Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
I01. Reso 5786 - Adopting Water & Wastewater Plan Update
City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, MT 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758 To: Doug Russell, City Manager From: Susie Turner, Public Works Director �— Re: Resolution No. 5786 - Adoption of the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Meeting Date: November 7, 2016 The city has developed a comprehensive Water and Wastewater Facility Plan - South Kalispell Development for a designated area within a southern region of Kalispell's annexation boundary. The South Kalispell facility plan update is a supplement to the adopted 2008 Water and Wastewater Facility Plan, and provides additional planning details on the necessary water and wastewater system requirements to service existing and new development within the city's annexation boundary. This supplemental facility plan aids new development and the city in planning for utility extensions in the south corridors of Kalispell. As part of the consideration for adoption of the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan - South Kalispell Development, public advertisement has been performed and a public hearing was held on October 17, 2016. Comments from the public have been considered and minor clarifying edits to the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan - South Kalispell Development have been made to the final document. All public comments received and corresponding responses are enclosed for Council to review. Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 5786, a resolution to adopt the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development. Alternatives: As suggested by Council. Attachments: November 2016, Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Staff Responses RESOLUTION NO.5786 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN — SOUTH KALISPELL DEVELOPMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CITY OF KALISPELL WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY PLAN PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO KALISPELL CITY RESOLUTION 5342. WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 5342, approving and adopting an updated City of Kalispell Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage Facility Plan based upon engineering studies and projections of the future demands for these facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has generated a further update to the facility plan and capital improvement plans for water and sewer facilities specifically to respond to expected future demands for these facilities in Kalispell south of Lower Valley and Cemetery Roads; and WHEREAS, this further update, referred to as the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan — South Kalispell Development aids new development and the city in planning for utility extensions in the south corridors of Kalispell; and WHEREAS, the above described facility plan has been published and distributed to the engineering community and to the general public for comments and a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on October 17, 2016 resulting in some clarifying edits to the original document; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council hereby finds that the amendment to the Kalispell Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Facility Plan, referred hereto as the Water and Wastewater Facility Plan — South Kalispell Development is in the best interests of the City of Kalispell, its citizens and all users of these facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The Water and Wastewater Facility Plan — South Kalispell Development of record in the office of the City Clerk, attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be and is hereby approved and adopted and shall be implemented by the City of Kalispell until hereafter amended or replaced. SECTION II. The Water and Wastewater Facility Plan — South Kalispell Development shall be made available to the public through the Department of Public Works which is authorized to charge the public the costs of producing such copies. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. ATTEST: Judi A Funk Deputy City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor Water &t Wastewater Facility Plan Update South Kalispell Development Supplement to: Water Facility Plan Update, Wastewater Facility Plan Update, 2008 November, 2016 Chapter 1 - Basis of Planning........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................ 1.2 Study Area............................................................................... .. ...................... 1 1.3 Population.................................................................... .................................. . 3 1.3.1 Future Population Projections........................................................................... 3 1.4 Projected Water System Demand........................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Introduction........................................................................... 1.4.2 Future Demand Forecast..................................................................................4 1.5 Projected Sewer System Flow................................................................................ 5 1.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 5 1.5.2 Future Flow Forecast...................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2 - Water Distribution...................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Future Water Distribution Analysis..........................................................................6 2.2.1 Distribution System Modeling Assumptions............................................................ 6 2.2.2 Modeling Software......................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Modeling Results............................................................................................7 2.2.4 Water Main Extension Evaluation........................................................................ 7 2.2.4.1 Scenario 1............................................................................................. 7 2.2.4.2 Scenario 2............................................................................................. 9 2.2.4.3 Alternative Sizing Considerations............................................................... 10 2.2.5 Conclusions................................................................................................ 13 2.2.5.1 Future Recommendation.......................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 - Wastewater Collection................................................................................15 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Sewer Collection System Summary ........................................................................ 15 3.3 Future Sewer Flow Analysis................................................................................. 19 3.3.1 Collection System Evaluation Criteria................................................................ 19 3.3.2 Sewer Main Extension Evaluation...................................................................... 19 3.3.2.1 West Sewer Service Area......................................................................... 19 3.3.2.2 East Sewer Service Area.......................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Conclusions................................................................................................ 24 3.3.3.1 Future Recommendations........................................................................ 24 City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 i Figures Figure1.2-1: Study Area................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2.2-1: Water Modeling Main Sizing ........................................ ........... 8 ......................... Figure 2.2-2: Proposed Water Mains................................................................................ 12 Figure 3.2-1: Proposed West Sewer Service Areas................................................................ 17 Figure 3.2-2: Proposed East Sewer Service Areas................................................................. 18 Figure 3.3-1: West Service Area Sewer Main Locations.......................................................... 21 Figure 3.3-2: East Service Area Sewer Main Locations........................................................... 23 Tables Table 1.3-1: South Kalispell Residential Population Projection ................................................. 3 Table 1.3-2: South Kalispell Existing Business Water Useage Sample ........................................... 3 Table 1.3-3: South Kalispell Business Population Projection..................................................... 4 Table 1.3-4: Projected South Kalispell Populations................................................................ 