83
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: Gravity Main Friction Loss
Gravity Main Parameter Criteria
Design Manning’s-n friction factor for smooth pipe
(PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) 0.011
Design Manning’s-n friction factor for other pipe
(VCP, unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) 0.013
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.
9 Bishop, Ronald R., “Hydraulic Characteristics of PVC Pipe in Sanitary Sewers (A Report of Field
Measurements). 1978. Reports. Paper 598. https://digitalcommons.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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 84
Table 6-6: Gravity Main Level of Service
Level of
Service (LOS)
Capacity (%)
Depth / Diameter* LOS Description
LOS-1 < 50% Sewer main is below 50% capacity and considered to
have adequate capacity.
LOS-2 50% to Design
Capacity**
Sewer main is below the Design Capacity and
considered to have adequate capacity.
LOS-3 Design Capacity to
100%
Sewer main is above the Design Capacity but does not
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 85
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: Summary of Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria
Storm Attribute Value
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 86
Table 6-8: Summary of Design Parameter and Evaluation Criteria
System Component Criteria
Force Main Parameter Recommendation
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
Gravity Main Parameter Recommendation
Minimum Velocity 2.5 ft/s
Maximum Velocity 15 ft/s
Minimum Diameter 8 inches for laterals and mains
Minimum Slope Per MDEQ recommendations
Design Capacity (by diameter)
(depth of flow / diameter as % Capacity)
≤ 10 inches: 70%
>10 - 15 inches:73%
>15 - 21 inches: 75%
>21 - 27 inches: 77%
>27 inches: 80%
Design Manning’s-n friction factor for smooth
pipe (PVC, HDPE, lined ductile iron pipe, etc.) 0.009-0.011
Design Manning’s-n friction factor for other pipe
(VCP, unlined iron or steel pipe, etc.) 0.013
Level of Service LOS-3 or better
(Peak Flow is less than Full Capacity)
Lift Station Parameter Recommendation
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
Existing System Dry Weather Parameter Recommendation
Average Annual Flow
(includes base flow and normal ground water) 3.0 MGD (existing)
Diurnal Peaking Factors Based on hourly pattern
(varies by area as developed during calibration)
Existing System Wet Weather Parameter Recommendation
Peak Wet Weather Hourly Flow
(Includes Base Flow and I/I) 9.9 MGD (existing)
Peaking Factor RTK factors
(as determined during calibration)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 87
Design Storm
(for Wet Weather Evaluation)
NOAA Atlas 2, Volume IX, 1973
Duration: 24 hrs
Recurrence: 2 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr
Depth: 1.4”, 1.7”, 2.0”,
Distribution: NRCS Type I
Future System Parameter Recommendation
Average Annual Flow
(includes Base Flow and normal ground water) 6.7 MGD (buildout)
Peak Wet Weather Hourly Flow
(Includes Base Flow and I/I) 18.5 MGD (buildout)
Peaking Factor MDEQ Peaking formula
(modified: increased by 28%)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 88
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 Analysis
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 Gravity Main Analysis
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:
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 89
• 8-inch gravity main in the alley between 8th Ave. E and Woodland Ave., from 9th St. to
10th 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
LS13 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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 7-1
EXISTING SYSTEM LEVEL OF SERVICE
(DEPTH OF FLOW/DIAMETER)
DRY WEATHER FLOWS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Level of Service Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter
LOS-1: <50%
LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity
LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100%
LOS-4: > 100% (surcharged)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 91
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.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 7-2
EXISTING SYSTEM LEVEL OF SERVICE
(DEPTH OF FLOW/DIAMETER)
WET WEATHER FLOWS (10-YEAR RAINFALL EVENT)
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Level of Service Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter
LOS-1: <50%
LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity
LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100%
LOS-4: > 100% (surcharged)
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 93
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.
10-year storm event
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 94
Table 7-2: Lift Station Summary
Lift Station Firm Capacity (gpm) Peak Hour Flow
(gpm)
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
LS11 170 11
LS12 195 121
LS13 105 36
LS15 240 15
LS16 185 62
LS18 140 29
LS19 220 23
LS20 98 5
LS22 485 222
LS23 144 18
LS24 250 76
LS25 44 9
LS28 53 9
LS29 1,300 61
LS30 80 12
LS33 225 18
LS34 250 85
LS35 180 32
LS36 820 108
LS38 35 7
LS39 370 211
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 95
7.2.3 I/I Analysis and Considerations
One of the primary reasons for developing and calibrating the InfoSWMM 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 InfoSWMM 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 InfoSWMM 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:
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 96
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 97
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 Catastrophic Catastrophic Catastrophic
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
D Moderate Moderate Major Catastrophic Catastrophic
C Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Major
B Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate Major
Low A Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate
1 2 3 4 5
Low Consequence High
Figure 8-1: City of Kalispell General Risk Matrix
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 98
Table 8-1: Risk Categories
Risk Level Risk Description Risk Response
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 99
Table 8-2: Main Break Risk Categories
Risk Factor Break Count Scoring for Aggregation
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
Risk Factor d/D During 10-year Rainfall Event Scoring for Aggregation
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 100
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: Maintainability 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 Scoring for Aggregation
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 101
Table 8-6: Pipe Age Risk Categories
Risk Factor Estimated Remaining Life Scoring for Aggregation
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 Age Risk Categories
Material Estimated Useful Life (Years)
ACP 55-85
CI 60-75
CI (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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 102
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
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Linear Feet of Sewer Mains by Install Year and Material
AC AC (CONCRETE) CIP CIP (SLIP LINED)
CLAY CONCRETE UNKNOWN DIP
PVC DR35 HDPE PVC PVC SDR 35
RCP SLIP LINED
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 103
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.
Table 8-8: Overall Likelihood of Failure Assessment
Total Likelihood Score Linear Feet Percent of System
5 358,625 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%
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 104
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.
Table 8-9: Health and Safety Impact Consequence Factors
Risk
Factor Description Scoring for
Aggregation
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 105
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
Risk
Factor Description Scoring for
Aggregation
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 106
Table 8-11: Public Image Consequence Factors
Risk
Factor Description Scoring for
Aggregation
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 Impact Consequence Factors
Risk
Factor Description Scoring for
Aggregation
5 ≥24” and within 50 ft of water body 16
4 ≥24” and within 100 ft of water body OR
≥16” and within 50 ft of water body 8
3 <16” and within 50 ft of water body OR
≥ 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 107
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 Consequence of Failure Assessment
Consequence Linear Feet Percent 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
Risk Level Risk Description Risk Response Linear Feet % of 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%
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 108
Figure 8-3: Risk Assessment Results (Graphical Representation)
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
Consequence
Sewer Mains Risk Assessment Results
28
7
1
37
21
US
9
3
SUNNYSIDE DR
SUNS
E
T
PLZ
8TH ST W
5TH
A
V
E
E
6TH
A
V
E
W
N
6TH ST W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
2ND ST W
5TH ST E
2N
D
A
V
E
E
N
8TH
A
V
E
E
N
WOODLAND PARKRD
KENWAY
RD
7TH ST E
W CENTER ST
1ST
A
V
E
W
6TH ST E
6TH
A
V
E
E
N
8TH ST E
2ND ST E
3RD ST E
9TH ST E
E NEVADA ST
E CALIFORNIA
S
T
11TH ST W
11TH ST E
14TH ST E
13TH ST E
9TH
A
V
E
E
N
8TH
A
V
E
W
W NEVADA ST
5TH
A
V
E
E
N
DENVERAVE
1ST
A
V
E
W
N
2N
D
A
V
E
W
N
7THAVEWN
8THAVEE
WOODLANDPARKDR3R
D
A
V
E
W
N
FISHTAILDR
2N
D
A
V
E
W
9TH ST W
5TH
A
V
E
W
N
1ST ST W
E ARIZONA ST
10
T
H
A
V
E
W
MEADOW
CT
12THAVEW
7TH
A
V
E
E
N
7TH ST W
1ST
A
V
E
E
N
W WYOMING S
T
4THAVEW
W UTAH ST
SOUTHFI
E
L
D
L
N
10TH ST E
W RAILROAD S
T
12TH ST E
W CALIFORNIA
S
T
DEPOT PARK
1ST ST E
5TH ST W
4TH ST W
W MONTANA S
T
E CENTER ST
3RD ST W
W WASHINGTO
N
S
T
US 2
10TH ST W
W COLORADO ST
12TH ST W
E WASHINGTO
N
S
T
4TH ST E
SHADY
GLEN DR
SUNNY CT
E MONTANA S
T
E WYOMING
S
T
E OREGON ST
N M
A
I
N
S
T
PARKHILL RD
W OREGON ST
COL
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
CEDAR
COMMONS LN
CONRADDR
CRESTLIN
E
AVE
WOODLANDAVE
3RD
A
V
E
E
MISSIO
N
ST
W ARIZONA ST
AIRPORTRD
ASHLEYCREEKLN
18THSTE
ASHLEY DR
8TH
A
V
E
W
N
KYNZIE LN
4TH
A
V
E
E
4TH
A
V
E
E
N
4TH
A
V
E
W
N
2N
D
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
E
6TH
A
V
E
E
6TH
A
V
E
W
9TH
A
V
E
W
7TH
A
V
E
W
5TH
A
V
E
W
11T
H
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
W
7TH
A
V
E
E
MARKETPLACEST
NWOODLANDPARKRD
WHITEFISHSTAGE
17TH ST W
10THAVEEN
WESTERNDR
K
E
NWA
YDR
WOODLANDPARKLO
OP
UNDERHILLCT
SOUTHFIELDDR
BI
S
M
A
R
K
S
T
CHARLO
T
T
E
A
V
E
BIR
C
H
W
O
O
D
C
T
ERAILROADST
S
Y
L
V
A
N
D
R
LAWRENCEPARK
SUNSET
PLZ
£¤93
£¤2
AshleyCreek
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 8-4
EXISTING SYSTEM RISK
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
0 800400
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Lift Station
Total Risk
Level One
Level Two
Level Three
Level Four
Level Five
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 110
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Risk Based System Assessment
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 111
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 112
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 113
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.
13 Preferred Route Assessment West Side Interceptor Project (Rep.). (2014). Robert Peccia & Associates.
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
WestSpringcreek Rd
WestReserve
Drive
RoseCrossing -
East
RoseCrossing -West
StillwaterRoad
GD 06
GD 09
GD 11
GD 15
GD 16
GD 14
GD 12
GD 08
GD 07
GD 10
GD 13
GD 05
GD 04
GD 03
GD 02
GD 01
EVERGREEN
WWTF
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 9-1: FUTURE SYSTEM LEVEL OF SERVICE
(DEPTH OF FLOW/DIAMETER) - FULL BUILDOUT
(PRIOR TO UPSIZING)
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Existing
Future
Proposed Wastewater Lift Stations
CIP Lift Station
Growth and Development Lift Station
Level of Service Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter at FBO
LOS-1: <50%
LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity
LOS-3: Design Capacity to 100%
LOS-4: ≥ 100% (surcharge)
Trunk Line A
Surcharging at FBO
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 115
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 116
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
Station
Firm Capacity1
(gpm)
Peak Flow – 5-yr
(gpm)
Peak Flow – 15-yr
(gpm)
Peak Flow – FBO
(gpm)
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 195 300 300 340
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
LS292 1,300 1,700 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
1Existing 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 117
Table 9-2: Proposed Lift Station Evaluation Summary (CIP)
Proposed CIP Lift Station Peak Flow – 5-yr
(gpm)
Peak Flow – 15-yr
(gpm)
Peak Flow – FBO
(gpm)
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)
Growth and
Development
Lift Station
Peak Flow – 5-yr (gpm) Peak Flow – 15-yr (gpm) Peak Flow – FBO
(gpm)
GD_01 0 0 160
GD_02 20 75 150
GD_03 0 0 225
GD_04 20 20 45
GD_05 0 0 75
GD_06 5 25 125
GD_07 35 65 90
GD_08 10 20 65
GD_09 0 10 25
GD_10 0 0 100
GD_11 0 5 30
GD_12 0 10 185
GD_13 0 0 25
GD_14 0 0 10
GD_15 0 10 60
GD_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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 118
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 119
• 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 120
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 121
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 122
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 123
• 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.
??
??????
????
?
?
??
??
??
?
?
??
??
??
??
????
?
??
?????
???
?
??
????
???
?
?
????
?
??
?
?
???
?
?
???????
???????
?
?
?
????
?
??
?
?
?
??????
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
????
????
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
???
??
?????
??
?
?
?
?????????
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
????
????
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
????
??
????
??
?
?????
?
?
???
?
?
?
?
????
?
?
?
???
?
??
?
??
?
?
?
??
?
?
???
???
?
?
?
??
?
?
????
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
???
?
????
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
????
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
??????
?
???
???????????
????
?
??
??
??????????
?
??
?
????
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?
??
?
??
?
?
??
??
??
??
??
??
????
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
?
?
????
?
?
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
?
?
??
?
?
?
WhitefishRiver
Still
wat
e
r
River
AshleyC
r
e
e
k
West
Springcreek Rd
West
Reserve
Drive
Rose
Crossing -
East
Rose
Crossing -
West
Stillwater
Road
GD 06
GD 05
GD 04
GD 03
GD 02
GD 01
29
13
20
38
35
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
32
41
37
31
27
17
14
29
13
20
38
35
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
32
41
37
31
27
17
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 9-2: FUTURE COLLECTION SYSTEM
AT FULL BUILDOUT (NORTH)
0 0.50.25
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Force Main
Gravity
Proposed Wastewater Lift Stations
CIP Lift Station
Growth and Development Lift Station
Approximate Sewershed
Proposed Wastewater Main by Diameter
≤ 4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
36"
??
??
????
?
?
????
?
??
??
??
??
????
?
??
???????
????????
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
???
??
?????
??
??????
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
??????
?
?
?
????
?
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
????
?
????
?
????????
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
??
?
?
?
???????
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
???
?
????
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?????
