The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-3266 - Ordinance - 08/12/2010 VAW No ORDINANCE NO. 2010-3266 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ORDINANCE 3186 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2010-3226, 2010-3247 AND 2010-3255) BY ADOPTING THE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, FOR THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, AS SET OUT BELOW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Parts 1 and 2 of Ordinance 3186 adopted on May 28, 2009 as amended by Ordinance 2010-3226 adopted on January 28, 2010, Ordinance 2010-3247 adopted on June 10, 2010 and Ordinance 2010-3255 adopted on July 8, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect. PART 2: That Parts 1-3 of Ordinance 2010-3226 adopted on January 28, 2010 as amended by Ordinance 2010-3247 adopted June 10, 2010 and Ordinance 2010-3255 adopted on July 8, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect. PART 3: That Parts 2-5 of Ordinance 2010-3247 adopted on June 10, 2010 as amended by Ordinance 2010-3255 adopted July 8, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect. PART 4: That Part I of Ordinance 2010-3255 adopted on July 8, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect. PART 5: The Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes all plans, studies and amendments as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes PART 6: That the "Water System Master Plan" as set out in Exhibits "B" and "C" and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, is hereby adopted and approved. PART 7: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. PART 8: That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its date of passage by the City Council, as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of College Station. VW I%W ORDINANCE NO. 2010-3266 Page 2 PART 9: That said amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan shall be required to be amended prior to, or concurrent with, permitting development which would conflict with such plan. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 12th day of August , 2010. ATTEST: APPROVED: 14 C ecreta. MAYOR APPROVED: City Attorney VAW V0 ORDINANCE NO. 2010-3266 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" The City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan consists of the "Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan" as set out in Parts 1-5, and the following documents that have been approved in Part 6 and previously approved and are adopted by this ordinance: • The Northgate Redevelopment Plan dated November 1996 • The Revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan dated 1998 • Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan dated July 2003 • East College Station Transportation Study dated May 2005 • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan dated May 2005 • Park Land Dedication Neighborhood Park Zones Map dated January 2009 • Park Land Dedication Community Park Zones Map dated April 2009 • Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan dated January 2010 • Central College Station Neighborhood Plan dated June 2010 • Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 301 Southwest Parkway dated July 2010 All other documents previously adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan are repealed and superseded by the adoption of this ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide for growth and development for the entire City and its extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The Comprehensive Plan depicts generalized locations of proposed future land-uses, thoroughfares, bikeways, pedestrian ways, parks, greenways, and waterlines that are subject to modification by the City to fit local conditions and budget constraints. The Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Future Land Use Plan map, and any adopted amendments thereto, shall not be nor considered a zoning map, shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning boundaries and shall not be site or parcel specific but shall be used to illustrate generalized locations. The Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, "Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan", Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, Water System Master Plan and any adopted amendments thereto, shall depict generalized locations of future thoroughfares, bikeways, greenways, pedestrian ways, and waterlines are subject to modifications by the City to fit local conditions, budget constraints, cost participation, and right-of-way availability that warrant further refinement as development occurs. Bikeways, greenways, thoroughfares, pedestrian ways and waterlines may be relocated by the City 1,000 feet from the locations set in the plan or map without requiring a plan amendment. Any subsequent plans or studies amending the Comprehensive Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall become part of the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan. wr+ VW 2010 Water Master Plan - Executive Summary This Water Master Plan was formulated to support the long term needs and goals of the City as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. This section summarizes the conclusions of the Plan to ensure that the potable water needs of the community are met as the City grows and changes over the next decade, as well as the required actions by City Council and how the Plan will be monitored over time and kept relevant. Timeframe of Master Plan Implementation of the Water Master Plan is anticipated to take ten or more years. City Council will take the lead in the following areas: • Adopt and amend the Water Master Plan by ordinance after receiving recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Commission; • Support and champion the Plan; • Adopt new or amended ordinances and regulations to implement the Plan; • Approve inter-local agreements that implement the Plan; • Consider and approve the funding commitments that will be required to implement the Plan; • Provide final approval of projects and activities with associated costs during the budget process; • Adopt and amend policies that support and help implement the Plan • Conduct an annual public hearing regarding the implementation of this Plan; and • Provide policy direction to the Planning & Zoning Commission, other appointed City boards and commissions, and City staff Technical Conclusions: • Water Supply is most likely adequate to Build-Out of the CCN: o Planning targets are 34 million gallons/day and 19,000 acre-feet/year o Future capacity will be 36 million gallons/day and 22,500 acre-feet/year o Must track density of development and actual usage patterns • Alternative water sources are being pursued • We are in compliance with TCEQ Regulations o Will need additional high service pump capacity in 2 years • Capital Plan has been developed o Map of future water line locations will be used for development and rehabilitation projects (see next page) o List of required capital projects is complete (see highlights on next page) vow COLLEGE STATION WATER MASTER PLAN DETAIL 1, DETAIL 2 w rr ' • r' / rr \ A . I ~ \ ♦ w A- s \ ( / v \ ♦ I \ I I/ 1 % `tY✓ \ % % % t \ % h \ r DETAIL 3 ; DETAIL 4 Utility line sizes are calculated based an existing land uses and proposed land uses per the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP). Any amendment to the CLUP shall consider the impact the amendment has on the Master Plan and make adjustments to the map(s) accordingly. Capital Improvement Plan Highlights PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST PLANNED YEAR Reclaimed Water Phase 1 $3,606,730 FY-10 The Glade/South Knoll WL Rehabilitation $2,246,738 FY-10 Southwood 5-7 WL Rehabilitation $2,197,663 FY-10 Tauber/Stasney WL Rehabilitation $415,000 FY-10 Eastgate Phase IV WL Rehabilitation $2,275,000 FY-12 High Service Pump Station #2 $3,500,000 FY-12 College Heights WL Rehabilitation $2,323,988 FY-14 Fitch Parkway Water Main $3,000,000 FY-14 WELL 9 Ami $5,000,000 FY-15 WELL 9 Collection Line $4,000,000 FY-15 Reclaimed Water Phase II $1,475,000 FY-16 WELL 10 $5,000,000 FY-17 WELL 10 Collection Line $4,000,000 FY-17 Elevated Storage Tank #3 $5,500,000 FY-17 %WI V40f Five-Year Update: An evaluation and appraisal report should be prepared every five years by the City with input from various department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, stakeholders, and any other appropriate boards and commissions. This report should include detailed information on the following: • Major actions and interim plan amendments undertaken over the preceding five years; • Major water-related trends in the community and how these have changed over time; • Changes in the assumptions and base study data, and • Ability of the Plan to continue to support progress toward achieving the community's goals CONCLUSION The implementation of this Water Master Plan relies primarily on two factors: • The pace and character of development within the City's water service area, and • The willingness of City Council to generate the revenue to fund the infrastructure requirements generated by that development, while properly maintaining the existing system The infrastructure needs are clearly defined by TCEQ Regulation, based on population and water demands. This plan anticipates those needs, and defines the infrastructure requirements that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As always, the City's goal is to provide outstanding utility services to our customers, and this plan will help us achieve that goal. 2010 Water Master Plan - Implementation & Administration This Water Master Plan is being formulated to support the long term needs and goals of the City as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. This section summarizes the methodology to turn recommendations into reality to ensure that the potable water needs of the community are met as the City grows and changes over the next decade. This section outlines the timeframe envisioned by this plan, the roles of the various parties involved in its implementation, provides an overview of the costs associated with the plan and begins the discussion of how these costs will be funded, details how the plan will be implemented, and finally explains how the plan will be monitored over time and kept relevant. Timeframe of Master Plan Implementation of the Water Master Plan is anticipated to take ten or more years and is expected to lay the foundation for the next several decades of the city's on-going efforts at delivering the citizen's a safe and reliable potable water supply. Many outside influences directly impact the City's ability to obtain adequate water supply, such as: Permit requirements from the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District; The potential System Operations Permit for the Brazos River Authority; State legislation on groundwater systems; Pumping by other water providers in the Simsboro aquifer; Establishment of a Desired Future Condition for the Simsboro aquifer by Groundwater Management Area #12 Board; Provisions of the Region G and State Water Plan adopted by the Texas Water Development Board; and regulation promulgated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. These factors will be monitored closely over the next decade and beyond, and this plan will be updated as any legislative or regulatory initiatives dictate. Implementation and Coordination Roles A variety of parties will need to be involved in the implementation of this plan to realize its successful completion. This includes various government departments as well as development interests and residents and business owners. Outlined in the following are several of the key parties and the types of actions in which they should participate. City Council will take the lead in the following areas: • Adopt and amend the Water Master Plan by ordinance after receiving recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Commission; • Support and champion the Plan; • Adopt new or amended ordinances and regulations to implement the Plan; • Approve inter-local agreements that implement the Plan; • Consider and approve the funding commitments that will be required to implement the Plan; • Provide final approval of projects and activities with associated costs during the budget process; • Adopt and amend policies that support and help implement the Plan • Conduct an annual public hearing regarding the implementation of this Plan; and 1%W 141W • Provide policy direction to the Planning & Zoning Commission, other appointed City boards and commissions, and City staff Planning & Zoning Commission will take the lead in the following areas: • Recommend changes in codes and standards to the City Council that reflect the goals and action items; • Make recommendations regarding the Plan for subsequent approval and adoption by the City Council; • Review Capital Improvement Plans and make recommendations to the City Council; • Conduct an annual public hearing regarding the implementation of this Plan; • Function as the City's Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) to make recommendations regarding possible Impact Fees, and • Review development applications for consistency with this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. City Staff will take the lead in the following areas: • Manage day-to-day implementation of the Plan; • Support and carry out capital improvement plan efforts and programming; • Manage the drafting of new or amended regulations and ordinances that further the goals of the Plan; • Conduct necessary studies and develop additional plans where appropriate; • Review development applications for consistency with this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; • Negotiate the details of any necessary inter-local agreements; • Administer collaborative programs and ensure open channels of communication with various private, public, and non-profit implementation partners; and • Maintain an inventory of potential plan amendments as suggested by City staff and others for consideration during annual and periodic plan review and updates to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. City Residents, Development Interests, Business Owners, and others will take the lead in the following areas: • Support and implement the plan; • Develop and carry-out development projects consistent with this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; • Assist in the monitoring of the Plan and participate in the annual review process of the Plan, and • Assist staff in developing new programs and project opportunities to aid in implementation of the Plan. 1%W 'No Costs and Fundinp, Understanding and accurately projecting the costs of implementing this Plan are critical to its success. Failure to adequately project costs and secure funding to implement this Plan could both impact the dependability of the City's potable water supply and could constrain future development opportunities. Costs were projected for design, construction and maintenance of the facilities contained within this Plan. Please note that the new facilities listed below are dictated by TCEQ Regulation for public water supply systems, based on certain demand parameters, and will be mandatory as the City's water demand increases. The Rehabilitation projects are necessary to keep customer service at a high standard, which includes water service dependability and water quality (such as taste, color, etc). These projections should only be used as a preliminary guide with further study needed to arrive at more accurate cost projections. Figure 1 provides cost projections for facilities providing additional system capacity and for rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. Costs associated with each facility are provided based on 2010 dollars. As noted, additional detailed analysis will be needed to ensure all factors and issues are considered before actually developing a project budget and allocating funds. Figure 1- CIP SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST PLANNED YEAR Reclaimed Water Phase 1 $3,606,730 FY-10 The Glade/South Knoll WL Rehabilitation $2,246,738 FY-10 Southwood 5-7 WL Rehabilitation $2,197,663 FY-10 Tauber/Stasney WL Rehabilitation $415,000 FY-10 Eastgate Phase IV WL Rehabilitation $2,275,000 FY-12 High Service Pump Station Improvements $3,500,000 FY-12 College Heights WL Rehabilitation $2,323,988 FY-14 Fitch Parkway Water Main $3,000,000 FY-14 WELL 9 - $5,000,000 FY-15 WELL 9 Collection Line $4,000,000 FY-15 Reclaimed Water Phase II $1,475,000 FY-16 WELL 10 $5,000,000 FY-17 WELL 10 Collection Line $4,000,000 FY-17 Elevated Storage Tank #3 $5,500,000 FY-17 The availability of funding to implement the Plan will play an integral role in its success. Historically, the development of the City's potable water supply and distribution system has been accomplished by developers installing water system components within a new development, and the City funding the major system components like water wells and collection/transmission lines. Under this system, expansions of the capacity of the water supply system have relied solely on the rate payers. Due to budget constraints, concerns with rates, etc. it is increasingly becoming expected that capacity related expansions (production, treatment, and distribution) will rely upon development activities for funding and implementation. %W law The exclusive source of funding for implementation of this Plan is the Water Fund, which is an Enterprise Fund within the City. The Water Fund obtains revenue from the following sources: • Revenue collected by rates assessed to the system users • Various Fees charged to individuals, primarily developers, including Impact Fees • Utility Revenue Bonds - Issued as needed for long-term assets • Certificates of Obligation - Issued as needed to long-term assets • Other sources that may be used by Council action, such as: o Public Improvement Districts - These districts use property assessments to finance public improvement projects within a specified area, or district. Properties within the designated area are generally assessed proportional to the assessed value of their property. The additional funds would be used to fund a specific public improvement project. o Tax Increment Financing Districts - These districts use taxes generated from redevelopment through private investment to finance public improvement projects within the specified district. o State and Federal Governments/Grants - Funding opportunities from the state and federal government are also available. Implementation Methods The recommendations described in this Plan will require several methods to progress from a concept into constructed facilities and programs. This section provides a description of each of these methods: Policy, Regulations, and Standards For the City's water system to meet future demands and keep pace with the City's growth and development, adopting clear policies, regulations, and standards that support the goals and actions of this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan are vital, particularly in light of existing budgetary challenges and the limited supply of water. As development occurs, land use, development, and utility policies, regulations, and standards can have a positive and long-lasting impact. Adopting and amending existing policies, regulations, and standards will be necessary to successfully implement this Plan. One recent example of such an action was the City's decision to adopt a conservation rate approach to pricing the demand on the potable water supply. Future examples will include consideration of a city-wide water utility impact fee and expansion of xeriscape options for development landscaping. Capital Improvements Programming A Capital Improvements Program is a multi-year plan (in College Station typically five years in length) that identifies budgeted capital projects such as water mains and wells and the purchase of major equipment. Identifying and budgeting for major capital improvements is essential to implementing this Plan. Decisions regarding the prioritization of proposed capital improvements should be directly based on the guidance provided in this Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan. N v' Special projects, programs, and initiatives Special projects, programs, and initiatives include initiating or adjusting City programs, interlocal agreements, citizen participation programs, training, and other types of special projects that will further the successful implementation of this plan. Two good examples currently used by the City is the current efforts at water conservation education and the water reclamation project. Plan Administration The development of this Plan involved time and input by various agencies, departments, staff, and stakeholders. These parties must maintain their commitment and be given opportunities to remain involved to successfully implement this Plan. Most importantly, the plan must remain relevant, addressing the needs of today while preparing for those of the future. The City's Comprehensive Plan is built on the assumption that the City's various neighborhood, corridor, district, and master plans expect nothing less. It is critical that the City Council remain active in monitoring and evaluating the Plan and where necessary, making adjustments. Monitoring & Evaluation As part of any planning process, on-going evaluation must be incorporated into the implementation program. Continued evaluation of conditions and opportunities associated with the City's water system allows the plan to adapt and remain relevant over the course of the Plan's life. Successful evaluation incorporates the establishment of descriptive indicators that track the efficacy of the proposed actions, understanding changed conditions, and potential reprioritization of actions and funding based on the findings of the evaluation. Annual Report To ensure the on-going relevance of the Water Master Plan, the Plan should be evaluated annually. This annual evaluation should include at least the following components: • Updated existing conditions; • Progress toward reaching goals, as determined through specific indicators; • Report on any completed actions; • Status updates of all actions underway for the current implementation period; • Outline of remaining actions scheduled for the remainder of the current implementation period; • Potential changes to costs, and • Recommendations for changes in implementation schedule or actions. • Stakeholders, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council should be involved in the annual review of the Plan. Interim Amendments Occasionally, it may be necessary to consider a minor amendment independent of the annual review. In such instances, the amendments should be tested for consistency with the goals stated in this Plan as Vow loop, well as the Comprehensive Plan. Specific care should be used to guard against changes that are site- specific that could negatively impact adjacent areas and uses. Factors worth considering when processing such interim amendments should at a minimum include: • Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; • Further the objectives of the Future Land Use & Character Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, and any adopted neighborhood, corridor, or district plan; • Promote a land use pattern compatible with the surrounding area; • Impact on other infrastructure systems; • Impact on the City's ability to fund and maintain the necessary service; • Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas, and • Contribution to the overall direction and character of the community as captured in the Comprehensive Plan's vision and goals. Five-Year Update An evaluation and appraisal report should be prepared every five years by the City with input from various department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, stakeholders, and any other appropriate boards and commissions. The report should involve evaluation of the existing plan and assessing how successful it has been in achieving the stated goals. The purpose of the report is to identify the successes and shortcomings of the Plan, consider changing conditions, and recommend appropriate modifications; at a detail much more substantial than that associated with the annual review. At a minimum, this report should include detailed information on the following: • Major actions and interim plan amendments undertaken over the preceding five years; • Major water-related trends in the community and how these have changed over time; • Changes in the assumptions and base study data, and • Ability of the Plan to continue to support progress toward achieving the community's goals CONCLUSION The implementation of this Water Master Plan relies primarily on two factors: • The pace of development within the City's water service area, and • The willingness of City Council to generate the revenue to fund the infrastructure requirements generated by that development, while properly maintaining the existing system The infrastructure needs are clearly defined by TCEQ Regulation, based on population and water demands. This plan anticipates those needs, and defines the infrastructure requirements that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As always, the City's goal is to provide outstanding utility services to our customers, and this plan will help us achieve that goal. Q 04 r w W 1 / Jj CD d .114 n ~ Y Y in CU ~ ~t ♦ n 'o I E m W In m CL) ,.