4 Table 1.5-1: Summary of Sanitary Sewer Flow...................................................................... 5 Table 2.2-1: Scenario 1 Modeling Results............................................................................ 9 Table 2.2-2: Scenario 2 Modeling Results.......................................................................... 10 Table 2.2-3: Scenario 2 12-Inch Main Sizing Recommendation................................................. 13 Table 3.1-1: Summary of Sanitary Sewer Flow.................................................................... 15 Table 3.2-1: Summary of Service Area Population............................................................... 16 Table 3.3-1: West Service Area Hydraulic Summary ............................................................. 19 Table 3.3-2: Summary of West Sewer Main Sizing................................................................ 20 Table 3.3-3: East Service Area Hydraulic Summary .............................................................. 22 Table 3.3-4: Summary of East Sewer Main Sizing................................................................. 22 Appendices Appendix A: Existing Water Usage Data Appendix B: Kalispell Fire Chief Correspondence City of Kalispell Water & Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 Chapter 1 - BASIS OF PLANNING 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to serve as a supplement to the 2008 City of Kalispell Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update documents prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. It is not intended to be an all-inclusive document for the entire City but will focus on South Kalispell. The planning area developed in the 2008 documents has been re-evaluated to incorporate the 2011 Growth Policy Update. As such, this document will analyze potential growth, estimate water and sewer demands, and develop anticipated water production and distribution systems and sanitary conveyance systems for the South Kalispell planning area. The analysis will include placement and sizing recommendations for future infrastructure in the currently adopted growth annexation policy using engineering methods that follow local and state standards. This analysis does not include an investigation of the Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.2 Study Area In 2008, the study area developed in the Facility Plan Update (Figure 1-6 Study Area) extended south along US Highway 93 (US-93) to US Highway 82 (US-82). This area was modified to coincide with the council's direction on growth. The much smaller area analyzed in this report is bound by Cemetery Road and Lower Valley Road to the north, Rocky Cliff Drive to the south, Flathead River to the east and Ashley Creek to the west. Much of the area between US-93 and the Flathead River is located within a defined floodplain, further narrowing the practical study area to Lower Valley Road to the east. Although the Growth Policy Planning Area extends west to Airport Road, the City of Kalispell Planning Department thought it unlikely that areas west of Ashley Creek would be annexed into the City. Parcels located within the 100-year floodplain will be considered undevelopable for purposes of this report. Figure 1.2-1 depicts the study area which is hereafter referred to as South Kalispell. The total planning area encompasses 1,800 acres, of which approximately 500 acres are located within the 100-year floodplain and 40 acres owned by the City is utilized for biosolids disposal and is not developable. City of Kalispell Water & Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 - WO YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY ANNEXATION POLICY BOUNDARY scuE FEET ORAFTEG Ev F STUDY AREA KL� FROJE 0 AGE //� PFOJECT NO 15d15G65 CITY OF KALISPELL WATER &SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE /`(` ISS-TE Oa- .11, IOC a 7 AW 1t }d16-316pn-PILYTESKny WNausIaM115115665 Ka1scell0evelope�&IensionT«M1nical5emcesl0t_PreaespnN5 ExM1IdIs1FlG 1 31 SIuTy Area Ny lFlgure 131) 1.3 Population In order to quantify the demands on the water system and loads on the sanitary sewer system, the future South Kalispell population to be served by development was estimated. The City of Kalispell Planning Department was consulted to help define population densities, anticipated growth rates and provide expertise regarding potential future development. Population projections were determined by land use density corresponding to the proposed 2030 Growth Policy and not by growth percentages. As a result, the projections yield a total population for developed South Kalispell. 1.3.1 Future Population Projections There are six land use designations in the planning area consisting of commercial, urban mixed use, city facility, urban residential, suburban residential and industrial. The total population will be driven largely by residential development as the commercial, mixed use and industrial areas will likely be low -volume users. The City of Kalispell anticipates urban residential and suburban residential areas will have population densities of approximately 10 units/acre and 4 units/acre, respectively. Table 1.3-1 summarizes the total number of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) anticipated for these land use areas based on the total acreage within the planning area. Table 1.3-1: South Kalispell Residential Population Projection Population Area In South Land Use Density' Kalispe(IZ (ERU/Acre) (Acres) Urban Residential 10 _ 160 Suburban Residential 4 583 Total 1 5.3 _ _ 743 1) One ERU is defined as 2.5 people. 2) Calculations exclude those areas located within the 100-year floodplain. Anticipated ERU Population (People) 1,6 00 4,000 2,332 ^ - 5,830 _,- 3,932 9,830 The urban mixed use, commercial and industrial areas are anticipated to be developed similarly to existing land uses, which include large-scale dealerships/businesses with spread out infrastructure and Low usage densities. Existing businesses were analyzed to determine an approximate population density for the type of land use. These estimates were determined based on past water usage, land acreage and Montana Department of Environmental Quality typical flows. Table 1.3-2 provides a summary of the density determination for these three land uses. The raw data used to determine these values is provided in Appendix A and represents a one year period in 2014-2015. Table 1.3-2: South Kalispell Existing Business Water Useage Sample Land Use Water Usage Area Usage Density (gpd).---_ (acre) (gp_d/acre_) Small Commercial 1 1826 --- - - --.._ 1.27 1438 Large Commercial 1642 8.79 187 Small Mixed Use 1749 2.59 675 Large Mixed Use 250 7.94 31 Large Industrial 353 10.60 33 Small Industrial - 63 _ 1.61 - — 39 Total 5883 32.8 179 According to the analysis completed by HDR in the 2008 Water Facility Plan Update, the City of Kalispell uses approximately 184 gallons of water per capita per day (Section 1 .6.2.4, p.1-20). Based on the above analysis, the combined population density for these three zoning categories is 0.39 ERU per acre assuming 460 gpd/ERU (2.5 people per ERU @ 184 gpd per person). Commercial developments may see a higher population given these businesses are more likely to be service oriented companies (gas stations, hotels, City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 etc.). However, the large-scale, extended dealerships drastically decrease the population density. Table 1.3-3 provides a summary of the business land -use areas and the expected service population. Table 1.3-3: South Kalispell Business Population Projection Land Use Population Area In South Anticipated (# of Parcels) Density' Kalispell' ERU Population (ERU/Acre) (Acres) (People) Commercial ( 99) 1 0.39 46 18 45 Mixed Use(27) 0.39 281 110 275 Industrial (51) 0.39 211 82 205 Total (97) 0.39 538 210 525 1) One ERU is defined as 2.5 people. 2) Calculations exclude those areas located within the 100-year floodplain. Table 1.3-4 provides a summary of the population projection for South Kalispell. Table 1.3-4: Projected South Kalispell Populations Population Area In South Anticipated Land Use Density' Kalispell' ERU Population (ERU/Acre) (Acres) (People) _ Urban Residential 10 _ 160 _ 1,600 4,000 Suburban Residential 4 583 2,332 5,830 Commercial 0.39 46 18 45 Mixed Use 0.39 281 110 275 Industrial 0_.39 211 82 Taal ___ 0.39 - --1,281-- 4,142 -- _205 -- 10,355 1) One ERU is defined as 2.5 people. 2) Calculations exclude those areas located within the 100-year floodplain. 1.4 Projected Water System Demand 1.4.1 Introduction This section will use the population projections developed in the previous section to estimate the future water demand for the planning area. Although a significant portion of the South Kalispell area has already been developed, very few properties are served by the City's water system. 