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
??????
?
???
???????????
??
?????????
???
??????
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
????
???
?
?
???
?????
?
?
?
??
?????
????
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
???
??
??
???
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
???
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
???
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
??
??
?
??
??
??????
????
??
??
??
??
??
????
??
??
??
??
??
?
?
?
?
?
??
??
??
??
?
??
?
??
??
??
??
?
?
??
??
StillwaterRiver
Flathead River
WhitefishRiver
Ashl
ey
Creek
GD 09
GD 11
GD 15
GD 16
GD 14
GD 12
GD 08
GD 07
GD 10
GD 13
EVERGREEN
WWTF
22
29
34
13
33
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
11
4
3
10
7
12
9
6
25
18
32
1
37
21
31
27
40
5A
14
22
29
34
13
33
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
11
4
3
10
7
12
9
6
25
18
32
1
37
21
31
27
40
5A
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 9-3: FUTURE COLLECTION SYSTEM
AT FULL BUILDOUT (SOUTH)
0 0.50.25
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
503
35
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Force Main
Gravity
Proposed Wastewater Lift Stations
CIP Lift Station
Growth and Development Lift Station
Approximate Sewershed
Proposed Wastewater Main by Diameter
≤ 4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
36"
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
WestSpringcreek Rd
WestReserve
Drive
RoseCrossing -
East
RoseCrossing -West
StillwaterRoad
GD 06
GD 09
GD 11
GD 15
GD 16
GD 14
GD 12
GD 08
GD 07
GD 10
GD 13
GD 05
GD 04
GD 03
GD 02
GD 01
EVERGREEN
WWTF
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 9-4: FUTURE SYSTEM LEVEL OF SERVICE
(DEPTH OF FLOW/DIAMETER) - FULL BUILDOUT
(WITH PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS)
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Proposed Wastewater Lift Stations
CIP Lift Station
Growth and Development Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Existing
Future
Capacity (%) Depth of Flow/Diameter
LOS-1: <50%
LOS-2: 50% to Design Capacity
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 127
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 of:
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 128
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 129
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 130
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 131
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 Estimating 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 Project 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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 132
• 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
10.2.4.1.1 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 133
Table 10-1: Unpaved Gravity Main Cost per Linear Foot
Pipe Diameter (inches) C900 PVC Pipe ($/linear foot)
8 $115
10 $120
12 $125
15 $130
18 $135
36 $195
10.2.4.1.3 Paved Gravity Sewer Mains
The pipe material assumed for new gravity sewer mains located within paved public right-of-
way was ASTM D3034 SDR35 PVC for pipes ranging from 8-inches to 15-inches in diameter,
while pipe sizes between 18-inches and 36-inches were assumed to be ASTM F679 PS46 PVC.
Table 10-2 presents the paved gravity main construction costs. The cost is based on the
following assumptions:
• Earthwork
o Trench depth of 8 feet to 12 feet to the top of pipe.
o Utility bedding for pipe and compaction of bedding in the trench.
o Full depth import backfill and compaction.
• 48-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 8- to 18-inch pipe sizes.
• 60-inch diameter sewer manhole every 200 ft. (on average) for 30- to 36-inch pipe sizes.
• Includes asphalt pavement removal and replacement of existing paved areas.
Table 10-2: Paved Gravity Main Cost per Linear Foot
Pipe Diameter (inches) C900 PVC Pipe ($/linear foot)
8 $175
10 $180
12 $185
15 $190
18 $195
30 $235
36 $255
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 134
Please note that the costs of curb and gutter or sidewalk removal and replacement are not
included.
10.2.4.1.4 Paved and Unpaved Sewer Force Mains
The pipe material assumed for new paved and unpaved sewer force mains located within public
right-of-way was DR18 C900 PVC for pipes ranging from 4-inches to 12-inches in diameter.
Table 10-3 presents the paved and unpaved sewer force main construction costs. The cost is
based on the following assumptions:
• Earthwork
o Trench depth of 6 feet to 8 feet to the top of pipe.
o Utility bedding for pipe and compaction of bedding in the trench.
o Full depth import backfill and compaction.
• Includes a plug valve every 1,000 feet (on average).
• Includes hydroseeding surface restoration of unpaved areas.
• Includes asphalt pavement removal and replacement of existing paved areas.
Table 10-3: Paved and Unpaved Sewer Force Main Cost per Linear Foot
Pipe Diameter (inches) C900 PVC Pipe ($/linear foot)
4 (Unpaved) $80
6 (Unpaved) $85
12 (Unpaved) $100
6 (Paved) $125
10.2.4.1.5 Other Sewer Main Items
Additional items included in the sewer main cost estimates are presented below:
• Sewer Main Connections of proposed mains to other mains in the system (Table 10-
4).
• Sewer Main Crossings (Table 10-5).
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 135
Table 10-4: Sewer Main Connection Costs
Connecting Pipe Diameter (inches) Cost per Connection ($/each)
Existing Sewer Service Connection $1,500
Existing Sewer Main Connection $4,500
Lift Station Connection $4,500
10’H x 10’L x 5’W Specialty Manifold Structure $15,000
Table 10-5: Sewer Main Crossing Costs
Pipe Diameter (inches) Crossing Type Cost ($/linear foot)
18 - 24 Highway Bore with Space Constraints $750
27 - 36 Highway Bore with Space Constraints $1,000
8 - 18 Road Crossing/Bore $400
10.2.4.1.6 Sewer Lift Station Facilities
Project costs for proposed lift station facilities were prepared for several different sizes. Costs
were based on information obtained from package lift station vendors, previous construction
experience, and recently bid projects for similar lift station projects. The cost is based on the
following assumptions:
• Wet well structures vary depending on associated capacity requirements.
• Includes major components (i.e. pumps, fittings, valves, electrical, emergency
generator, odor control, and communications).
• Includes site access, grading, fencing, and landscaping.
Project cost estimates for construction of sewer lift stations were based on planning level costs
depending on overall capacity and whether it was for a retrofit of an existing lift station or
construction of a new lift station facility, as shown in Table 10-6. Costs assigned to lift stations
were general in definition and items such as vault assemblies associated with force mains were
not included but would likely be covered as part of project contingencies if needed.
Table 10-6: Sewer Lift Station Facility Costs
Lift Station Size and Type Cost ($)
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
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 136
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 137
• 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 138
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 Markups
Table 10-7 provides a summary of suggested hard costs markups, soft costs, and contingency
rate percentages.
Table 10-7: Total Estimate Project Markup Summary
Item Rate Range (%)
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, CIPs 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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 139
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.
Figure 10-1: Total OPPC
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 140
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.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 141
10.4.1 Short-Term (0-5 Years) CIP Projects
Table 10-8: Short-term (0-5 Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations
Figure 10-2: CIP 5-Year Summary
Project
Number Capital Improvement Project1 Project Category OPPC
WW-M-01 Lift Station #3 Main Improvements Gravity & Force Main $ 3,763,384
WW-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements Gravity Main $ 1,738,378
WW-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements LS, Gravity & Force Main $ 2,081,737
WW-S-01 Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Study Studies $ 182,103
WW-RR-01 Risk-Based Annual Sewer Rehab and Repair Rehabilitation & Repair $ 1,301,010
General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit) Growth & Development $ 1,591,812
WW-EX-01 Existing City CIP "SEW 16" (6th Alley E - South of 14th to 13th Gravity Replacement) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 255,150
WW-EX-02 Existing City CIP "SEW 20" (10" Clay Sewer Slipline in 1st Alley W. from Montana St. to
Washington St.) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 80,776
WW-EX-03 Existing City CIP "SEW 33" (Manhole Rehabilitation and Sewer Main Replacements/Repairs) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 260,202
WW-EX-04 Existing City CIP "SEW 52" (Misc. Sewer Contract Main Upsize and Lift Station Facility
Enlargements) Growth & Development $ 234,182
WW-EX-05 Existing City CIP "SEW 55" (Westside Interceptor - Three Mile Dr. and Spring Creek Project) LS, Gravity & Force Main $ 13,612,312
WW-EX-06 Existing City CIP "SEW 68" (12" Clay Sewer Slipline in 1st Alley E. & W. Rehabilitation & Repair $ 232,565
WW-EX-07 Existing City CIP "SEW 70" (Slipline 8" Sewer Main in 6th Alley EN and E. Washington) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 79,675
WW-EX-08 Existing City CIP "SEW 72" (Lift Station Communication Upgrades) Optimization $ 40,400
WW-EX-09 Existing City CIP "SEW 74" (Grandview Lift Station Relocation) Lift Station Upgrades $ 1,238,781
WW-EX-10 Existing City CIP "SEW 75" (Lift Station 5a Removal) Lift Station Upgrades $ 334,714
WW-EX-11 Existing City CIP "SEW 77" (Shop Complex Pavement Restoration) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 38,200
WW-EX-12 Existing City CIP "SEW 78" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 4th Alley WN) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 1,064,754
WW-EX-13 Existing City CIP "SEW 79" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 2nd Alley W) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 596,351
WW-EX-14 Existing City CIP "SEW 80" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 5th Alley WN) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 817,968
WW-EX-15 Existing City CIP "SEW 82" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 2nd Alley W.) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 809,281
WW-EX-16 Existing City CIP "SEW 83" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 1st and 2nd Ave. EN) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 1,203,825
WW-EX-17 Existing City CIP "SEW 89" (Facility Plan/Rate Analysis) Studies $ 268,148
WW-EX-18 Existing City CIP "SEW 91" (Repair and Replacement of Sewer Main) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 600,000
WW-EX-19 Existing City CIP "SEW 92" (Repair and Replacement of Sewer Main in WWTP Complex) Rehabilitation & Repair $ 159,554
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $ 32,585,263
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
June 2019
P05610-2017-003 Page 142
10.4.2 Near-Term (5-15 Years) CIP Projects
Table 10-9: Near-Term (5-15 Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations
10.4.3 Long-Term (15+ Years) CIP Projects
Table 10-10: Long-Term (15+ Years) Capital Improvement Recommendations
Project
Number Capital Improvement Project1 Project
Category OPPC
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
Upgrades $ 3,083,170
General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit) Growth &
Development $ 1,865,061
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $ 17,945,331
Project
Number Capital Improvement Project1 Project
Category2 OPPC
WW-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements LS, Gravity &
Force Main $ 2,081,737
WW-LS-05 Lift Station #12 Improvements Lift Station
Upgrades $ 638,922
WW-LS-07 Lift Station #22 Improvements LS & Gravity
Main $ 2,479,552
WW-LS-08 Rose Crossing East Improvements LS, Gravity &
Force Main $ 3,714,545
WW-LS-09 Stillwater Road Improvements LS, Gravity &
Force Main $ 2,316,138
WW-LS-10 Lift Station #33 Improvements Lift Station
Upgrades $ 638,922
WW-LS-11 Lift Station #34 Improvements Lift Station
Upgrades $ 638,922
WW-LS-12 Lift Station #39 Improvements Lift Station
Upgrades $ 660,071
General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit) Growth &
Development $ 2,782,763
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $ 15,951,573
WW-M-01
Lift Station #3 Main Improvements
WW-LS-02Rose Crossing West Improvements
WW-LS-01
Lift Station #9 Improvements
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 10-3
SHORT-TERM PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Recommended Wastewater System
Lift Station Improvement
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-01 - Lift Station #3 Main Improvements
WW-LS-01 - Lift Station #9 Improvements
WW-LS-02 - Rose Crossing West Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
WW-LS-06
Lift Station #36 Improvements
WW-M-02
Bluestone Upsize
WW-LS-03
West Reserve Drive Improvements
WW-LS-04West SpringcreekRoad Improvements
WW-M-03Westside Interceptor
(WSI) Gravity Main Extension
36
WWTF
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 10-4
NEAR-TERM PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Recommended Wastewater System