`fig;`. Fv > -er co 0 v a .7" n C ' 6 'f ' O L 2 I E z ♦ a E (n CD n`,' cn CL In a) Cf) - V7~ r Y m L) -0 cc J T M L) V r .2 &L v W \ l` \ W low- 000, low ARM -AN gum A set, l ~<v,r /i ; ~'~~"~T~ll~`~`,~ ! / ~L f/i ;Ell M 1, vN Ell ON \✓~~`S Pik l ~'c~1\\~ jj jj / \ i\ I, Q 'vl L 9 ] I4 " 7.w . as, Cf) / i A \ y ~AYE v y~ v Q W U /v t v r~~ Q i C, I W °2 W v / o cl; 7 7 , 1 CV / Z 0 W E \ r \ Q o F \7CvZ / v V\\\,y\/\~\\ 7\\~\ 1; j y t r \ v ✓ fir/ v / ~lxl Xx, A~ ! \ r \ 1, / r rf,_ NI; Al _7 rI 'o Aop y : v f ~ W Q W LLI F- C~ \'d i,. % \ ~,`~C\ \ 111 \ /[,,Y - - Alc\ ♦ y T/~~ p~ Q / I I J tJ I r I 1 ~ 1 1 r 41 kA y~~--- ~ k p 00 i iAJ/~ ~F~ .es~~ x ~ ~•1/ ~ ta.:~ J~ J, I C -j 7 /A i , l- ~h Y Q= i wwllll~ fi/vi \ Z vK-l<*yf`'~,,.^Ey. I1~`` r s Z LZ) AN, ~i r y Y} lamp W m A"d -1 Mt Cl) 1 l W,#,C is 01 F 1 ~ ~ oo c a i. o o I I I I TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED TARGET DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS FUTURE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECTS: FY 09-10 FY 10-11 South Knoll/The Glade Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the area bounded by $2,304,930 $2,052,223 $4,357,153 Rehabilitation Project Haines Street, Southwest Parkway, Glade Street, and Langford Street Southwood 5-7 Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in area bounded by $2,246,738 $2,805,515 $5,052,253 FY 09-SO FY 10-11 Rehabilitation Project Southwest Parkway, Harvey Mitchell Parkway, Welsh Avenue, and Shadowood Drive FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Tauber/Stasney Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Northgate Area, in $415,044 $793,772 $1,208,816 Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Tauber Street and Stasney Street FY 11-12 FY 12-13 Eastgate Ph IV Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Eastgate area, in Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Puryear Drive, Nunn Street, and Lincoln Avenue $2,304,930 $2,468,730 $4,773,659 McCulloch Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Southgate area, in $2,484,697 $2,076,265 $4,560,962 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Project the vicinity of Arizona Street, Phoenix Street, Carolina Street, and Georgia Street Eastgate Ph V Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Eastgate area, in $2,451,535 $1,054,135 $3,505,670 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Puryear Drive, Gilchrist Avenue, Walton Drive, and Foster Street Eastgate Ph VI Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the vicinity of Dominik $3,038,499 $2,494,899 $5,533,398 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Rehabilitation Project Drive, Stallings Drive, Harvey Road, and Marstellar Avenue FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Boyett Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Northgate area, $1,565,457 $1,283,757 $2,849,213 Project east of Wellborn Road and in the vicinity of Boyett Street and Spruce Street FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Northgate Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Northgate Area, in $1,059,144 $960,744 $2,019,888 Project the vicinity of Cross Street and Nagle Street FY 16-17 FY 17-18 The Knoll Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Southside area, in $2,396,387 $2,186,387 $4,582,773 Project the vicinity of Glade Street, Holleman Drive, Orr Street, and Caudill Street FY 13-14 FY 14-15 College Heights Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Cooner Street $2,323,988 $1,288,387 $3,612,375 Rehabilitation Project area, in the vicinity of Eisenhower, University Drive, Jane Street, and Nimitz Street FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Woodson Village Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Southside area, in Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Timber Street, Park Place, and Holleman Drive $2,946,313 $3,815,713 $6,762,026 Ridgefield Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the vicinity Haines FY 19-20 FY 20-21 Street, Southwest Parkway, Medina Drive, Trigger Street, Caudill Street, Boswell Street, and $2,075,226 $1,897,626 $3,972,852 Project Lawyer Street FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Prairie View Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the vicinity Rehabilitation Project Eisenhower Street and Tarrow Street $2,060,728 $2,343,328 $4,404,056 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Oakwood Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the vicinity of Dexter $2,849,381 $2,080,181 $4,929,561 Project Drive and Park Place Plantation Oaks Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the area north of Post $2,052,306 $2,772,306 $4,824,612 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Rehabilitation Project Oak Malll and west of west of State Highway 6 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 Camelot Utility Rehabilitation This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Southside area, in $2,117,775 $3,360,975 $5,478,750 Project the vicinity of Langford Street and Guadalupe Drive TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED TARGET DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS FY 24-25 FY 25-26 Carter's Grove Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Eastgate area, in $2,266,4G4 $1,152,804 $3,419,208 Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Francis Drive and Dominik Drive Culpepper Plaza Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Eastgate area, in FY 25-26 FY 26-27 $1,112,577 $1,737,777 $2,850,354 Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Dominik Drive, Stallings Drive, and George Bush East Bee Creek PH IV & V This project may include the relocation of water and sewer lines along the future channel $329,290 $801,193 $1,130,483 FY 26-27 FY 27 28 Rehabilitation Project improvements to Bee Creek Tributary "A" from Brothers Boulevard to Texas Avenue Dexter Place Utility This project includes the rehabilitation of water and wastewater lines in the Southside area, in FY 27-28 FY 28-29 Rehabilitation Project the vicinity of Welsh Street and Dexter Street $1,837,512 $1,336,512 $3,174,023 ~ r TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED TAFRGET RGETDEARESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTNAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATEDCOST ESTIMATEDCOST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS FUTURE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Water Reclamation/Irrigation This project includes the design and construction of a reclaimed water system to provide FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Phase Project reclaimed water from Carter's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to Veteran's Park for $3,606,730 - $3,606,730 irrigation purposes. FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Wellborn Widening Water Line This project includes the relocation and extension of water lines along Wellborn Road from Relocation Project FM2818 to SHWY40, initiated by the TxDOT widening of Wellborn Road. $4,250,000 $4,250,000 Raymond Stotzer West This project includes the installation of a water and wastewater system lines to areas along FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Project(Water & Sewer Line Raymond Stotzer West. This project is also designated for a future wastewater lift station and $3,440,000 $5,952,000 $9,392,000 Extensions) force main near SHWY47 and Raymond Stotzer West. FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Barron Road Widening Ph II This project may include water and sewer line adjustments caused by the widening of Barron g Road from Victoria Avenue to SHWY40. $150,000 $100,000 $250,000 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Barron Road Water Service This project includes the installation of a water lines along Barron Road, Barron Cut-Off, and Extension PhlV Project Wellborn Road(up to Southern Trace Subdivision). $2,383,253 $2,383,253 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Victoria Avenue Water Line This project includes the extension of a water line along the Victoria Avenue extension, Extension spanning from Barron Road to SHWY40 $228,375 $228,375 Emerald Parkway/Bent Oak This project includes the relocation of an existing wastewater collection line near Emerald FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Sanitary Sewer Line Project PH I Prkwy. This project is development driven and CSU will be working with the land owner to - $284,483 $284,483 design and construct FY 13-14 FY 14-15 SHWY40 Water Line Extension - This project includes the installation of a water line from Graham Road to Victoria Avenue, Graham to Barron along SHWY40 $2,534,949 $2,534,949 Lick Creek Replacement This project may include the replacement of the existing Lick Creek trunkline with a larger line FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Trunkline- Phase I Project size, spanning from the southern boundary of Pebble Creek Subdivision to the Lick Creek - $2,793,469 $2,793,469 Wastewater Treatment Plant FY 13-14 FY 14-15 SHWY40 Water Line Extension - This project includes the installation of a waterline from the Sonoma Subdivision to Victoria Sonoma Subdivision to Victoria Avenue, along SHWY40 $569,987 $569,987 Spring Meadows Subdivision This project includes a water line connection between the existing Woodland Hills PHI FY 11-12 FY 12-13 Water Line Improvement $136,890 - $136,890 subdivision and the Spring Meadows Phll subdivision. Project This project includes the design and construction of a reclaimed water system to provide FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Water Reclamation/Irrigation reclaimed water from Carter's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to a et to be determined - Phase II Project yet $1,475,000 $1,475,000 high irrigation user Large Line Pressure Reducing This project consists of the design and installation of pressure reducing valves onto existing 24' FY 12-13 FY 13-14 $304,200 - $304,200 Valves water lines that serve an area near the southern portion of town. FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Highway 6 At SH WY40 Water This project includes the extension of an existing 18" waterline located on the east side of $776,950 - $776,950 Line Extension Project(PHI) SHWY6, that will connect to the existing water distribution system near Creagor Lane Lick Creek Replacement This project may include the replacement of the existing Lick Creek trunkline with a larger line FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Trunkline- Phase II Project size, spanning from north of W.D. Fitch to the southern boundary of Pebble Creek Subdivision. - $382,659 $382,659 Emerald Parkway/Bent Oak This project includes the replacement of an existing wastewater collection line near Emerald FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Sanitary Sewer Line Project PH Prkwy. This project is development driven and CSU will be working with the land owner to - $175,000 $175,000 II design and construct FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Northeast Sewer Trunkline This project includes the replacement of the existing Northeast sanitary sewer trunkline with a $2,778,212 $2,778,212 Project PHI large line size, spanning along CCWWTP to Harvey Road *4111/ 1111111/ TARGETDESIGN TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATEDCOST ESTIMATEDCOST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS Whistling Straights Water Line This project includes the upsizing of existing waterlines near Whistling Straights(within Pebble FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Improvement Project Creek Subdivision) that should allow better conveyance of water during high demand times $78,894 - $78,894 Highway 6 At Sebesta Water This project includes the extension of an existing 12" waterline located on the east side of FY 14-15 FY 15-16 $853,493 - $853,493 Line Extension Project(PH II) SHWY6, from Woodcreek Drive to Sebesta Road FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Northeast Sewer Trunkline This project includes the replacement of the existing Northeast sanitary sewer trunkline with a - $2,973,555 $2,973,555 Project PHII large line size, spanning along Carter's Creek from Harvey Road to SHWY6 Lick Creek Impact Fee Line This project includes the installation of a wastewater line in the area bounded by Rock Prairie FY 15-16 FY 16-17 - $1,101,430 $1,101,430 Project Road, Greens Prairie Road, and SH 6 Highway 6 At Rock Prairie This project includes the extension of an existing 18" waterline located on the east side of FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Water Line Extension SHWY6, from Old Rock Prairie Road to Rock Prairie Road $320,906 - $320,906 Project(PH lll) This project will take the existing Carter Lake sanitary sewer treatment plant off line and will FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Carter Lake Sanitary Sewer Line include the extension of a gravity line that will connect to the future annex area 5 & 6 lift - $1,850,692 $1,850,692 Extension Project station. Highway 6 At Head Lake Water This project includes the extension of an existing 12" waterline located on the east side of FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Line Extension Project(PH IV) SHWY6, near the intersection Emerald Parkway and SHWY6 $595,392 - $595,392 TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED TARGET DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS FUTURE WATER PRODUCTION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPANSION PROJECTS: FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Carters Creek Electrical Provide funds to replace and upgrade the existing electrical infrastructure, which is nearing the - 1,300,000 1,300,000 Improvements end of its service life. High Service Pump Station FY 09-10 FY 10-11 Upgrade and expand Dowling Road Pump Station to increase firm pumping capacity 2,700,000 2,700,000 Improvements FY 10-11 FY 10-11 SCADA Replacement Provide funds to replace and upgrade the existing control based equipment, which is nearing 259,476 445,340 704,816 the end of its service life. The original security project did not address the security needs of Lick Creek WWTP and FY 09-10 Remote Plant Security remote package type plants. This project will address the physical access and monitoring of - 300,000 300,000 these plants. FY Lick Creek Generator Provide funds to replace and upgrade the existing Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 700,000 700,000 13-14 FY 14-15 Replacement emergency power generator, which is nearing the end of its service life. FY 10-11 FY 10-11 Scada For New Lift Construction of new lift stations requires the implementation of monitoring and alarming via 240,000 240,000 Stations SCADA system. FY 09-10 FY 12-13 Carters Creek Headworks Provide funds to replace and upgrade the existing Carters Creek Headworks bar screens, grit - 2,500,000 2,500,000 Repairs bridges, and shaftless screw conveyor, which is nearing the end of its service life. This project renovates the Utility Service Center. Improvements include additional office FY 12-13 FY 13-14 USC Renovations space, HVAC refurbishments, additional Dispatching facilities made necessary by the 348,000 348,000 696,000 Homelands Security act and E.R.C.07. Carters Creek ATAD Provide funds to replace and upgrade the existing Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant FY 10-11 FY 11-12 - 914,000 914,000 Improvements ATAD reactors, MOVs, and cooling water system, which is nearing the end of its service life. FY 16-17 FY 16-17 Well 1 MCC Replacement Well 1 Motor Control Center was installed with the original construction in the early 1980's an 580,000 - 580,000 has exceeded its service life. FY 16-17 FY 16-17 Well 2 MCC Replacement Well 2 Motor Control Center was installed with the original construction in the early 1980's an 580,000 - 580,000 has exceeded its service life. FY 16-17 FY 16-17 Well 3 MCC Replacement Well 3 Motor Control Center was installed with the original construction in the early 1980's an 580,000 - 580,000 has exceeded its service life. FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Carters Creek Centrifuge Provide funds to upgrade the existing Carters Creek Centrifuge and install second, redundant - 2,178,000 2,178,000 Improvement centrifuge. This project will implement a monitoring system of the distribution system. It will monitor FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Distribution SCADA flows, pressure, and water quality. 900,000 - 900,000 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Carters Creek Fuel Station Replace above ground fuel tanks. - 150,000 150,000 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 College Station Sludge Future sludge handling facilities for Carters Creek and Lick Creek Plants will be relocated to an - 5,500,000 5,500,000 Facility area that is unlikely to have residential development immediately adjacent to it. Water Redundant Project will provide for data communication improvements for wireless communications, - FY 10-11 mobile work force, and any unforeseen communication plan not related to construction 480,000 - 480,000 Communications projects. 1,111011111111, 1111111111W TARGETDESIGN TARGET WATER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST COST IN 2008 FISCAL YEAR IN 2008 DOLLARS IN 2008 DOLLARS DOLLARS Carters Creek Fiber Ring This project will implement a redundant Fiber Ring to Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment - FY 09-10 Project Plant providing two paths of data into the plant. 450,000 450,000 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Carters Creek Provide dedicated maintenance building needed for parts storage, pump, motor, and gearbox _ 330,000 330,000 Maintenance Building repairs. This project will construct Well #9 with its associated electrical, SCADA, security, and drainage FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Well #9 5,152,150 - 5,152,150 infrastructure. This project provides for land, engineering design, and construction of collection line FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Well9 Collection Line 4,125,431 - 4,125,431 progressing from Well 9 to a connection point in the existing wellfield collection line. This project will construct Well #10 with its associated electrical, SCADA, security, and drainage FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Well #10 5,152,150 - 5,152,150 infrastructure. This project provides for land, engineering design, and construction of collection line FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Well 10 Collection Line 4,125,431 - 4,125,431 progressing from Well 10 to a connection point in the existing wellfield collection line. SCADA Man Machine This project will evaluate, procure, and implement software packages available to improve the FY i1-12 FY 12-13 Interface SCADA Man Machine Interface or graphical software. 205,000 - 205,000 Land Acquisition Carters Project provides funding for the purchase of land, or a conservation easement, adjacent to Creek WWTP Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2,000,000 2,000,000 Land Acquisition Lick Project provides funding for the purchase of land, or a conservation easement, adjacent to Creek WWTP Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2,000,000 2,000,000 Carters Creek Equipment FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Shed Provide equipment protection shed. - 480,000 480,000 Dowling Road Ten MG FY 12-13 FY 13-14 GSR Construct new Ground Storage Tank of 10 MG capacity at the Dowling Road Pump Station. 6,957,500 - 6,957,500 Sandy Point Pump Station This project will upgrade facilities to accommodate current expansion of Water Production F 11-12 FY 12-13 Chemical Feed & Storage infrastructure forcurrent fire codes and chlorine disinfection system. 1,703,300 - 1,703,300 System F 11-12 FY 12-13 Cooling Tower Expansion Provide an additional cooling tower, wet wellm, and switchgear. 3,153,300 - 3,153,300 Emergency Electric This project will install and additional emergency generator at a wellsite to be determined. 721,875 - 721,875 FY 13-14 FY 14-IS Generator Expansion High Service Pump Station This project provides for land, engineering design, and construction of a new high service FY 16-17 FY 16-17 #2 pumping facility. 