1.4.2 Future Demand Forecast The future demand within the study area is dependent on the population growth and the types of establishments that develop in the commercial, industrial and mixed -use areas. The future demand forecast will be used to develop the design criteria for new infrastructure to serve South Kalispell. Based on the population projections (10,355 people), the average daily water demand for the South Kalispell area is 1.90 MGD, which includes domestic and irrigated use. Applying a peaking factor of 2.67 established in the 2008 Facility Plan Update, the peak hourly demand is anticipated to be 3,540 gpm. This represents the demand once the area is fully developed; variations will occur as residential areas are populated, business are constructed and the current population connects to the system. Fire flow requirements for development in Kalispell are determined in accordance with the International Fire Code, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and the Kalispell Fire Department. A development's fire flow requirement is determined on factors relative to each individual development such as, building type, building size, residential/commercial/industrial use, etc. For the purpose of this facility planning document fire flow scenarios are analyzed for residential areas at 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) and increased to 4,000 gpm for the commercial, industrial, and mixed -use areas. According to the Fire Chief, there are no existing areas within Kalispell that require fire flows in excess of 4,000 gpm. Therefore, since there are no atypical developments currently planned for South Kalispell, the ceiling limit estimates are assumed to be sufficient. City of Katispelt Water & Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 4 1.5 Projected Sewer System Flow 1.5.1 Introduction Similar to the previous projected water system demand, this section will use the population projections, by land -use densities corresponding to the 2030 Growth Policy, to estimate the sewer flow for South Kalispell. There is an existing sewer main extending from the Four Corners Lift Station south to the US- 93/Rocky Cliff Drive Intersection parallel to US-93 on the east side. 1.5.2 Future Flow Forecast Unlike the water demand, the future sewer flow forecast excludes any flow generated via irrigation or fire flow. The average daily flow per equivalent residential unit (ERU) for Kalispell is 265 gallons per day per the March 2008 Wastewater Facility Plan with a peak hour flow of 3.05 gallons per ERU. Having converted the commercial, industrial and mixed use population converted into residential populations (see Table 1.3-3), the anticipated number of ERUs to be sewered in the South Kalispell study area is 4,142 (see Table 1.3-4). Therefore, the average daily flow is 1.1 MGD. Applying the 3.05 peaking factor per ERU to the average daily flow, the peak hourly flow is estimated to be approximately 3.4 MGD, or 2,330 gpm. Table 1.5-1: Summary of Sanitary Sewer Flow STUDY AREA STUDY AREA ERU AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PEAK HOURLY FLOW POPULATION __ _ (MGD) _ (GPM) _ 10,355 _ �, 4,142 3.4 2,330 City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 Chapter 2 - WATER DISTRIBUTION 2.1 Introduction This Chapter utilizes the information presented in Chapter 1 to analyze the future water demand and appropriately size distribution mains to serve the domestic and fire flow needs of the South Kalispell area. The purpose of the water modeling efforts was to determine the water main sizes that should be installed in the South Kalispell Study Area. The modeling was restricted to the existing distribution system, plus the proposed mains identified in Figure 2.2-1. The proposed additions would provide additional looping south of Cemetery Road, which would facilitate future growth in the area and provide for increased fire flow volumes. 2.2 Future Water Distribution Analysis 2.2.1 Distribution System Modeling Assumptions The computer modeling of the South Kalispell distribution system used or incorporated the following assumptions: ■ The configuration of the existing distribution system, current modeling demands, and several other operational parameters associated with the existing system function as depicted in the existing water system model provided by the City. • The configuration of the proposed water mains are as depicted in Figure 2.2-1. All elevations associated with the new mains were determined from the existing 2006 City of Kalispell Montana State Plane LiDAR survey data. • Fire flow goals were 4,000 gpm for commercial, industrial and mixed use areas and 1,500 gpm for residential areas. • The analysis focused on the sizing of the proposed water mains only. No detailed consideration was given to additional booster pumps, pressure zones, storage tanks, main replacements, or other facilities added to facilitate fire flows within the evaluation area. ■ The initial water level within the storage reservoirs was 1-foot above the minimum operating elevation (the bottom of the tank) on Scenario 1. This means the system wells will be "on." ■ For Scenario 2, the operating elevation was 0.50-foot above the set point where the pumps cycle on, which means the system wells will be "off." • The maximum diameter mains considered to accommodate the desired fire -flows were 24-inch diameter. Additional facilities will need to be considered if the desired flows cannot be achieved with smaller sized mains. ■ There were no new/additional demands (e.g. domestic usage) added within the evaluation area, aside from the fire -flow analysis. ■ The minimum allowable pressure during the fire flow analysis was 20-psi. ■ A Hazen -Williams roughness coefficient of 150 was used for all new PVC. 2.2.2 Modeling Software All modeling was completed using the existing water system model developed for the March 2008 Facility Plan Update and the 2012 model update. This model was provided by the City of Kalispell. The modeling software package utilized was the WaterCAD V& software package distributed by Bentley. Modeling was completed in the Steady State mode with a fire flow simulation in the area of the proposed water mains. City of Kalispell Water it Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 2.2.3 Modeling Results The modeling was completed utilizing the following process: 1. Complete a fire -flow analysis with variable main sizes and material to confirm the desired fire flows can be achieved. 2. Increase main sizes incrementally and re -run the fire -flow analysis until the desired fire flows are achieved, up to 24-inch mains. The following scenarios were considered for the modeling: ■ Scenario 1 - Tanks near empty (3058') with the source water pumps turned on to fill the reservoirs. Scenario 2 - Tanks near full (3074') with the source water pumps turned off. 2.2.4 Water Main Extension Evaluation The initial fire flow analysis included a combination of new 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, and 16-inch PVC mains in the evaluation area. This sizing is based on the anticipated development in the area and engineering judgement. The corresponding sizes and desired fire flow rates are as presented in Figure 2.2-1. Main extensions were sited in strategic locations within the service area to meet City standards, minimize dead -ends and facilitate looping while serving existing subdivisions and future development areas. As development occurs, water mains should be extended and looped as necessary from those mains depicted in this report to meet the demands of the new developments. The 2008 Water Facility Plan Update included provisions for the addition of a 1.5 MG storage tank located on Rocky Cliff Drive to serve the South Kalispell area. Modeling took into account only present day conditions and therefore, did not account for this tank being incorporated into the water system. 2.2.4.1 Scenario 1 Based on the results of the initial analysis and corresponding main sizing, at least 1,500-gpm fire flows can be achieved for those areas with a 1,500-gpm goat; however, a fire -flow of 4,000-gpm cannot be achieved for those areas with a 4,000-gpm goal. Therefore, the main sizes were incrementally increased to determine if the 4,000 gpm goal could be achieved. As shown in Table 2.2-1, the 4,000-gpm fire flow goal cannot be achieved through increasing the size of the proposed mains alone. Modeling shows a minimal increase in available fire flows when comparing the initial sizing to the "all 24-inch mains" results. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 12e PVC (1500 GPM FIRE MIXED USE (MU) CITY PROPERTY EXISTING WATERMAIN SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) — FUTURE WATERMAIN COMMERCIAL (C) — WATER MODEL NODE INDUSTRIAL (1) PROPOSED WATERMAIN oa FTEoe° PNa WATER MODELING MAIN SIZING aE�EwEo er Ao P-EC NO 1541- CITY OF KALISPELL WATER & SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE 'ss" ,° °°ao, FIGURE 2.2-1 Apr2121" <g JUNCTION ID Table 2.2-1: Scenario 1 Modeling Results AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW WANITIAL SIZING W/ALL 24-INCH MAINS (GPM) (GPM) FIRE FLOW GOAL (GPM) J-378 >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-379 >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-380 i >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-3 81 3,284 3,301 4,000 J-3 82 3,248 3,299 4,000 J-383 3,156 3,293 4,000 J-3 84 3,276 3,301 4,000 J-385 2,881 >3,000 1,500 J-386 >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-387 >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-388 3,297 3,302 4,000 J-389 2,528 >3,000 1,500 J-390 3,007 3,126 4,000 J-3 91 3,285 3,301 4,000 J-392 2,388 >3,000 1,500 J-393 2,975 >3,000 1,500 J-394 >3,000 >3,000 1,500 J-39 5 3,240 3,302 4,000 2.2.4.2 Scenario 2 Similar to Scenario 1, the fire -flow can be achieved based on the initial sizing for all areas with a 1,500- gpm goal. However, the desired fire -flow cannot be achieved for those areas with a 4,000-gpm goal. Therefore, the main sizes were incrementally increased to determine if the 4,000 gpm goal could be achieved. Table 2.2-2 summarizes the Scenario 2 modeling results. City of Kalispell Water it Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 Table 2.2-2: Scenario 2 Modeling Results AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW FIRE FLOW GOAL JUNCTION ID (GPM) W/ INITIAL (GPM) W/ALL 24-INCH (GPM) SIZING MAINS J-378 I 1,838 1,853 1,500 J-379 1,837 1,853 1,500 J-380 ' 1,837 1,853 1,500 J-381 1,836 1,853 4,000 J-382 1,829 1,852 4,000 J-383 1,804 1,851 4,000 J-384 1,835 1,853 4,000 J-385 1,718 1,848 1,500 J-386 1,848 1,853 1,500 J-387 1,847 1,853 1,500 J-388 1,847 1,853 4,000 J-389 1,829 1,853 1,500 J-390 1,842 1,853 4,000 J-391 1,839 1,853 4,000 J-392 ] 1,787 1,853 1,500 J-393 1,843 1,853 1,500 J-394 1,846 1,853 1,500 J-395 1,846 1,853 4,000 Based on the modeling results, the desired fire flows cannot be achieved without consideration to other facility improvements. The most likely options to facilitate higher available flow rates at the south end of the pressure zone are as follows: 1 . New/Larger Mains - Available fire flows could be increased through upsizing of existing mains or installation of parallel mains from the existing storage tanks to the area of interest. This solution would require a significant amount of new transmission main to extend from the storage reservoirs to the area of interest and is fiscally impractical. 2. New Pump Station - A new pump station could be constructed to serve the south end of the pressure zone. The pump station would require the installation of check valves (or other flow direction controls) upstream and would likely only be utilized during emergency conditions. If additional looping is possible from the area of interest back towards Highway 2 along the US-93 Bypass, additional flow direction controls may be necessary for proper function of an emergency pump station. There is also a possibility of creating a new pressure zone altogether. This option would require significant analysis to determine its feasibility. Such analysis is outside the scope of this report. 3. New Storage Tank - The construction of a new storage tank at the south end of the pressure zone, which is in support of the 2008 Facility Plan Update, is expected to increase the available fire flow and provide more redundancy within the distribution system. Land availability, long-term growth plans, additional modeling, and capital costs should be considered before moving forward with any solutions to achieve the desired fire flows within the area of interest. It is likely several long-term concerns could be addressed through some front-end planning and analysis. 2.2.4.3 Alternative Sizins7 Considerations Because the area of interest is relatively close to the source water wells, but relatively far from the storage tanks, Scenario 2 is the "worst -case" scenario and will govern this evaluation. While the fire flow goal of 4,000 gpm is not attainable with the current system, there may be a tank or other City of Kalispell Water Ft Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 10 - - improvement to the system to allow for the 4,000 gpm fire flow in the future. The mains should be sized to allow for this fire flow. A maximum velocity of no greater than 10-fps under fire -flow conditions is recommended in cases of proposed mains.' For a 4,000-gpm fire -flow (without a significant domestic demand), a velocity of approximately 5.7-fps is achieved when flowing through a 12-inch looped main assuming exactly half of the flow comes from each branch of the loop. Fire flows rarely split exactly in half, so one branch typically sees increased velocity. Using 12-inch mains helps ensure velocities do not exceed 10-fps in the branch carrying the higher flow. As a result, a 12-inch main is the minimum diameter recommended for any areas with a desired fire -flow of 4,000-gpm. The cost -difference for the installation of a 12-inch main is relatively minor to that of a 10-inch or 8-inch main. Mains smaller than 8-inches are not recommended for new developments with minimum 1,500- gpm fire -flows. Additionally, if the proposed mains have the potential to be used as the "skeleton" or "core" of a future development area, a minimum main sizing of 12-inch is recommended. However, the development at the eastern extents of the model (south of Lower Valley Road between J-378 and J-394) can be served by 8-inch mains as long as the fire flow goal remains 1,500 gpm and the mains are not anticipated to be serving future developments with large demands/fire-flows. Because of the above considerations, each of the proposed mains identified in Figure 2.2-2 should be at least 12-inches in diameter, except where 8-inch is noted to be acceptable. The model was run with 8- inch and 12-inch mains as depicted in the figure. The available fire flow resulting from the proposed mains are as provided in the table below. Comprehensive Water Distribution Systems Analysis Handbook, Second Edition, Boulos/Lansey/Karney, page 7-34 City of Katispett Water Et Sewer Facility Ptan Update PN#15415005 11 EXISTING WATERMAIN MIXED USE (MU) CITY PROPERTY — — FUTURE WATERMAIN SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) FIRE FLOWS - AT NODE • 0 - 1,499 COMMERCIAL (C) WATER MODEL NODE • 1,500 - 3,000 3,001 -4,000 INDUSTRIAL (1) PROPOSED WATERMAIN • 4,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 O TED81 PIP PROPOSED WATER MAINS 7 Pa do i�Esos SOUTH KALISPELL WATER & SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE `g -TE a<ao,s Fir_i iRF 9-9 Table 2.2-3: Scenario 2 12-Inch Main Sizing Recommendation JUNCTION ID AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW W 12- NCHPAIN FIRE FLOW GOAL (GPM) INCREASE IN FIRE PERCENT INCREASE LOW (PM) IN FIRE FOW W/24-I CHGMAINS W/24-INCHLAINS J-378 1,846 1,500 7 0.38% J-3 79 1,845 1,500 8 0.43% J-380 1,845 1,500 8 0.43% J-381 1,845 4,000 8 0.43% J-382 1,833 4,000 19 1.04% J-383 1,783 4,000 68 3.81% J-384 1,845 4,000 8 0.43% J-385 1,700 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-386 1,845 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-387 1,851 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-388 1,851 4,000 2 0.11% J-389 1,828 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-390 1,848 4,000 5 0.27% J-391 1,846 4,000 7 0.38% J-392 ! 1,788 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goat Achieved J-393 1,848 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-394 1,850 1,500 N/A, Fire Flow Goal Achieved J-395 1,850 4,000 3 0.16% In order to determine whether or not larger mains would yield increased fire flow, the size of the proposed mains was increased to 24-inch in the model. The increase in fire flow was determined to be negligible. The largest increase was at junction J-383 and was less than 4%. The remainder of the system saw an increase of 1% or less. Increasing the size of the mains beyond 12-inch would not result in an adequate return on investment. Therefore, 8-inch and 12-inch mains are appropriate for all of the proposed mains. 2.2.5 Conclusions The analysis indicates the planning area can expect minimum available fire flows between 1,700-gpm and 1,900-gpm regardless of the sizing combinations that were modeled. The residential land -use segments requiring 1,500-gpm can be serviced with the proposed mains. However, areas analyzed for 4,000-gpm fire flows will require an alternative solution to meet the demands of the development if fire flows greater than 1,900 gpm are required. The fire flow values provided in this facility plan update should be considered for planning only and individual developments shall be analyzed independently in accordance with the International Fire Code. Based on the additional analysis completed, there is a negligible difference in available flows between 12-inch and 24-inch mains. Due to the additional costs and minimal benefit associated with 24-inch diameter mains, 8-inch and 12-inch PVC mains are recommended for this area. However, based on typical velocity limitations, the 12-inch mains are expected to accommodate future expansion while keeping fiscal responsibility at the forefront. For a commercial, industrial, and mixed -use development requiring fire flows greater than what the model estimated, additional fire suppression management interior to the development may be utilized. Layout of the main extensions shown in Figure 2.2-2 was developed to loop existing and proposed mains to provide more reliable flows and pressures. This effectively minimized the number of dead-end mains in keeping with the City's standards. Dead-end mains depicted should be looped as development occurs. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 13 2.2.5.1 Future Recommendation Based on modeling results, if there is a desire for the City to provide fire flows greater than 1,900 gpm for the entire South Kalispell Study Area, systemic changes will be needed such as upsizing existing mains, adding parallel mains, adding a new booster station, or adding a new storage tank. Such large changes to this pressure zone must be analyzed in further detail before they could be implemented. A Kalispell South Water System Master Plan would be necessary to evaluate which if any of these options is viable and to determine which is in the best interests of the City. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 14 Chapter 3 - WASTEWATER COLLECTION 3.1 Introduction This Chapter will identify strategic locations for constructing the main components of a new sanitary collection system. The proposed sewer system flow established in Chapter 1 will serve as the basis for sizing the proposed sewer mains. Table 3.1-1: Summary of Sanitary Sewer Flow STUDY AREA STUDY AREA ERU AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PEAK HOURLY FLOW POPULATION (MGD) (GPM) 10,355 4,142 3.4 2,330 3.2 Sewer Collection System Summary The topography of South Kalispell is the key factor in locating proposed collection system infrastructure. The area was studied to identify and maximize the locations that could be served via gravity sewer and those that would require a lift station. Highway US-93 splits the project area into east and west regions and each region was delineated into smaller sewer service areas. These areas are depicted in Figure 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-2 and include the contributing land use, area and the general gradient. Utilizing the delineations of the sewer service areas, locations of main sewer collectors were identified. Each service area will connect to the appropriate gravity collectors via gravity sewer or local lift station and force main. For example, the topography of S-W-10 generally drains south and west toward Ashley Creek and the US-93 Bypass. It is anticipated that this area can be served by gravity mains ultimately being collected in a main adjacent to the US-93 Bypass. Service area S-W-5 also flows south and west toward Ashley Creek. However, this area will require a local lift station to convey wastewater to a northerly gravity main ultimately discharging into the existing City lift station at Ashley Creek and US- 93. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the population to be served by each service area. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 15 NN Table 3.2-1: Summary of Service Area Population SERVICE SR UR C I MU CPZ POPULATION' ERU4 AREA (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) S-W-1 57.0 570 228 S-W-2 39.8 39 16 S-W-3 19.7 19 8 S-W-4 1 61.3 0.6 628 251 S-W-5 76.0 18.7 1228 491 S-W-6 16.1 16 6 S-W-7 14.8 55.6 424 170 S-W-8 37.6 940 376 S-W-9 12.7 6.1 61.0 2.2 383 153 S-W-10 56.7 7.2 1418 567 S-W-11 j 18.8 31.1 470 188 S-W-12 16.1 8.3 24 10 S-E-1 19.0 52.7 242 97 S-E-2 52.0 98.8 617 246 S-E-3 2.3 107.9 108 43 S-E-4 17.3 17 7 S-E-5 60.4 3.8 32.1 639 256 S-E-6 72.2 722 289 S-E-7 7.8 78 31 S-E-8 116.6 1166 466 S-E-9 60.7 607 243 Total 583.0 _ _ 159.9 __0._ 45.6 211.0 281.0 45- 10,355 4142 1. Population = [4SR+10UR+0.39C+0.391+0.39MU] x 2.5 2. City Property is considered undevetopable and therefore, does not contribute to any future population/flows. 3. SR = Suburban Residential, UR = Urban Residential, C = Commercial, I = Industrial, MU = Mixed Use, CP = City Property 4. One ERU is defined as 2.5 people. City of Katispe[L Water & Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 16 i$ S-W-12 16.1 AC C S-W-11 8.3 AC MU 18.8 AC UR * 31.1 AC CP S-W-10 3td 14C f l 56.7ACUR /� a 7.2 AC CP ' ` I S-W-9 G9 ti "� ♦ ''l 61.0 AC MU ::�,; I 12.7ACUR �Av 6.1ACC r' 1 2.2 AC CP ^v w I l } C / S-W-7 S_WAC_6UR 14.8 AC UR �. // 37.6 55.6 AC MU ` � 7 � � ♦ e :rail C7 I I', L„�TiA1'�m9 ! ASHLEY CREEK - S-W-6 I, p �n, 16.1 AC MU S_W-5 F ^� �t 76.0 AC SR . 18.7 AC UR \ r a S-W 4 �` i 61.3 AC SR �" a ;� r't 19.7 AC 1 y�o y�dI SW2� F t 39.8 AC I ,� •` I'+ I ROCKY CLIFF DRIVE Iiy + �► - .,h �. .. , 57.0 AC SR . a� Nm MIXED USE (MU) CITY PROPERTY (CP) -N- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) COMMERCIAL (C) FLOW GRADIENT ® INDUSTRIAL (1) u,E PROPOSED WEST SEWER SERVICE AREAS CITY OF KALISPELL WATER & SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE 11 KL °AiE FIGURE 3.2-1 Am�+ao,s 3nw�-cxinescnv m�as�rein,sa,soos �iHreiioe.�mw�..�n�k.is.N,inn,_arev.:,me.mo-i:�s,Ean��lE�e�,.as.n ©mod n,s m: 3 7ii 1 I S E3„ 107.9 AC MU 2.3 AC C SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) } COMMERCIAL (C) ,Nl INDUSTRIAL (1) s ZE FEE. PROPOSED EAST SEWER SERVICE AREAS veaecF a. a i- CITY OF KALISPELL WATER & SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE "vL FIGURE 3.2-2 -111 —s1vow-11-1e s-1 .1 .16 3.3 Future Sewer Flow Analysis 3.3.1 Collection System Evaluation Criteria In order to size the proposed mains and verify that the existing main running along the east side of US- 93 can accept additional sewer flows, the anticipated population for each service area is converted to ERUs in accordance with the 2008 Wastewater Facility Plan. The peak hourly flow for each service area was determined using a 3.05 peaking factor. All sewer mains were sized with a 1.2 factor of safety and assumed that minimum slope values would be used during design, therefore, serving as a conservative estimate of flow capacity. 3.3.2 Sewer Main Extension Evaluation 3.3.2.1 West Sewer Service Area Generally, the west service area drains north to south and is split into three smaller regions by the US- 93 Bypass and Ashley Creek. Figure 3.3-1 identifies the ERUs and peak flow anticipated from each service area and depicts the proposed sewer main locations and sizing that will serve each area. Several of the service areas can be served by a local lift station, which could pump up to one of the proposed gravity mains. Proposed locations of gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations are utilized as a basis for planning established on the best available data at the time, engineering design practices, and existing development conditions. Exact locations of the utilities will be determined at the time of development and the City will ensure sound engineering practices are applied which meet City and State Standards, Regulations, and Policies. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the service areas' ERUs, peak flows and sewer main(s) collecting flow from the area. SERVICE AREA S-W-1 S-W-2 S-W-3 S-W-4 S-W-5 S-W-6 S-W-7 S-W-8 S-W-9 S-W-10 S-W-11 Table 3.3-1: West Service Area Hydraulic Summary RECEIVING MAINS SM-1 -- -- SM-1 SM-1 SM-213 to SM-2A SM-2C to SM-213 to SM-2A SM-213 to SM-2A SM-2D to SM-213 to SM-2A SM-2C to SM-2B to SM-2A SM-3C to SM-3A to SM-2A SM-313 to SM-3A to SM-2A SM-3C to SM-3A to SM-2A S-W-12 10 5 SM-4 1. Peak Flow = ERU x 265 gpd x 3.05 - 24 hours/day - 60 minutes/hour 2• LS-AC = Existing Ashley Creek Lift Station PEAK ERUs FLOW' (GPM) 228 128 16 9 8 4 251 141 491 276 6 4 170 95 376 211 153 86 567 318 188 106 RECEIVING LIFT STATION LS-AC2 _ LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-SW4 to LS-AC2 LS-SW5 to LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-AC2 LS-SW11 to LS-AC2 Ex. Four Corners LS Two US-93 crossings at Ashley Creek and Rocky Cliff Drive would be necessary to avoid the construction of a new regional lift station. These crossings could connect to the existing 12" and 15" gravity mains on the east side of US-93, which have sufficient capacity to accept additional flows. Table 3.3-2 provides a summary of the proposed sewer main sizes and anticipated gravity flow. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 19 Table 3.3-2: Summary of West Sewer Main Sizing PROPOSED CONTRIBUTING CONTRIBUTING PEAK SEWER DISCHARGE SEWER MAIN ERUs SERVICE AREA FLOW MAIN SIZE LOCATION (GPM) (INCHES) SM-1 ( 12' Ex. 15" Main C Rocky 252 1,2,3 141 Cliff Drive SM-2A 2202 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 1237 18 Ex. Ashley Creek LS SM-213 1294 4,5,6,7,8 727 15 SM-2A SM-2C 867 5,8 487 12 SM-213 SM-21) 170 7 95 8 SM-26 SM-3A 908 9,10,11 510 12 SM-2A SM-36 567 10 318 8 SM-3A SM-3C 341 9,11 192 8 SM-3A SM-4 10 12 5 8 Ex. Four Corners LS 1. Main has been upsized from 8" to 12" as there is potential to receive additional flows from areas west of Ashley Creek. City of Katispel[ Water £t Sewer Facitity Plan Update PN#15415005 20 EX. FOUR CORNERS LIFT STATION CEMETERY ROAD SM-4 S-W-12 8" MAIN 10 ERU 5GPM EX. 15"MAIN 10 ERU 1787 ERU 1 - - �• 5GPM ,,.i a S-W-11 Y 188 ERU ' 106 GPM I LS - S-W 11 S-W-10 567 ERU - SM-3C 31$GPM ` e' 8"MAIN 341 �192 GPM e Q� �EX. 12" MAIN 1 3 ERU 750 GPM 86 GPM - CAPACITY s _ g 8" MAIN 318 GPM 12" MAIN I510 GPM VT S-W-8 1 SM-2D 1. 