Lift Station Improvement
Near Term
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-02 - Bluestone Upsize
WW-M-03 - Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension
WW-LS-03 - West Reserve Drive Improvements
WW-LS-04 - West Springcreek Road Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
WW-LS-10Lift Station #33 Improvements
WW-LS-07
Lift Station #22 Improvements
WW-LS-09Stillwater Road Improvements
WW-LS-08
Rose Crossing East Improvements
WW-LS-14Lift Station #39 Improvements
WW-LS-11
Lift Station #34 Improvements
WW-LS-05Lift Station #12 Improvements
StillwaterRiver
As
hleyCreek
WhitefishRiver
Flat h e a d River
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
FIGURE 10-5
LONG-TERM PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Recommended Wastewater System
Lift Station Improvement
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements
WW-LS-08 - Rose Crossing East Improvements
WW-LS-09 - Stillwater Road Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Appendices
June 2019
P05610-2017-003
Appendix A – Existing Collection System Mapbook
WhitefishRiver
Stillwater
River
AshleyCreek
FlatheadRiver
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
9 10
12 13 14
16 17
18 19
21 22 23
24 25
26
27 28
8
20
15
11
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
WWTF
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Main Diameter
≤ 4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
20"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
36"
CHURCH DR
MCD
E
R
M
O
T
T
L
N
SIL
VE
RTIP
T
R
L
SILVERBROOKDR
SUNTRL
O WL CRE E K TRLEMONTURERDG
BARRELHEDRD
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
PRA
I
R
I
E
V
I
E
W
R
D
HARVESTVIEWLN
PRAIRIE VIEW WAYBARRELHEDRD
StillwaterRiver
8" PVC
12" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
1
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 1
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
AUTUMN CT
SCHRADE RD
CHURCH DR
US 9
3
WINTERCREST DR
SWEDETRL
SIL
VE
RTIP
TRL
EM O NTURE RDG
MCD
E
R
M
O
T
T
L
N
DONNADR
GRA
N
I
T
E
H
T
S
HI
GHL
AND
DR
£¤93
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"PVC 8"PV
C
8"PV
C
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
2
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 2
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
CHURCH DR
WMONTURERDG
SI
L
VERBROOK
DR
LAZYCREEKWAY
WSWIFTCREE K WAY
WERNERPEAKT RL
ANTLERPEAKLN
QUAILCT
SUNTRL
O WL CREEK TRL
SI
L
V
E
R
T
I
P
T
R
L
CLARK DR
E M ONTURE R DG
HAGERMAN LN
ESWIFT C REE K W AY
PRA
I
R
I
E
V
I
E
W
R
D
WILDPINE
CT
W
MONT
URE
CT
RUPPEL
WA
Y
STR Y K E R P E A K T RL
GROUSEHAVENWAY
WILDPINEDR
FOXHOLLOWRD
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
HARVESTVIEWLN
Sti l l water River
8" PVC
12" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
3
39
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 3
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
SIL
VE
R
BR
OOK
DR
US 9
3
FRANKLIN WAY
TRONSTAD RD
LAZYCREEKWAY
CHURCH DR
JACK
P
I
N
E
L
N
CHEROKEE LN
SWEDETRL
WERNER P E A KTRL
OWL CREEK T RL
SAGEGR
OUSE
WAY
SIL
VE
RTIPTRL
W HITEPINERD
E S WIFTCREEKWAY
AUTUMN CT
ADO
P
T
A
P
E
T
W
A
Y
TRONSTADDR
STRYKER P E AKTRL
R
UP
PEL
WAY
PONDEROSALN
MIRANDA DR
Y ELL O W PINEDR
DONNADR
HAGERMAN LN
CHESTNUT DR
WILDPINEDR
HIGHL
AND
DR
SIR
U
C
E
K
L
N
£¤93
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PV
C
8"PV
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
10" PVC
8" PV
C
18"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
4
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 4
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
NOB HILL LOOP
JACKSONVIEWTRL
JACK
P
I
N
E
L
N
CHEROKEE LN
US 9
3
PONDEROSALN
WHITE
P
I
N
E
R
D
BLU
E
SPRUCE
LN
YELL O W PINE DR
CHESTNUT DR
WILDPINEDR
ROSE CROSSING
SIRUCEKLN
£¤93
StillwaterRiver
8" PVC
18" PVC
6"
P
V
C
8"PVC
18"
P
V
C
8"
5
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 5
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")548")548")548
TREELINE RD
LO
R
R
I
E
S
R
D
W RESERVE DR
GUC
C
I
W
A
Y
OWENS
C
T
ARBOUR
DR
E
TIMBERWOLF PKWY
WOLFPACKWAY
TAELORRD
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
WBOWMANDR
RANCHRD
GARDENDR
SULKYLN
TRAILRIDGERD
ARBOURDRW
ESSEXPL
EBOWMANDR
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
C
T
WALTONDR
DAIRYDRALI L
O
O
P
GRIZZLY WAY
KINTLAWAY
ARBOUR DR
SPERRYWAY
LOGANWAY
RESERVELOOP
STILLWATERLOOP
S t i l lwaterRiver
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
8" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
21"
P
V
C
10" HDPE
6
41
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
21" - 24"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 6
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")548
US 9
3
COUNTRYWAYS
NOB HILL LOOP
COUNTRY WAY N
COUNTRYWAYCT
GARDENDR
TREELINE RD
COUNT RY WAY E
W RESERVE DR
TRAILRIDGERD
ARBOUR DR
WHEATGRASSLN
COUNTRY WAY
GLACIERCIR
MOESRUN
STILL W ATERLOOP
ROSECROSSING
£¤93
Stillw
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
8" PVC
8" PVC 10"
P
V
C
8" PVC
18" PVC
6"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"PVC
10"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10" PVC
18"
P
V
C
4" HDP
E
10"
H
D
P
E
7
36
30
41
17
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 7
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")548
")424
")548 ")548
FOUR MILE DR
W SP
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
FAR
M
VIEW
L
N
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
W RESERVE DR
24"
P
V
C
21"
P
V
C
10"
HDPE
8
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
21" - 24"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 8
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")548 ")548
")548 W RESERVE DR
NORTHRISELN
TIMBERWOLF PKWY
WOLFPACKWAY
US 9
3
SUM
M
I
T
C
I
R
GAR
D
E
N
D
R
RAN
C
H
R
D
SHERRYLNNORTHLANDDR
SUMMITRIDGEDR
FOUR MILE DR
PARKWAYDR
RESERVE
LOOP
TREELINE RD
TAE
L
O
R
R
D
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
C
T
HILLTOPAVE
ARBOUR DR
WALTON DR
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
CRESTVIEWR
D
N HAVEN DR
MEADOWVISTALOOP
£¤93
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8" PV
C
12"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
10"
PVC
8" PVC8" P
V
C
10" DR35 PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" HDPE
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
21"
P
V
C
6" PVC
10" HDPE
9
35
41
27
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
21" - 24"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 9
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")548
COMMONSWAY
BRUYER WAY LOOP
GARDENDR
RISINGSUNCIR
W RESERVE DR
F
AR
VIE
W
DR
COUNTRYWAYS
PONDEROSAST
FOUR MILE DR
INDIANTRAILRD
US 9
3
COUNTRY WAY
BUFFALOSTAGE
GRANRUD LN
WHITEBARK LN
HUTTON RANCH RD
COUNTRY WAY N
GRA
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
SUMMITRIDGEDR
RANCHVIEW
DRPARKWAYDR
COUNTRYWAYCT
GLACIERCIR
FAIRWAYBLVD
RESERVE LOOP
TREELINE RD
BUF
F
A
L
O
S
Q
U
A
R
E
C
T
MOES RUN
COUNT RYWAYE
CHIPCT
BRUYER WAY
VELVA DR
MOUNTAINPARKLN
WHEATGRASSLN
PHEASANT RUN
GRANDALEAVE
HARRISONBLVD
RIVER VIEW DR
£¤93
StillwaterRiver
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10"
A
C
8"PVC
8"
A
C
8" PVC
10" PVC
12" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
12" PVC
12"
P
V
C
8"
PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
A
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
SDR 35
8"
A
C
8"PVC
8" A
C
8" AC
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
12" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"HDPE
10"PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
10"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
18"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10" PVC
4" PVC
4" HDP
E
10"
H
D
P
E
6" A
C
10
30
3
12
32
41
31
27
17
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 10
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")292
GLA
C
I
E
R
C
I
R
S
OME
R
SET
DR
GRANRUD LN
RITZMANLN
BUFFALOSTAGE
PALMERDR
HOGANLN
WHITEBARKLN
MISSIONTRL
BRUYER WAY
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
COUNTRYWAY MISSION
T
R
A
I
L
WAY
RIVER VIEWDR
MISSIONWAYN
STAFFORD ST
W NI
C
K
L
A
U
S
A
V
E
BRUYERWAYLOOP
KINGS LOOP
CHEERYLYNNCT
PHEASANT RUN
LO
C
H
N
E
S
S
A
V
E
CHEERYLYNNRD
ARDELLDR
WO
O
DSDR
PICKWICK CT
NMISSIONDR
COUNTRYWAYE
GRANARY
RIDGEDR
DRAKEDR
KIN
G
S
W
A
Y
MOUNTAINPARKLN
VELVADR
MISSION WAY
WHEATGRASSLN
VILL
A
GE
LOOP
TREVINODR
WAG
G
E
N
E
R
W
A
Y
RIV
E
R
R
D
SUSSEXDR
MIS
S
I
O
N
W
A
Y
S
ENICKLAUSAVE
WhitefishRiver
8" P
V
C
12" PVC
12"PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10"
PVC
8"
PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
12"
PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
8" PVC
10" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
10"
P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
12
"
P
V
C
15"
P
V
C
4" PV
C
4"
D
I
6"
P
V
C
11
20
1110
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 11
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")424
BUFFETT DR
TRUMP DR
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
CAMPCROOKAVE
HEAVENSPEAKDR
CL
A
I
R
E
C
T
S HELL A NWAY
PINEDRAWAVE
MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY
BATTLERIDGEDR
WESTLANDDR
TRIPLECREEKDR
PER
R
Y
P
L
PARKRIDGE
DR
MATTHEWCT
KAT
HERI
NECT
EM
P
I
R
E
L
O
O
P
JACKSONPEAKDR
THEODOREST
LO
O
K
I
N
G
G
L
A
S
S
A
V
E
ASPEN DR
BEV
I
L
L
E
C
T
AURICHAVE
FOURMILEDR
BLU
E
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
BROOK DR
FLY WAY
THREE MILE DR
WES
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
CALLYLN
SHORTPINEDR
BIGSKYBL V D
W SP
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
KONLEY DR
OBERLINLOOP
CYCLONE
D
R MEADOWSLN
KA
R
A
D
R
ASPEN LOOP
QUARTERHORSELN 8"
30"
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
12" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"PVC
8"PVC
8"PV
C
8" PVC
8"PVC
24"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
27"
P
V
C
12"PVC
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
27" PVC
8" PVC
24"
PVC
12" PVC
12
2938
19 Abandon
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 12
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
INDIANTRAILRD
GLENWOODDR
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
A
V
E
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
WESTVIEWP
A
R
K
PL
NOR
T
H
W
E
S
T
L
N
RIS
I
N
G
SU
N
C
I
R
SHELLANWAY
FLY WAY
TETON ST
THREE MILE DR
NORTHRISELN
NOR
T
H
E
R
N
L
I
G
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
SHE
R
R
Y
L
N
NOR
T
H
R
I
D
I
N
G
RAMSGATEDR
SUM
M
I
T
C
I
R
BARRONWAY
BUFFETTDR
WN
ORTHVIEWLOOP
TRUMP DR
S NORTHVIEW CT
BROOKDR
PARKRIDGE DR
MEADOWVISTALOOP
JUBILEE CT
BING CT
GETT
Y
D
R
EMPIRELOOP
SUMMITRIDGEDR
SUN
S
E
T
C
T
FOUR MILE DR
NMERIDIANRD
PARKWAYDR
CR
E
S
T
VIEWRD
HERITAGE
WAY
LIBERTY ST
NORTHRIDGE DR
WEDGEWOODLN
GRANDVIEW
DR
BEV
I
L
L
E
C
T
HEARST DR
HILLTOPAVE
AURICHAVE
RO
S
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
COMMONSWAY
IRISCT
W WYOMING ST
CHEVI
O
T
L
O
O
P
WYNDOVERHILLDR
SHERWOODLN
HAWTHORN W
KIN
S
H
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
GAR
L
A
N
D
S
T
DUKE DR
US93
SINOPAH ST
NORT HL ANDDR
F
OX
HILL
D
R
CALLYLN
YELLOWSTONE ST
FORDWAY
SALISHCT
QUARTER HORSE LN
VISTA LOOP
WESTVIEWDR BIG S K Y BL V D
CARNEGIE DR
VANDERBILT DR
KIRSTEN
DR
ROCKEFELLERDR
E NORTHVIEW
LOOP
KA
R
A
D
R
N HAVEN DR
SINOPAHST
£¤93
8"PVC
8"
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" AC
8" A
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C8" P
V
C
8" PVC8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
15
"
P
V
C
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" CLAY
8" P
V
C
8"HDPE
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" CLAY
10" PVC
15"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
10" CLAY
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" AC
10"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
12"
C
L
A
Y
15" CLAY
27"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" CLAY
8"
P
V
C
8" A
C
12" PVC
8" PVC
6" PVC
6" AC
13
35
4
327
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
27" - 30"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 13
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
NORTHRIDGE DR
4TH
A
V
E
ENW WYOMING
S
T
WESTVIEWP
A
R
K
PL
THREEMILEDR
BUFFALOSTAGE
E NEVADA ST
L
A
WR
EN
CE
PARK
SUNNYVIEWLN
RISINGSUNCIR
PAR
K
W
A
Y
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
F
AR
VIE
W
DR
CLAREMONTST
LIBERTY ST
PONDEROSAST
US
9
3
INDIANTRAILRD
CHARLO
T
T
E
A
V
E
COMMONSLOOP
E ARIZONA ST
W UTAH ST
GRA
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
WCOLORADOST
GRANDVIEWLN
E WYOMING S
T
CONWAY DR
CRESTLIN
E
A
V
E
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
COMMONSWAY
5TH
A
V
E
W
N
MI
S
S
I
O
N
S
T
W ARIZONA ST
SUMMITRIDGEDR
N M
A
I
N
S
T
JUNIPERBENDDR
NMERIDIANRD
RANCHVIEWDR
ROSEWOODDR
4TH
A
V
E
W
N
RYDERRD
HERITAGEWAY
BUF
F
A
L
O
S
Q
U
A
R
E
C
T
GLACIERVIEWDR
BUF
F
A
L
O
H
I
L
L
D
R
WEDGEWOOD LN
BOUNTIFUL DR
WIN
D
W
A
R
D
W
A
Y
COL UMBALN
UNDERHILLCT
BURNSWAY
1ST
A
V
E
E
N
RID GE VIE W DR
FAIRWAYBLVD
EMERIDIANRD
PHEASANT RUN
WINDWARDLOOP
HARRISONBLVD
S U NSET PLZ
RIVER VIEW DR
£¤93
StillwaterRiver
8"
PVC
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
10"
A
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
6"CLA
Y
6" PV
C
8"
A
C
8" A
C
(C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
)
8" PVC
6" PV
C
8" P
V
C
15
"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PVC
12"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
6" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
A
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
AC
8"
P
V
C
18"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