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 p CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ra _ ftOLLEGE TI~►N ~ ,r _ STA i L j~f K yLegl, E LD as t 1 11 1 I March 22, 2010 Mr. David Coleman Director, Water Services Department City of College Station 1601 Graham Road College Station, TX 77842 Re: City of College Station Water Master Plan Report HDR Project No. 84404 Dear Mr. Coleman: We are pleased to provide you with the final version of the Cih, of College Station {Pater Master Plan Report. This is an important project for the City, and we sincerely appreciate the participation and assistance that we received fronryou and your department throughout the project. This report documents the development of the Water Master Plan based on the City's future demand projections and projected growth trends. HDR utilized the City's existing calibrated IrTfoWater distribution system model to evaluate the targeted years 2008 through 2018. The report identifies locations, sizes, and construction costs of the infrastructure and facilities needed to meet the anticipated future water demands and comply with TCEQ requirements, Should there ever be questions or continents regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are grateful to be working with the City on this project, and we are conmutted to the continuation of a long-term, successful partnership with the City of College Station. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ...Q• ~i. .'S* III ~ LItNCE M. FEHLAND / t1.../ - s.. 95664 lei Lance.M. Perland, P.E. iii .~/C~PI~~~•~.r~~ -3 HDR Engineering, inc. ( 17111 Preston Road I Phone (972) 960.4400 Su to 200 Fax(972)960-4471 Dallas, TX 75248-1232 stisx.hdrinc.com Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................1 2.0 Projected Water Demands & Demand Allocations ..................................................................1 3.0 TCEQ Compliance Summary ..................................................................................................8 4.0 Distribution System Model Evaluation .....................................................................................9 4.1 Elevated Tank Balancing ..............................................................................................10 4.2 Adding Pumping Capacity or Elevated Storage ...........................................................12 4.3 Modeling Evaluation .....................................................................................................12 4.3.1 Alt-1. Expand Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd ....................................13 4.3.2 Alt-2. Expand Dowling Road and Include Full Connectivity along William D Fitch Parkway ...................................................................................................13 4.3.3 Alt-3. Expand Dowling Road and Increase Connectivity along Highway 6 between Greens Prairie EST and Park Place EST ...........................................14 4.3.4 Alt -4. Expand Dowling Road with Connectivity along William D Fitch Pkwy and along Hwy 6 ...............................................................................................15 4.3.5 Alt-5. Expand Dowling Road and Install PRVs .................................................16 4.3.6 Alt-6. Expand Dowling Road and Connect a Direct Transfer Line from Dowling Road to Greens Prairie EST ...............................................................18 4.3.7 Alt-7. Construct New Pump Station ..................................................................19 4.3.8 Alt-8. No Pumping Expansion - Add Elevated Storage ...................................20 4.3.9 Alt-9. Replace Pumps at Dowling Road ...........................................................22 5.0 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ...............................................................................23 6.0 Recommended Infrastructure Improvements ........................................................................24 APPENDIX A - TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Water Distribution System APPENDIX B - Water Supply Alternatives ` Page i ~~GrvoFCOLLEGE SrKn<IN f DR NOW r m " r m KOMI 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The purpose of this project is to develop a Water Master Plan for the City of College Station (City) based on future demand projections and projected growth trends. The targeted years for this plan are 2008 through 2018. The master plan identifies the locations, sizes, and construction costs of the infrastructure and facilities needed to meet the anticipated future growth of the City and meet Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements. Figure 1 presents the City's existing water distribution system. HDR utilized the City's water distribution system model and the City's current and projected water demands to determine compliance with the TCEQ public water system requirements. The TCEQ analysis was documented in a separate technical memorandum, which is included in Appendix A of this Master Plan. As part of this Water Master Plan, HDR evaluated additional water supply options. Several alternatives for increasing water production (water supply) were considered, which included additional Simsboro Aquifer wells, shallow wells in the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo Aquifers, brackish groundwater wells (from Simsboro), direct potable reuse of wastewater effluent, direct non-potable reuse of wastewater effluent, and surface water options. This evaluation is included in a stand-alone technical memorandum that is included in Appendix B of this Master Plan. To meet the City's needs, improve distribution system operability, and meet TCEQ requirements now and in the future, capital improvements have been identified and an opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) has been assigned to each of the recommended improvements. 2.0 PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS & DEMAND ALLOCATIONS In the report prepared by HDR in April 2008, "Assessment of Water Demands, Needs, and Alternative Supplies for the City of College Station," water demands were evaluated and projected based on the amount of water coming directly from the City's wells. Before reaching the Dowling Road Pump Station, the water coming from the aquifer passes through cooling towers because the water from the aquifer is too warm to be transferred straight to distribution. Evaporation from the cooling towers consumes approximately six percent of the water pumped from the City's wells. Since this study focuses on distribution system operations, the evaluations are based on the amount of water being pumped from the Dowling Road Pump Station rather than the groundwater pumped from the City's wells. Therefore, using the well supply demand Im ~ Page 1 I (,I'IY OF C;OLIF.GE STA10\ da Aran ✓d+R-nlI;rlly --taw slow-l'ilK p 'i R cli iJ ~ W r~ .,t' 44 r G r- .2 4t 7.1 U1 .a ~ ez, a - _ T. N n r v Y i$'~R i ~ yl F>}{. .t~s~za ~~.~'~z ~ r 3* 'R a"f •e rte, .~y AY? .y. 1' s ti 'f~•. vycy~ Mel, "'.1Er. JM1 I k 1 1-4 ]k1 T ,T~ ^ ,(rc"• y .av rkt ig I ~ ~ ~ ~•r~° x - ~ti f eyi t_ ~ +~•t~r ..r<, f •t5~ f t ' J sJ . SL g, r. 4;~ W7 .s q1 ZA, Ago u, y' ~ n r 1 x, r ti~ t :c, s''rro°5 a.,2 tkir`~4.`" r . a pr r m-+:s : a ,j ~ w f tv~ fk' e F ° f ~ _ ~ v s ~ye:rRY`rsrr4r~ ~~e~L, K'~~ • - • ~ ~4,~ f° ~,se., r- ; { ~ ~ hr ~3Y t rO/ Y ~ t ~ y~r L c 9 ~'w •9S LL (Q "sK / r O ~ ` ~?r R rd i l `1.~;,.// 'fi'r c p Q 1'° per. } +a Q N 6 a~ it s¢ - F "t a '-Y,~ / , r ~fef1 ~ ~X P w ~ fries. ,•i~' as ~ ~ ~ ~ "6- 1 ~+4r ~ ,~+~~,,e+~' fri.'._ ~,'v'~/ ~ ~ ~ X O f ~I r e • projections from the April 2008 report, the distribution system demand projections used in this study were calculated based on the amount of water actually entering the distribution system from the Dowling Road Pump Station. The modified distribution system water demand projections are shown in Table 1. The various land uses in the City as shown in Table 2 were used in the HDR April 2008 Report to project water demands based on a gallons per acre per day basis. City water billing records were available for each of the years 2002 through 2006. The per acre demand factors were developed from actual billing data for the year 2005, which was the driest and highest water demand year. In order to allocate the future system-wide demands spatially within the model, the land uses and their corresponding per acre water usages (seen in Table 2) were used to calculate the projected water demands for the future development areas within each of the nine individual Proposed CCN Areas presented in Figure 2. The nine Proposed CCN Areas are numbered 0 to 8. The City's GIS data divides each of the Proposed CCN Areas into proposed land uses that correspond to the land uses shown in Table 2. Since 2005 was the highest demand year, the area for each land use type was used to determine projected water demands using the 2005 gallons per acre per day (last column of Table 2). Table 3 shows each Proposed CCN Area's land uses, acreages, and the calculated 2018 projected average day, maximum day, and peak hour demands. The projected 2018 distribution system water demands were calculated by multiplying the projected population growth by the average per capita water usage adjusted based on a projected average one percent per year reduction in the average per capita water use (starting in 2008 and ending in 2028). The decreasing per capita water usage projections are based on the City's conservation plan. The 2018 maximum day demands were calculated by multiplying average day demands by a factor of 1.8 (derived from the calculations performed in Table 1). The 2018 peak hour demands were calculated by multiplying maximum day demands by a factor of 1.7 (calculated from the projections as shown in Table 1). 2018 scenarios for average day, maximum day, and peak hour were built into the City's model, the Proposed CCN Areas were added to the model, and the demands were allocated and adjusted to match the total demand projections shown in Table 1. IDR / Page 3 (:ai~.ce Srnnon A-"A 162v m, 00 r- CY) V-- N Il- 00 1- 04 r- - O M ti Or*4~ O O r M ~ d' C`7 O c N r- N O a-°i ns M r- p- 00 r" M N 00 N T- LO (0 ti LC) U') O W O O r Cfl T-: l17 M m N LO r- N qt I- 0) o c 00 r- LO O O M N LO r (O (D 00 M M 00 `0 O O 0) r M O D) o d N Cn Ln r N 1;T n L CA co c o L o E t0 r- 00 r- M (D M O N o in O r r- O co 00 M LO O O O T-- (D O 1 > p g n y CV O (O V-- M LO c a - C O c L -0 ° ` O m 3 o N c M O M (O O r d 5 c v r r- I- co 00 CO o O Cfl r' ti LO A O CL O m ` N O Ln r- N LO o ° 8 > C O In m 73 a O o c C M 00 r- N M O LO O r- _0 O O 00 O N M r- o - c x L7 O r r E N 4 00 ao Q. cc N 00 LO r- N It ~ n a) ~O Q O r- 16- O 00 (O (O LO It M I-- O L o r ° a W) N LC) Cfl ao r- (o O j o Lo r o r N 0 Lo ° E 0 N d r- N CO o c 0 U N O =3 O 00 N r- m 00 N M 'c a U o N C 00 00 00 N O 'd. OR M r ° °o N D $ N_ r 00 I O CD Lf) ° N o T Y 3 O f- co r- N M m ° n 0 0 N LCD m N aL )i v co O Q f6 } C5 LD w o } C o n m o = 'o w n m ti C N C N L. L Ca 7 N L al cO a 5 ao c0 o LD N 0 n o o 'a o 3 a 0 n u n M co LL) N O O N a Q Q f ~1 Q~ N c O a 7 N U 0 V _ y vCC Q N (a -M a3 O O) LO L S v N w .L-. V a' 3 O Y v Y N -fro 3 o° a N ac0i a N O N = `m n an m 'a V d C ° m LO n a } o v ^ a m ° r- = rn m 1 o a. `m L" N 01 N > E d m L m m aci o m > N c a~ c C Q E cu ' o n n 0) C Q V 6 Cu O to m d N d m 5 c a > m e m u E Iwo -ffi 76 a-) :3 p Q o o N 0 n m co c: 'T c :3 n m o° r cu > N C M a (V Q m a 7 00 U U -C Y O "O (a Q C n N 00 N a3 ~j O O ym+ +O+ Q 0 CL a N n n m n N N R CO = N CD U~ o co 'o co N In } N N N N ~ o N O :3 Q L`a E Y O. L C X d 1C R a~Oi N afOi N 3 N N m O (1) C Lc > 0) r r m Q> Q Q Q m a CL a a d "i r; v ui 6 co !Z ® Page 4 ~ j C.IIY OF COLLEGE A.fdN - I dv h-nmhnm/w RnirA l;dl~ e ~ Table 2 - Land Use and Associated Zoning Designations Used to Allocate Water Use Average 002-200, 2005 Land Use LU Code Associated Zoning Types Acreages WaterUse Water Use Civic CIV Corridor Overlay 108.5 1,435.3 1,541.9 Park Floodplain and FP and RUR Agricultural Open (A - O) 789.7 66.1 63.7 Streams/ Rural/ Park and PARK Research & Development (R & D) 6.3 181.8 111.8 Industrial R and D IND R&D Light Industrial (M - 1) 243.6 171.4 185.0 Heavy Industrial (M - 2) 31.0 176.3 199.9 General Commercial (C - 1) 946.5 1,031.5 1,065.3 Institutional INST Commericial-Industrial (C - 2) 104.2 807.6 824.8 Office OFF Administrative/Professional (A - P) 47.4 662.7 798.0 Planned Development District (PDD) 124.8 1,430.1 1,709.9 Planned Planned Development District (PDD - B) 21.8 666.2 684.3 Development/Retail PDD and C-N Neighborhood Planned Development District (PDD - H) 346.4 902.7 1,308.6 Planned Development District (PMDD) 0.7 287.9 492.0 Core Northgate (NG - 1) 49.8 21014.1 2,229.3 Redevelopment RDD Commercial Northgate(NG-2) 23.2 1,018.6 1,106.1 Residential Northgate (NG - 3) 57.0 2,483.1 2,392.8 Residential Attached R - A Duplex Residential (R - 2) 295.8 1,443.0 1,483.3 Retail Regional C - R Light Commercial (C - 3) 37.3 806.5 750.7 S.F. Residential Low SF - LD Rural Residential Subdivision (A - OR) 285.6 352.6 410.5 Density Single-Family Residential (R-1) 4,658.6 11033.3 1,191.2 S.F. Residential Medium SF-MD Single-Family Residential (R -1 B) 58.8 1,146.6 1,707.3 Density Manufactured Home Park (R-7) 24.8 1,551.6 1,773.2 S.F. Residential High SF-HD High Density Multi-Family (R - 6) 481.6 2,862.2 2,754.7 Density Townhouse (TH) 94.9 1,212.0 1,429.5 Texas A&M University C - U College and University (C - U) 2,787.2 2.8 2.8 Transitional TRANS Multi-Family Residential (R-4) 581.9 11777.1 1,826.6 Unclassified UNC Rural Residential Subdivision (A - OR) 956.0 248.3 281.9 Im Page 5 07Cn , GOIIEGE STA110N d,Arnfd,A-" Wk, m r~° ~ ' .gyp 3~~ sg ' x s 4, v c ~ 11 m N L rn a tit r' ' ,I ,t• s v~f axe .mt, p 00 is -rw +a ~ 3 -mot- Omb G~ Yr...,' r~"F X ' wm, f~ 7 a ~ 4 s e a ~ p 4Q4 r.. ' ti sue' 3 4. r 1, : O `4% Itox" k. ~ af~ d~ ~ ffrx ~t ~ •w ~ ~ js. 1. ♦ .°i``~ ~i`f R~1~, }~y,'. a ~'C g wwwwww ~.1 ~y qy, j:! ?a ` 4i Ln ry } 5 Y a ~ i r t 63 x! aa,+E°= f sY~w Q ~ f' z rc d w' ;T~ss" b y ¢.~j '2 _ tir:~C\ a ~4 .,a ,1' t ~ A ~aa e rv ,`r1■r • • - F-MMMill Table 3 - Demand Calculation of Proposed CCN Areas 2018 7~~d CON 2005 Average Maximum Peak Average Maximum Peak (Soo Table 3) Day Day Hour Day Day Hour Acres gaf'WdAY gpm, awn Ow am QPM gm.: 0 Single Family Residential Loc, Density 39.73 410 11.32 22.53 38.31 10.24 18.43 31.34 1 Institutional 7.97 1,065 5.90 11.74 19.95 5.33 9.60 16.32 2 Floodplains and streams 6.51 64 0.29 0.57 0.97 0.26 0.47 0.80 Residential Attached 13.03 1,483 13.42 26.71 45.40 12.14 21.85 37.14 ndustrial R and D 11035 200 15.38 30.60 52.01 13.91 25.03 42.55 Total 130.30 29.08 57.88 98.39 26.30 47.35 80.49 3 Retail Regional 38.26 751 19.94 39.69 67.47 18.04 32.47 55.20 Retail Regional 2.63 751 1.37 2.73 4.64 1.24 2.23 3.79 Retail Regional 1.00 751 0.52 1.04 1.76 0.47 0.85 1.44 Single Family Residential Medium Density 355.00 1,773 437.15 869.93 1,478.89 395.35 711.64 1,209.78 Single Family Residential Medium Density 26.83 1,773 33.03 65.74 111.76 29.88 53.78 91.42 Institutional 23.85 1,065 17.64 35.11 59.68 15.96 28.72 48.82 Flood Plain 4.75 64 0.21 0.42 0.71 0.19 0.34 0.58 Rural 61411 64 27.15 54.03 91.86 24.56 44.20 75.14 Total 1,066.43 537.03 1,068.69 1,816.77 485.68 874.23 1,486.18 4 Transitional 16.07 1,827 20.38 40.56 68.96 18.44 33.18 56.41 Park 8.08 64 0.36 0.71 1.21 0.32 0.58 0.99 Single Family Residential Medium Density 58.12 1,773 71.58 142.44 242.14 64.73 116.52 198.08 Total 82.28 92.32 183.71 312.31 83.49 150.28 255.48 5 Retail Regional 3.70 751 1.93 3.84 6.53 1.75 3.14 5.34 Retail Regional 6.55 751 3.42 6.80 11.56 3.09 5.56 9.45 Transitional 37.39 1,827 47.43 94.38 160.45 42.89 77.21 131.25 Retail Neighborhood 5.81 1,710 6.90 13.74 23.35 6.24 11.24 19.10 SF Residential High density 10.45 2,755 19.98 39.77 67.60 18.07 32.53 55.30 Single Family Residential Medium Density 179.00 1,773 220.43 438.65 745.71 199.35 358.83 610.02 Park 11.96 64 0.53 1.05 1.79 0.48 0.86 1.46 Industrial R and D 42.69 200 5.93 11.79 20.05 5.36 9.65 16.40 Total 297.56 306.55 610.03 1,037.04 277.23 499.02 848.34 6 Industrial R and D 30.04 200 4.17 8.30 14.11 3.77 6.79 11.54 Retail Regional 12.77 751 6.66 13.25 22.53 6.02 10.84 18.43 Texas A&MUniversity 8.12 3 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 Industrial R and D 1.09 200 0.15 0.30 0.51 0.14 0.25 0.42 Retail Regional 1.93 751 1.00 2.00 3.40 0.91 1.64 2.78 Flood Plain 3.90 64 0.17 0.34 0.58 0.16 0.28 0.48 Industrial R and D 245.04 200 34.02 67.70 115.09 30.77 55.38 94.14 Retail Regional 16.23 751 8.46 16.84 28.63 7.65 13.78 23.42 Industrial R and D 103.70 200 14.40 28.65 48.70 13.02 23.43 39.84 Flood lain 9.40 200 1.31 2.60 4.42 1.18 2.12 3.61 Sin le Family Residential Low Density 6.42 410 1.83 3.64 6.20 1.66 2.98 5.07 Industrial Rand D 91.83 200 12.75 25.37 43.13 11.53 20.75 3528 Single Family Residential Low Density 838.40 410 238.97 475.56 808.45 216.12 389.02 661.34 Total 1,368.89 323.91 644.58 1,095.79 292.94 527.29 896.39 Eif Page 7 rrY OF COLLEGE $TA'll[1N ity of Table 3 - Demand Calculation of Proposed CCN Areas (cont.) me 2018 Proposed CCN 2005 Average Maximum Peak Average Maximum Peak Area (See Table 3) Day Day Hour Day Day Hour Designation ~1 - 7 Single Gamily Residential Loa Density 325.37 410, 92 74184.56: 313.74 X., 87 9 Institutional 2.03 1,065 1.50 2.99 5.09 1.36 2.45 4.161 Flood lain 9.55 64 0.42 0.84 1.43 0.38 0.69 1.17 Flood lain 1.13 64 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.05 0.08 0.14 Institutional 0.26 1,065 0.19 0.38 0.65 0.17 0.31 0.53 Park 7.35 64 0.32 0.65 1.10 0.29 0.53 0.90 Flood lain 297.84 64 13.17 26.21 44.55 11.91 21.44 36.44 Total 643.52 108.40 215.72 366.73 98.04 176.47 300.00 8 Single Family Residential Low Density 971.81 410 277.00 551.23 937.09 250.51 450.92 766.57 Rural 4.14 64 0.18 0.36 0.62 0.17 0.30 0.51 Flood lain 405.82 64 17.94 35.71 60.70 16.23 29.21 49.66 Total 1,381.78 295.13 587.30 998.41 266.91 480.43 816.74 3.0 TCEQ COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Evaluation of both the current distribution system and the proposed 2018 system shows that immediate improvements are required to comply with current TCEQ regulations. Improvements are needed in the following areas: ■ Well Supply Capacity, 2008 (pending addition of Wells #8, #9, and #10) ■ Pumping Capacity, 2018 ■ Minimum System Pressures Less Than 35 psi, 2018 Recommendations from the TCEQ Analysis Technical Memorandum and Update determined that in order to meet state and federal regulations, the City's distribution system (through the year 2018) requires the following improvements: ■ Planned addition of the water supply Wells #8, #9, and #10. ■ By 2018, increase in distribution pumping capacity, or add 3.7 million gallons of elevated storage capacity. ■ Verification that the selected improvements through 2018 will meet TCEQ's minimum pressure requirements (35 psi) in the proposed 2018 distribution system. A complete summary of the distribution system parameters that were evaluated can be found in Appendix A. Page 8 Cann oF' (ax,,:c:e S rrno. dK~ a~ r~.rd~ FDR 4.0 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL EVALUATION TCEQ rules state that distribution systems need to provide a minimum pressure of 35 psi at a demand equal to 1.5 gpm per connection. The City of College Station has approximately 34,130 connections and is projected to have 43,240 connections by the year 2018. At 43,240 connections, the 2018 distribution system will need to provide minimum pressures of 35 psi throughout at a demand of 65,300 gpm (94 mgd). This is considerably over the projected peak- hour demand, which is 36,000 gpm (51.9 mgd), but for regulatory purposes the higher TCEQ demand was used in the modeling evaluations. Figure 3 shows the 2018 distribution system model executed at a 94 mgd demand with zero infrastructure improvements. The red nodes indicate where pressures fall below 35 psi. AUr YS .i l O w b i O. - -6 / } A, y Sy o F ~ 0 0 y r 0 m o 11 O O~ QQQQQV ~ p O~~'~ I pCJ O Figure 3 - 2018 Distribution System with No Improvements (Areas less than 35 psi shown in red) IDR Page 9 ~~7 (.I7Y OF QOLIE(:E STATION da.1m rf dw Rn...A to/h e • City of Colle~je Station Water Ma~tOr F, a The model was executed at the 94 mgd flow with the elevated tanks at 25 percent capacity. Pumps HS-1, HS-2, and HS-3 were set to be running and HS-4 was off. The model results indicated that the lowest pressure predicted throughout the entire system was 19.6 psi, which is much lower than the TCEQ minimum requirement. With these results, to meet the TCEQ minimum system pressure requirements, improvements to the distribution system are required. To meet projected 2018 TCEQ rules, it was found that College Station's distribution system requires an increase of approximately 14,000 gpm (20 mgd) in total pumping capacity or an additional 3.7 million gallons of elevated storage capacity. Discussions with City staff indicate that during peak demands the elevated tank levels are difficult to manage. The Greens Prairie EST is difficult to fill, and water elevations between the two tanks experience significant differences, which decreases usable elevated storage. At the same time, when trying to fill the Greens Prairie EST, pressures to the southeast of the Dowling Road Pump Station become extremely high and lines frequently break in the area. Modeling the 2018 distribution system focused on improvements that would solve the following problems: • Balancing the elevated tank water elevations during peak demands, • Adding pumping capacity or adding elevated storage capacity to comply with TCEQ rules, and • Decreasing the extremely high pressures experienced when trying to fill the Greens Prairie Tank. 4.1 ELEVATED TANK BALANCING Figure 4 shows the current zone of influence of each of the elevated tanks. The figure depicts where water from each of the elevated tanks is being supplied. The area in green is being supplied by the Dowling Road Pump Station. The areas in red are being fed by the respective tanks. The factors contributing to the elevated tank balancing problems are: • As shown in Figure 4, the Greens Prairie EST has a larger area to cover, and the water demand on Greens Prairie EST during peak demand is 30 percent higher than that of the Park Place EST. • The area around Greens Prairie is where the majority of the new residential development is occurring, which has been traditionally higher in water usage. fal ® Page 10 (7 Cn of Course SrnnoN • The Greens Prairie EST is one million gallons smaller than the Park Place EST, which allows it to drain faster during peak demands. • The Greens Prairie EST is better connected to the distribution system with several large water mains, which allows water to flow more freely in and out of the tank during fill periods and high demand periods. • The distance between the Dowling Road Pump Station and Greens Prairie EST is double compared to that of Dowling Road Pump Station and Park Place EST. Wig v • % v, e A y`e 9 a~q;~ • Park Place EST e .n nt. as 'L,~~~ OQ 4 _ ~ ~A v a 9~ o~ap 14i ~ v c - 4° 1fFP c. a v ~ O `~Tt':' it Y C~ G 4 f g Pie ¢ Greens Prairie EST "LL Vk IY E 6 PrIA i.rir Imo. p' a INC, " 9u ° r p O ° ps 1P ~'~y a a,f ~ e$ t,, M:.: Vl, • 'e •OQ e ; IIJLIIfF ] C O e Ct Z`O OO O ~LIi e f V T.• ~S r Figure 4 - Elevated Storage Tank Zone of Influence During Peak Hour hDR L.FIY O Page 1 l F U//J~.CE A-fd\ d,bJ. Rr.A. lnl(.r - ,a 4.2 ADDING PUMPING CAPACITY OR ELEVATED STORAGE There are three alternatives to provide additional pumping capacity or provide additional elevated storage capacity to the City's distribution system. 