376 ERU V 8" 211 GPM 170 ERU < I f 95 GPM SW 7 I% 170 ERU w 1n L• IN 95 GPM I v EX. 6"FORCEMA f SM-2C �, V 2" MAIN W' 867 ERU i 487 GPM 1 _ EX. 12" MAIN 1r�L I 3182 GPM .� { CAPACITY ASHLEY CREEKI 6 ERU '- S-W 6 — R'`, 4GPM 491 ERU �•_ t v 276 GPM - 1 S-W-4 EX. ASHLEY CREEK 251 ER UFTSTATION 141 GPM A SM2B 15"MAIN SM-2A 1294 ERU 18" MAIN 727 GPM 2202 ERU 1237 GPM S-W-3 8 ERU 16 ERU CLIFF DRIVE 1123 GPM CAPACITY SM-1 +- _ 12" MAIN i1 - ��. 252 ERU r22i. W-1 �?141PM ERU8 GPM 1 r > I edR fi fin. -.. • d+�I s�ALE FEET MIXED USE (MU) SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) a PROPOSED FORCEMAIN COMMERCIAL (C) " PROPOSED 8" GRAVITY SEWER nn EXISTING 6" FORCEMAIN -- --- PROPOSED 12" GRAVITY SEWER — — — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES INDUSTRIAL (1) PROPOSED 15" GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED JUNCTION CITY PROPERLY PROPOSED 18" GRAVITY SEWER LS REGIONAL LIFT STATION (UNDEVELOPED) EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LOCAL LIFT STATION oaAFrEo er P WEST SERVICE AREA SEWER MAIN LOCATIONS I o,e TN.' -E CITY OF KALISPELL WATER & SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE l`v� 1ssuE wTE FIGURE 3.3-1 Ap212016 32tpn Ptq TiESCny of Ka speg116C150p6 Kahspe lOe zlape:Ezfens:onTecnmeai9ervxxtot_Pre-0esignNS EzEidlst5enxr Laynuf.nN Pipnp My (Figura33-tf ©Y11 3p16 3.3.2.2 East Sewer Service Area The east region is also divided into three smaller service areas with two situated adjacent to US-93, split by Ashley Creek. The third area is located east of a southeasterly running drainage located approximately 1,000 feet east of US-93 and south of Lower Valley Road. Figure 3.3-2 identifies the ERUs and peak flow anticipated from each service area and depicts the proposed sewer main locations and sizing to serve each area. Proposed locations of gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations are utilized as a basis for planning established on the best available data at the time, engineering design practices, and existing development conditions. Exact locations of the utilities will be determined at the time of development and the City will ensure sound engineering practices are applied which meet City and State Standards, Regulations, and Policies. Table 3.3-3 summarizes the service areas' ERUs, peak flows and sewer main(s) collecting flow from the area. Table 3.3-3: East Service Area Hydraulic Summary SERVICE AREA ERUs PE GP LOW' RECEIVING MAINS RECEIVING LIFT STATION S-E-1 97 54 SM-5 to Ex. 15" Main (South) S-E-2 246 138 Ex. 15" Main (South) S-E-3 43 24 Ex. 12" Main S-E-4 7 4 Ex. 15" Main (North) S-E-5 256 143 SM-6 S-E-6 289 162 SM-6A S-E-7 31 18 SM-7 S-E-8 466 262 SM-7 S-E-9 243 136 SM-613 1. Peak Flow = ERU x 265 gpd x 3.05 _ 24 hours/day _ 60 minutes/hour 2. LS-AC = Existing Ashley Creek Lift Station Ex. LS-AC` Ex. LS-AC' Ex. LS-ACI Ex. Four Corners LS New Demersville LS New Demersville LS LS-SE7 to Demersville LS LS-SE8 to Demersville LS LS-SE9 to Demersville LS The existing Ashely Creek regional lift station located at US-93 and Ashley Creek serves the areas adjacent to US-93 by receiving wastewater flows from an existing 12" main from the north and an existing 15" main from the south. Two 6-inch force mains convey wastewater from the lift station to an existing 15" main which discharges to the existing Four Corners Lift Station. A new regional lift station sited at the south boundary of Service Area S-E-6 at Demersville Road could serve the residential area south and west of Lower Valley Road. The Demersville Lift Station would need to be located on the east side of the road to be located out of the 100-year floodplain. As all of these service areas require a local lift station, the site of the proposed Demersville Lift Station is centrally located to serve all of the contributing areas, minimizing the length of small diameter force mains. Table 3.3-4 provides a summary of the proposed sewer main sizes and anticipated gravity flow. Table 3.3-4: Summary of East Sewer Main Sizing CONTRIBUTING CONTRIBUTING PEAK SEWER SEWER MAIN FLOW MAIN SIZE DISCHARGE LOCATION ERUs SERVICE AREA (GPM) (INCHES) _ SM-5 97 _ 1 _ 54 _ _ 12' — - Ex.5" (_ 1South_) -- EX. 15" (S)z 1,2 192 15 Ex. LS-AC EX. 12" 43 3 24 12 Ex. LS-AC EX. 15" (N)3 1 7 4 4 15 Ex. Four Corners LS SM-6A 545 5,6 305 121 New Demersville LS SM-613 243 9 136 8 New Demersville LS SM-74 186 7,8 105 8 LS-SE8 to Demersville LS 1. Main has been upsized from 8" to 12" as there is potential to receive additional flows from areas south of Auction Road. 2. Ex. 15" (S) extends north from Old School Station to the Ex. Ashely Creek Lift Station. 3. Ex. 15" (N) extends north from approximately 1500' south of Lower Valley Road to the Ex. Four Corners Lift Station. 4. It is estimated that a third of the contributing S-E-8 ERUs will discharge directly to SM-7. The remaining two-thirds will collect at S-E-8 via other local mains. 5. Main has been upsized from 10" to 12" as there is potential to receive additional flows from north of Lower Valley Road. City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update 22 PN#15415005 E I EX. 12" MAIN— 3182 GPM CAPACITY \ MIXED USE (MU) 0 PROPOSED JUNCTION PROPOSED 15" GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED 18" GRAVITY SEWER LS REGIONAL LIFT STATION SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR) » EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER COMMERCIAL (C)❑s LOCAL LIFT STATION SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES PROPOSED 8" GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED FORCEMAIN INDUSTRIAL (1) Em EXISTING 6" FORCEMAIN — — - PROPOSED 12" GRAVITY SEWER D TEDsv E EAST SERVICE AREA SEWER MAIN LOCATIONS RE�,I.T OH BY ADE R ec , ,� 5 CITY OF KALISPELL WATER &SEWER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE //L (`(� FIGURE 3.3-2 ` n 2+ peal'm There appears to be sufficient capacity in the existing 12" main to receive additional flows from the west region north of the US-93 Bypass, which would account for 510 gpm (SM-3A). A more conservative approach was taken to site the crossing south at Ashley Creek and thus serve businesses that front US-93 and discharge into a portion of the main with significantly more capacity. It may be more cost effective to construct an additional crossing at the US-93/US-93 Bypass intersection versus installing an additional 3,000 lineal feet of 12" sewer main. 3.3.3 Conclusions The focus of this facility plan update with regard to the collection was on the system's ability to serve the anticipated growth of the South Kalispell planning area. Based on the projected development and flows, the existing infrastructure previously constructed along US-93 to serve the area has sufficient capacity to sustain additional growth. The planning area has decreased to encompass a smaller but still significant area. Most regions can be served with gravity sewers. However, topographic constraints still warrant the installation of six local lift stations and one larger regional lift station. More extensive analysis may indicate that future lift stations may not be necessary, and the City should work with developers to exclude lift stations whenever feasible. 3.3.3.1 Future Recommendations Construction of new infrastructure is only necessary to the extent that new development moves into the area. It is anticipated that most new growth will occur along the US-93 corridor and expand outward. The core system infrastructure is already in -place on the east side of US-93. Therefore, the City's focus on serving future development should be directed at the west side of US-93. As previously indicated, it may be possible to collect wastewater from the area north of the US-93 Bypass and convey it directly across US-93 at the Bypass intersection. As proposed development through the region occurs, it is recommended that an evaluation of this crossing location and a cost estimate associated with constructing the new gravity main be developed. If growth continues to materialize in this area, the City could work with development, through the extension of services policy, to connect existing facilities. City of Kalispell Water & Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 24 Appendix A: Existing Water Usage Data City ofKahspeUWater Et Sewer Facihty Ptan Update Appendix B: Kalispell Fire Chief Correspondence City of Kalispell Water Et Sewer Facility Plan Update PN#15415005 Andy Evensen From: Dave Dedman <ddedman@kalispell.