8"DI
12" CLAY
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"AC
8"
A
C
15"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"CLA
Y
8"PVC
10"PVC
8"
A
C
8" A
C
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" AC
8" AC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
A
C
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"PVC
8"PVC
8"PVC
8"PVC
12" PVC
8" CON
C
R
E
T
E
8" AC
(CONCRETE)
8" AC
(CONCRETE)
8"CLAY
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"AC
10"
PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10
"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"HDPE
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" CLAY
12"
P
V
C
8" PVC
10" PVC
12"
P
V
C
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
6"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
A
C
10"
CONCRE
T
E
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
CONCRETE
8"
P
V
C
15"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
12"
P
V
C
15"
P
V
C
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
4" PVC
6" A
C
10
"
H
D
P
E
14
13
3
9
27
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 14
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
W N
I
C
K
L
A
U
S
A
V
E
9TH
A
V
E
E
N
RIVER
PL
BUFFALO STAGE PAL
M
E
R
D
R
E CALIFORNIAST
FLATHEADDR
WINCHESTER ST
MONTCL AIRDR
PARKLANE
DR
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
RIV
E
R
R
D
STAFFORD ST
SWEETGRASS
LN
WHITEFISHSTAGE
SC
A
R
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
A
V
E
RIVERVIE
WDR
E ORE GONST
RIVERSIDE D R
LO
C
H
N
E
S
S
A
V
E
WELLINGTONPL
MAGSTADTLN
CA
R
D
I
F
F
A
V
E
WOODSDR
PICKWICK CT
SOMERSETDR
FAIRWAYBLVD
WESTWOODLN
VILLAGE
L
OOP
PAR
K
S
T
TR
E
V
I
N
O
D
R
KIN
G
S
W
A
Y
ENICKLAUSAVE
DO
V
E
R
D
R
SUSSEXDR
NIC
H
O
L
S
O
N
D
R
£¤2
StillwaterRiver
WhitefishRiver
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
12" PVC
12
"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10"
PVC
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
12" PVC
8" PV
C
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C8" P
V
C
15"
P
V
C
6" PVC
4"
D
I
15
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 15
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
RD
CAMPCROOKAVE
THREE MILE DRHEA
V
E
N
S
PEA
K
D
R
CL
A
I
R
E
C
T
SHELLA NWAY
PINEDRAWAVE
BATTLERIDGEDR
WESTLANDDR
TRIPLECREEKDR
WYNDOVERHILLDR
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
WIL
L
I
A
M
C
T
BROOKDR
PER
R
Y
P
L
MEAD
O
W
S
LN
MATTHEWCT
KATHERINECT
ARMSTRONG
LN
THEODOREST
BEV
I
L
L
E
C
T
HARTT HILL DR
EMPIRELOOP
MID
A
L
E
WESTVIEWDR
SPRINGCREEK CT
MILKYWAY
ASPENDR
APPLETREECIR
HUN
L
N
SO
U
T
H
V
I
E
W
D
R
SOUTH VIEW LN
SKY
L
I
N
E
D
R
TWO MILE DR
SHORTPINEDR
ROSEHEIGHTSLN
WEST
B
R
I
E
R
C
T
KON
L
E
Y
D
R
MEADOW HILLS DR
BIGSKY BLVD
KA
R
A
D
R
DER
N
S
R
D
ASPEN LOOP
£¤2
Ashley Creek
8" P
V
C
30"
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
12" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
8" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
30"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"PVC 8" PVC
8"
PV
C
8" PVC
8"PVC27"
P
V
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
12"
PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
27" PVC
24"
PVC
12" PVC
16
2938
19 Abandon
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
27" - 30"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 16
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
FENNWAY
GLEN
W
O
O
D
D
R
US 2
SUN
S
E
T
C
T
STILLWATERRD
2ND ST W
EMPIRELOOP
WCENTERST
4TH ST W
W WYOMING ST
COO
P
E
R
L
N
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
TETON ST
SHELLA NWAY
THREE MILE DRNOR
T
H
R
I
D
I
N
G
VISTALOOP
FIN
A
N
C
I
A
L
D
R
1ST ST W
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
A
V
E
3RD ST W
BROOKDR
PER
R
Y
P
L
JUBILEE CT
LAMBERT CT
BING CT
COR
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
R
SUNBURST CT
10
T
H
A
V
E
W
LIBERTY ST
HAT
H
A
W
A
Y
L
N
BEV
I
L
L
E
C
T
ROS
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
IRIS CT
APPLEWAY DR
TWO MILE DR
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
W ARIZONA ST
WYNDOVERHILLDR
HAWTHORN W
KIN
S
H
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
5TH ST W
MERIDIANCTSO
U
T
H
V
I
E
W
D
R
GAR
L
A
N
D
S
T
NOR
T
H
W
E
S
T
L
N
SOUTH VIEW LN
GLACIER ST
YELLOWSTONE ST
HUSKY ST
KALISPELLA CRESLN
FISHTAILDR
NORTHERNLIGHTSBLVD
ROCKEFELLERDR
GREENBRIARDR
BIGSKY BL V D
KARADR
C
O
O
P
E
R
LN
£¤2
£¤A93
AshleyCreek
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" A
C
15"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" PVC 10" PVC
8" P
V
C
30" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
6" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"PVC
8"
H
D
P
E
10" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
10" AC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
10" AC
10"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" CLAY
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
18"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"CLAY
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" AC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" CONCRETE
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" CLAY
8" P
V
C
10"
PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" CONCRETE
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8" CONCRETE
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" CONCRETE
8" PVC
8" PVC
10"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
12"
C
L
A
Y
8" AC
8" P
V
C
12" PVC
15" CLAY
12" CONCRETE
8" P
V
C
10"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
6" P
V
C
17
4
6
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
27" - 30"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 17
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
US
9
3
1ST ST E
8TH
A
V
E
W
3RD ST E
6TH
A
V
E
W
N
6TH ST W
3RDAVEEN
E OREGON ST
2N
D
A
V
E
E
N
US 2
5TH ST E
6TH
A
V
E
E
N
WESTVIEWP
A
R
K
PL
7TH ST E
E NEVADA ST
E CALIFORNIA
S
T
L
A
WRE
N
CE
PARK
4TH ST W
RIVE RSIDE DR
WNEVADAST
2ND ST W
5TH
A
V
E
E
N
CLAREMONTST
1ST
A
V
E
W
N
3RD
A
V
E
W
1ST
A
V
E
E
2N
D
A
V
E
W
N
7THAVEWN
E CENTER ST
3R
D
A
V
E
W
N
2ND ST E
FISHTAILDR
7TH
A
V
E
W
CHARLO
T
T
E
A
V
E
5TH
A
V
E
W
N
5TH
A
V
E
E
4TH ST E
E WASHINGTO
N
S
T
E ARIZONA ST
6TH ST E
1ST
A
V
E
E
N
W WYOMING S
T
W UTAH ST
HUSKY ST
W RAILROAD S
T
5TH ST W
W CALIFORNIA
S
T
DEPOT PARK
W CENTER ST
LIBERTY ST
W MONTANA S
T
3RD ST W
W WASHINGTO
N
S
T
1ST ST W
WCOLORADOST
E MONTANA
S
T
E WYOMING
S
T
N M
A
I
N
S
T
W OREGON ST
CONWAY DR
CRESTLIN
E
A
V
E
2N
D
A
V
E
E
2N
D
A
V
E
W
MI
S
S
I
O
N
S
T
W ARIZONA ST
6TH
A
V
E
W
10T
H
A
V
E
W
4TH
A
V
E
E
8TH
A
V
E
W
N
3RD
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
W
5TH
A
V
E
W
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
9TH
A
V
E
W
RYDERRD
4TH
A
V
E
E
N
4TH
A
V
E
W
N
4TH
A
V
E
W
MARKETPLACEST
BUF
F
A
L
O
H
I
L
L
D
R
BOUNTIFUL DR
WHITEFISHSTAGE
THREEMILEDR
UNDERHILLCT
BURNSWAY
ERAILROADST
PAR
K
S
T
S U NS ET PLZ
£¤93
£¤2
StillwaterRiver
10" CI
(SLIP
LINED)
18"
C
L
A
Y
8"
PVC
8"
A
C
10
"
P
V
C
8"PVC
10"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
15"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
6" PV
C
8" P
V
C
12"
C
L
A
Y
24" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
A
C
(C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
)
6" PV
C
10"CLAY
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
A
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
PVC
6" PVC
8"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
AC
6" CLAY
8"
C
L
A
Y
10"
PVC
12
"
C
L
A
Y
8"AC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"AC
6"PVC
8" P
V
C
10"
PVC
8" PVC
20"CLAY
8"
A
C
8" A
C
8" D
I
10"
AC
8"
P
V
C
18"CLA
Y
18"
CLAY
6"CLAY
8"CLAY
12"
CLAY
8"PVC
10" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" AC
10"
CLAY
8" C
L
A
Y
10"CLA
Y
6"PV
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" CONC
R
E
T
E
8"PVC
8" AC(CONCRETE)
12" CLAY
8" PVC
8"
A
C
10"PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
10
"
P
V
C
15" CI
8" CLAY
8" CLAY
10"
C
L
A
Y
18" CI
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8" PVC8" CLAY
6"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
6" PVC
8" CLAY
6"
A
C
10"
CONCRE
T
E
15" SLIP LINED
6"
C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
CONCRETE
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
15
"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
10"CLA
Y
8" A
C
8"
A
C
8" A
C
8"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" P
V
C
10
"
P
V
C
12
"
C
L
A
Y
8"CLA
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6" C
L
A
Y
15
"
C
L
A
Y
8" A
C
12"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
15" CLAY
8" C
L
A
Y
12
"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
12"
A
C
24"
R
C
P
10
"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
18
"
C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
12"
A
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
18" CI
(SLIP
LINED)
15" CI
(SLIP
LINED)
6"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
15" SLIP LINED
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
21"
C
L
A
Y
6" P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
18" CLAY
10"
P
V
C
10"
C
L
A
Y
10
"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
10" PVC
10"
C
L
A
Y
15" PVC
8"
A
C
18" SLIP LINED
18" PVC
8"
A
C
12"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
10" HDPE
18
37
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
20"
21" - 24"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 18
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
EOREGONST
5TH ST E
8TH
A
V
E
E
N
W O ODLAND PARKRD
7TH ST E
6TH ST E
6TH
A
V
E
E
N
8TH ST E
US 2
2ND ST E
8THAVE
E
3RD ST E
SHADY GLEN DR
1ST ST E
9TH
A
V
E
E
N
4TH
A
V
E
E
5TH
A
V
E
E
N
CONRAD DR
WOODLANDPARKDR
RIV
E
R
R
D
WO
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
FLAT
H
E
A
D
D
R
7TH
A
V
E
E
N
E WASHINGTO
N
S
T
4TH ST E
E CALIFORNIA
S
T
5THAVEE
E CENTER ST
E MONTANA ST
MONTCLAIR DR
PARKHILL RD
VAL
L
E
Y
D
R
COL
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
DAY
S
ACR
E
S
L
N
LENWOOD LN
6TH
A
V
E
E
2N
D
A
V
E
E
3RD
A
V
E
E
7TH
A
V
E
E
4TH
A
V
E
E
N
TA
H
O
E
D
R
RIVERSIDEDR
MAGSTADTLN
S
Y
L
V
A
N
C
T
NWOODLANDPARKRD
WHITEFISHSTAGE
10THAVEEN
CONCORD LN
W O O DL A N D PARKLO
OP
S
YL
V
A
N
D
R
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
L
N
PAR
K
S
T
NIC
H
O
L
S
O
N
D
R
COL
L
I
E
R
L
N
ZIM
M
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
CAR
O
L
I
N
E
R
D
£¤2
WhitefishRiver
St i l l waterRiver
8" PV
C
6" C
L
A
Y
6"
A
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8" CLAY
8"PV
C
10" CLAY
10" PVC
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
CL
A
Y
8"PV
C
12"
PVC 8"PVC
10"PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
18"CI
8"
A
C
8"DI
10" P
V
C
8"
A
C
8" PV
C
6"PV
C
8" PVC
15" CI
8" PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8" PVC
6"
C
L
A
Y
10" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
6"
CON
C
R
E
T
E
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
A
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
6"
P
V
C
10" AC
8" A
C
6"
P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
12"CLA
Y
6" C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
15" PVC
8" PVC
6"
P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
6" C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
6" C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
8" CLAY
8" AC
6" CLAY
6" PVC 14"
P
V
C
19
7
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 19
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
UV35
S C
E
D
A
R
D
R
CONRADDR
WCOTTONWOODDR
RIV
E
R
R
D
SAGE LN
ALBERTA ST MARE LN
SAGERLN
DOUGLASDR
SANCTUARYRD
AINLEY LN
PLEASANT LN
HIDDENLN
MEADOWMANORVLG
£¤2
StillwaterRiver
WhitefishRiver
Fl
athe
ad
River
14" P
V
C
20
EVERGREEN
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
21" - 24"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 20
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")503
6TH ST W
8TH ST W
10T
H
A
V
E
W
FENNWAY
TRILLIUM
WAY
US2
SUNNYSIDE DR
1ST ST W
KESTRE
L
C
T
LUPINEDR
5TH ST W
STONERIDGEDR
7THSTW
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
SA
N
D
H
I
L
L
C
T
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
13T
H
A
V
E
W
MEADOW CT
12THAVEW
W CENTER ST
2ND ST W
4TH ST W
3RD ST W
PRIMROSECTE
LEA
R
N
L
N
PRIMROSE CT
SOUTHVIEWLN
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
9TH
A
V
E
W
FOYSLAKERD
APPLEWAY DR
11T
H
A
V
E
W
MERIDIANCTSO
U
T
H
V
I
E
W
D
R
HAT
H
A
W
A
Y
L
N
CORPORATEDR
KALISPELLA CRESL N
MERIDIA N R D
BIS
M
A
R
K
S
T
ASHLEY DR
93ALTERNATE
93
ALTERNATE
WILSONHTS
£¤2
£¤A93
AshleyCreek
18"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC 10" PVC
6" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
H
D
P
E
10" PVC
8" AC
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8" AC
10" AC10" AC
8" P
V
C
30" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
8"PV
C
8" PVC
8"CLAY
8" AC
30"
8" CONCRETE
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" AC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" CLAY
8" CONCRETE
8" CONCRETE
15" CONCRET
E
8" PVC
8" CONCRETE
8" CONCRETE
8"
A
C
8" P
V
C
12" CONCRETE
10"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
6" H
D
P
E
6" HD
P
E
6" DI
21
33
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
27" - 30"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 21
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
13TH ST E
8TH
A
V
E
W
N
3R
D
A
V
E
E
SUNNYSIDE DR
8TH ST W
DEN
V
E
R
A
V
E
2ND ST E
6TH ST W
KENWAY RD
1ST
A
V
E
W
4TH ST E
US
9
3
STR
A
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
6TH ST E
8TH ST E
11TH ST W
5TH
A