1. Expand the Dowling Road Pump Station, 2. Construct a New Pump Station, or 3. Construct a New Elevated Storage Tank 4.3 MODELING EVALUATION To alleviate the elevated tank balancing problem and reduce excessive pressures, several potential alternatives were modeled and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of each. To meet TCEQ requirements, the alternatives included either adding 20 mgd pumping capacity to the Dowling Road Pump Station, adding a new 20 mgd pump station in the southern portion of the City, or adding a 3.7 MG elevated storage tank. The last alternative (Alternative 9) was modeled to match the City's current plans of replacing High Service Pumps 3 and 4 with larger 13,000 gpm pumps. The alternatives modeled and evaluated were: 1. Expand Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd. 2. Expand Dowling Road and have full connectivity along William D Fitch Parkway. 3. Expand Dowling Road and increase the connectivity between Greens Prairie EST and Park Place EST (along Highway 6). 4. Expand Dowling Road and have full connectivity along both William D Fitch Parkway and along Highway 6. 5. Expand Dowling Road and include pressure reducing valves (PRVs) near Greens Prairie EST. 6. Expand Dowling Road and connect a direct transfer pipeline from Dowling Road to the Greens Prairie EST. 7. Construct a New Pump Station near the intersection of Barron Road and William D Fitch Parkway. 8. No pumping expansion, but add elevated tank storage to meet TCEQ requirements. 9. Replace Dowling Road Pump Station Pumps 3 and 4 with 13,000 gpm pumps as well as provide new main piping from the Dowling Road Pump Station to Victoria Avenue. IER ~ ® ` Page 12 (J ~.1'IY OF COLLEGE $TAI III I dr.kan a,/dr R,,..,d L;rAn BRM City of Coll"e • - 4.3.1 Alt-1. Expand Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd Expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd would satisfy the TCEQ requirement for both pumping capacity and minimum pressures during peak hour conditions. Table 4 summarizes the modeling results. Table 4 - Expand Dowling Road Model Results Lowest Highest Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in Pressure Pressure Demand Demand EST Demand (psi) (psi) 35 99 10,500 14,200 35 As seen in Table 4, TCEQ requirements are met. However, the high pressures during peak hour are becoming excessive. When the demand retreats, and the system is in recovery (elevated tanks filling), pressures will increase well above 99 psi. It is preferable to maintain pressures below 100 psi at all times to avoid undesirable line breaks. Also, the elevated tank balancing issue is not resolved with this alternative. There is a significant difference in demand, the Greens Prairie EST is a smaller tank, and the Greens Prairie EST is significantly farther away from the Dowling Road Pump Station. Only expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station to meet TCEQ requirements will result in the City utility staff having a difficult time balancing the distribution system, and high pressure problems leading to line breaks will be recurring. 4.3.2 Alt-2. Expand Dowling Road and Include Full Connectivity along William D Fitch Parkway Expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station and including full 24-inch pipeline connectivity along William D Fitch Parkway as shown in Figure 5 meets TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements during peak hour demands. The 24-inch pipeline extends from Graham Road to Victoria Avenue. The summary of the results can be seen in Table 5. Table 5 - Expand Dowling Road with Connectivity along WD Fitch Pkwy Lowest Highest Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in Pressure Pressure Demand (gpm) Demand EST Demand (psi) (psi) 34 97 10,850 13,100 21 Page 13 1DR ~(.1"IY OF C.OIl.EGE $TAI"10\ drA-.,.dn Rn....A kiln NOW ~ ~ ti r•-;~,~ .r Greens Prairie EST - ~ -~.'Jpr ~"y~ ...ice- y ' Expand Dowling Road Pump Station ~•f w ; af~C`,~ 24-inch Pipeline 4 @ Figure 5 - Dowling Road Expansion Including Full Connectivity along WD Fitch This alternative does show improvement in the elevated tank balancing problem, but pressures remain high in some areas, since the Dowling Road Pump Station is providing flow for the entire distribution system. 4.3.3 Alt-3. Expand Dowling Road and Increase Connectivity along Highway 6 between Greens Prairie EST and Park Place EST Expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station and increasing the connectivity along Highway 6, as shown in Figure 6, meets TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements during peak hour demands. Two pipelines were used to increase connectivity along Highway 6. A 24-inch pipeline was added to the model from Old Rock Prairie Road extending up to Harvey Mitchell Parkway. An 18-inch pipeline was also added to the model from Harvey Mitchell Parkway up to Krenek Tap Road. The summary of the results can be seen in Table 6. Table 6 - Expand Dowling Road with Connectivity along Highway 6 Lowest Highest Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in Pressure Pressure Demand Demand EST Demand (psi) (psi) 38 99 9,400 15,300 63 Im Page 14 * 017.z' COLLECE STATION da Avrr s/d. Rn..mb L'n/4v py= .k Vb ~Rr.pio ZOO Park Place EST \ WO a ~oe4_ °b'• 6~ `efi,g 18-inch Pipeline 4a P~ a p R a! - ° strn+e 24-inch Pipeline p l l$ o q ~ R ~ o~~ ~q BRA d ~ p ~ s d'"b Greens Prairie EST Expand Dowling Road Pump Station m d4 yy44 0q,~~0o ~°p . <,Iq 9 4 ®A'p~p ale b ~ W. ~9C~ `~°7°p4 w~Atpk s`T3 ~ / l g.~ d b b ? VSO Figure 6 - Dowling Road Expansion with Increased Connectivity along Hwy 6 This alternative significantly exacerbates the tank balancing problem by increasing the demand on the Greens Prairie EST (65% higher than Park Place). The increased connectivity along Highway 6 allows more water to flow out of the Greens Prairie EST to supply the demand farther north. Pressures remain high with all the flow being supplied from the Dowling Road Pump Station. 4.3.4 Alt -4. Expand Dowling Road with Connectivity along William D Fitch Pkwy and along Hwy 6 This alternative, as shown in Figure 7, expands the Dowling Road Pump Station and increases the connectivity along both William D Fitch Parkway and Highway 6. This alternative meets TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements. The summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 7. Table 7 - Expand Dowling Road with Connectivity along WD Fitch and Highway 6 Lowest Highest Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in Demand Pressure Pressure Demand Demand (psi) (psi) 37 97 9,600 14,500 51 Page 15 (.I7Y OF C.OUEGE JTAf1O\ 1DR dv Arm ,✓d...Wu•.AI 1../4r • • A ME - Park Place EST o}- ~O ¢ 18-inch Pipeline y+F!,. oa°°, ~O~ ,~~°c 4 4P 24-inch Pipeline Expand Dowling Road Pump Station' 8 a `a vAb~ ROC 4 qv%n o99a o/ @ e Ilk \a r Greens Prairie EST % / o lp 'a 01 1r ~°~o`''.9Nb! Wx`NM OFIC oK'~° yp~ ° F 24-inch Pipeline d FED Figure 7 - Expand Dowling Road and Increase Connectivity along both WD Fitch Pkwy and Hwy 6 This alternative increases the elevated tank balancing problem (51% difference in demand), primarily due to increasing the connectivity along Highway 6. Pressures remain high in some areas due to all distribution flow coming from the Dowling Road Pump Station. 4.3.5 Alt-5. Expand Dowling Road and Install PRVs This alternative expands the Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd and includes the installation of two PRVs. One of the PRVs is located on the 18-inch water line along Rock Prairie Road, west of the intersection of William D Fitch Parkway, and the other PRV is located on the 18-inch water line northeast of the intersection of William D Fitch Parkway and State Highway 6. The locations of these valves along with the other improvements necessary to meet TCEQ minimum pressure requirements are shown in Figure 8. The summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 8. IDR Page 16 ~~7 (.I'IY OF COLLEGE STA770N w lrn efdr ta,.a.A k'.Il., Table 8 - Expand Dowling Road and Install PRVs Lowest Greens Prairie Difference in PRV Pressure Pressure Demand Demand EST Demand Setting (psi) (psi) 35 97 9,600 14,500 51 53 Park Place EST 12- and 18-inch Pipelines Expand Dowling Road Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valves Z , tea-..,-o Y p6q°t ° P ? ROCK O o ~rT k~ oo ° 6 ~ d?~y~ ndR ' b e 0 o° F S 24-inch Pipeline a~ N* 'e - P0 tAN 09 ta.c+ie o- V G reens Prairie EST ~ / KlOr Figure 8 - Expand Dowling Road and Install PRVs The benefits of installing the PRVs are that the pressures in the Pebble Creek area are lowered to more acceptable levels. After several iterations, the modeled pressure setting of each of the PRVs to keep pressures above minimum TCEQ requirements is 53 psi. Also, to keep pressures above the TCEQ minimum, connectivity improvements are required along Highway 6 and along William D Fitch Parkway as shown in Figure 8. The PRVs did not have a favorable affect on the elevated tank balancing problem (51% difference in demand). The demand in the southern portion of the City and on the Greens Prairie EST is much higher than on the Park Place EST, as shown in Table 8. The PRVs do provide a benefit in that pressures in the Pebble Creek area are lowered, but they do not provide any measureable benefit with regards to the tank balancing or high pressure problems near the Dowling Road Pump Station. Page 17 f DR 1 4o L,I"n z, WIJEG A 10 da bn s/dr R.....A. L,'.lbr 4.3.6 Alt-6. Expand Dowling Road and Connect a Direct Transfer Line from Dowling Road to Greens Prairie EST Expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station and having a direct 20-inch transfer pipeline from the Dowling Road Pump Station to the Greens Prairie EST along with the additional 24-inch pipelines that connect Graham Road to Victoria Avenue along William D Fitch Parkway meets the TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements. The piping route can be seen in Figure 9, and the summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 9. Table 9 - Expand Dowling Road with Direct Transfer from Dowling Road to Greens Prairie EST Demand Lowest Highest Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in Pressure Pressure (gpm) Demand (gpm) EST Demand (psi) (psi) M 35 94 11,300 11,500 0 This alternative balances the elevated tanks during a peak hour demand. This alternative does require approximately 26,000 feet of 20-inch pipe. A disadvantage of this alternative is that during average and low demands, water age in the pipeline could begin to cause unwanted chlorine residual loss. Pressures in some areas remain high, but are the lowest of all the Dowling Road Pump Station expansion alternatives. r dv kan n Page 18 (.1'IY OF COLLEGE -SYA1 -f~ ~ d. I&....rh Hd/ V40V Nor i Park Place EST b ti °a , ! a9 Expand Dowling Road Pump Station any na v ° s ° tr° s 0. b ~,R 0 ~yWk 7c ° < °4'q 4 e~~R~ o°F b o0q o.R; °.b °,~py •1°.• g ° ~s~y fey ASR , =Greens Prairie EST e g,o 5. Nz om ~r F o~~~-dty~ `~oeo ~oR~'7Yr so'~`6w,~ Jo 0 20-inch Direct Transfer Pipeline „o To ~ 1 e ° 09 A~ CWatcNEOR 6 > 1- I~ ~DORb~ ° x ° 4.3.7 Alt-7. Construct New Pump Station Instead of expanding the Dowling Road Pump Station, Alternative No. 7 is to construct a new pump station near the intersection of Barron Road and William D Fitch Parkway. This alternative requires a new pump station, and approximately 14,500 feet of supply piping from the Dowling Road Pump Station, including increases in the connectivity along both William D Fitch Parkway and Highway 6. This alternative meets TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements. As seen in Figure 10, other piping improvements are necessary to keep pressures above the 35 psi minimum. The summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 10. Table 10 - Construct New Pump Station Lowest Highest Place Greens Prairie Difference in Demand Pressure Pressure Demand (psi) (psi) 36 90 13,500 11,500 15 /1 Page 19 COLLfGE SIAIIn~ HR 'Raw This alternative is attractive because it balances the elevated tank demands, lowers discharge pressures from the Dowling Road Pump Station, and provides the City with a redundant pump station. As seen in Table 10, the Park Place EST demand is now larger than the Greens Prairie EST demand, which is a benefit since the Greens Prairie EST is a smaller tank. This alternative somewhat separates the City into two systems. The new pump station can be operated based on the Greens Prairie EST and the Dowling Road Pump Station can be operated based on the Park Place EST. A disadvantage is that this alternative adds a pump station that will need to be operated and maintained. As seen in Figure 10, this alternative requires several improvements to maintain pressures above the TCEQ minimum. a Park Place EST ~ ~ as 12- and 18-inch Pipelines 18-inch Pipeline 9 0 .l1"' m WQ~O° ar?v v ro o 't a:~ aoc c ° ~►o, Greens Prairie EST Dowling Road Pump Station 20-inch Pump Station Supply - - 24-inch Pipeline New Pump Station & Ground Storage Tank , 0 Figure 10 - Construct New Pump Station 4.3.8 Alt-8. No Pumping Expansion - Add Elevated Storage Adding 3.7 million gallons of elevated storage instead of expanding the pumping capacity along with the piping improvements shown in Figure 11 meets TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements. Locating and connecting the new elevated tank so that it compliments the L Page 20 (.f1Y ' CouEGE STX I N dv Aun.Jdw RxmF Ix/l: Ir distribution system will be a challenge, but can be accomplished. Figure 11 shows the proposed elevated tank location and the additional pipe that will need to be installed to meet TCEQ requirements. The summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 11. Table 11 - Add Elevated Storage with No Pumping Expansion Lowest Highest - Tank Difference in Demand Pressure Pressure Demand Demand Demand (psi) (psi) 1 37 98 12,150 11,950 13,000 8 . n Park Place EST q 5 / pq ° a d~o-~ tf 18-inch Pipeline New EST t vlcwe'b _ _ o Greens Prairie EST Dowling Road Pump Station f~s d 4040 s~o ~ suf~xwx yµaalt N b ~4° °F 24-inch Pipeline G,° a .o Figure 11 - Add Elevated Storage with No Pumping Expansion This alternative balances the distribution system demands on the different elevated tanks, and the need to expand pumping capacity is negated. However, the City will need an approximately 3.7 million gallon elevated tank. During average demands and low demands, water age in the elevated tanks could become problematic. High water ages usually result in chlorine residual loss, which can become another issue. 3.7 million gallons of additional storage is needed by year 2018, so if this becomes the preferred alternative, it would be the most efficient to size the tank for IM Page 21 I `I"IYOF COLLEGE Sl'AI ION dr Min sJdr R°ea.rJr F;a/4r NEW the 3.7 million gallon capacity. As seen in Figure 11, other piping improvements are necessary to keep pressures above the 35 psi minimum. 4.3.9 Alt-9. Replace Pumps at Dowling Road Replacing Dowling Road Pumps 3 and 4 with 13,000 gpm pumps, adding 24-inch main piping from the Dowling Road Pump Station to Victoria Avenue, and installing the piping improvements shown in Figure 12 also meet TCEQ pumping and minimum pressure requirements. Figure 12 shows the pump replacements and the 24-inch pipeline that is required from the Dowling Road Pump Station to Victoria Avenue along Old Wellborn Road and William D Fitch Parkway with intermediate connections near Kleine Lane and at Barron Road. To maintain pressure above 35 psi in the north part of the City, an 18-inch pipeline from Harvey Road to University Drive along Texas Avenue with an intermediate connection at George Bush Drive is required as shown in Figure 12. The summary of the modeling results can be seen in Table 12. Table 12 - Add Elevated Storage with No Pumping Expansion Lowest Pressure Highest Pressure Park Place Greens Prairie Difference in (psi) (psi) Demand .(gpm) Demand (gpm) EST Demand 35 90 13,400 16,600 24 - al ® Page 22 (*7 (nYOFCoi.LECeSranou Park Place EST 0 ,q 00 m eq ~ ate A ° V°bQ 18-inch Pipeline o ,o-° y c~K 4 ~ d dm, 00 ftG ♦ ryMC" 9 'Di 9 o 1 Y ROOK Y ~'P O Q? FGreens Prairie EST: Replace Dowling Road Pumps tx- 24-inch Pipeline UPB`°"` N, Figure 12 - Replace Pumps at Dowling Road This alternative provides an approximately 30 percent improvement in balancing the tank demands. This alternative is modeled off of the City's current plans to replace pumps and expand the Dowling Road Pump Station firm pumping capacity by approximately 7,000 gpm, assuming the two replacement pumps are 13,000 gpm each and one is held out of service. The new 24- inch pipeline along Old Wellborn and William D Fitch Parkway aids in transferring water to the south and balancing the elevated tank demands, while the new 18-inch pipeline in the north along Texas Avenue maintains those pressures above the TCEQ required 35 psi. The high pressures in this alternative remain relatively low compared to the other alternatives. 5.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Probable construction costs were estimated for each of the nine alternatives. Table 12 divides the alternatives into individual improvement projects and shows probable costs for each project and total costs for each of the alternatives. RPage 23 ~.I7Y OF COLLEGE STAT10\ dv A.en.f`Ar Rn..nF l'x/f_ ID v 6.0 RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The three primary objectives that this Water Master Plan intended to address with regard to the City of College Station's water distribution system were to: 1. Meet TCEQ Requirements 2. Balance the Elevated Tanks 3. Reduce Excessive Pressures The TCEQ Analysis TM, which is included in Appendix A, addresses the need for additional well supply to meet TECQ well water supply requirements. The City has already planned the addition of Wells #8, #9, and #10, which will meet the projected 2018 TCEQ requirements. The costs to the City have been estimated at approximately $12,000,000 for these three new wells. Nine distribution system alternatives were evaluated using the City's calibrated water distribution system model. The alternatives were modeled using the City's projected 2018 peak hour water demands. This allowed the determination of each of the alternatives' effectiveness in meeting the primary objectives. All nine of the alternatives were capable of meeting the projected 2018 TCEQ requirements. However, Alternatives 1 through 5 were not capable of balancing the elevated tanks for reducing excessive pressures, and in several cases made these situations worse. Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and 9 did show improvements in both elevated tank balancing and excessive pressure reduction. Each of the alternatives (6, 7, 8, and 9) is a viable option for the City to consider that meet the water distribution system goals. Advantages and disadvantages of the three alternatives are shown in Table 13. ® Page 24 (,RY OF COLLEGE STA"I70\ die Aean ✓d~ IPn.+4 L../:n Table 13 - Advantages and Disadvantages of Viable Alternatives Description Alt. Advantages Disadvantages Expand Dowling Road PS with 1. Balances the elevated 1. Water age in the 20-inch increased connectivity along tanks. transfer pipe during WDF Parkway and 20-inch 2. Marginally lowers high average and minimum 6 direct transfer pipe from pressures. demands. Dowling Road PS to Greens 2. High cost of long transfer Prairie Elevated Tank. pipe. 3. No pump station redundancy. Construct new pump station 1. Balances the elevated 1. Highest cost option. and ground storage tank near tanks. 2. Required operation and the intersection of Barron Road 2. Provides the best option maintenance of an and WDF Parkway, include 20- for lowering excessive additional pump station. 7 inch supply to new PS, increase pressures. 3. Land acquisition for the connectivity along WDF 3. Provides a redundant new pump station required. Parkway and Highway 6, and pump station within the add 18-inch connection through City's distribution system. Texas A&M. No pumping expansion. Add 1. Balances the elevated 1. Water age increases. new 3.7 MG elevated storage tanks. 2. Operations will need to tank to satisfy TCEQ 2. Second lowest cost change to address the requirements, increase alternative. water age issues (deep 8 connectivity along WDF 3. Excessive pressures will cycling). Parkway, and add 18-inch be less, since additional 3. Land acquisition for the connection through Texas pumping is eliminated. elevated tank required. A&M. 4. No pump station redundancy. Upgrade and expand DRPS by 1. Elevated tank balancing 1. High cost of the 18,800 foot replacing two pumps. Add 24- issues decreased by 30%. 24-inch pipeline. inch main piping along Old 2. Lowest cost alternative. 2. Minimum TCEQ Wellborn and WDF Parkway, requirements are barely 9 and add new 18-inch piping 3. Excessive pressures are met. along Texas Ave. reduced because of the 24-inch pipeline. 3. No pump station redundancy. Any of the four alternatives above meet the City's water distribution system goals. The driving issues for the City on which alternative is selected will be cost, water age, operations, maintenance, and potential land acquisitions. Page 26 (,17Y OF COLLEGE S7A"I ln\ With the City's current plans to expand and upgrade the Dowling Road Pump Station, Alternative 9 appears to be the least cost option for the City. HDR recommends that the City continue in the direction of providing the improvements as shown in Alternative 9. Attached with this report is a CD containing the InfoWater model files that were used to perform and evaluate the City of College Station's distribution system. The CD also contains the shape files that were used during the demand projection, modeling, and mapping phases of this project. Page 27 oF(:ouECeSrK noh *4w NW s, Appendix A Appendix A (.I OF Cor.LF<.r. $T.i11UV w.~m.J d. IL,.,•.b I ~Iln J a z ECG ANALYSI OF COLLEGE STATION'S WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM i y LANCE M. FERLAN0 r 65.664• 4 •.I~CENSC. i FIRM NO. 754 HDR ENGINEERING INC 8404 INDIAN HILLS DR OMAHA, NE 68114 CERTIFIED: 8125/2000 EXPIRES: 8/31/2009 UMIRASM 14W vo TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 1.0 OBJECTIVE This Technical Memorandum (TM) documents the City of College Station's water distribution system as it compares to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) rules and regulations for distribution systems (Chapter 290, Subchapter D, Sections 290.44, 290.45). The City's water distribution model verifies the conditions in the existing distribution system as well as the proposed system in the year 2018. The model analysis focused on pressure maintenance under normal and fire flow conditions and evaluated system capacities for mains, pumping units, and storage facilities during both average and peak demand periods. The objective of this analysis was to identify infrastructure items in the existing and proposed systems that do not meet TCEQ requirements. TCEQ distribution system regulations specify minimum acceptable operating pressures, pumping capacities, and storage volumes. This TM also identifies the improvements required to meet TCEQ regulations for both the existing system and the proposed system. 