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:53 AM To: Andy Evensen Subject: RE: Kalispell Fire Demand Not to my knowledge. From: Andy Evensen [mailto:andy.evensen@kljeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:52 AM To: Dave Dedman <ddedman@kalispell.com> Subject: RE: Kalispell Fire Demand Thank you for the response, Dave. This is not for a specific development but the South Kalispell area in general. I understand that the fire flows will need to be evaluated on an individual basis once a specific development is planned for the area. We want to provide the City with a water main sizing that can meet the anticipated flows of the area. Granted, since we don't have specifics on building size and type, this is difficult to do. Do you happen to know if there are existing mixed-us/commercial/industrial areas within Kalispell that require fire flows in excess of 4000 gpm? Andy Evensen PE KLJ - Katispelt 406-755-2763 From: Dave Dedman [mailto:ddedman@kalispell.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:36 AM To: Andy Evensen Subject: RE: Kalispell Fire Demand Andy, is this for a development? The 1500 GPM residential and 4000 GPM for commercial is a safe estimate. have seen where 1500 GPM may not meet the need for some residential homes due to the size of the structure. We base our fire flows need using the IFC 2012 appendix B which list the minimum fire flows and durations for type and size of building. If it is a mixed use area then the higher fire flow needs will be required for the areas in question. I would need more information to feel comfortable answering any additional questions. From: Cec Lee Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:43 PM To: Dave Dedman <ddedman@kalispell.com> Subject: FW: Kalispell Fire Demand From: Andy Evensen[mailto:andy.evensen(alkliena.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Kalispell Fire Demand Good Afternoon Chief Dedman, am working with the Kalispell Public Works Department to plan for and size water and sewer infrastructure in the South Kalispell area. Can you provide any guidance for what fire flows should be provided in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed -use areas in Kalispell? I'm assuming 1500 gpm for residential and 4000 gpm for the other areas but wanted to make sure these are consistent with the Fire Department's requirements. Thanks, Andy Evensen PE <<KLI 406-755-2763 Direct 406-897-4137 Cetl 1830 3rd Avenue East Suite 202 Kalispell, MT 59901-5578 kijeng.com Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Response Comment By: Mr. Todd Gardner Date: 10/ 17/2016 The City's response was provided to Mr. Todd Gardner on Monday, October 24, 2016. City Staff reviewed his comments and subsequent response changes to the document. He provided no additional comments back to Public Works Staff. Public Comment -Black City Response -Blue Mr. Gardner was concerned with the report stating there is a goal of 4,000 gpm fire flow for areas designated for residential/commercial/industrial use, etc. He did not want the adoption of the report to dictate that a 4,000 gpm fire flow would be required for development to occur on his property. The intent of the report is to provide analysis and recommendation of the utility system to serve development based on the Kalispell Growth policy, in the South Kalispell Study Area. The 4,000 gpm fire flow was set as the ceiling level goal for the model scenarios to determine main sizes and fire flow limits of the recommended water system. The plan does not dictate a 4,000 gpm fire flow would be required for his property. In order to provide clarity for the fire flows, the following sections have been rewritten and will be included in the final report. 1.4.2. Future Demand Forecast (second paragraph) Fire flow requirements for development in Kalispell are determined in accordance with the International Fire Code, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and the Kalispell Fire Department. A development's fire flow requirement is determined on factors relative to each individual development such as, building type, building size, residential/commercial/industrial use, etc. For the purpose of this facility planning document fire flow scenarios are analyzed for residential areas at 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) and increased to 4,000 gpm for the commercial, industrial, and mixed -use areas. According to the Fire Chief, there are no existing areas within Kalispell that require fire flows in excess of 4,000 gpm. Therefore, since there are no atypical developments currently planned for South Kalispell, the ceiling limit estimates are assumed to be sufficient. 2.2.5. Conclusions The analysis indicates the planning area can expect minimum available fire flows between 1,700-gpm and 1,900-gpm regardless of the sizing combinations that were modeled. The residential land -use segments requiring 1,500-gpm can be serviced with the proposed mains. However, areas analyzed for 4,000-gpm fire flows will require an alternative solution to meet the demands of the development if fire flows greater than 1,900 gpm are required. The fire flow values provided in this facility plan update should be considered for planning only and individual developments shall be analyzed independently in accordance with the International Fire Code. Based on the additional analysis completed, there is a negligible difference in available flows between 12-inch and 24-inch trains. Due to the additional costs and minimal benefit associated with 24-inch diameter mains. 8-inch and 12-inch PVC mains are recommended for this area. However, based on typical velocity limitations, the 12-inch mains are expected to accommodate future expansion while keeping fiscal responsibility at the forefront. For a commercial, industrial, and mixed -use development requiring fire flows greater than what the model estimated, additional fire suppression management interior to the development may be utilized. 11Page Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Response Layout of the main extensions shown in Figure 2.2-2 was developed to loop existing and proposed mains to provide more reliable flows and pressures. This effectively minimized the number of dead-end mains in keeping with the City's standards. Dead-end mains depicted should be looped as development occurs. 2.2.5.1 Future Recommendations Based on modeling results, if there is a desire for the City to provide fire flows greater than 1,900 gprn for the entire South Kalispell Study Area, systemic changes will be needed such as upsizina, existing mains, adding parallel mains, adding a new booster station, or adding a new storage tank. Such large changes to this pressure zone must be analyzed in further detail before they could be implemented. A Kalispell South Water System Master Plan would be necessary to evaluate which if any of these options is viable and to determine which is in the best interests of the City. 2. Mr. Gardner was concerned with the lift station and force main locations. He stated he did not want a force main to sweep through his property and as far as he knows the location shown in the report does not meet city design and construction standards. The locations of the gravity mains. force mains, and lift stations are shown schematically and will be utilized as a basis for planning. The locations are based on the best available data at the time, engineering design practices, and existing development conditions. Exact locations of the utilities will be determined at the time of development and the City will ensure .sound engineering practices are applied which meet City and State Standards, Regulation, and Policies, In order to provide clarity, an explanation for the locations has been included in the following sections and will be included in the final report. 3.3.2.1 West Sewer Service Area Generally, the west service area drains north to south and is split into three smaller regions by the US- 93 Bypass and Ashley Creek. Figure 3.3-1 identifies the ERLJs and peak flow anticipated from each service area and depicts the proposed sewer main locations and sizing that will serve each area. Several of the service areas can be served by a local lift station, which could pump up to one of the proposed. gravity mains. Proposed locations of gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations are utilized as a basis for planning established on the best available data at the time, engineering design practices, and existing development conditions. Exact locations of the utilities will be determined at the time of development and the City will ensure sound engineering practices are applied which meet City and State Standards, Regulations, and Policies. 3.3.2.2 East Sewer Service Area The east region is also divided into three smaller service areas with two situated adjacent to US-93, split by Ashley Creek. The third area is located east of a southeasterly running drainage located approximately 1,000 feet east of US-93 and south of Lower Valley Road. Figure 3.3-2 identifies the ERUs and peak flow anticipated from each service area and depicts the proposed sewer main locations arid sizing to serve each area. Proposed locations of gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations are utilized as a basis for planning established on the best available data at the time, engineering design practices, and existing development conditions. Exact locations of the utilities will be determined at the time of development and the City will ensure sound engineering practices are applied which meet City and State Standards, Regulations, and Policies. 