V
E
W
N
SMEADOWSDR
8TH
A
V
E
W
10TH ST E
9TH ST E
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
5TH
A
V
E
E
12TH ST E
14TH ST E
BEL
M
A
R
7TH ST W
FISHTAILDR
2N
D
A
V
E
W
9TH ST W
1ST ST E
W CENTER ST
3RD ST E
13T
H
A
V
E
W
10T
H
A
V
E
W
MEADOW CT
12THAVEW
5TH ST E
4TH
A
V
E
W
W RAILROAD S
T
7TH ST E5TH ST W
4TH ST W
2ND ST W
3RD ST W
1ST ST W
10THSTW
12TH ST W
HALTER
C
T
11TH ST E
4TH
A
V
E
E
SUNNY CT
AIRP
O
R
T
R
D
AS
HL
E
YCREEKLN
SANTA FE ST
BIS
M
A
R
K
S
T
MILEHIGHCT
BOI
S
E
A
V
E
BLUESTONE
ASHLEYDR
2N
D
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
E
6TH
A
V
E
W
9TH
A
V
E
W
7TH
A
V
E
W
5TH
A
V
E
W
11T
H
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
W
PHOENIX ST
17TH ST W
18TH ST E
WESTERNDR
RIMROCKCT
KENWAYDR
DARLINGTON
RYANLN
NBELMAR
£¤93
£¤A93
AshleyCreek
10"DI
30"
R
C
P
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
12
"PV
C
10" CONCRETE
8"
C
L
A
Y
10" PVC
10
"
PV
C
8"PV
C
8"
P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
8"CLAY
8" PVC
8" PVC
10" PVC
8" AC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
PV
C
8" P
V
C
10"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
30" PVC
8"AC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
8"CI
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
6"PVC
18"
C
L
A
Y
8"CLA
Y
20" CLAY
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
12"
C
L
A
Y
18"CLAY
8"PVC
8"CLAY
36"
R
C
P
8" CONCRETE
10"CLAY
8" AC
10"CLAY
8"
C
L
A
Y
30"
8" P
V
C
6"PV
C
6"
C
L
A
Y
30" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
18"
PVC
12" CONCRETE
18" CLAY
8" PVC
12"
C
L
A
Y
8"
CLAY
6"PVC
12" CLAY
12"
C
L
A
Y
8"PVC
24"
RCP
12" CLAY
8" C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" AC
8" P
V
C
24"PVC
8" P
V
C
24" PVC
8" PVC
18" HDPE
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PV
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
6" PVC
8" CONCRETE
8"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" CLA
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
P
V
C
10" PVC
8"
A
C
8" A
C
10"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
10
"
C
L
A
Y
12"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" A
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
18
"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
6" P
V
C
15" CLAY
12
"
P
V
C
8"
A
C
24"
R
C
P
8"
C
L
A
Y
10
"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
10
"
C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
21"
C
L
A
Y
6" P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" CLAY
10
"
C
L
A
Y
18" CLAY
10"
P
V
C
12
"
C
L
A
Y
8" CLAY
6"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
10" PVC
18" CLAY
15"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
15" PVC
18" PVC
8" P
V
C
12"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
I
4"PVC
4" P
V
C
22
2
15
8
1
37
21
40
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
20"
21" - 24"
27" - 30"
36"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 22
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
12TH ST E
ECENTER ST
10TH ST E
1ST
A
V
E
E
8TH ST E
5TH
A
V
E
E
LEISUREDR
HONEYSUCKLELN
5TH ST E
6TH ST E
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
WOODLAND
PARKRD
7TH ST E
11TH ST E
4TH ST E
2NDSTE
3RD ST E
WOODLANDAVE
9THSTE
DAY
S
A
C
R
E
S
L
N
14TH ST E
3RD
A
V
E
E
13TH ST E
CONRAD DR
ROGERS DR
STAG LN
8TH
A
V
E
E
US
9
3
SOUTHFI
E
L
D
L
N
1ST ST E
TA
H
O
E
D
R
SE
L
D
E
R
S
L
N
PARKHILL RD
WILL
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
HAVEN CT
2N
D
A
V
E
E
COL
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
CEDAR
COMMONS LN
RIVER GLEN CT
PAR
K
P
L
ALBINA S
T
18TH ST E
GREENDALE CT
MEM
O
R
Y
L
N
KYNZIE LN
4TH
A
V
E
E
6TH
A
V
E
E
7TH
A
V
E
E
EAGLEDR
SY
L
V
A
N
C
T
QUINCY LOOP
21ST ST
E
LEHILN
CONCORD LN
WOODLANDPARKLOOP
GREENRIDGE DR
YOUNGS LN
SOUTHFIELDDR
WIN D RIVERDR
BIRCHWOODCT
S
YL
V
A
N
D
R
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
L
N
TREASURE LN
HOW
A
R
D
D
R
HAVEN DR
COL
L
I
E
R
L
N
BIS ON DR
VAL
L
E
Y
D
R
ZIM
M
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
CAR
O
L
I
N
E
R
D
£¤93
Stillwat
er
Ri
ver
6"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"PVC
10" PVC
8"
PVC
8" CLAY
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
15" PVC
10" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" P
V
C
8"PVC
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
P
V
C
8"
PVC
8"
CONCRETE
8" PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PV
C
8" C
I
36"
R
C
P
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
10" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
12"CLA
Y
6" PVC
8"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"CLA
Y
8"CLA
Y
8" CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
10" CONCRETE
8" C
L
A
Y
18" HDPE
8" CLA
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
8" C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
6"
P
V
C
8" C
L
A
Y
10"
C
L
A
Y
8"
C
L
A
Y
15" CLAY
8" C
L
A
Y
8" CONCRETE
6"
C
L
A
Y
6"
C
L
A
Y
12" CLAY 8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
6"
P
V
C
6"
C
L
A
Y
6" PVC
14"
P
V
C23
2
7
5A
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
36"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 23
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")503
5TH
A
V
E
W
SUNNYSIDE DR
AIRPORTWAY
1STAVEW
US
9
3
S
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
D
R
DEN
V
E
R
A
V
E
AIRP
O
R
T
R
D
TEAL DR
7TH
A
V
E
W
PIN
T
A
I
L
D
R
MERGANSER DR
STR
A
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
BLUESTONE
3RD
A
V
E
E
4T
HAVEW
VA
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
HALTER
C
T
SUNNY CT
CAM
E
L
O
T
21ST ST
E
DUNM
O
V
I
N
AS
HLE
YCREEK
L
N
SANTA FE ST
BIS
M
A
R
K
S
T
MILEHIGHCT
GREEN CV
BOI
S
E
A
V
E
B
E
L
M
A
R
CHEVYCHASE
RUD
D
Y
D
U
C
K
D
R
SO
U
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
DR
ASH
L
E
Y
D
R
AUSTINST
GARDENWAY
PHOENIX ST
SALEM ST
17TH ST W
18TH ST E
WESTERNDR
RIMROCKCT
GOLDENEYECT
WIDGEONCT
EIDERDR
6TH
A
V
E
W
CANVASBACKCT
DARLINGTON
PINTAILCT
COO
T
C
T
BEGGPARKDR
HARLEQUINCT
HIDDEN TRL
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
CEMETERY RD
GREATVIEW
RYANLN
NBELMAR
£¤93
£¤A93
AshleyCreek
8" P
V
C
36"
CRS-
P
I
10"DI
30"
R
C
P
8"PVC
8" PVC
36"RCP
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
10" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
18"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
12" PVC
8"PVC
8"PVC
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
6"PVC
8"PV
C
10
"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
C
I
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
36"
R
C
P
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
C
L
A
Y
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PV
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" CLA
Y
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC10" PVC
10" CONCRETE
8"PVC
8" PVC
8" CI
4"PVC
4" P
V
C
4" H
D
P
E
4" P
V
C
14" PVC
WWTF
24
2
23
15
8
18
1
40
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
27" - 30"
36"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 24
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
5TH
A
V
E
E
LEISUREDR
US
9
3
LOWERVALLEYRD
3RD
A
V
E
E
KELLYRD
SHE
F
F
E
R
D
L
N
STAG LN
4TH
A
V
E
E
WELF LN
SOUTHFI
E
L
D
L
N
BUTTERCUP LOOP
CEMETERY RD
WILL
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
HAVEN CT
CEDAR
COMMONS LN
BEA
R
G
R
A
S
S
L
N
RUSSELL DR
RIVER GLEN CT
AIR
P
O
R
T
W
A
Y
18TH ST E
GREENDALE CT
HON
E
Y
S
U
C
K
L
E
L
N
KYNZIE LN
TWIN ACRES DR
CONDORDR
QUINCY LOOP
21ST ST
E
LEHI LN
MALLARDD
R
YOUNGS LN
SO
U
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
WINDRIVER DR
EAGLE
DR
BIRCHWOODCT 8TH
A
V
E
E
HOW
A
R
D
D
R
ALFALFADR
HAVEN DR
BIS O N DR
FFA DR
£¤93
AshleyCre
ek
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
8" PVC
8"PVC
10"PVC
15
"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
8" PVC
8" C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" CLA
Y
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
12
"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
10" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10" PVC
8"PVC
8"
P
V
C
10" CONCRETE
8"
PVC
8" PVC
8"PVC
8" PVC
8"
PVC
8"
PVC
8" P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" PVC
8" C
I
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
10" PVC
10" PVC
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
12" P
V
C
8" P
V
C
12
"
P
V
C
6" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
C
L
A
Y
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
4"PVC
24"
H
D
P
E
8" HDPE
6" HDPE
8"
P
V
C
14" PVC
25
22
16
5
25
5A
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
6"
8"
10"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 25
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
WIL L OWGLE N DR
UNI
T
E
D
D
R
LOWER VALLEY RD
US 9
3
SHE
F
F
E
R
D
L
N
WELF LN
CEMETERY RD
SNOWLINE LN
ASHLEY MDWSMORNING
STAR DR
KACULN
93
ALTER
N
ATE
ALFA
L
F
A
D
R
93
ALTERNATE
£¤93
AshleyCreek
8" PVC
8" PVC
12"
P
V
C
15"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
8"
P
V
C
8" P
V
C
24"
H
D
P
E
8"
P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
26
22
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 26
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
")503
UNI
T
E
D
D
R
SNOWLINELN
ROCKY CLIFF DR
ROC
K
Y
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
R
L
US 9
3
MOR
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
R
D
R
FR
O
NTA
GEPARK
ASHLE
Y
M
D
W
S
ROCKYMEADOWSLOOP
ROC
K
Y
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
FIRST
LIGHTTRL
WHIT
E
B
A
S
I
N
R
D
GLACIERRANCHRD
K
A
C
U
LN
93ALTERNATE
SH
E
L
T
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
93
ALTERNATE
£¤93
AshleyCree
k
12"
P
V
C
8" PVC
15
"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8" P
V
C
12"
P
V
C
27
34
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Lift Station
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
12"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 27
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
ROCKY CLIFF DR
AU
C
T
I
O
N
R
D
RO
C
K
Y
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
R
L
S
C
H
O
O
L
ST
A
T
I
O
N
C
T
OLD
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
R
DEM
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
D
ROCKY MEADOWS LOOP
ROC
K
Y
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
SNOWLINE LN
S
CHOOL
HOUS
E
L
OOP
FOYS BEND LN
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
P
A
R
K
BELLS LN
PHE
A
S
A
N
T
H
O
L
L
O
W
W
A
Y
£¤93
FlatheadRiver
AshleyCreek
8" PVC
8" PVC
15
"
P
V
C
10"
P
V
C
8" PVC
8"
P
V
C
28
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX A
EXISTING WASTEWATER
SYSTEM MAP BOOK
0 500250
US Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!
¯
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Main Diameter
8"
10"
14" - 18"
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
910
121314
16171819
212223
2425
26
2728
8
20
15
11
Page 28
Parallel 12" Gravity & Force Mains
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Appendices
June 2019
P05610-2017-003
Appendix B – Planning and Growth Areas
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Appendices
June 2019
P05610-2017-003
Appendix C – Kalispell Risk Policy
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.
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:
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:
2.2. Risk Table
A basic risk matrix to score the combination of likelihood and consequence can be presented as:
Very High
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
High
Medium
Low
Improbable
Low Medium Medium-
High High Extreme
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
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
D Moderate Moderate Major Catastrophic Catastrophic
C Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Major
B Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate Moderate
Low A Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Minor 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.
Risk Level Response Timing
5 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.
Risk Factor Break Count Scoring for
aggregation
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.
Risk Factor 10 Year d/D Scoring for
aggregation
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
1 < 200 feet .75
2 200-400 feet 1.5
3 400+ feet 3
4 NA
5 NA
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.
Risk Factor Cleaning/ Flushing/ Root Removal/
Grease Removal Work Order Counts
Scoring for
aggregation
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
Age – Pipe Age and Material Combo
Pipe age was calculated based on current year less install year. This age was then assigned a risk factor based
on the following tables:
Risk Factor Description Scoring for
aggregation
1 >50% of estimated useful life remaining .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 Useful Life
AC 55-85
CI 60-75
CI(Slip Line) 45-75
Clay 75
Concrete 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.
Total Likelihood Linear Feet Percent of System
5 358,625 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%
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.
Risk
Factor
Description Scoring for
Aggregation
5 Within 25 feet of School of Medical Facility 32
4 Within 50 feet of School of Medical Facility 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.
Risk
Factor
Description Scoring for
Aggregation
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:
Risk Factor Description - Zoning Type Scoring for
Aggregation
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,
PUD/SFR
6.7
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.