2.0 EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW The City's existing distribution system as shown in Figure 1 consists of approximately 34,130 service connections and contains the following facilities and capacities shown in Table 1: Table 1 - Facilities and Capacities Elevated Storage Greens Prairie 2.0 MG Park Place 3.0 MG Total Elevated 5.0 MG Storage Ground Storage Dowling Road Pump 8.0 MG Station / Total Pumps (Dowling Road) HS-1 VFD 8,000 m 11.5 m d HS-2 VFD 8,000 m 11.5 nnd HS-3 Fixed Speed) 6,000 m 8.7 m d HS-4 Fixed Speed) 8,000 m 11.5 nnd Total Pumping 30,000 gpm (43.2 mgd) Capacity Note: Storage is expressed in million gallons (MG) and pumping capacity is expressed as gallons per minute (gpm). FDR ~ -e Page 1 ~k a H l` ixz a ~tAa +gq. P~. r~+ H W • i z ~ ~ N O T t~ r 'r- 4_ ~n H xr,- ~ ,~s ~ . a J L avsk- to C.;~ ~ ~~d ~ t'A ~ y e ti~+v ya~,,.sL~~-~ ~ n, '@a ~1~~,~ f ' '`a•', r _ ~ ~ _ ..sue ~^~b ~ ~ d • ~ !t ~ r 1 ski y 4;: y t < >yw q, iVw t`F' J tp 'y~ l~ ,K ~p ,t ~)'.F ,x~Y~, •~''y } f~.,.T ~ k l".' SAS O r 'Of 14 J tiZ+f Lh ~ - 1 a fi. f ~ F".s^ ~ (n ILU ~ ' ~a oty N~~ ~a F x ~ ~f y ~ -fin 1 fj~ 1, FF .A• = ! ! a TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 3.0 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL EVALUATION In 2003, the City authorized a study to develop a steady-state water distribution system model. This model was later found to contain various discrepancies in line connectivity and line attribute information. In 2007, City personnel identified the problem areas in the data and researched means to correct the problems. The City then had the model rebuilt using the most up-to-date distribution system information, which included all water lines greater than or equal to 6 inches in diameter, selected smaller water lines, all pumping and storage facilities, and operational schemes for the existing facilities. Using the City's customer billing data base and historical average day, maximum day, and peak hour water demands, the model was then calibrated to a steady-state condition using pressure recorders located throughout the City, assumed pipeline roughness coefficients, and pumping modifications. HDR's tasks for this TM were to utilize the City's calibrated 2007 steady-state model along with recently updated water demand projections through the year 2018 in order to evaluate the distribution system model against TCEQ rules and regulations. Based on this analysis, HDR was to develop recommendations for improvements that require immediate action as the City continues to grow for the next ten years. 4.0 DEMAND ALLOCATION In the report prepared by HDR in April 2008, "Assessment of Water Demands, Needs, and Alternative Supplies for the City of College Station," water demands were evaluated and projected based on the amount of water coming directly from the City's wells. Before reaching the Dowling Road Pump Station, the water coming from the aquifer passes through cooling towers because the water from the aquifer is too warm to be transferred straight to distribution. Evaporation from the cooling towers uses about six percent of the water pumped from the City's wells. Since this study focuses on distribution system operations, the evaluations are based on the amount of water being pumped from the Dowling Road Pump Station rather than the groundwater pumpage from the City's wells. Therefore, using the well supply demand projections from the April 2008 report, the distribution system demand projections used in this study were calculated based on the amount of water actually entering the distribution system from the Dowling Road Pump Station. The modified distribution system water demand projections are shown in Table 2. J Page 3 ,r-n, C.OIIF<:F. S'I;i'I10\ !v hean e(JY F.w.h t;rll %W r TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum Table 2 - Distribution System Water Demand Projections from the Dowling Road Pump Station Water Distribution System Demand Projections 2000' 2005' 2008 2013 2016 2018 2023 2028 Population Projection 2,3 57,488 71,528 78,161 90,610 99,011 99,011 99,011 99,011 Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) 4'5 182 156 182 173 168 165 157 149 Water D. , Annual Water Demands MGI r 3,827 4,066 5,203 5,736 6,081 5,960 5,668 5,391 Max Da to Average Da Peaking Factor 7'8 1.99 1.85 1.99 1.89 1.83 1.80 1.71 1.62 Average Day Water Demands (MGD) 10.48 11.14 14.25 15.71 16.66 16.33 15.53 14.77 Maximum Da Water Demands MGD 20.82 20.63 28.30 29.67 30.53 29.32 26.52 23.98 Peak Hour Water Demands MGD 9 35.39 35.07 48.11 50.44 51.90 49.85 45.08 40.77 1. Years 2000 and 2005 are actual historical data. 2. Year 2005 population calculated as the City estimated population of 81,930 minus 10,402 to account fo r dormitory population. Year 2008 population of 78, 161 based on Year 2005 population assuming an annual growth rate of 3%. 3. After Year 2008, population assumes a growth rate of 3%, unfit Year 2016 (99,011) after which population is constant W th no growth. 4. Year 2008 per capita value set equal to historical per capita use in Year 2000. 5. Assumes a per capita reduction of 1% per year after2008. 6. All water demands include billed and unbilled water use within the Citys distribution system after leaving the Dowling Road Pump Station. 7. Year 2008 peaking factor set equal to Year 2000, using data supplied by the City. 8. Assumes a reduction of 1`y per year for peaking after 2008. 9. Based on record hourly demand (25,714 m reached 5-6 AM 9/1/06 the projected peak hour to maximum day factor in 2018 is 1.70. The various land uses in the City as shown in Table 3 were used in the HDR April 2008 Report to project water demands based on a gallons per acre per day basis. City water billing records were available for each of the years 2002 through 2006. The per acre demand factors were developed from actual billing data for the year 2005, which was the highest demand year. In order to allocate the future system-wide demands spatially within the model, the land uses and their corresponding per acre water usages (seen in Table 3) were used to calculate the projected water demands for the future development areas within each of the nine individual Proposed CCN Areas presented in Figure 2. The nine Proposed CCN Areas are numbered 0 to 8. The City's GIS data divides each of the Proposed CCN Areas into proposed land uses that correspond to the land uses shown in Table 3. The area for each land use type was used to determine projected water demands using the 2005 gallons per acre per day (last column of Table 3). Table 4 shows each Proposed CCN Area's land uses, acreages, and the calculated 2018 projected average day, maximum day, and peak hour demands. The projected 2018 distribution system water demands were calculated by multiplying the projected population growth by the average per capita water usage adjusted based on a projected average one percent per year reduction in the average per capita water use (starting in 2008). The decreasing per capita water usage projections are based on the City's conservation plan. The 2018 maximum day demands were calculated by multiplying average day demands by a factor of 1.8 (derived from the calculations performed in Table ! o Page 4 ~~J (:rrroFC:ot>FrtSr~rton 777~~~~ a w< dJ w .,b vl IUR r TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 2). The 2018 peak hour demands were calculated by multiplying maximum day demands by a factor of 1.7 (calculated from the projections as shown in Table 2). 2018 scenarios for average day, maximum day, and peak hour were built into the City's model, the Proposed CCN Areas were added to the model, and the demands were allocated and adjusted to match the total demand projections shown in Table 2. Table 3 - Land Use and Associated Zonin Desi nations Used to Allocate Water Use Average 2005 2002-2006 Water Use Water Use Land Use LU .Code Associated Zoning Types Acreages acrel day) acre/ day) Civic CIV Corridor Overla 108.5 1,435.3 1.541.9 Park Floodplain and FP and RUR Streams/ Rural/ Park and PARK Agricultural Open A - O 789.7 66.1 63.7 Research & Development R & D 6.3 181.8 111.8 Light Industrial M - 1 243.6 171.4 185.0 Industrial R and D IND R&D Heavy Industrial M - 2 31.0 176.3 199.9 General Commercial C - 1 946.5 1,031.5 1,065.3 Institutional INST Commericial-Industrial C - 2 104.2 807.6 824.8 Office OFF Administrative/Professional A - P 47.4 662.7 798.0 Planned Development District PDD 124.8 1,430.1 1,709.9 Planned Planned Development District PDD - B 21.8 666.2 684.3 Development/Retail Planned Development District PDD - H 346.4 902.7 1,308.6 Nei hborhood PDD and C-N Planned Development District PMDD 0.7 287.9 492.0 Core North ate NG - 1 49.8 2,014.1 2,229.3 Commercial North ate NG-2 23.2 1,018.6 1,106.1 Redevelopment RDD Residential North ate NG - 3 57.0 2,483.1 2,392.8 Residential Attached R -A Duplex Residential R - 2 295.8 1,443.0 1,483.3 Retail Re ional C - R Light Commercial C - 3 37.3 806.5 750.7 S.F. Residential Low Density SF - LD Rural Residential Subdivision A - OR 285.6 352.6 410.5 Single-Family Residential R - 1 4,658.6 1,033.3 1,191.2 S.F. Residential Medium Single-Family Residential R - 1B 58.8 1,146.6 1,707.3 Density SF-MD Manufactured Home Park R-7 24.8 1,551.6 1,773.2 S.F. Residential High High Density Multi-Family R - 6 481.6 2,862.2 2,754.7 Density SF - HD Townhouse TH 94.9 1,212.0 1,429.5 Texas A&M University c - U College and University C - U 2,787.2 2.8 2.8 Transitional TRANS Multi-Family Residential R - 4 581.9 1,777.1. 1,826.6 Unclassified UNC Rural Residential Subdivision A - OR 956.0 248.3 281.9 IDR r Page 5 ,~.OUECE$Ti170\ / V`Nz d. ".r alp. R,-,. h L;Ih co '1~ iow? N U U + A , LL LL Qt f 'R~`~ 0x'~K4.-yt iy' R s 7.' 00 °7t 3 c' t tom,. r~_•'"...~- ~..t' •y vt~ At, 1 ~SNSf..S A., co -6, ! 4 g u A 'Y VY i E" ~ V'° J°%- ~ ~ ~ ~ . -.tom E a • ,v S,@~, ~ _ ~ e.~i2a 'fit t 'co > -14 rtsert a`~ 8 ~,aa rF-'-~ a ,~rsE' 'F tt "~~-Y ~ •v ca "k~' ~r Ems; ~ ACA Join xqt k r"lf TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum Table 4 - Demand Calculation of Proposed CCN Areas 200B 2018 Psoposed CCN 2005 Avefage Maximum 091ak Averve Maximum Peak Area ~(See Table-3) Day Day Hour Day Day HW A t" gWN_cA* 41 -awm 90011 Awn :10111M 0 Single Family Residential Low Density 39.73 41G 11.32 22.53 38.31 10.24 18.43 31.34 1 Institutional 7.97 1,065 5.90 11.74 19.95 5.33 9.60 16.32 2 Flood plains and streams 6.51 64 0.29 0.57 0.97 0.26 0.47 0.80 Residential Attached 13.03 1,483 13.42 26.71 45.40 12.14 21.85 37.14 Industrial R and D 110.75 200 15.38 30.60 52.01 13.91 25.03 42.55 Total 130.30 29.08 57.88 98.39 26.30 47.35 80.49 3 Retail Regional 38.26 751 19.94 39.69 67.47 18.04 32.47 55.20 Retail Regional 2.63 751 1.37 2.73 4.64 1.24 2.23 3.79 Retail Regional 1.00 751 0.52 1.04 1.76 0.47 0.85 1.44 Single Family Residential Medium Density 355.00 1,773 437.15 869.93 1,478.89 395.35 711.64 1,209.78 Single Family Residential Medium Density 26.83 1,773 33.03 65.74 111.76 29.88 53.78 91.42 Institutional 23.85 1,065 17.64 35.11 59.68 15.96 28.72 48.82 Flood Plain 4.75 64 0.21 0.42 0.71 0.19 0.34 0.58 Rural 614.11 64 27.15 54.03 91.86 24.56 44.20 75.14 Total 1,066.43 537.03 1,068.69 1,816.77 485.68 874.23 1,486.18 4 Transitional 16.07 1,827 20.38 40.56 68.96 18.44 33.18 56.41 Park 8.08 64 0.36 0.71 1.21 0.32 0.58 0.99 Single Family Residential Medium Density 5812 1,773 71.58 142.44 242.14 64.73 116.52 198.08 Total 82.28 92.32 183.71 312.31 83.49 150.28 255.48 5 Retail Regional 3.70 751 1.93 3.84 6.53 1.75 3.14 5.34 Retail Regional 6.55 751 3.42 6.80 11.56 3.09 5.56 9.45 Transitional 37.39 1,827 47.43 94.38 160.45 42.89 77.21 131.25 Retail Neighborhood 5.81 1,710 6.90 13.74 23.35 6.24 11.24 19.10 SF Residential High densit 10.45 2,755 19.98 39.77 67.60 18.07 32.53 55.30 Single Family Residential Medium Density 179.00 1,773 220.43 438.65 745.71 199.35 358.83 610.02 Park 11.96 64 0.53 1.05 1.79 0.48 0.86 1.46 Industrial R and D 42.69 200 5.93 11.79 20.05 536 9 65 16.40 Total 297.56 306.55 610.03 1,037.04 277.23 499.02 848.34 6 Industrial R and D 30.04 200 4.17 8.30 14.11 3.77 6.79 11.54 Retail Regional 1237 751 6.66 13.25 22.53 6.02 10.84 18.43 Texas A&M University 8.12 3 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 Industrial R and D 1.09 200 0.15 0.30 0.51 0.14 0.25 0.42 Retail Regional 1.93 751 1.00 2.00 3.40 0.91 1.64 2.78 Flood Plain 3.90 64 0.17 0.34 0.58 0.16 0.28 0.48 Industrial R and D 245.04 200 34.02 67.70 115.09 30.77 55.38 94.14 Retail Regional 16.23 751 8.46 16.84 28.63 7.65 13.78 23.42 Industrial R and D 10330 200 14.40 28.65 4830 13.02 23.43 39.84 Flood lain 9.40 200 1.31 2.60 4.42 1.18 2.12 3.61 Single Family Residential Low Density 6.42 410 1.83 3.64 6.20 1.66 2.98 5.07 Industrial R and D 91.83 200 12.75 25.37 43.13 11.53 20.75 35.28- Single Family Residential Low Density 838.40 410 238.97 475.56 808.45 216.12 389.02 661.34 Total 1,368.89 323.91 644.58 1,095.79 292.94 527.29 896.39 7 Sin le Family Residential Low Density 325.37 410 92.74 184.56 313.74 83.87 150.97 256.65 Institutional 2.03 1,065 1.50 2.99 5.09 1.36 2.45 4.16 Flood lain 9.55 64 0.42 0.84 1.43 0.38 0.69 1.17 Flood lain 1.13 64 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.05 0.08 0.14 Institutional 0.26 1,065 0.19 0.38 0.65 0.17 0.31 0.53 Park 7.35 64 0.32 0.65 1.10 0.29 0.53 0.90 Flood lain 297.84 64 13.17 26.21 44.55 11.91 21.44 36.44 Total 643.52 108.40 215.72 366.73 98.04 176.47 300.00 8 Single Family Residential Low Density 971.81 410 277.00 551.23 937.09 250.51 450.92 766.57 Rural 4.14 64 0.18 0.36 0.62 0.17 0.30 0.51 Flood lain 405.82 64 17.9 35.71 60.70 16.23 29.21 49.66 Total 1,381.781 1 295.14 3 587.30 998.41 266.91 480.43 816.74 / Page 7 ~y' Cm or Cbr.tcrr s:krIon DR ® '48~ TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 5.0 TCEQ RULES AND SYSTEM COMPLIANCE Chapter 290, Subchapter D of the TCEQ Rules, contains the minimum requirements to which distribution systems must adhere to be recognized as acceptable or superior rated systems. The City's existing distribution system (2008) and the proposed distribution system (2018) were evaluated using City's calibrated model to determine compliance with the TCEQ rules. The evaluations of the existing system and the proposed system are detailed below. 5.1 EXISTING SYSTEM The existing system shown in Figure 1 has in recent months approached 34,130 water service connections and the facilities and capacities are shown in Table 1. This number is conservative because the number includes all City water connections as well as multi-unit complexes (apartment complexes) with each individual living unit counted as a separate connection. Through negotiations with TCEQ, the City could potentially be successful in lowering the total number of service connections (per TCEQ) based on the assumption that individual apartments tend to have lower water demands than the average water service connection. 5.1.1 System Pressures According to the TCEQ rules, the City's distribution system must be able to maintain a minimum pressure of 35 psi at all points within the distribution network during normal operating conditions, which is specified to be at a flow rate of at least 1.5 gpm per connection. In addition, when the system is intended to provide fire fighting capability, it must be designed to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi under combined fire and drinking water flow conditions. For the City's 34,130 connections, the City must maintain a pressure of 35 psi at a flow rate of approximately 51,200 gpm (74 mgd) based on the 1.5 gpm per connection flow requirement. The model was executed using the 51,200 gpm (74 mgd) with the elevated tanks near empty. Pumps HS-1, HS-2, and HS-3 were set to be running and HS-4 was off. The model results indicated that the lowest pressure predicted throughout the entire system was 35 psi, which is just at the TCEQ minimum requirement. The actual peak hour demand for the 2008 distribution system is much lower at 33,400 gpm (48.11 mgd) as seen in Table 2, so running the model at 51,200 gpm (74 mgd) is conservative and pressures are expected to be much higher during normal operating conditions. To simulate fire flow under worst case conditions, the model was executed using the 2008 peak hour flow of 33,400 gpm (48.11) mgd with the elevated tanks half full. 33,400 gpm (48.11 mgd) is the highest peak hour drinking water flow anticipated based on historical records, so this flow was used to simulate the worst possible demand condition combined with a fire flow demand. Under this scenario, the system is capable of providing a fire flow of at least 1,000 gpm (1.4 mgd) at any point in the system while providing at least a 20 psi line pressure on all 6 inch diameter and greater pipelines. ~ Page 8 (Yrr oF(burc[S:cnon d • TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 5.1.2 Supply Requirement According to the TCEQ rules, distribution systems with more than 250 connections must have two or more wells having a total capacity of at least 0.6 gpm per connection. However, if an interconnection is provided with another acceptable water system capable of supplying at least 0.35 gpm per connection for each connection in the combined system under emergency conditions, a single well is permissible and an additional well is not required as long as the 0.6 gpm per connection requirement is met for each system on an individual basis. To meet this regulation, the City needs a total well capacity of 20,500 gpm (29.5 mgd) based on the requirement of 0.6 gpm per connection. The current system has a total well capacity of 18,750 gpm (27 mgd) and is therefore currently not in compliance. Well #4 will soon be taken out of service. The addition of Well #7 will offset the loss of Well #4 and bring the total well capacity to 19,100 gpm (27.4 mgd). Also, the City plans to add three new wells (Wells #8, #9, and #10) to its well fields. Those three wells combined will add 7,230 gpm (10.4 mgd) of pumping capacity for a total well field production capacity of 26,250 gpm (37.8 mgd). This additional supply will allow the City to exceed the TCEQ supply requirement. 5.1.3 Storage TCEQ rules state that the total storage (ground and elevated) capacity must be 200 gallons per connection in each pressure plane. The required elevated storage capacity is 100 gallons per connection or a pressure tank capacity of 20 gallons per connection. The elevated storage requirement must be met by systems and individual pressure planes with more than 2,500 connections. The City's distribution system is comprised of only one pressure plane. In order to comply with the TCEQ rules, the City must have a total storage capacity of approximately 7.0 million gallons (MG) and an elevated storage capacity of 3.5 MG. The current system provides a total storage capacity of 13 MG and an elevated storage capacity of 5.0 MG and is therefore in compliance in both total storage and elevated storage capacities. 5.1.4 Pumping Capacity TCEQ requires distribution systems to have two or more service pumps with a total capacity of 2.0 gpm per connection or that have a total capacity of at least 1,000 gpm and the ability to meet peak hourly demands with the largest pump out of service at each pump station and/or pressure plane. However, for systems which provide an elevated storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection, only two service pumps with a minimum combined capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection are required at each pump station and/or pressure plane. Therefore, there are three alternate ways that the City can meet the pumping capacity requirement. The following shows that this requirement cannot be met by the City's current system. Page 9 1DR ~7 CITY OF C011FLF S'I:i 17O\ nk A-W,i, R-h lWkv *4W ''d TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum To meet the requirement of 2.0 gpm pumping capacity per connection, the City needs a total pumping capacity of approximately 70,000 gpm (100 mgd). The four pumps located at the Dowling Road Pump Station only have a total pumping capacity of 30,000 gpm (43.2 mgd). (Does not meet TCEQ requirements) To meet the peak hourly demands, the City needs a total pumping capacity of approximately 33,400 gpm (48.11 mgd) with the largest pump out of service. With the largest pump out of service, the Dowling Road Pump Station can only pump 22,000 gpm (31.7 mgd). (Does not meet TCEQ requirements) To meet the requirement of 200 gallons of elevated storage per connection along with 0.6 mgd of total pumping capacity per connection, the City needs to have approximately 7.0 MG of elevated storage and 20,500 gpm (29.5 mgd) of total pumping capacity. The City has 5.0 MG of elevated storage and 30,000 gpm (43.2 mgd) of total pump capacity. (Does not meet TCEQ requirements) The pumping capacity analysis shows that the City's existing distribution system is deficient in meeting the TCEQ requirement, which indicates that immediate improvements are required to attain compliance. The two options available to gain immediate compliance would be to either increase pumping capacity within the distribution system by approximately 13,900 gpm (20 mgd) or add 2.0 MG of elevated storage. A further analysis of recommended improvements is included in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this TM. 5.1.5 Emergency Power For systems which serve more than 250 connections and do not meet the elevated storage requirement of 100 gallons per connection, sufficient emergency power must be provided to deliver a minimum of 0.35 gpm per connection to the distribution system in the event of the loss of normal power supply. The City easily meets the elevated storage requirement, so the TCEQ rule on emergency power does not apply to the City's distribution system. College Station's City Council recently mandated that emergency power generation will be added to the well fields. The power generation must be able to provide essential water (defined as minimum day flow) in the event of a power outage. 5.2 PROPOSED SYSTEM The proposed system with the new Proposed CCN Areas for 2018 was evaluated using the same methodology as was used for the existing system. The ratio of the population in 2008 to the number of connections (78,161:34,130) is 2.29. Using this ratio and the projected population of 99,011 for 2018, the projected number of water connections in 2018 is approximately 43,240. Figure 3 shows the number of connection per year projected out to 2018. / r Page 10 i~~ oF(btttrr.Srxnon I%W r.r TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 44,000 f 1 43,000 i ! - { i I 42,000 - - - - -T 41,000 - - I - - k H 40,000 C 39,000 O U 38,000 _ 37,000 j - - ! 