2 1 P Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Response Firm Comment By: APEC Engineering Inc. Engineer: Justin D. Ahmann, PE, PEng, CFM® Date: 7/6/2016 Public Comment -Black City Response -Blue 1. Did the study go through the RFP process? fhe professional service performed by the consultant ,X a,, rsrrdcir -'2/0 �)00 i"nd dick ,;€: i procured through direct negotiations as allowed by the Montana Code Annotated. 2. How does the 2006 Morrison and Maierle Plans and design study play into this plan? Is that study/plan abandoned? If so, why? The report you a,re likely referring to is the 2006 Basis of Lkswn Rk:port foi, tke U.S. ili hway 93 South Utility Extension. This 2006 report provides engineering calculations and design slnecificatioras for t.hc utility extensions ronstt-acted in 2007 from Cemetery Road to Old School Station Subdivision. The constructed utilities were designed to provide service for Old School Station Subdivision and surrounding properties which may develop in the future. Criteria used for the sizing of the main was obtained from the; 2002 City of Kalispell Water. Sewer and Storm Drainage Facility Plan. Since 2002. the Kalispell Utility Facility Plans have been updated in 2000, 2008, and now with the proposed draft of the 2016 South Kalispell eater and Sewer Facility Plan (SKFPU). The objective of a Facility plan is to identify and plan for water and sewer systern needs to service existing and new development within the City,, planning boundaries. This update will aid the development community and the City in planning for utility extensions in the south corridors of Kalispell using smart growth principles. The purpose of the SKFPU is to serve as a supplement to the 21008 City of Kalispell Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update documents prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. (which is an update of the 2002 and 2006 Utility Facility flans). It is not intended to be an all-inclusive, document for the entire City. kilt is only focused on South Kalispell. The planning ,area developed in the 2008 C10CUrnentS has been re-evaluated to incorporate the 2011 Growth Policy Update. As such, the SKFPU analyzed potential growth, estimated water and sewer demands. developed water distribution. sanitary conveyance, and facility systems using current design information, and provides utility planning in greater detail than the 2008 plan for the South Kalispell area.. It is mixed use between industrial/commercial, if so why is there so much? Many of the existing operations pertain to commercial. Is this the most appropriate use along Hwy 93? Why is the commercial area only near four corners? I"he City refKalispell Pkinniiag Department \�as consulted rand provided land use data per the adopted Kalispell Growth Policy. Please refer to the City Growth Policy for land use designations. 4. Why was a watermain flow goal of 4,000 gpm brought up? I think it is an understatement to say this is unlikely goal is set up for failure. Wells, tanks, and existing watermains struggle with 1,500 gpm in part of the community. I think even 3,000 gpm is a stretch. Why would the whole community be required to provide fire flow for a very large controlling building size? The Kalispell Fire Department provided input regarding fire demand flows and tl e;j recommendation for fire protection for residential areas was between 1.000 gpm to 1,500 gallons 3 1 P i g e Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Response peer minute:, (,(,pill) and increased up to 4,000 -pill in the conlnaercial, industrial and mixed -use areas. The fire flow model analysis .simply set 4,000 gpnt as tyre ceiling criteria. Liltimately as reviewed in the SKFPU, the analysis indicates the planning area can expect the available fire flows to be between 1,700-gprn and 1,900-gpm, with water main recommended sizes of 8 and 12-inch maims in the locations shown oil the figures. Consequently. land use areas requiring 1,900 to 4.000-gprn fire flows will require an alternative solution to meet the dernands. Those alternative solutions include installation of fire suppression systems, larger transmission mains fr€gym the north, new wells, and at new tank. It's important to state the projected fire flows from the report are an accurate evaluation for planning only and individual developments will be required to be analyzed independently in accordance with the International Fire Code. 5. Why are we planning on serving county subdivisions with existing water/sewer? Facility plans look at the potential to service the entire development area within the defined boundary. There are, only a few areas with County developed residential subdivisions. Those areas are adjacent to the proposed extension as the mains are extended to other areas that are not developed. It would be imprudent planning to not consider the potential for connection in the future from all de.velopnaent in the area. 6. What controlled the water on only one side of Hwy 93? When water is on both sides of Hwy 93 north of four corners. You're rcferriin h) two .separate water projects, one paid for by the City through rates and impact tee funds and the other paid for by a developer with reimbursement potential through latecomer fees. I Speculate ("with no sound proof") that funding had a lot to do with the installation of one waterline verses two. Water main proposed extensions in the SKFPU were located in local street routes, applicable areas for ease of access for maintenance, and in locations with potential direct connection to existing water mains. Additionally. the locations were analyzed to loop existing and proposed nn.ains to provide more reliable fire flow. domestic flows, and pressures. 7. Does the Rocky Cliff water tank have its own well or dedicated supply line? Specific well I;,�artiz�>ra� lead wupply writer lines are outside of the professional scope of service for this report. Analysis of new wells and new tanks will be reviewed and addressed in future planning documents ..is demand and growth dictate's. Were current developers (individuals who are known to be in the development process) notified of this before the study was issued? If they were not notified, is this forum the only opportunity they get? There will be another Opportunity to corrurrent on the report during the public hearing process which is offered prior to bringing the report to Council for .adoption consideration. The advertisement requesting public comment on this draft report was emailed to 94 stakeholder recipients including engineers. developers. banks. homebuilders. and contractors: faxed for - advertisement to seven news/radio outlets, and seven newspaper/TV Stations; and distributed through the City's Social Media and Notify Me subscribers. 9. How much is this plan set in stone? Are these land owners going to be told, "This is the plan and this is how it's going to be". Some developers have already heard this. "I'he SKFPU provides both the City and the development community an engineering ba,i,. for Iodation and size of utility 41Pat,e Water and Wastewater Facility Plan Update -South Kalispell Development Public Comment and Response networks and facilities that will adequately service the demands of population growth in the area.. The City will use the SKFPL.1 as an adopted policy for location and size of utility networks and facilities in the South Kalispell area. The.. City understands that even the best laid plans may not meet the engineering requirement of every scenario. In those situations, the engineering staff will reference. City/State Standards and the extension of services plan for utility design. Ultimately, City Staff will ensure sound engineering practices are: applied to the development which meet City Standards. Regulations and Policies. 10. I strongly recommend a phasing plan to be a part of this study. Section 3.3.3.1 attempts to describe this. Lift stations especially need land owner coordination. I think this needs to be taken a little more seriously. The city of Kalispell has a repetitive and damaging history of installing assets that have 20 plus year break even points. Said history is riding on the hope the development market continues in Kalispell and not the county or adjacent community. Ultirmttely the plan is phased -ill its &VOlOPMC-Alt crCcur�. Coordimaion het"A-�2en property owners is prudent and sometimes initiated and coordinated with the City s assistance. The SKF'PU is a valuable tool that provides the engineering basis for the facility planning coordination between developers and property owners. S1P'ige