Risk Factor Description Scoring for
Aggregation
5 >=24" and within 50ft of water body 16
4 >= 24" and within 100ft of water or >16= and
within 50ft
8
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.
Consequence Linear
Feet
Percent 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 628,861 100%
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.
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.
Risk Level Risk Description Risk Response Linear
Feet % of 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%
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.
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
Consequence
Sewer Mains Risk Assessment Results
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
P05610-2017-003
Appendix D – Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Methodology
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects
Opinion of Probable Project Cost (OPPC) Summary
November 2018
WW-M-01 Lift Station #3 Main Improvements Gravity & Force Main 2019 $ 3,763,384 $ 376,338 3,387,045$ 3,763,384$ Initial coordination needs to occur in 2019.
WW-M-02 Bluestone Upsize Gravity Main 2029 $ 202,967 -$ 202,967$
WW-M-03 Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension Gravity Main 2029 $ 3,936,377 -$ 3,936,377$
WW-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements Gravity Main 2021 1,738,378$ 1,738,378$ 1,738,378$
WW-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements LS, Gravity & Force Main 2022 $ 2,081,737 2,081,737$ 2,081,737$ 2,081,737$
WW-LS-03 West Reserve Drive Improvements Gravity Main 2029 $ 5,373,337 -$ 5,373,337$
WW-LS-04 West Springcreek Road Improvements Gravity Main 2029 $ 3,484,419 -$ 3,484,419$
WW-LS-05 Lift Station #12 Improvements Lift Station Upgrades 2040 $ 638,922 -$ 638,922$
WW-LS-06 Lift Station #36 Improvements Lift Station Upgrades 2029 $ 3,083,170 -$ 3,083,170$
WW-LS-07 Lift Station #22 Improvements LS & Gravity Main 2040 $ 2,479,552 -$ 2,479,552$
WW-LS-08 Rose Crossing East Improvements LS, Gravity & Force Main 2040 $ 3,714,545 -$ 3,714,545$
WW-LS-09 Stillwater Road Improvements LS, Gravity & Force Main 2040 $ 2,316,138 -$ 2,316,138$
WW-LS-10 Lift Station #33 Improvements Lift Station Upgrades 2040 $ 638,922 -$ 638,922$
WW-LS-11 Lift Station #34 Improvements Lift Station Upgrades 2040 $ 638,922 -$ 638,922$
WW-LS-12 Lift Station #39 Improvements Lift Station Upgrades 2040 $ 660,071 -$ 660,071$
WW-S-01 Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Study Studies 2020 $ 182,103 182,103$ 182,103$
WW-RR-01 Risk-Based Annual Sewer Rehab and Repair Rehabilitation & Repair Annual 250,000$ 250,000$ 255,000$ 260,100$ 265,302$ 270,608$ 1,301,010$
General Growth and Development (Oversize Credit)Growth & Development As needed 6,239,637$ 318,362$ 318,362$ 318,362$ 318,362$ 318,362$ 1,591,812$ 1,865,061$ 2,782,763$ Timing is development driven.
WW-EX-01 Existing City CIP "SEW 16" (6th Alley E - South of 14th to 13th Gravity Replacement)Rehabilitation & Repair 2021 255,150$ 255,150$ 255,150$
WW-EX-02 Existing City CIP "SEW 20" (10" Clay Sewer Slipline in 1st Alley W. from Montana St. to Washington St.)Rehabilitation & Repair 2020 80,776$ 80,776$ 80,776$
WW-EX-03 Existing City CIP "SEW 33" (Manhole Rehabilitation and Sewer Main Replacements/Repairs)Rehabilitation & Repair Annual 50,000$ 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 260,202$
WW-EX-04 Existing City CIP "SEW 52" (Misc. Sewer Contract Main Upsize and Lift Station Facility Enlargements)Growth & Development Annual 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,818$ 47,754$ 48,709$ 234,182$
WW-EX-05 Existing City CIP "SEW 55" (Westside Interceptor - Three Mile Dr. and Spring Creek Project)LS, Gravity & Force Main 2019 13,612,312$ 13,612,312$ 13,612,312$
WW-EX-06 Existing City CIP "SEW 68" (12" Clay Sewer Slipline in 1st Alley E. & W.Rehabilitation & Repair 2020 232,565$ 232,565$ 232,565$
WW-EX-07 Existing City CIP "SEW 70" (Slipline 8" Sewer Main in 6th Alley EN and E. Washington)Rehabilitation & Repair 2020 79,675$ 79,675$ 79,675$
WW-EX-08 Existing City CIP "SEW 72" (Lift Station Communication Upgrades)Optimization 2019 & 2020 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 40,400$
WW-EX-09 Existing City CIP "SEW 74" (Grandview Lift Station Relocation)Lift Station Upgrades 2019 1,238,781$ 1,238,781$ 1,238,781$
WW-EX-10 Existing City CIP "SEW 75" (Lift Station 5a Removal)Lift Station Upgrades 2021 334,714$ 334,714$ 334,714$
WW-EX-11 Existing City CIP "SEW 77" (Shop Complex Pavement Restoration)Rehabilitation & Repair 2019 38,200$ 38,200$ 38,200$
WW-EX-12 Existing City CIP "SEW 78" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 4th Alley WN)Rehabilitation & Repair 2022 1,064,754$ 1,064,754$ 1,064,754$
WW-EX-13 Existing City CIP "SEW 79" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 2nd Alley W)Rehabilitation & Repair 2023 596,351$ 596,351$ 596,351$
WW-EX-14 Existing City CIP "SEW 80" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 5th Alley WN)Rehabilitation & Repair 2020 817,968$ 817,968$ 817,968$
WW-EX-15 Existing City CIP "SEW 82" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 2nd Alley W.)Rehabilitation & Repair 2023 809,281$ 809,281$ 809,281$
WW-EX-16 Existing City CIP "SEW 83" (Gravity Sewer Replacement on 1st and 2nd Ave. EN)Rehabilitation & Repair 2021 1,203,825$ 1,203,825$ 1,203,825$
WW-EX-17 Existing City CIP "SEW 89" (Facility Plan/Rate Analysis)Studies 2019 268,148$ 268,148$ 268,148$
WW-EX-18 Existing City CIP "SEW 91" (Repair and Replacement of Sewer Main)Rehabilitation & Repair 2019 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$
WW-EX-19 Existing City CIP "SEW 92" (Repair and Replacement of Sewer Main in WWTP Complex)Rehabilitation & Repair 2020 159,554$ 159,554$ 159,554$
-$
Total Project Costs 62,929,637$ 16,817,141$ 2,243,305$ 4,209,368$ 3,830,970$ 5,484,479$ 32,585,263$ 17,945,331$ 15,951,573$
1Project Number Designation: 2Funding Designation:Notes Ex. City CIP
WW =Wastewater R =Rates
M =Main I =Impact Fees
LS =Lift Station D =Developer
O =Optimization SID =Special Improment District
S =Studies TIF =Tax Increment Funding
CA =Condition Assessment
RR =Rehabilitation and Repair
EX =Existing City CIP
FY 2023
*Estimate Classification Note: OPPC values are representative of a Class 4 estimate (Advancement of Cost Engineering), which 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.
Project Timing NotesAnticipated CIP
Cost
Planning Level* Cost Estimates for Anticipated Fiscal Year
2019 to 2023
(0 to 5 Years)
2024 to 2033
(5 to 15 Years)
Beyond 2033
(15+ Years)FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022Project
Number1
Anticipated
Funding
Designation2Capital Improvement Project CIP Category Anticipated
CIP Year
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-M-01 Lift Station #3 Main Improvements 2019 $3,763,384
1.0 Sewer System
a.Sewer Main
1.12" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)9,220 LF $100.00 $922,000
2.12" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)1,564 LF $185.00 $289,340
3.18" PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)300 LF $135.00 $40,500
4.Existing Sewer Main Connection 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000
5.Lift Station Connection 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000
6.18" - 24" Highway Bore with Space Constraints 850 LF $750.00 $637,500
Subtotal $1,907,340
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$114,440
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$38,147
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$19,073
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$57,220
Subtotal $228,880.80
$2,136,221 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$213,622
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$170,898
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$106,811
Subtotal $491,331
$491,331 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 11,084 LF $19.00 $210,596
Subtotal $210,596
$210,596 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 30%$851,444
Subtotal $851,444
$851,444 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $73,792
Subtotal $73,792
$73,792 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2019
Number of years of inflation 1
Additional cost of inflation $73,792
$3,763,384 Total Probable Project Cost
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Project Description: This project upsizes the influent pipe entering Lift Station #3 from the
existing 8" PVC gravity main to a new 18" PVC gravity main. In addition, a new 12" PVC
force main extending from the lift station to the west side of the Highway 93 Bypass will
connect to a new section of 12" PVC gravity sewer that will then connect to the Westside
Interceptor. This project will alleviate capacity issues during wet weather flows and
prevent needing to upsize Trunk Line A within existing developed areas.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Inflation
TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-M-02 Bluestone Upsize 2029 $202,967
1.0 Sewer System
a.Sewer Main
1.12" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)376 LF $185.00 $69,560
2.Existing Sewer Service Connection 7 EA $1,500.00 $10,500
3.Existing Sewer Main Connection 3 EA $4,500.00 $13,500
Subtotal $93,560
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$5,614
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$1,871
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$936
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$2,807
Subtotal $11,227.20
$104,787 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$10,479
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$8,383
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$5,239
Subtotal $24,101
$24,101 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 376 LF $19.00 $7,144
Subtotal $7,144
$7,144 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$27,206
Subtotal $27,206
$27,206 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $39,728
Subtotal $39,728
$39,728 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2029
Number of years of inflation 11
Additional cost of inflation $39,728
$202,967 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: Replace the existing 8" PVC gravity main with new 12" PVC gravity main
along Bluestone Drive from Begg Park Drive south to Green Cove to match upstream and
downstream pipe sizes.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-M-03 Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main
Extension 2029 $3,936,377
1.0 Sewer System
a.Sewer Main
1.36" PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)1,300 LF $195.00 $253,500
2.30" PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)350 LF $235.00 $82,250
4.36" PS46 ASTM F679 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)4,510 LF $255.00 $1,150,050
5.Existing Sewer Main Connection 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000
6.10' H x 10' L x 5' W Specialty Manifold Structure 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
7.27" - 36" Highway Bore with Space Constraints 100 LF $1,000.00 $100,000
Subtotal $1,609,800
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$96,588
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$32,196
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$16,098
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$48,294
e.Existing Utility Adjustments 1 LS 10%$160,980
Subtotal $354,156
$1,963,956 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$196,396
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$157,116
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$98,198
Subtotal $451,710
$451,710 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 6,160 LF $19.00 $117,040
Subtotal $117,040
$117,040 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 25%$633,176
Subtotal $633,176
$633,176 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $770,494
Subtotal $770,494
$770,494 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2029
Number of years of inflation 11
Additional cost of inflation $770,494
$3,936,377 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: To provide additional capacity and relief for downstream piping, a
secondary pipe installation is proposed that generally follows the path of the existing 30"
RCP and 36" RCP gravity mains leading into the WWTF. Starting at the intersection of
5th Ave. W. and 10th St. W. install a new 30" PVC gravity main and head south to the
intersection of 5th Ave. W. and 11th St. W. From there, install a new 36" PVC gravity
main heading east along 11th St. W. to 3rd Ave. W. and then south to the WWTF.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-01 Lift Station #9 Improvements 2021 $1,738,378
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.15" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)222 LF $130.00 $28,860
2.Existing Sewer Main Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
3.Lift Station Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
4.New Lift Station (Large Pumps, 500-1,000 gpm)1 LS $950,000.00 $950,000
Subtotal $987,860
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$59,272
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$19,757
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$9,879
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$29,636
Subtotal $118,543.20
$1,106,403 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$110,640
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$88,512
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$55,320
Subtotal $254,473
$254,473 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 222 LF $19.00 $4,218
Subtotal $4,218
$4,218 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$273,019
Subtotal $273,019
$273,019 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $100,266
Subtotal $100,266
$100,266 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2021
Number of years of inflation 3
Additional cost of inflation $100,266
$1,738,378 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: This project is located adjacent to Fairway Boulevard in the Buffalo
Hills Golf Course and replaces the existing 8" PVC gravity sewer inlet pipe entering Lift
Station #9 with a 15" size to match the existing pipe size just upstream of the pipe
section to be replaced. The existing 253 gpm pumps in the lift station will be replaced
with 750 gpm pumps to accomodate peak flows in the short-term. Provide additional
capacity for 860 gpm flows at full buildout. Lift station improvements entail full lift
station replacement.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-02 Rose Crossing West Improvements 2022 $2,081,737
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.6" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)1,985 LF $85.00 $168,725
2.Existing Sewer Main Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
3.Lift Station Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
4.New Lift Station (Large Pumps, 500-1,000 gpm)1 LS $950,000.00 $950,000
Subtotal $1,127,725
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$67,664
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$22,555
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$11,277
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$33,832
Subtotal $135,327
$1,263,052 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$126,305
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$101,044
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$63,153
Subtotal $290,502
$290,502 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 1,985 LF $19.00 $37,715
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $49,115
$49,115 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$320,534
Subtotal $320,534
$320,534 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $158,534
Subtotal $158,534
$158,534 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2022
Number of years of inflation 4
Additional cost of inflation $158,534
$2,081,737 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Install a new 730 gpm lift station and 6" PVC force main to
support development in the west Rose Crossing area. The short-term flows into this
lift station are projected to be 110 gpm and increase to 280 gpm in the near-term and
730 gpm at full buildout. The new force main will connect to the recently installed 18"
PVC gravity sewer main near the Kalispell Ford dealership.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-03 West Reserve Drive Improvements 2029 $5,373,337
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.8" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)2,000 LF $115.00 $230,000
2.8" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)3,095 LF $175.00 $541,625
3.10" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)24 LF $180.00 $4,320
4.6" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)2,838 LF $85.00 $241,230
5.Existing Sewer Main Connection 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000
7.18" - 24" Highway Bore with Space Constraints 800 LF $750.00 $600,000
8.8" - 18" Road Crossing/Bore 300 LF $400.00 $120,000
9.New Lift Station (Medium Pumps, 150-500 gpm)1 LS $750,000.00 $750,000
Subtotal $2,496,175
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$149,771
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$49,924
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$24,962
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$74,885
Subtotal $299,541
$2,795,716 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$279,572
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$223,657
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$139,786
Subtotal $643,015
$643,015 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 7,957 LF $19.00 $151,183
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $162,583
$162,583 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$720,263
Subtotal $720,263
$720,263 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $1,051,761
Subtotal $1,051,761
$1,051,761 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2029
Number of years of inflation 11
Additional cost of inflation $1,051,761
$5,373,337 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: Install a new 465 gpm lift station on West Reserve Dr. near the
Stillwater River along with new 8" PVC gravity main and 6" PVC force main to convey
wastewater from new developments north of West Reserve Dr. and east of Highway 93.