36,000 35,000 I 34,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 3 - Projected Connections 5.2,1 System Pressures For the 2018 projected 43,240 connections, the City must maintain a pressure of 35 psi at a flow rate of approximately 65,300 gpm (94 mgd) based on the 1.5 gpm per connection flow requirement. The model was executed using the 65,300 gpm (94 mgd) with the elevated tanks near empty. Pumps HS-1, HS-2, and HS-3 were set to be running and HS-4 was off. The model results indicated that the lowest pressure predicted throughout the entire system was 19.6 psi, which is much lower than the TCEQ minimum requirement. The actual projected peak hour demand for the 2018 distribution system is much lower at 36,000 gpm (51.9 mgd) (occurs in 2016, but needs to be used here) as seen in Table 2, so running the model at 65,300 gpm (94 mgd) is conservative and pressures are expected to be much higher during normal operating conditions. However, to meet the TCEQ minimum system pressure requirement, improvements to the distribution system are required. Figure 4 shows the proposed distribution system model. The dark red areas are where the 35 psi minimum pressure requirement cannot be met. r Page 11 jjjLjjj JJJI CrrroF(ouFC Sr:non e 4 TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum .o S, o¢~J A o. 0 L O ti LU 4b W c~ z PR r .E ~i ~ 00 - p GHQ o y t. o B~ s o y g oo '9 / 00 s 0 ~ y ti o Gti a~ ~o = 0 O,~ ~O 4. \o~ V.,J O oti e 44, 00\- I o Figure 4 - Proposed Distribution System (2018) (Areas less than 35 psi are shown in red) To simulate fire flow under worst case conditions, the model was executed using the projected 2018 peak hour drinking water flow of 36,000 gpm (51.9 mgd) with the elevated tanks half full. 36,000 gpm (51.9 mgd) is the highest projected peak hour drinking water flow anticipated based on historical records, so this flow was used to simulate the worst possible demand condition combined with a fire flow demand. Under this scenario, the system is capable of providing a fire flow of at least 1,000 gpm (1.5 mgd) at any point in the system while providing at least a 20 psi line pressure on all 6 inch diameter and greater pipelines. 5.2.2 Supply Requirement To meet the supply requirement, the City would need a total well capacity of 26,000 gpm (37.4 mgd) to meet the 0.6 gpm per connection with 43,240 connections. The City's current well supply plus the planned well supply (Wells #8, #9, and #10) of 26,250 gpm (37.8 mgd) meets the requirement. Page 12 COLLEGE STATION iFr Armjdv R....., A ualh `UW TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 5.2.3 Storage The total storage capacity requirement is expected to increase to 8.7 MG based on the projected 43,240 connections. Since the City currently has 13 MG of total storage, it will remain in compliance with this regulation through 2018. The elevated storage capacity requirement will increase to 4.3 MG. Since the City currently has 5.0 MG of elevated storage, it will also remain in compliance with the elevated storage requirement through 2018. 5.2.4 Pumping Capacity As described in 5.1.4, there are three alternate ways that the City can meet the proposed system pumping capacity requirement. The following shows that this requirement cannot be met by the City's projected system. To meet the requirement of 2.0 gpm pumping capacity per connection with the projected 43,240 connections, the City needs a total pumping capacity of approximately 86,800 gpm (125 mgd). The four pumps located at the Dowling Road Pump Station only have a total pumping capacity of 30,000 gpm (43.2 mgd). (Does not meet TCEQ pumping requirements) To meet the peak hourly demands, the City needs a total pumping capacity of approximately 36,000 gpm (51.9 mgd) with the largest pump out of service. With the largest pump out of service, the Dowling Road Pump Station can only provide a pumping capacity of 22,000 gpm (31.7 mgd). (Does not meet TCEQ pumping requirements) To meet the requirement of 200 gallons of elevated storage per connection along with 0.6 gpm of total pumping capacity per connection, the City needs to have approximately 8.7 MG of elevated storage and 26,000 gpm (37.4 mgd) of total pumping capacity. The City currently has 5.0 MG of elevated storage and 30,000 gpm (43.2 mgd) of total pumping capacity. (Does not meet TCEQ pumping requirements) 5.2.5 Emergency Power The City will continue to meet the elevated storage requirement with the proposed system, so it will not be required to address emergency power through 2018. As stated in Section 5.1.5, College Station's City Council recently mandated that emergency power generation be added to the well fields. The power generation must be able to provide essential water (defined as minimum day flow) in the event of a power outage. Page 13 T C:moFc:oi~.ct SrX non rM M.n./iM &wl, tv/h FDR C vml~ TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS After evaluating both the existing 2008 and proposed 2018 distribution systems, the model results indicate that immediate improvements to the distribution system are required in order to comply with the current TCEQ regulations. The following items are where the City's distribution system does not meet TCEQ requirements: ■ Well Supply Capacity, 2008 (pending addition of Wells #8, #9, and #10) ■ Pumping Capacity, 2008 and 2018 ■ Minimum System Pressures Less Than 35 psi, 2018 After building the 2008 and 2018 scenarios, allocating the demands, and running the City's water distribution model, the 2008 TCEQ required minimum pressures appear to be maintained under normal average day, maximum day, peak hour, and fire flow conditions. Water supply requirements are currently not met, but with the planned addition of Wells #8, #9, and #10, the existing 2008 and proposed 2018 systems will meet TCEQ requirements. Total storage and elevated storage exceed the current TCEQ minimums for both the existing 2008 and proposed 2018 distribution systems. Also, because of the amount of elevated storage, it is not expected that the City will need to address the emergency power requirement through 2018. Table 5 summarizes the TCEQ evaluation. The red text in the table indicates where TCEQ requirements are not met. Table 5 - TCEQ Evaluation Summary Table 2008 TCEQ College Station College Station TCEQ Proposed Parameter Regulation Existing (Std. Value) Distribution System Distribution System Minimum Pressure Supplying 1.5 gpm per 35 psi 35 psi 19.6 psi connection Minimum Pressure Capable of supplying at Capable of supplying at During Combined least 1,000 gpm at any least 1,000 gpm at any Drinking Water and 20 psi point in the distribution point in the distribution Fire Flow Conditions system with pressures system with pressures above 20 psi above 20 psi Required = 20,500 gpm Required = 26,000 gpm Two or more wells (29.5 mgd) (37.4 mgd) Supply Requirement having a total capacity Actual = 26,250 gpm Actual = 26,250 gpm of 0.6 gpm per (37.8 mgd) (37.8 mgd) connection (pending Wells #8, #9, (pending Wells #8, #9, and #10) and #10) Total Storage 200 gallons per Required = 7.0 MG Required = 8.7 MG connection Actual = 13 MG Actual = 13 MG Elevated Storage 100 gallons per Required = 3.5 MG Required = 4.3 MG connection Actual = 5.0 MG Actual = 5.0 MG FDR Page 14 ~y,~m oc otaECe Srnnon~ /7[[~f y kw ti m C 4 TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum TCEQ College Station College Station TCEQ 00: Proposed 2018 Parameter Regulation Existing (Std. Value) Distribution System Distribution System Two or more pumps i.-jLlire` Tv,u,) i>rn! with a total capacity (100 mgd) (125 mgd) of 2.0 gpm per Actual = 30,000 gpm Actual = 30,000 gpm connection, (43.2 mgd) (43.2 mgd) or able to meet peak Required = 33,400 gpm Required = 36,000 gpm hour demands with (48.11 mgd) (51.9 mgd) the largest pump out Actual = 22,000 gpm Actual = 22,000 gpm Pumping Capacity of service, (31.7 mgd) (31.7 mgd) or provide 200 Elevated Storage Elevated Storage gallons per Required = 7.0 MG Required = 8.7 MG connection of Actual = 5.0 MG Actual = 5.0 MG elevated storage and Total Pumping Total Pumping a total pumping Required = 20,500 gpm Required = 26,000 gpm capacity of 0.6 gpm (29.5 mgd) (37.4 mgd) per connection Actual = 30,000 gpm Actual = 30,000 gpm 43.2 m d 43.2 m d If elevated storage requirement is not Elevated storage Elevated storage Emergency Power met, provide 0.35 requirement is met, so requirement is met, so not gpm per connection in the event not applicable applicable of a power outage Figure 5 presents the required well water supply through the year 2018. This graph shows that with the addition of Wells #8, #9, and #10, the well supply will be sufficient to satisfy TCEQ requirements through the year 2018. 1T+ Page 15 CITY OF CAl1FGF STATIO\' rM drm sJdv Nrr..rh lvlh TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 40 -m-Required Well Supply i 38 36 34 E E 32 i 3 30 a ffl LN @ HUESL( No No G;1L g S~ @ N 28 4) 26 24 EXISTING 22 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 5 - TCEQ Required Well Supply As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the pumping capacity requirement in 2008 through 2018 is not met. The City's system requires immediate improvement to gain compliance. Figure 6 shows that one way to meet the pumping requirement is to increase pumping capacity with the largest pump out of service by approximately 14,000 gpm (20 mgd). An alternative to increasing pumping capacity, as shown in Figure 7, is to increase elevated storage capacity by approximately 4.0 MG. As previously stated, either of these two options will satisfy the TCEQ pumping capacity requirement. / T Page 16 fdn la-1 I % (:mocCou.eceA-STAM 77~~ x.~../awK..,nU1ti TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum 55 - -~-Required Pumping Capacity i 50 ~ i 45 14,000 gpm (20 mgd of Additional 16 j Pumping) 40 U C CL E 35 a' 30 251 EXISTING 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 6 - TCEQ Required Pumping Capacity 10 ~ i 9 - -e-Required Elevated Storage ~ Approx. 4 MG of U,^ 7 Additional j Storage w 5 N 4 d W 3 2 1 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 7 - TCEQ Required Elevated Storage to Meet Pumping Requirement *r Page 17 Cm ov C.OLLFGk' Sr Anon FDR ~ r TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum The 2018 minimum system pressures fall below 35 psi when using the TCEQ required 1.5 gpm per connection in the City's model, as previously stated and as shown in Figure 4. It is anticipated that adding pumping capacity and/or elevated storage, which is required, as well as new distribution mains that will be evaluated and recommended during the development of the Water System Master Plan, will raise pressures up to acceptable levels greater than 35 psi. The master planning phase of this project will determine what the most beneficial improvements are to the City in terms of capital cost, operating cost, pressure maintenance, and compliance with TCEQ requirements. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET TCEQ REQUIREMENTS Analysis of the TCEQ distribution system minimum requirements has determined that the City's distribution system through the year 2018 has the following needs: ■ Immediately increase pumping capacity by 14,000 gpm (20 mgd) or add 4 MG of elevated storage. ■ Planned addition of water supply Wells #8, #9, and #10 ■ Verify that selected improvements through 2018 will meet TCEQ's minimum pressure requirements (35 psi) in the proposed 2018 distribution system. Adding 14,000 gpm (20 mgd) of pumping capacity in lieu of adding 4.0 MG of elevated storage is recommended. There are pros and cons to both options, but 4.0 MG of additional elevated storage is excessive for a City the size of College Station, and other issues such as water age, chlorine residual losses, and capital costs could become problematic for the City. Review of the existing Dowling Road Pump Station plans indicates that adding 14,000 gpm (20 mgd) of pumping capacity to the existing station by replacing existing pumps is not an option due to insufficient floor space. Therefore, the Dowling Road Pump Station will have to be expanded as shown in Figure 8, or a new pump station will have to be installed, which will be evaluated in the Master Plan portion of this project. Page 18 1hj Jl ~1J Qrr oc Coutrt S canon TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum i -COWRACTOR - "YOOM AREA r._. 14tt EI.ECTArAI. UNff SUBSTATION s> ^ rrrruzr POAJP EXIST" P(A4P SrA TM p K'• RP:E . i v! ' 8 W GROUND STORAGE RESERVOR 5 AO GROUW o s! z". STORAAGE RESERVOIR r l-. Y.AT/ PAO 1t i / Figure 8 - Dowling Road Pump Station Expansion Probable planning level construction costs (in 2008 dollars) to meet TCEQ requirements are as follows: ■ Increase Well Supply by 8.3 mgd (Wells #8, #9, and #10 minus Well #4) $12,000,000 ■ Expand Dowling Road Pump Station by 20 mgd $4,700,000 ■ Add 4 MG of Elevated Storage $5,600,000 The potential Dowling Road Pump Station expansion (added 14,000 gpm (20 mgd) pumping capacity) was added into the 2018 model to determine if this improvement is capable of increasing the distribution system pressures above the TCEQ 35 psi minimum. Figure 9 shows the City's water distribution model after the model run with the pressures less than 35 psi shown in dark red. ®jT Page 19 OF CALLE S fd\ Av Id Ar++.Id. avnh l'al4l TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum ~ o. ALA-yrh /8 G ~ o ~ o yv/J~,9 O Q~Q- m~0 • r ~ i j o t o o p 0 . ,S ,p ° o k 0~ o Yy k> tiB o P, 0 ~kG Q~~A ~ p 4v - ~ o - o leo ° t I o cb 0,p- 4 Figure 9 - Proposed Distribution System (2018) with Dowling Road Pump Station Expansion (Areas less than 35 psi are shown in red) As seen in Figure 9, after adding in the Dowling Road Pump Station expansion, almost all pressures are above the TCEQ minimum of 35 psi. Other improvements, such as adding and replacing water mains to be completed in the next phase of this Water Master Plan, will be used to refine the City's water distribution system so that TCEQ minimum pressures and requirements are met. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS The water distribution model utilized in this analysis is a steady state model. Steady state water distribution models are commonly used tools for distribution system design and can answer a wide variety of questions on pipe and pump sizing and system layout. However, steady state models capture only a snapshot in time and are used to focus on worst case situations such as peak hour demand and/or fire flow demand. These worst case events are times of maximum stress on the system and provide the basis for much of the hydraulic design of the system components. Steady state models are not capable of simulating normal operating conditions or predicting how a system might react to or recover from a worst case system over time. ®j~` Page 20 FDR ~ ~ / I.ITY°F (:OII.EGE h)dti ihr Mv.rfdv R-, 1, Ys/h %W NEW TCEQ Analysis of College Station's Distribution System Technical Memorandum In contrast, an extended period simulation (EPS) model can simulate variations in system demand patterns, pump operation, tank levels, pressures, and valve closures over a period of time. As a result, EPS models provide additional information on how a distribution system might operate throughout a demand period as demands vary, pumps turn on and off, tanks fill and drain, and control valves change position. Specifically, these models can be used to evaluate the following situations more fully than can be achieved with a steady state model: ■ Verifying storage tank volumes and hourly water level fluctuations, ■ Evaluating pump cycle timing for tank filling and draining, ■ Performing a detailed fire flow analysis, ■ Analyzing energy usage, ■ Developing system controls and set points for various demand patterns, ■ Evaluating emergency fire flow durations and impacts on daily system operations, ■ Preparing for special operations such as emergencies or shutdowns, and ■ Developing operator training on system operations and controls. Based on HDR's discussions with City staff, it appears that development of an EPS model may provide significant benefit in understanding the system's normal operating conditions as well as developing optimized set points for system controls. The staff has mentioned that the Greens Prairie Elevated Tank is difficult to fill during certain demand periods and is frequently several feet lower in water elevation than the Park Place Elevated Tank. EPS modeling could be used to recreate the diurnal demand patterns and system controls to evaluate more fully what is happening in the system on a time step basis. This analysis could then be used to develop recommended system improvements or changes to operational settings to alleviate the unbalance the City currently experiences within its distribution system. The EPS model could also be used to evaluate other system operational questions and develop optimized system operational schemes to maintain system requirements and balance energy usage. / Page 21 ~yJ C]rroF(:ottFC.,1-fAn Onn Appendix B Appendix B C.oiLE(iE $TAI I()\ rb~ Fnrn eJdr Rr..~nb lull: t r/ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B Appendix B Water Supply Alternatives A study was conducted by HDR for the City of College Station in April 2008 and documented in a report titled: Assessment of Water Demands, Needs, and Alternative Supplies for the City of College Station. Subsequent to that study, the City has updated its analysis of supplies and demands. Based on this updated analysis, City officials estimate that an additional 6,000 acft/yr of base-load supply needs to be developed. The purpose of this study is to update the alternatives evaluated in the 2008 study in consideration of the water shortages recently updated by the City. The alternatives being considered in this plan are to provide a uniform and constant delivery of 6,000 acft/yr, or about 5.4 MGD. The balance of the base load and peaking demand will be supplied by existing and planned water wells. For planning purposes, the City is assumed to be adding two new high- capacity Simsboro wells to their well field. The addition of these two wells will essentially fully allocate available water supplies from the Simsboro in the vicinity of Bryan-College Station, according to the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District (BVGCD). Thus, the water supply alternatives under consideration for this plan do not include new Simsboro wells. This study evaluates the following alternatives and compares the alternatives to guide the City in their decisions. These alternatives include: I ) Groundwater a) Carrizo and Sparta Aquifers 2) New Reservoirs a) Little River Reservoir b) Little River Off-Channel Reservoir c) Millican-Bundic Reservoir 3) Brazos River a) Purchase of raw water from Brazos River Authority 4) Wastewater Reuse a) Irrigation b) Potable To accommodate this Master Plan, results from the 2008 study were updated to account for a different demand and changes in costs to September 2008. All costing procedures used in this evaluation are consistent with those used in the two previous studies. The costs were computed as of September 2008. College Station March 2010 B-1 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B Basic assumptions in the evaluation of the several water supply alternatives are: • Provide sufficient water to satisfy the City of College Station's base load shortage of 6,000 acft/yr (5.4 MGD), projected to occur by about 2040. • The shortage can be met by adding a new potable water supply or removing an equivalent demand for potable water. • Water is to be treated to public drinking water standards at either the Dowling Road Pump Station (DRPS) or Sandy Point. An exception is the Brazos River diversion where the water will be treated at the river diversion site. B.1 Groundwater The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer System is classified as a major aquifer and is capable of producing large quantities of freshwater from the Simsboro and moderate quantities from the Carrizo. In this area, the Simsboro has far superior water-bearing characteristics and is the most extensively developed. The Sparta and Queen City Aquifers are stratigraphically above the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer and are classified as minor aquifers. The Sparta Aquifer is capable of producing moderate quantities of freshwater. The Queen City Aquifer is capable of producing modest quantities of fresh to slightly brackish water. Based on the most recent (2009) analysis by representatives of the Groundwater Management Area 12 (GAM-12) to set the Future Desired Conditions (DFC) for Brazos County, the estimated Managed Available Groundwater (MAG) for Brazos County for the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer is expected to be about 57,200 acft/yr. The estimated MAG for the Sparta is expected to be about 10,500 acft/yr. Supplies from the Queen City Aquifer, which is between the Sparta and Carrizo, is not considered because of poor water quality conditions and lower well yields in the vicinity of College Station's well field. Water level changes experienced to date are limited to artesian pressure declines in the vicinity of pumping centers. Little or no change in the water table in outcrop (recharge) areas has been observed. Regulations on the development of groundwater and the export of groundwater have been established for Brazos and Robertson Counties by the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District (BVGCD). Well spacing and production requirements are considered in this preliminary feasibility study, but will have to be addressed in detail during the permitting. Based on available information, there are sufficient, unallocated water supplies from the Sparta and Carrizo Aquifer in the vicinity of the City's well field to meet this shortage. College Station March 2010 B-2 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B Development of public water wells for the city involves: • Permits from the BVGCD; • Acquisition of real property rights to groundwater underlying the land surface; • Approvals from TCEQ; • Well construction; • Operations and maintenance; and • Water transport and treatment. 8.1.2 Sparta and Carrizo Wells For purposes of this alternative analysis, the following assumptions are made for new Sparta and Carrizo wells: • The City of College Station has acquired three land parcels in the vicinity of College Station's existing well field to construct three new Simsboro wells. These sites meet current groundwater district permitting requirements for well spacing under BVGCD rules for Simsboro, Carrizo and Sparta wells. • These land parcels are also suitable for co-located Sparta, Carrizo and Simsboro wells. Accordingly, a Sparta and Carrizo well will be installed at each of the three new well sites. • Existing or planned collector and transmission pipeline and pump station capacity are sufficient to deliver the additional water supply to the City. • Water from all the wells would be blended during storage and transmission and treated at the City's existing facilities. 8.1.2.1 Design This alternative consists of installing Sparta and Carrizo wells at sites located on the land parcels acquired by the City of College Station for Simsboro wells. The locations for the wells are shown in Figure B-l. The Sparta and Carrizo wells are approximately 500 and 2,000 feet deep and are expected to have yields of about 800 and 1,000 gallons per minute, respectively. It is assumed that three pairs of Sparta and Carrizo wells will be combined for this alternative so that there is a sufficient supply to meet the demand when the largest well is out of service. College Station March 2010 B-3 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix e '!T qq F IV d y e0 w, i w Ap, 4 V " -O Tm~ y r vt~ e FIN v a .J ~ a _0 r ii oN -0 .16 Z L q w $ C V ~ -E vo $ ~ o w C p p $ V;M EL LO Zi 4 l pp X 3 ye. u kd~.., ..5w -,.rte O s x,' y College Station March 2010 B-4 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B Infrastructure will include only the three Sparta and three Carrizo wells and an expansion of the water treatment facilities. Existing or planned pipelines owned by the City will transport the water. Water from these wells will not need cooling, as required by the deeper Simsboro wells. A benefit of the Carrizo and Sparta water is the blending with the Simsboro water, which will result in cooler water and a reduction in water losses in the cooling process. 