The near-term flows into this lift station are projected to be 145 gpm and increase to 465
gpm at full buildout. The 8" PVC gravity main will begin along West Reserve Dr. from
Whitefish Stage Rd. to the new lift station. The 6" PVC force main will start from the
new lift station heading north, then transition to 8" PVC gravity main heading west to
Highway 93.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-04 West Springcreek Road Improvements 2029 $3,484,419
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.8" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)2,885 LF $115.00 $331,775
2.12" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)605 LF $125.00 $75,625
4.6" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)1,902 LF $85.00 $161,670
5.Existing Sewer Main Connection 3 EA $4,500.00 $13,500
6.8" - 18" Road Crossing/Bore 200 LF $400.00 $80,000
7.New Lift Station (Large Pumps, 500-1,000 gpm)1 LS $950,000.00 $950,000
Subtotal $1,612,570
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$96,754
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$32,251
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$16,126
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$48,377
Subtotal $193,508
$1,806,078 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$180,608
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$144,486
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$90,304
Subtotal $415,398
$415,398 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 5,392 LF $19.00 $102,448
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $113,848
$113,848 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$467,065
Subtotal $467,065
$467,065 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $682,030
Subtotal $682,030
$682,030 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2029
Number of years of inflation 11
Additional cost of inflation $682,030
$3,484,419 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: Project includes construction of a new 735 gpm lift station near W.
Springcreek Rd. The near-term flows into this lift station are projected to be 150 gpm and
increase to 735 gpm at full buildout. New 8" and 12" gravity mains and 6" force main will
be installed to convey wastewater from new developments on the east side of W.
Springcreek Rd. south of West Reserve Dr. and north of Four Mile Dr. The 8" PVC gravity
main will begin along West Reserve Dr. from Whitefish Stage Rd. to the new lift station.
The 6" PVC force main starts from the new lift station heading north, then transitions to
8" PVC gravity main heading west to Highway 93.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-05 Lift Station #12 Improvements 2040 $638,922
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station
1.Lift Station Rehabilitation (Medium to Large Pumps, >150 gpm)1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Subtotal $250,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$15,000
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$5,000
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$2,500
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$7,500
Subtotal $30,000
$280,000 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$28,000
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$22,400
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$14,000
Subtotal $64,400
$64,400 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
Subtotal $0
$0 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$68,880
Subtotal $68,880
$68,880 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $225,642
Subtotal $225,642
$225,642 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $225,642
$638,922 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Replace the existing 195 gpm pumps in Lift Station #12 with new
340 gpm pumps to handle peak flows at full buildout. Project includes rehabilitating
the lift station with new electrical, pumps, building enclosure, and piping.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-06 Lift Station #36 Improvements 2029 $3,083,170
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station
1.New Lift Station (Very Large Pumps, 2,500 gpm)1 LS $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000
Subtotal $1,500,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$90,000
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$30,000
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$15,000
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$45,000
Subtotal $180,000
$1,680,000 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$168,000
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$134,400
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$84,000
Subtotal $386,400
$386,400 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
Subtotal $0
$0 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$413,280
Subtotal $413,280
$413,280 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $603,490
Subtotal $603,490
$603,490 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2029
Number of years of inflation 11
Additional cost of inflation $603,490
$3,083,170 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Increase the capacity of Lift Station #36 (existing pump capacity of
820 gpm) with new lift station improvements capable of handling peak flows of 991 gpm
during the near-term timeframe with provisions made to handle future peak flows of 2,530
gpm at full buildout. Install a new wet well next to the existing wet well and new pumps
and appurtenances necessary to utilize the existing dry parallel force main.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-07 Lift Station #22 Improvements 2040 $2,479,552
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.15" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Paved)55 LF $190.00 $10,450
2.Lift Station Connection 2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000
3.New Lift Station (Large Pumps, 500-1,000 gpm)1 LS $950,000.00 $950,000
Subtotal $969,450
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$58,167
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$19,389
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$9,695
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$29,084
Subtotal $116,334
$1,085,784 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$108,578
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$86,863
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$54,289
Subtotal $249,730
$249,730 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 55 LF $19.00 $1,045
Subtotal $1,045
$1,045 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$267,312
Subtotal $267,312
$267,312 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $875,681
Subtotal $875,681
$875,681 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $875,681
$2,479,552 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: This project replaces existing 8" PVC gravity main with 15" PVC
gravity main on the influent pipe to Lift Station #22 and is located at the Cemetery
Road intersection with Highway 93. Improve Lift Station #22 with a full lift station
replacement to increase capacity from the existing 485 gpm to the 705 gpm needed at
full buildout.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-08 Rose Crossing East Improvements 2040 $3,714,545
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.8" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)2,070 LF $115.00 $238,050
2.12" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)82 LF $125.00 $10,250
3.4" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)4,400 LF $80.00 $352,000
4.Lift Station Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
5.New Lift Station (Medium Pumps, 150-500 gpm)1 LS $750,000.00 $750,000
Subtotal $1,354,800
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$81,288
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$27,096
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$13,548
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$40,644
Subtotal $162,576
$1,517,376 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$151,738
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$121,390
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$75,869
Subtotal $348,996
$348,996 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 6,552 LF $19.00 $124,488
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $135,888
$135,888 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$400,452
Subtotal $400,452
$400,452 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $1,311,832
Subtotal $1,311,832
$1,311,832 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $1,311,832
$3,714,545 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Construction of a new 285 gpm lift station is planned for the
southeast corner of the project area. New 8" PVC gravity main and 4" PVC force main
will convey wastewater from new developments on the east portion of Rose Crossing.
The 4" PVC force main starts at the new lift station and transitions to 8" gravity main
along Rose Crossing before connecting to a future lift station east of Whitefish Stage
Rd. that is part of the Rose Crossing West CIP project.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-09 Stillwater Road Improvements 2040 $2,316,138
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station and Sewer Main
1.4" DR18 C900 PVC Sewer Force Main (Unpaved)1,290 LF $80.00 $103,200
2.10" SDR35 PVC Gravity Sewer Main (Unpaved)150 LF $120.00 $18,000
3.Existing Sewer Main Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
4.Lift Station Connection 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500
5.New Lift Station (Medium Pumps, 150-500 gpm)1 LS $750,000.00 $750,000
Subtotal $880,200
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$52,812
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$17,604
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$8,802
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$26,406
Subtotal $105,624
$985,824 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$98,582
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$78,866
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$49,291
Subtotal $226,740
$226,740 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 1,290 LF $19.00 $24,510
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $35,910
$35,910 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$249,695
Subtotal $249,695
$249,695 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $817,969
Subtotal $817,969
$817,969 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $817,969
$2,316,138 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: A new 330 gpm lift station and 4" PVC force main is needed to
support development in the area northwest of the W. Reserve Dr. and Stillwater Rd.
intersection. The new lift station will be located south of the Stillwater Rd. and Taelor
Rd. intersection. A short section of 10" PVC gravity main will connect the force main
into the existing sewer system.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-10 Lift Station #33 Improvements 2040 $638,922
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station
1.Lift Station Rehabilitation (Medium to Large Pumps, >150 gpm)1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Subtotal $250,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$15,000
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$5,000
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$2,500
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$7,500
Subtotal $30,000
$280,000 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$28,000
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$22,400
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$14,000
Subtotal $64,400
$64,400 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
Subtotal $0
$0 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$68,880
Subtotal $68,880
$68,880 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $225,642
Subtotal $225,642
$225,642 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $225,642
$638,922 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Replace the existing 225 gpm pumps in existing Lift Station #33
with new 290 gpm pumps sized to handle peak flows at full buildout. Project includes
rehabilitating the lift station with new electrical, pumps, building enclosure, and piping.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-11 Lift Station #34 Improvements 2040 $638,922
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station
1.Lift Station Rehabilitation (Medium to Large Pumps, >150 gpm)1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Subtotal $250,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$15,000
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$5,000
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$2,500
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$7,500
Subtotal $30,000
$280,000 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$28,000
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$22,400
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$14,000
Subtotal $64,400
$64,400 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
Subtotal $0
$0 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$68,880
Subtotal $68,880
$68,880 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $225,642
Subtotal $225,642
$225,642 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $225,642
$638,922 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Replace the existing 250 gpm pumps in existing Lift Station #34
with new 520 gpm pumps sized to handle peak flows at full buildout. This lift station
already has sufficient wet well capacity for future flows. Project includes rehabilitating
the lift station with new electrical, pumps, building enclosure, and piping.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-LS-12 Lift Station #39 Improvements 2040 $660,071
1.0 Sewer System
a.Lift Station
1.Lift Station Rehabilitation (Medium to Large Pumps, >150 gpm)1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Subtotal $250,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 6%$15,000
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$5,000
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 1%$2,500
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 3%$7,500
Subtotal $30,000
$280,000 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 10%$28,000
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 8%$22,400
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 5%$14,000
Subtotal $64,400
$64,400 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
b.Additional Property for New Lift Station 0.3 AC $38,000.00 $11,400
Subtotal $11,400
$11,400 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$71,160
Subtotal $71,160
$71,160 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $233,111
Subtotal $233,111
$233,111 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2040
Number of years of inflation 22
Additional cost of inflation $233,111
$660,071 Total Probable Project Cost
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Project Description: Replace the existing 370 gpm pumps in existing Lift Station #39
with new 925 gpm pumps sized to handle peak flows at full buildout. This lift station
already has sufficient wet well capacity for future flows. Project includes rehabilitating
the lift station with new electrical, pumps, building enclosure, and piping.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-S-01 Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Study 2020 $182,103
1.0 Sewer System
a.Study
1.I&I Study and Report 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000
Subtotal $130,000
2.0
a.Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance/Permits/Bonds 1 LS 0%$0
b.Traffic Control 1 LS 2%$2,600
c.Erosion Control 1 LS 0%$0
d.Testing and Construction Surveying 1 LS 0%$0
Subtotal $2,600
$132,600 Estimated Hard/Construction Costs
3.0
a.Engineering Design 1 LS 0%$0
b.Construction Administration and Management 1 LS 10%$13,260
c.Legal and Administrative 1 LS 0%$0
Subtotal $13,260
$13,260 Estimated Soft Costs
4.0
a.Right-of-way 0 LF $19.00 $0
Subtotal $0
$0 Estimated Property Acquisition Costs
5.0
a.Total Project Contingency 1 LS 20%$29,172
Subtotal $29,172
$29,172 Project Contingency
6.0
a.Inflation 1 LS $7,071
Subtotal $7,071
$7,071 Inflation
Average annual inflation rate 2%
Year of original CIP cost estimate 2018
Year of anticipated construction 2020
Number of years of inflation 2
Additional cost of inflation $7,071
$182,103 Total Probable Project Cost
Project Description: Conduct a detailed I&I study focusing on the downtown area to
identify areas for I&I reduction, which would include flow monitoring, detection
activities, and developing rehabilitation strategies to mitigate areas with I&I.
CIP ID:
COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTAL
Inflation
Hard Cost
Hard Cost - Markups
Soft Costs
Property Acquisition
Project Contingency
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
November 2018
CIP Name:Estimated Starting CIP Year:Estimated CIP Cost:
WW-RR-01 Risk-Based Annual Sewer Rehab
and Repair 2020 $250,000
Project Description: This project was identifed by the risk assessment process. The
City will need to CCTV the identified pipe areas to determine the need for new future
projects. Once the City has inspected the identified pipe areas via CCTV, any
necessary repairs or rehabilitation will be funded through an annual budget
allocation.
CIP ID:
Annual In-House Condition Assessment Program:
A CCTV condition assessment program should be created to have City crews inspect the existing pipes in the locations identified on the
risk assessment map. The one "Level 5" risk area is an existing City project and does not need further assessment. The "Level 4" risk
areas should be assessed next over a 5-year period.The City should plan on inspecting approximately 2,000 LF per year as part of an
annual program.
Risk-Based Annual Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair of Identified Projects:
New projects identified through the annual CCTV condition assessment program should be funded through an annual sewer
rehabilitation and repair CIP fund. Results of these inspections will drive the type of repair or rehabilitation project that is needed to
address the problem area. The City should plan on repairing approximately 1,000 LF per year (assumed to be 50% of the inspected
annual length) as part of an annual program.
The estimated annual CIP cost assumes that a variety of rehabilitation and repair methods will be used, including trenchless
technology, pipe replacement, spot repairs, etc. The estimated annual CIP cost presented in this spreadsheet assumes 50% of the
estimated 1,000 LF to repair is sliplined (at an approximate total cost of $100/LF), while the other 50% is replaced (at an approximate
total cost of $400/LF for a downtown sewer project taking into account hard costs, soft costs, and contingency).
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST
General Growth and Development Projects
November 2018
THIS SPREADSHEET IS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UPSIZE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW REGIONAL LIFT STATIONS INITIATED BY DEVELOPMENT.
Growth and
Development Lift
Station1
Peak Flow – 5-
yr (gpm)
Peak Flow – 15-
yr (gpm)
Peak Flow –
FBO (gpm)
Sewershed
Service Area
Size (Acres)
Anticipated
Forcemain
Diameter (in.)2021 2029 2040
GD_01 0 0 160 88 4 463,793.90$
GD_02 20 75 150 165 4 318,362.40$
GD_03 0 0 225 162 4 463,793.90$
GD_04 20 20 45 400 4 318,362.40$
GD_05 0 0 75 58 4 463,793.90$
GD_06 5 25 125 81 4 318,362.40$
GD_07 35 65 90 136 4 318,362.40$
GD_08 10 20 65 114 4 318,362.40$
GD_09 0 10 25 166 4 373,012.29$
GD_10 0 0 100 60 4 463,793.90$
GD_11 0 5 30 378 4 373,012.29$
GD_12 0 10 185 174 4 373,012.29$
GD_13 0 0 25 81 4 463,793.90$
GD_14 0 0 10 94 4 463,793.90$
GD_15 0 10 60 187 4 373,012.29$
GD_16 0 5 10 74 4 373,012.29$
TOTALS 1,591,812.00$ 1,865,061.46$ 2,782,763.41$
1 Refer to Growth and Development sewershed maps for locations.
Needed Capacity and Associated Timeframe Est. Lift Station Cost2 and Est. Construction Year
2 Note: City upsizing costs are estimated at $300,000 (in 2018 dollars) for regional lift stations with small pump sizes. No separate costs for markup, engineering,
contingency, etc. are included. Inflation has been included based on the anticipated construction year.
Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan Update
Appendices
June 2019
P05610-2017-003
Appendix E – Capital Improvements Mapbook
WW-LS-08
Rose Crossing East Improvements
WW-LS-07
Lift Station #22 Improvements
WW-LS-01
Lift Station #9 Improvements
WW-M-02
Bluestone Upsize
WW-LS-09
Stillwater Road Improvements
WW-LS-04
West Springcreek Road
Improvements
WW-LS-02
Rose Crossing West Improvements
WW-LS-03
West Reserve Drive Improvements
WW-M-03
West Side Interceptor (WSI)
Gravity Main Extension
WW-M-01
Lift Station #3 Main Improvements
WW-LS-11Lift Station #34 Improvements
WW-LS-10
Lift Station #33 Improvements
WW-LS-12
Lift Station #39 Improvements
WW-LS-06Lift Station #36 Improvements
WW-LS-05Lift Station #12 Improvements
WWTF
22
29
34
13
33
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
36
11
30
4
3
10
7
12
9
39
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
29
13
20
16
5
2
23
38
35
15
8
11
30
4
10
7
6
25
EVERGREEN
18
32
41
1
37
21
31
27
40
17
5A
14
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 10.5
Miles
Date: 4/18/2019
!¯
2
2
2
93
A93
A93
93
424
548
503
35
Foys Lake
Old Reserve DR
Far
m
t
o
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
D
Whit
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
D
292
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Lift Station
Recommended Wastewater System
Lift Station Improvements
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-01 - Lift Station #3 Improvements
WW-LS-01 - Lift Station #9 Improvements
WW-LS-02 - Rose Crossing West Improvements
WW-M-02 - Bluestone Upsize
WW-M-03 - Westside Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension
WW-LS-03 - West Reserve Drive Improvements
WW-LS-04 - West Springcreek Road Improvements
WW-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements
WW-LS-08 - Rose Crossing East Improvements
WW-LS-09 - Stillwater Road Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
35 3
32
41
27
17
14
US
9
3
GRANDVIEW DR
SUNNYVIEWLN
RISING
SUNCIR
FARVIEWD
R
INDIANTRAILRD
HUTTONRANCHRD
NOR
T
H
R
I
S
E
L
N
NOR
T
H
E
R
N
L
I
G
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
NORTHRIDING
SHERRYLN
BLUE
CRESTDR
TIMBERWOLFPKWY
RAMSGATEDR
W
O
L
F
P
A
C
K
W
A
Y
SUM
M
I
T
CIR
BA
R
R
O
N
W
A
Y
BUFFETTDR
TRUMPDR
PARKRIDGE DR
MEA
D
O
WVISTALO OP
EM
P
I
R
E
L
O
O
P
GETT
Y
D
R
SUMMIT RIDGEDR
HERITAGEWAY
FOUR MILE DR
PAR
K
W
A
Y
D
R
C
R
E
S
T
VIE
W
RD
NORTHRIDGED
R
WEDGEWOODLN
RESERVE
L
OOP
TREELINE RD
HILLTOPAVE
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
COMMONSWAY
FLY WAY
CHEVI
O
T
LOO
P
SHERWOODLN
GAR
L
A
N
D
S
T
DUKEDR
WINDWARDWAY
SINOPAH ST
N O RT HL A N D DR
FOXHILLDR
COMMONS
LOOP
FORDWAY
SALISHCT
NMERIDIANRD
CARNEGIEDR SUN
S
E
T
C
T
EMERIDIANRD
KIR
STE
N
DRQUARTER HORSE LN
H
A
RRIS
O
N
B
L
VD
NHAVENDR
£¤93
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
15"
12"
8"
8"
8"
12"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
21"
24"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
18"
8"
27"
8"
18"
12"
12"
12"
12"12"
200' Road Bore
400' Highway Bore
250' Highway Bore
Tie In to Existing 27"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 630315
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 1
WW-M-01: Lift Station #3 Main Improvements
12" Gravity Main - 1564 Ft/0.30 Miles & 18" Gravity Main - 297 Ft & 12" Force Main
- 9220 Ft/1.75 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-01 - Lift Station Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
9
F
AI
R
WAYBLVD
Stillwater Rive
r
8"
8"
15"
8"
15"
Tie In to Existing 15"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 17587.5
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 2
WW-LS-01: Lift Station #9 Improvements
15" Gravity Main - 222 Ft
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Recommended Lift Station Improvements
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-01 - Lift Station #9 Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
ROSE CROSSING
NOB HILL LOOP
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
18"6"
6"
Tie In to Existing 18"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 280140
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 3
WW-LS-02: Rose Crossing West Improvements
6" Force Main - 1984 Ft/ 0.37 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Recommended Lift Station
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-02 - Rose Crossing West Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
15
TEAL DR
S MEADOWS DR
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
BLUESTONE
1ST
A
V
E
W
RUD
D
Y
D
U
C
K
D
R
HALTER
C
T
CAM
E
L
O
T
GREEN CV
AIRPORT
W
AY
BE
L
M
A
R
CHEVY
C
H
ASE
GARDENWAY
WI
D
GE
O
N
CT
GREATVIEW
PINTAILCT COOTCT
GOL
D
E
N
E
Y
E
C
T
EID
E
R
D
R
DARLINGTON
CANVAS
BACKCT
BEGGPARKDR
HAR
L
E
Q
U
I
N
C
T
GR
E
E
N
CV
N B
E
L
M
A
R
AshleyCreek
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"8"
36"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 210105
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 4
WW-M-02: Bluestone Upsize
12" Gravity Main - 376 Ft
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-02 - Bluestone Upsize
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
2
23
15
1
AUSTIN ST
BLUESTONE
8TH ST W
4TH
A
V
E
E
SUNNYSIDE DR
11THSTE
1ST
A
V
E
W
13TH ST E
AI
R
P
O
R
T
W
A
Y
US
9
3
8TH
A
V
E
W
11TH ST W
5TH
A
V
E
W
SMEADOWSDR
10TH ST E
DEN
V
E
R
A
V
E
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
TEAL DR
9TH ST W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
RUD
D
Y
D
U
C
K
D
R
STR
A
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
2N
D
A
V
E
W
12TH ST E
SOUTHF
I
E
L
D
LN
14TH ST E
MERGANSERDR
4TH
A
V
E
W
6TH
A
V
E
W
10TH ST W
12TH ST W
HALTER
C
T
2N
D
A
V
E
E
DUNM
O
V
I
N
5THAV
E
E
7TH
A
V
E
W
GREEN CV
B
E
L
M
A
R
3R
D
A
V
E
W
1ST
A
V
E
E
WIDGEON
CT
GARDENWAYSALEM ST
17TH ST W
18TH ST E
COOTCT
21ST ST
E
WESTERNDR
GOL DENEYECT
SOUT
HFI
EL
D
DR
EID
E
R
D
R
CANVASBACK
CT
DARLINGTON
BEGGPARKDR
H A RLE Q UIN
CT
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
GREATVIEW
RYANLN
NBELMAR
£¤93
£¤A93
AshleyCreek
36"
10"
8"
18"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
12"
8"
12"
10"
8"
8"
24"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
18"
18"
6"
18"
24"
8"
24"
36"
8"
10"
15"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
18"
8"
10"
8"
30"
8"
30"36"
36"
36"
36"
WWTF
Tie In to Existing 30"
100' Road Bore
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 420210
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 5
WW-M-03: West Side Interceptor (WSI) Gravity Main Extension
30" Gravity Main - 348 Ft & 36" Gravity Main - 6122 Ft/ 1.16 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-M-03 - West Side (WSI) Gravity Main Extension
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
20
30
10
32
41
31
17
")292
")548
RITZMANLN
GRANRUD LN
WNICKLAUSAVE
BUFF AL OSTAGE
NOB HILL LOOP
COUNTRYWAYS
AR
B
OU
R
DRE
US 9
3
HUTTONRANCHRD
COUNTRYWAYN
BRUYERWAY
PALMERDR
C
O
U
NT
R
Y
WAY
MISSIONW A YN
WHIT
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
BRUYERWAYLOOP
MISSIO N T R L
RANCHRD
GLA
C
I
E
R
C
I
R
GARDENDR
RESERVELOOP
TREELINERD
W RESERVE DR
SULKYL N
TRAILRIDGERD
ARBOURDR
WOODSDR
D AI R Y D R
NMISSIONDR
C O U NT R Y
WAYE
VILLAGELOOP
CHIPCT
VELVADR
ROSE CROSSING
MISSIONWAY
TRE
VIN
O
DR
GRANDALEAVE
MISSIONWAYS
PIN
E
G
R
O
V
E
L
N
S TI L L WAT ER LOOP
£¤93
Whitefis
h
R
i
v
e
r
StillwaterRiver
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
8"
10"
8"
12"
10"
12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
18"
6"
8"
8"
12"
8"
12"
8"
12"8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
18"12"
18"
10"
8"
6"
8"8"
100' Road Bore150' Road Bore
250' Highway Bore Tie In to Existing 18"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 850425
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 6
WW-LS-03: West Reserve Drive Improvements
8" Gravity Main - 5095 Ft/ 0.96 Miles & 10" Gravity Main - 24 Ft & 6" Force Main -
2838 Ft/ 0.53 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Lift Station
Recommended Lift Station
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-03 - West Reserve Drive Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
")424
")548 ")548
FOUR MILE DR
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
FA
R
M
V
I
E
W
L
N
W RESERVE DR
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
24"
12"
6"6"
8"
8"
Tie In to Existing 24"
Tie In to Future 8"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 420210
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 7
WW-LS-04: West Springcreek Road Improvements
8" Gravity Main - 2885 Ft/ 0.54 Miles & 12" Gravity Main - 604 Ft & 6" Force Main -
1902 Ft/ 0.36 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Recommended Lift Station
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-04 - West Springcreek Road Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
22
WI L L OW GL E N D R
L
O
W
E
R
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
D
US
9
3
CEMETERY RD
£¤93
8"
15"
8"
8"
15"
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 3015
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 8
WW-LS-07: Lift Station #22 Improvements
15" Gravity Main - 54 Ft
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Recommended Lift Station Improvements
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-07 - Lift Station #22 Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
GD 04
")292
JACKSONVIEWTRL
STILLWOODDR
MISSIO
N
T
R
L
JACK
PINE L
N
COUNTRYWAYN
COUNTRYWAY
MISSIONW A YN
WHIT
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
PONDEROSALN
CHEERYLYNNRD
ARDELLDR
COUNTRY CT
NMISSIONDR
BLUE
S
PRUCELN
SC
E
N
I
C
D
R
ROSE CROSSING ROSEBUDLN
WAG
G
E
N
E
R
W
A
Y
SIRUCEKLN
NOB HILL LOOP
DRAKEDR
PINEGROVELN
Whitefish
R
i
v
e
r
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"8"4"4"
100' Road Bore
Tie In to Future Lift Station
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 775387.5
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 9
WW-LS-08: Rose Crossing East Improvements
8" Gravity Main - 2069 Ft/ 0.4 Miles & 12" Gravity Main - 81 Ft & 4" Force Main -
4395 Ft/ 0.83 Miles
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Wastewater Lift Station
Recommended Lift Station
CIP Lift Station
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-08 - Rose Crossing East Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
")548")548")548
LO
R
R
I
E
S
RD
GUC
C
I
W
A
Y
OWENS
CT
W
OLFP
A
C
K
W
A
Y
TA
E
L
O
R
R
D
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
ALI
L
O
O
P
W RESERVE DR
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
21"
10"
4"
4"
Tie In to Existing 10"
200' Road Bore
Any reliance upon this map is at user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant the map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate or fit for a particular use.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Montana FIPS 2500 Feet Intl | Edited by: dlissick | C:\Data\Projects\WAFS\K\Kalispell\05610-2017-003\GIS\Kalispell SS.aprx
Locator Map Not to Scale
www
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m
|
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
CITY OF KALISPELL
Kalispell | Flathead County, MT
APPENDIX E
FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
0 280140
Feet
Date: 4/18/2019!¯
Page 10
WW-LS-09: Stillwater Road Improvements
4" Force Main - 1287 Ft/ 0.24 Miles & 10" Gravity Main - 150 Ft
Full Build Out (2015 Annexation Boundary)
Wastewater Main Type
Force Main
Gravity
Existing Wastewater System
Wastewater Main
Recommended CIP Improvements
WW-LS-09 - Stillwater Road Improvements
Growth & Development Wastewater System
Wastewater Main