8.1.2.2 Implementation Environmental issues from the implementation of this alternative are unlikely in that the wells will be constructed at sites with existing wells and will utilize existing pipelines and water treatment facilities will be expanded at existing sites. Implementation of this alternative is expected to include: • Few or no issues related to well permitting requirements of the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District; • Addressing typical construction and permitting requirements, such as erosion control and discharge of water during development and testing phases of well construction; and • Obtaining design, construction, and operational approvals from TCEQ. B.1.2.3 Estimated Costs The only major facilities required for this option are wells and expansion of the water treatment plant. Water transmission will utilize existing or planned pipelines and pump stations. The well pumps will be sized to deliver the raw water to the Sandy Point pump station. Well yields are expected to be about 800 gpm from the Sparta and 1,000 gpm from the Carrizo. Three Sparta and three Carrizo wells will provide sufficient capacity to meet the 5.4 MGD demand with one of the large wells being out of service. The water treatment plant expansion will be 5.4 MGD. Estimates were prepared for capital costs, annual debt service, operation and maintenance and power. The project assumes that there will be no cost for land or environmental studies and mitigation. Project costs, including capital, engineering, and interest during construction, are estimated to be $11,594,000. The annual costs, including debt service, operation and maintenance, and power, are estimated to be $1,675,000. This alternative produces water at estimated costs of $279 per acft or $0.86 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. College Station L~ March 2010 B-5 FM r HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.2 New Reservoirs Four new reservoirs are considered potential water supply sources for the City of College Station. They include: Little River Reservoir, Little River Off-Channel Reservoir, Millican- Bundic Reservoir, and Millican-Panther Creek Reservoir. Their locations are shown in Figure B- 2. Each was evaluated as a water management strategy in the 2001 and 2006 Brazos G Regional Water Plans, and all but the Millican-Panther Creek Reservoir were evaluated in HDR's April 2008 study. The Millican-Panther Creek Reservoir is a recommended project in the Initially Prepared 2011 Brazos G and Region H Plans. Details on potential regulatory, permitting and construction issues are provided in the 2006 Brazos G Plan and Initially Prepared 2011 Brazos G Plan For purposes of this alternatives analysis, the following assumptions are made: • These new reservoirs were previously evaluated as regional water supplies. Thus, they yield much more water than is needed by the City. Thus, partners must be found for them to be suitable alternatives. • Raw water would be delivered to the closest pump station, either Sandy Point or DRPS for treatment and delivery into the water distribution system. B.2.1 Implementation Implementation of the new reservoir alternative is expected to include addressing the following regulatory requirements: • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Water Right and Storage permits; • TCEQ permits to construct and operate water treatment and distribution facilities; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits will be required for structures placed in navigable waters of the U.S. (Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act) or discharges of dredge or fill into wetlands and waters of the U.S. for dam construction, and other activities (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act); • TCEQ administered Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; • General Land Office (GLO) Easement if State-owned land or water is involved; and College Station L March 2010 B-6 I m r r HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Sand, Shell, Gravel and Marl permit if state-owned streambed is involved. In addition, the State and Federal permits are expected to require the following studies and plans: • Environmental impact or assessment studies; • Wildlife habitat mitigation plan that may require acquisition and management of additional land; • Flow releases downstream to maintain aquatic ecosystems; Assessment of impacts on Federal and State-listed endangered and threatened species; and Cultural resources studies to determine resources impacts and appropriate mitigation plan that may include cultural resource recovery and cataloging; requires coordination with the Texas Historical Commission. Finally, land acquisition issues are likely to develop and include: • Land acquisition for reservoir and/or mitigation plans could require eminent domain proceedings; • Possible relocations of residences, utilities, roads, oil and gas production and storage facilities, or other structures; and • Possible acquisition of mineral rights that will no longer be accessible. College Station March 2010 B-7 ~ r HDR-00084004-09 Appendix 8 - - - l g~ O d.@ •f r`' E IL 'a owns*, C= 0 ~ ~ rz i .Y V ~ i d' 11 a~i~ , oa 03 S 6.2 a IL V I ro ~a~~ • d ;moo i \ Cc C)Y m mm y X `o o 2ax 4J R m O d A _ m \ ~d m Vrx C=d. C1 m tAC V C O N- Q CO ~m 8 > 3 L_ a /rte H has j~ H~ m dd .a ' D - ICU J i j y r' >cc z j c J U d V Q I i J O N ~ m U ~ O aZ ( ~'Uh 9 \ J ,~L~ ayi O ~ ~ J Lu a A ~ m tY~ C /i v ~ y W i - - r I Qv I W , a) m 1 o College Station March 2010 B-8 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.2.2 Little River Reservoir 8.2.2.1 Design This proposed new reservoir would be located on the main stem of the Little River just upstream from its confluence with the Brazos River near the City of Cameron. At a conservation pool elevation of 310 ft-msl, it would have a surface area of 20,690 acres and a storage volume of about 321,000 acft. The estimated firm yield is about 71,275 acft/yr. Water in excess of College Station's needs may be of interest to the Brazos River Authority for their system operations, water utilities in Williamson County, and/or utilities in the Houston area. Based on this alternative, College Station's share of the dam and reservoir would be nearly 8.4 percent of the project. Water potentially available for impoundment in the proposed Littler River Reservoir was estimated using the Brazos River Basin Water Availability Model (Brazos WAM)' developed and maintained by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), as modified to meet the water planning requirements of the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group.2 The modified Brazos WAM is referred to as the "Brazos G WAM." The model utilizes a January 1940 through December 1997 hydrologic period of record. Estimates of water availability were derived subject to general assumptions for application of hydrologic models as adopted by the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group. The model determines the streamflow available from the Little River without causing increased shortages to existing downstream rights. Firm yield was computed subject to the Little River Reservoir having to pass inflows to meet Consensus Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs. A more complete description of the hydrologic analyses used to determine the firm yield of the project can be found in the 2006 and Initially Prepared 2011 Brazos G Regional Water Plans. The available firm yield of the proposed reservoir is relatively large, since about a quarter of the approximately 7,584 square mile drainage area is uncontrolled. B.2.2.2 Estimated Costs Project costs for the construction of the Little River Reservoir at a normal pool elevation of 310 ft-msl will cost approximately $331,705,000. This includes the construction of the dam, 1 HDR Engineering, Inc., "Water Availability in the Brazos River Basin in the San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin," Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 2001. z Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group, 2006 Brazos G Regional Water Plan. College Station March 2010 B-9 \I' r/ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B engineering, land acquisition, resolution of conflicts, environmental permitting and mitigation, and interest during construction. College Station's share of this component of the project is expected to be $27,923,000. The project costs to divert and transport 5.4 MGD of water to Sandy Point and to provide water treatment are estimated to be $55,271,000. The city's share of the total project cost is estimated to be $83,194,000. The annual operating cost for College Station's share of the reservoir and full cost of the pump station, pipelines and water treatment, including debt service and operation and maintenance, is estimated to be $7,448,000. The unit cost of water will be $1,242 per acft or $3.81 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. B.2.3 Little River Off-Channel Reservoir 8.2.3.1 Design The Little River Off-Channel Reservoir is a proposed new reservoir on Beaver Creek, a tributary to the Little River. The reservoir site is located in Milam County, east of the City of Cameron. The project would divert water from the Little River when flow is in excess of downstream needs and impound water from the Beaver Creek watershed. The dam would provide a conservation storage capacity of about 156,000 acft at an elevation 400 ft-msl, and would inundate 4,343 surface acres. Various maximum diversion capacities from the Little River into the reservoir associated with potential diversion pipeline sizes (64-inch, 72-inch, 90-inch, 108-inch, and 120-inch diameter pipelines) have been considered in previous studies with the greatest incremental benefit in yield occurring with the 90- inch and 108- inch pipeline sizes. For this analysis, a 108-inch diversion pipeline was selected. Water potentially available for impoundment in the proposed Little River Off-Channel Reservoir was estimated using the Brazos G WAM and in a fashion similar to the Little River Reservoir analyses. The model computed the streamflow available for diversion from the Little River into the Little River Off-Channel Reservoir and available for impoundment from the Beaver Creek watershed without causing increased shortages to downstream rights. Firm yield was computed subject to both the reservoir and the Little River diversion having to pass inflows to meet Consensus Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs. The calculated firm yield of the Little River Off-Channel Reservoir is 27,225 acft/yr, which is constrained by the capacity of the 108-inch diameter Little River diversion facilities. Similar to the Little River Reservoir, water developed by this project may be of interest to the Brazos River Authority for their system College Station March 2010 B-10 HR NNW r HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B operations, water utilities in Williamson County, and/or entities in the Houston area. Based on this alternative, College Station's share of the dam and reservoir would be about 22 percent. B.2.3.2 Estimated Costs Construction of the Little River Off-Channel Reservoir and associated diversion facilities from Little River to the new off-channel reservoir will cost approximately $137,356,000. This includes the construction of the dam, river intake, pump station, pipeline, engineering, land acquisition, resolution of conflicts, environmental permitting and mitigation, and interest during construction. College Station's share of this component of the project is expected to be $30,271,000. The project costs to transport the 5.4 MGD of water to Sandy Point and to provide water treatment are estimated to be $52,133,000. College Station's share of the total project cost is estimated to be $82,405,000. The annual cost for College Station's share of the reservoir and diversion pump station and pipeline and the full cost of the delivery pump station, pipeline and water treatment, including, debt service and operation and maintenance, is estimated to be $7,766,000. The unit cost of water will be $1,294 acft or $3.97 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. B.2.4 Millican-Bundic Reservoir 8.2.4.1 Design Studies for a new reservoir on the Navasota River have been conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) since the mid-1940s. The proposed Millican Reservoir has been evaluated by the USCOE for the purposes of flood control, water supply, hydropower generation, and recreation. Many different sites have been studied along the Navasota River for various sizes and configurations. As evaluated for the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group (2006 and Initially Prepared 2011 Plans), the proposed Bundic site for the Millican Reservoir is on the Navasota River. It is located between SH 21 and US 79 and approximately 19 miles northeast of the City of Bryan. The proposed reservoir would impound approximately 205,760 acft of conservation storage and inundate 14,630 acres at the full conservation storage level of 277 ft-msl. It would be formed by a dam about 2 miles long. Water potentially available for impoundment in the proposed Millican-Bundic Reservoir was estimated using the Brazos G WAM, in a manner similar to the Little River Reservoir College Station March 2010 B-1 1 r Vol HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B analyses. The model computed the streamflow available from the Navasota River without causing increased shortages to existing downstream rights. Firm yield was computed subject to the reservoir having to pass inflows to meet Consensus Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs. With consideration of these criteria, the firm yield of the reservoir is 36,990 acft/yr. The Millican-Bundic Reservoir could potentially provide water supplies to other water utilities in the Brazos County and Grimes County area, as well as help meet water supply needs in the Houston area. For this alternative, College Station's share of the project would be about 16.2 percent. 8.2.4.2 Estimated Costs The proposed project includes the construction of an earth dam, principal spillway, emergency spillway, and appurtenant structures. Project cost estimates were prepared by the USCOE in 1982. Updated to September 2008, the total project reservoir cost for the Bundic Dam Site is estimated to be $720,224,000. This cost is based on a federal project and some federal participation in the project would be anticipated. College Station's share of the project would be about $116,825,000. The proposed plan is to transport the water to DRPS. One component of the water transmission is to release the water into the Navasota River for `bed and banks' transfer to Texas Hwy 30; and, the second component is to construct an intake, pump station and pipeline from the Navasota River and DRPS for treatment. The project costs to transport the water from Millican-Bundic Reservoir to DRPS, provide water treatment and to integrate the water into the water system is estimated at $36,522,000. The combined project cost for College Station is about $153,346,000. The annual costs for College Station's share of the reservoir and full cost of the water transport and treatment, including annual debt service, and operation and maintenance, is estimated to be $12,674,000. The unit cost of water will be $2,112 acft or $6.48 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. B.2.5 Millican-Panther Creek Reservoir 8.2.5.1 Design The Panther Creek site is an alternative to the Bundic site for the proposed Millican Reservoir. It would develop a substantially larger reservoir with a larger firm yield supply. At the conservation pool elevation (263 ft-msl), the Panther Creek site would encompass 71,032 acres and have a storage capacity of 2,044,563 acft. The Panther Creek site is on the Navasota College Station March 2010 B-12 lul HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B River, about 13 miles southeast of the City of Bryan. The project would develop a firm yield supply of 194,500 acft/yr. For this alternative, College Station's share of the project would be about 3.1 percent. This project is identified as a recommended water management strategy in the Initially Prepared 2011 Region H Regional Water Plan to supply substantial needs in the greater Houston area. It is recommended over the Bundic site because the Bundic site would not develop sufficient supply to meet Region H's needs. The Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group has correspondingly identified it as a recommended water management strategy in the Initially Prepared 2011 Brazos G Regional Water Plan, and has recommended that the City receive 2,500 acft/yr of the supply. The difference between the 2,500 acft/yr utilized by Brazos G and the 6,000 acft/yr evaluated in this study is due largely to smaller demands projected by the Texas Water Development Board for use in the Brazos G Plan. 8.2.5.2 Estimated Costs The proposed project includes the construction of an earthen dam, principal spillway, emergency spillway, and appurtenant structures. Project cost estimates were prepared by the USCOE in 1982. Updated to September 2008, the total project reservoir cost for the Panther Creek Dam site is estimated to be $1,159,907,000. This cost is based on a federal project and some federal participation in the project would be anticipated. College Station's share of the project would be about $35,781,000. The project cost estimates include the cost for the raw water facilities and exclude water treatment and treated water transmission. The project costs to transport the water from Millican-Bundic Reservoir to DRPS, provide water treatment and to integrate the water into the water system is estimated at $29,692,000. The combined project cost for College Station is about $65,473,000. The annual costs for College Station's share of the reservoir and full cost of the water transport and treatment, including annual debt service, and operation and maintenance, is estimated to be $6,523,000. The unit cost of water will be $1,087 acft or $3.33 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. College Station March 2010 B-13 `r/ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.3 Brazos River Diversion 8.3.1 Design A direct diversion from the Brazos River west of College Station is a potential alternative. The location of the project is shown in Figure B-2. This diversion would require a water purchase contract with the Brazos River Authority at the Authority's System Rate, currently $60.50/acft. This water supply is expected to have highly variable water quality, including high sediment during high flow conditions and relatively high salinity during low flow conditions. To account for this variability, all of the water would need to be treated with a conventional water treatment system and, during low flow conditions, much of the water would have to be processed by a desalination facility. The water treatment plant would be located at the diversion to facilitate the discharge of concentrate from the desalination plant. A potable water pipeline would deliver the water to College Station's DRPS for integration into the water distribution system. B.3.2 Implementation Implementation of the Brazos River alternative is expected to require addressing the following contractual and regulatory requirements: • Brazos River Authority long-term water supply agreement: At this time, the Authority has fully committed its supplies available under its existing water rights and is unable to enter into any new long-term water supply agreements. The Authority has applied for a Systems Operations Permit with the TCEQ that would significantly increase the supplies the Authority has available to sell. The final dispensation of that permit application is unlikely to be known for several more years; • TCEQ permits to construct and operate water treatment and distribution facilities and to discharge desalination water treatment plant concentrate to the Brazos River; General Land Office (GLO) Easement if State-owned land or water is involved; and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Sand, Shell, Gravel and Marl permit if state-owned streambed is involved. Finally, land acquisition issues may develop and include: Land acquired for access to the Brazos River and water treatment plant and pump station and pipelines. College Station March 2010 B-14 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.3.3 Estimated Costs The proposed Brazos River Diversion project includes the construction of an intake structure and raw water pipeline, water treatment facilities, pump station and treated water pipeline. Project cost estimates are estimated to be $35,744,000. The annual costs, including annual debt service, and operation and maintenance, are estimated to be $4,696,000. The unit cost of water will be $783 acft or $2.40 per 1,000 gallons. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. B.4 Wastewater Reuse Wastewater reuse commonly has two classifications. Direct Reuse involves conveying treated wastewater directly from the wastewater treatment plant to the place of use by a pipeline (also called "flange-to-flange"). All direct reuse water supply options assume that treated wastewater remains under control (in pipelines or storage tanks) at all times by the entity treating the wastewater and/or supplying reuse water. Indirect Reuse discharges the treated wastewater to a river, stream, or lake for subsequent diversion downstream. Two wastewater reuse alternatives are being considered. One is to utilize treated wastewater effluent to replace a potable water supply for landscape irrigation. This application would result in a direct reduction on the total demand for potable water supplies from existing sources. The other application is advanced treatment of wastewater effluent and integrating the water into the City's potable water distribution system. In effect, this is a new water supply. Because of the method of delivering the treated wastewater to the point of use, these alternatives are considered to be direct reuse. Wastewater reuse quality and system designs are regulated by TCEQ (30 TAC §210). TCEQ allows two types of reuse as defined by the use of the water and the required water quality: • Type 1 - Public or food crops generally can come in contact with reuse water. • Type 2 - Public or food crops cannot come in contact with reuse water. The reuse for landscape irrigation purposes would need to meet Type 2 standards. Effluent from Carters Creek WWTP currently meets the more restrictive Type 1 standards. Introducing treated wastewater into a public water system will require additional treatment so that the water meets drinking water standards. College Station March 2010 B-15 'fir' r/ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.4.1 Wastewater Supply The source of wastewater being considered for these two alternatives is effluent from College Station's Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (CCWWTP). The daily discharge from this plant for 2006 and 2007 averages about 5.7 MGD and ranges from about 3.4 to 16.4 MGD. These data show that there is a potential supply of 5.4 MGD on a daily basis for only about 28 percent of the time. Thus, this supply is not fully adequate to meet the 6,000 acft/yr shortage on a base load application. Further analyses of the Carters Creek WWTP discharge shows that a project supply of 5,860 acft/yr (5.2 MGD) is available when the discharge is capped at capacity of the reuse facilities, which is about 5.4 MGD. Actual and capped monthly discharges from Carters Creek WWTP for 2006 and 2007 are listed in Table B-l. Table B-1. Monthly Actual and Capped Discharge from Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Monthly Discharge from Carters Monthly Discharge from Carters Creek Creek WWTP (Daily Discharge WWTP MGD Ca ed at 5.4 MGD MGD Month 2006 2007 Avera a 2006 2007 Average January 5.24 6.09 5.67 5.02 5.14 5.08 February 5.61 5.65 5.63 5.33 5.36 5.35 March 5.47 5.96 5.71 5.10 5.27 5.19 April 5.69 5.71 5.70 5.32 5.30 5.31 May 5.38 5.73 5.56 5.05 5.21 5.13 June 5.34 5.67 5.50 5.22 5.31 5.26 July 5.38 5.56 5.47 5.29 5.27 5.28 August 5.63 5.81 5.72 5.35 5.35 5.35 September 6.23 6.22 6.22 5.36 5.36 5.36 October 6.63 6.02 6.32 5.26 5.36 5.31 November 5.53 5.99 5.76 5.18 5.31 5.25 December 5.31 5.39 5.35 4.98 4.88 4.93 Average 5.62 5.82 5.72 5.21 5.26 5.23 (MGD) 8.4.2 Implementation Potential environmental issues that may need to be addressed include: • Reduced instream flows downstream of Carters Creek WWTP; • Possibly noticeable changes in water quality in Carters Creek; College Station March 2010 B-16 r ~ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B • Possibly negative impact to fish and wildlife habitat caused by reduced stream flows; and • Determining the amount of treated effluent available, taking into consideration downstream water commitments and discharge permit requirements. These issues are expected to be minimal because of College Station's current permit for reuse of effluent from their wastewater treatment plants. Other potential implementation issues include: • Getting permits and approvals from TCEQ, especially for the potable water alternative; • Getting acceptance by the public, especially for the use of treated wastewater from potable supplies; and • Possibly over coming objections to have treated wastewater being stored in or near areas of high public activity. B.4.3 Non-Potable Reuse Options 8.4.3.1 Design In this study, potential customers for irrigation use of wastewater include the Veteran's Park, Central Park, Adam Development Properties, Crescent Pointe Development, and Post Oak Mall. The location of the customers and project is shown in Figure B-3. As shown on the map, Veterans Park, Adam Development, and Crescent Pointe are north of Carters Creek WWTP; and, the Post Oak Mall, Central Park and a planned Industrial Park are to the west of Carters Creek WWTP. This setting requires separate north and west distribution systems. A description of each of the customers and their irrigation water demands follow. Veteran's Park, a 150 acre regional athletic park in College Station, and contains nine softball fields, thirteen soccer fields, and twelve acres designated as a Veterans Memorial with a garden plaza. Veteran's Park has an irrigation demand of about 1,500,000 gallons per week during the peak summer irrigation months of June through September. To estimate system demands and capacities, it is assumed that Veterans Park will be irrigated three times a week and have a maximum daily demand of 500,000 gallons. The City evaluated several wastewater reuse options in a report dated November 20, 2001 titled Veterans Park Irrigation Water Supply Study. College Station March 2010 B-17 \r v/ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix 8 The assumptions from the study are utilized in developing this wastewater reuse alternative for the City. Central Park is a 47.2 acre community park in College Station. This park includes four softball fields, three soccer fields, and is the largest park in the City. Central Park has an irrigation demand of about 605,000 gallons per week during the peak summer irrigation months of June through September. It is assumed that Central Park will be irrigated three times a week for a maximum daily demand of 202,000 gallons per day. Crescent Pointe Development is a master-planned, mixed-use area consisting of approximately 192 acres. It includes office buildings, apartments, and parks. According to recent monthly meter readings, it utilized an average of 103,000 gallons per week for the peak summer irrigation months in 2007 and 218,000 gallons per week for the peak summer irrigation months in 2008. Adam Development Properties, LP is a real estate area located in College Station. The City provided meter readings for the peak summer irrigation months for 2005 through 2008. An average consumption of about 170,000 gallons per week was reported for the summer months of 2006. The years 2007 and 2008 had average weekly summer irrigation demands of 267,000 gallons per week and about 1,067,000 gallons per week, respectively. Post Oak Mall is a regional mall located in College Station with a gross leasing area of 899,712 square feet. The property consists of about 120 in-line stores and 5,200 parking spaces. For 2005 through 2008, the average weekly consumption for the peak summer months of 2005 was 578,000 gallons per week. The average weekly consumption for the peak summer months of 2006 was 581,000 gallons per week. The average weekly consumptions for the peak summer months of 2007 and 2008 were 238,000 gallons per week and 465,000 gallons per week, respectively. The Planned Industrial Park is a located across Hwy 6 from Central Park. The property is vacant and targeted for an industrial center. For purposes of this report, the projected water demands are considered to be equivalent to Crescent Pointe. College Station March 2010 B-18 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B rla A o t~i'~s- i~; iY ,'~t° y -I7; Rr i g F • a 1 fly t 1`.lP.. co An" r. a k 3 rt e7 !f `f 4G l ' fir, rc~ a c «v y - ° a N~~,~~ Cl~• s% ~ ~t r s.- ~ ~ _ O c y'. _ C Y „y ~ ~ o!a l ~ s i ty s j' w ~ r - I n f'- ! O1 . O x rj j e f * xZ a \ F w a , Cli ~ ..fir/ a t ~ ; r~'~' ~ ~•'s~°' G 41, Y ~ d} •.a^ a I•° 7 yy,~~ ~gprW College Station March 2010 B-19 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B The typical irrigation water demands for the potential customers were estimated from information and data provided by the City for recent years. For purposes of this study, the irrigation demand was estimated after removing the estimated potable use component, which was estimated from winter data. A typical monthly irrigation pattern for all the potential customers was calculated by averaging and smoothing the available data. These estimates indicate an irrigation demand exists from April through October and peaks in July. Table B-2 presents the estimated irrigation water demands for each of the potential six customers. This analysis shows that the greatest monthly demand is 75.7 acft in July and an annual demand of 312.5 acft. It also shows that the largest user is expected to be Veteran's Park. The irrigation option will include a pump station at the wastewater treatment plant, a pipeline to customers east of Texas Hwy 6, a pipeline for customers west of Texas Hwy 6, and ground storage at the end of each pipeline to balance the daily supply and hourly demand. Irrigation water for landscapes such as the developments and parks will generally be applied during periods when these areas are not being utilized, typically at night. Therefore, the distribution facilities are sized to deliver the total daily demand in a 6-hour period. Pumping facilities are sized to deliver the water to a ground storage tank near the irrigation demand. Distribution pumps and pipelines would draw water from the storage tank as needed. Table B-2. Estimated Irrigation Demand for Selected Customers (acft) Post Planned Veteran's Central Crescent Adam Oak Industrial Month Park Park Pointe Development Mall Park TOTAL April 5.8 2.3 0.6 2.3 1.3 0.6 12.9 May 16.4 6.6 1.6 6.5 3.8 1.6 36.5 June 32.4 13.1 3.1 12.8 7.5 3.1 71.9 Jul 34.1 13.8 3.2 13.5 7.9 3.2 75.7 August 26.0 10.5 2.5 10.3 6.0 2.5 57.7 Set 17.0 6.9 1.6 6.7 3.9 1.6 37.8 October 9.0 3.6 0.9 3.6 2.1 0.9 20.0 Total 140.7 56.8 13.4 55.6 32.6 13.4 312.5 These data and analyses show that removing these irrigation demands from the City's water distribution system is not nearly enough to meet the shortage of 5.4 MGD on a base load (year round) basis. Because this reuse option does not nearly meet the shortage in water supply, especially during the winter, a supplemental water supply is required. Based on the summary of College Station LT`S) March 2010 B-20 j L1.t HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B cost estimates from the other alternatives, the least expensive supply is the construction of Sparta and Carrizo wells. A lack of demand in the winter causes a full-sized Sparta-Carrizo well project to be built. However, when operated in conjunction with the irrigation reuse project, the summer demand for well water would be less during the summer than for a stand-alone well project. B.4.3.2 Estimated Costs 8.4.3.2.1 Without Supplemental Supplies The capital cost for the reuse component of wastewater from Carters Creek WWTP is estimated at $2,708,000; and, the project cost is estimated to be $3,781,000. The annual costs is estimated to be $311,000. The unit cost for the water would be $995 per acft, or $0.90 per 1,000 gallons. The project is expected to deliver about 312 acft/yr. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. 8.4.3.2.2 With Supplemental Supply from Sparta-Carrizo Project The capital cost for the combined irrigation reuse component and the Sparta-Carrizo component to produce 6,000 acft/yr is estimated at $10,966,000; and, the project cost is estimated to be $15,375,000. The annual costs for this alternative is estimated to be $1,973,000. The unit cost for the water for this alternative project would be $329 per acft, or $ 1.01 per 1,000 gallons. The project is expected to deliver the full 6,000 acft/yr in a base load pattern. B.4.4 Potable Reuse Option 8.4.4.1 Design The potable water option will include a pump station at the water treatment plant, a pipeline to DRPS, an advanced water treatment plant and integration into the water distribution system. The location of the facilities for the project is shown in Figure B-4. Potential potable water for this project considers diverting treated wastewater from Carters Creek WWTP to an advance water treatment plant at the DRPS, and delivering the water that is treated to drinking water standards into storage facilities at DRPS for blending and integration into the City's water distribution system. It's HDR's understanding that a direct reuse of wastewater for public drinking water supplies has not been implemented in the United States. Only one direct reuse application for public water supply is known to exist in the world. Thus, College Station ]L~ March 2010 B-21 L lam` 14W HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B development of this alternative would be precedent setting and would in all likelihood be very difficult to implement. The direct reuse treatment costs are in addition to conventional wastewater treatment. Example treatment for direct reuse would be to treat effluent from a conventional wastewater treatment plant using all or a combination of the following treatment processes: low pressure membranes, reverse osmosis membranes, granular activated carbon adsorption, UV disinfection, and chlorine. The wastewater discharge from Carters Creek WWTP for years 2006 and 2007, excluding daily flows above the project's capacity of 5.4 MGD, is 5,860 acft/yr, which does not quite meet the shortage of 6,000 acft/yr. However, the discharges are expected to increase in future years and will be able to provide sufficient raw water from the project. Thus, a supplemental supply is not considered for the potable reuse option. 8.4.4.2 Estimated Costs The capital cost for the potable reuse component of wastewater from Carters Creek WWTP is estimated at $36,261,000; and, the project cost is estimated to be $50,461,000. The annual costs is estimated to be $7,724,000. The unit cost for the water would be $1,318 per acft, or $4.04 per 1,000 gallons. The project is expected to deliver about 5,860 acft/yr, which would meet the shortage over 70 percent of the time. This supply would increase as flows from the Carters Creek WWTP increase. Engineering features and cost summaries are provided in Tables B-3 and B-4 at the end of this report. College Station March 2010 B-22 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix 8 I ..r im:t { E x r 4 , g V-A yyJl tl g`Y ~hw ti. fir, w r > ;fix R ':t''r ILI r t C' ¢ ^ i 0' l~ ti t awdS s'i ~~f? ~r°tr~r~i 1~q Cy. d~ ~f Yu r J~ . - 1 vRl?`eY'„y. <l~% y `~rT v' r.,~~ k ~ L No ?sue ~t * y t c~ C 1 ~''s `fir,`, p fir. 1. ,.ta`rV' k ~rcy_ ? Y v1. X.w~e x j ~ V $h r ; A S d1 Kr 1 0 ' `1 .7 T, - mo 0-- ca ~rd„~ 1 ' ~ tr > \ ~ 'CF~~ ~ ~a'Z ~ . t i C~ l ~r '°s~ e ~~R^~ i - ~ r~ ~ ~arrr, !h .f~~ t~ ter.., ~C ~ - 41. ~ r College Station March 2010 B-23 VI `0 HDR-00084004-09 Appendix B B.5 Summary of Findings and Conclusion A summary of the features of the water supply alternatives is presented in Tables B-3; and, a summary of the costs are presented in Table B-4. A review of the cost table indicates that the least expensive water supply is Carrizo and Sparta wells. Contributing to the lower cost is the opportunity to utilize city owned land for the wells and existing infrastructure to convey the raw and treated water to the distribution system. The unit cost is about $279 per acft ($0.86 per 1,000 gallons). To meet the shortage of 6,000 acft/yr at a uniform flow rate, three pairs of Carrizo and Sparta wells are needed. They are to be co-located with new or planned Simsboro wells. The raw water would be conveyed with pipelines for the Simsboro wells to the Sandy Point Pump Station for treatment with the Simsboro water. Integration into the distribution system would be at the Sandy Point Pump Station. Four new reservoirs were considered as alternatives. They are: Little River, Little River Off-Channel, Millican-Bundic, and Mill ican-Panther Creek. Each of these reservoirs provides considerable more water than the 6,000 acft/yr that is needed by the City. As a result, partners would be needed for all of these projects. Of these reservoir projects, the least expensive to the City is the Millican-Panther Creek Reservoir. It has a unit cost of $1,087 per acft or $3.33 per 1,000 gallons. The Little River Reservoir project is about 14 percent more expensive; the Little River Off-Channel Reservoir is about 19 percent more expensive; and, the Millican-Bundic Reservoir is about 94 percent more expensive. A surface water supply from the Brazos River would require a desalination water treatment process because of occasional relatively high concentrations of salinity in the river water. This project has a unit cost of $783 per acft or $2.40 per 1,000 gallons. Its feasibility is contingent on the Brazos River Authority getting an approval in their application for an increase in their Systems Operations permit. Effluent from Carters Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for reuse is accommodated in the City's permit from TCEQ. Reclaiming this effluent is considered for (1) replacing existing irrigation water for relatively high-use customers in the vicinity of Carters Creek WWTP and (2) treatment and integration into the City's potable water distribution system. For the irrigation project, the demand is seasonal and not nearly enough to reduce the potable water demand by a constant 6,000 acft/yr. As a result, a project of Carrizo and Sparta wells was added to provide a full supply to address the shortage. It's estimated that the irrigation College Station March 2010 B-24 lu~ HDR-00084004-09 Appendix 8 reuse project would provide supply of 321 acft/yr that would be distributed only in the summer months. The supplemental supply would be met with three pairs of Carrizo and Sparta wells so that a full supply of 6,000 acft/yr would be achieved. Without consideration of the supplemental supply, the irrigation reuse project would have a unit cost of $995 per acft or $3.05 per 1,000 gallons. With the supplemental supply from the Carrizo and Sparta wells, the unit cost for the project is $329 per acft or $1.01 per 1,000 gallons. These costs are heavily weighted to the wells because about 95 percent of the water would come from the wells. For the potable water project, treated effluent from Carters Creek WWTP would be conveyed to Dowling Road Pump Station for treatment and integration into the distribution system. Because of the rarity of direct reuse of wastewater for a potable water supply, at least two levels of water treatment beyond the current Type I treatment at Carters Creek W WTP are anticipated. One is a conventional treatment to condition the water for advance treatment and the other is application of membranes or reverse osmosis. This project is likely to encounter considerable difficulty in permitting and getting public acceptance. The quantity of effluent from Carters Creek WWTP would produce about 5,860 acft/yr when capped at the capacity of the project. Because of the modest shortage in the project capacity of 6,000 acft/yr and the potential for increased flows in the future, no supplemental supplies are included in the project. In summary, the potable reuse project would have a unit cost of $1,318 per acft or $4.04 per 1,000 gallons. In conclusion, the least expensive water supply alternative to develop an additional supply of 6,000 acft/yr is the Carrizo and Sparta well project. The least expensive surface water project is the diversion from the Brazos River, assuming that the Brazos River Authority has sufficient supplies to sell. Major permitting difficulties are expected for the reservoir projects and for reclaiming wastewater effluent for potable water purposes. College Station March 2010 B-25 VOW a o " d a ` O d. W> W T a W'c E E!- W o o .o W n 3 b =y fn N N~ 3 d d n E WL W Em m 3y ~yE m d cS `mgn and aEi ° °a1pi .8 E m~ day my C ° W - y'~ m 5 m d mt °~ac E a a s 'S '3 c~i 3 ~ 3 -v- W d a' m m m y v° y p n v W o '3 0 N E v Iz b o N v, b o f E o v a E b b `m m` ,N `m `m E °m c 2 U c U°=W r riu r t »m m°a r~ wE'> ¢`W3 a aaom a a ¢c O°Jna o°aa E E E o o ° o > > c m a a af o c a o O c'm O1m m ~'A C o C o c o u aW 0.2 am o y o p W> y o rn y y DE ❑E d a a v > > W E o o m 2a La ma U) y y U U - U W V~ a c W W c , o d o o c 75 0 0 0 0 C a1 C ti > > > > ~mA o a>E>EO~ m z W a W C- v U U U om 3~~F>Q U U Q U a w `m 3 ° om m tN'1 N < Q m... d d W o to l ~ w3 e = p 3 o b n g 6 N a z m ~ C w b Q G ~ V N ~ N N ~ ~ m m ri 4 n t y ! m n N m Q Cd N O o m W'~y N m y W Q a E N W N W E 7 L 'C d Z b W 6 W 2 ? b ` Uy Utn d 'u E °om Nom na `m~C W ~t U U W U Y y 1~ N O N W W ~ ~ m ~ m O N Q V O O H ` N ~ r N 2 •O- W ° ~ ° o m Z~ o' o m m n G N a M N m p U a m o °o o°° oo' °o v°i °o o W w m m G.•. O ~ O ~ O O O O b dm C?p` m ~ m N m ~ m rn m m ~°~m ~m £~uaq m v v e a 6i ~a in W a I > > d ra v3 N c > W W U c C N¢ J W > f > W W d y x W y W m =~j na U > J z °1 Z a m w y a yW. a u a y` a c 'o o W U d W C W w W C c c c p o c m c p > 2 y c 2 m L Z b 2 y W W `u ~ w E U W E p m .N ° H E > > Q w K a m O v m m a W e m W K v W o W m > d C o E K E E v d E a a v E E W W m m e m ~ rn ~y W d W `l W W d W W W `1 p W p W oW 3~ W o fir- = 0 3~ 0 3~ ti `w F a C O m O ~ Q M ~ rn a m O M c7 O h O O m O m m M t0 M O V M O M Q O O. O O j0 O q O N M N V N cD N c•I N cli O p f C v pG ~ W ~A IA W l+9 ~ M fq 19 !q M1 m Vi 09 fq t9 t9 d G •C d R ~ Q~aa 0 OI W Q N b 0 ~ N Q M n M h N OI m w~ R~ U N M a N Q 4) N Q O ~ Q t0 O 1~ a N ch M yp O~ d W M M ~ bq M ~ W N M M ~ Ui ty W M V G L ~ ~ ~ Vi ~ G a O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N q N O h 01 m Y) O t0 0 M m lV C') Q n Q l0 V n m m n l0 i~ N m b n N m M Q Q m n O~ O m Q q ~ m M b N n tti 4h 1[j n nl R N fV Cj m < ~ e= ~ n N~ bq M ~ 69 M ~ tq ~ !q 1A fA eq f9 19 N ~ O ~ = O p M a O) y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c E o° °o °0 00 00 °o 0 0 °0 0 0 0 0 ~'Qy o 0 0 0 0 d O C V l0 try V V - N b 1~ rl h E w u a rn 0 n n M Q 0 r pay N q N N N N N N N N a fA di fA M19 M !9 fA f9 F9 69 t9 f9 w (j d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'AO G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 7 q W d M R M M b 1~ ~ R (O [h ' m O) O M M tM C ` ~ ~ ~ Im M N ~ O N Q O ~ O~ 0Q N V MK ~ f0 a~0 t9 tq to ~H 69 t9 69 69 N3 tq tq to m ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C N ' u V y d. Q ~ m (O (m0 h c7 m ~ ~ n Q n {mp y d 2 m O O O n a O cp In c N q ~p O co m w V MW MM bN N w c\J N1 9 en CC O N Z d ~ 00 °0 0 00 0 °o o °o ~ •o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 a ~n N a v r~ - ~ dOm o m ~ 0 d e m o rni Q C N n in ~ v " ~ cli w » ei c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o ~n o 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n °o o M o 0 0 0 °o 2 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o m o 0 0 0 0 (n L N O n OQi h ^ O N N ~ q ONi r Q m OQi ~ m O n N ^ N h - b Lo n n h M Q m ~ ~ r I(j f7 fV N O ~O ^ O; io Yl M N O d M O m ' m ^ M f N m C1 fq N m ~ M~ to fA ~ F9 b9 ~ W ~ ~ fq e9 f9 w 19 tlf .0 3 w o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d G o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CU w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d y d L d C Cm'l h b fD b O m O M m N O1 n M O O (p d G Ol G , M n n cy h m m N m m ap N to O M Q N G2owG~~y m v 0 16 16 N1 o o u' o cS v Q E [ H N O C GO N M tq W tmh fq I~ W cN] t9 bq fA 3 y~ U A U w w w N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 .y. y o o °0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O E N O O O O O O O n h N U y O N N N N N N N N ~o O O O U ~ ' ^ ^ N ~ N ' N n (V N O d 69 tq t9 fq fA M fA f9 ~ f7 d ~ O a 3 G W w y O O O O O O O O O O O ~ G y O O O O o O 00 O O O w O O O O G O O O O O O O O - O O w O 'n N J ~ IC (O ? f~ I~ O O Ki d of m Oi d R d O O ^ ' m T i~ I~ Q O d V X. N a M C'l ~ Q Q m m f0 w r ~ N G as N N N N N eA N n t" 6N9 N (Oy - E ~ w e3 w cv w w m o. a m rn a O N N G G O d O ~ O O ~ w c U o o m adi m o E o o u d ~ C N p N N E ;va ~ tO m~ o d 0 0 0 o n m o in d L •o °o °o °o °o °o ~ °o m n a N 2 N N O N O ^ N p E d o m rn - ui cl~ m ~ a. ~ M ~ M N q N C w tq 09 M M ~ C d E ~ n d Y O V O O O O N O Y' O O O L O m y O d N ` C) O O L O O d ; IL y N V m ~ L t d j C - C O Q ul, Z 2 E U c V.i 2 U a` 2 U a 2 U C m U d U d d U d v o o d m o o d v o > m 3 0 o w t a N a ~ a N a ~ d N ~ d u°i > m v m > m y m m 2` d K Z d 3 o m d 3 d E > v m E > d A E > m y o m~ c m d v ` d m w o d m d o d m m o _ w m o 0 x O o c) o o U c o o c) - O O U ` rn w U O U U J J f m m O