HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-2018-40Resolution #40-2018
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CITY OF MOAB WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE
MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, Title R309 of the Utah Administrative Code defines standards for municipal
drinking water; and,
WHEREAS, adherence to said drinking water standards requires a thorough investigation into
the existing water infrastructure; and,
WHEREAS, long-term planning is necessary to meet future demand; and,
WHEREAS, the City hired Hansen, Allen, and Luce, Inc. to prepare a Water Distribution and
Storage Master Plan to identify and prioritize current deficiencies and future improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
MOAB, UTAH THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ADOPTS THE ATTACHED WATER
DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE MASTER PLAN.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of the
City of Moab this 23rd day of October, 2018.
By:
Attest:
Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Rachel E. Stenta, City Recorder
HAAuin
& LUCE=
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND
STORAGE MASTER PLAN
(HAL Project No.: 380.09.100)
FINAL REPORT
JULY 2018
ENGINEERS
CITY OF MOAB
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE MASTER PLAN
(HAL Project No.: 380.09.100)
Benjamin D. Miner, P.E.
Project Engineer
HfilISER
aLLEn
S� LucE.Rc
ENGINEERS
July 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS v
ABBREVIATIONS vi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1
PURPOSE 1-1
SCOPE 1-1
BACKGROUND 1-1
WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLANNING APPROACH 1-2
KEY SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE FINDINGS 1-2
CHAPTER 2 - CONNECTIONS 2-1
EXISTING CONNECTIONS 2-1
FUTURE CONNECTIONS 2-1
CHAPTER 3 - SOURCES 3-1
EXISTING SOURCES 3-1
EXISTING SOURCE REQUIREMENTS 3-2
Existing Peak Day Demand 3-2
Existing Average Yearly Demand 3-3
FUTURE PROJECTED SOURCE REQUIREMENTS 3-4
Future Peak Day Demand 3-4
2060 Average Yearly Demand 3-4
SOURCE REDUNDANCY 3-4
SOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS 3-5
CHAPTER 4 - STORAGE 4-1
EXISTING STORAGE 4-1
EXISTING STORAGE REQUIREMENTS 4-1
Equalization Storage 4-2
Fire Suppression Storage 4-2
FUTURE PROJECTED STORAGE REQUIREMENTS 4-3
STORAGE RECOMMENDATIONS 4-4
CHAPTER 5 - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 5-1
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 5-1
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 5-1
Existing Peak Instantaneous Demand 5-2
Existing Peak Day Plus Fire Flow Demand 5-2
FUTURE PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 5-2
2060 Peak Instantaneous Demand 5-2
City of Moab
i
Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
2060 Peak Day Plus Fire Flow Demand 5-2
COMPUTER MODEL 5-2
MODEL COMPONENTS 5-3
Pipe Network 5-3
Demands 5-3
Sources and Storage Tanks 5-4
MODEL CALIBRATION 5-4
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 5-5
High Pressure Conditions 5-5
Peak Instantaneous Demand Conditions 5-5
Peak Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Conditions 5-5
Peak Day Extended Period 5-6
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM 5-6
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE FUTURE SYSTEM 5-7
Lions Back Development 5-8
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 5-9
Recommended PRV Settings 5-11
FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 5-12
CONTINUED USE OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM 5-12
CHAPTER 6 - OPTIMIZATION 6-1
OPTIMIZATION OVERIEW 6-1
ENERGY AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 6-2
Pumping Costs 6-2
CHLORINE MODELING 6-3
WATER AGE AND DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS 6-3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6-4
CHAPTER 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 7-1
PRECISION OF COST ESTIMATES 7-1
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 7-1
FUNDING OPTIONS 7-6
General Obligation Bonds 7-6
Revenue Bonds 7-7
State/Federal Grants and Loans 7-7
Impact Fees 7-7
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 7-7
Source 7-8
Storage 7-8
Distribution 7-8
Optimization 7-8
REFERENCES 1
City of Moab ii Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
APPENDIX A — ERC Calculations
APPENDIX B — Calibration Data
APPENDIX C — Models
APPENDIX D — Water Quality Data
APPENDIX E — Cost Estimate Calculation
APPENDIX F — Division of Drinking Water Certification
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1-1 Key System Design Criteria 1-3
1-2 Distribution Modeling Flow Summary 1-3
2-1 Existing ERCs 2-1
2-2 Projected Population Growth 2-2
2-3 Projected 2060 ERCs 2-2
3-1 Summary of Moab Water Sources 3-2
3-2 Existing Source Requirements 3-3
3-3 Projected 2060 Source Requirements 3-4
3-4 Source Recommendations 3-5
4-1 Existing Storage Tanks 4-1
4-2 Existing Storage Requirements 4-2
4-3 2060 Storage Requirements 4-3
5-1 Existing Distribution System Projects 5-10
5-2 Recommended PRV Settings 5-12
7-1 Project Costs for System Improvements (Map ID Order) 7-2
7-2 Project Costs for System Improvements (Priority Order) 7-4
7-3 Five Year Cost Summary 7-6
LIST OF FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1-1 Existing Moab Water Distribution System after 1-1
2-1 Future Land Use after 2-2
3-1 Moab 2016 Drinking Water Production 3-1
5-1 Summary of Pipe Length by Diameter 5-1
5-2 Non -Dimensional Peak Day Diurnal Curve 5-4
5-3 Lion's Back Development after 5-8
5-4 Water System Capital Project Map after 5-11
6-1 Water System Optimization Diagram 6-1
6-2 Chlorine Concentrations in Moab City 6-5
6-3 Water Age in Moab City 6-6
City of Moab III Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Successful completion of this study was made possible by the cooperation and assistance of
many individuals, including the Mayor of the City of Moab, City Council Members, City Staff, and
the Hansen, Allen & Luce project team as shown below. We sincerely appreciate the
cooperation and assistance provided by these individuals.
City
Mayor
Emily Niehaus
City Council
Rani Derasary
Mike Duncan
Karen Guzman -Newton
Kalen Jones
Tawny Knuteson-Boyd
City Staff
Chuck Williams, City Engineer
Patrick Dean, Public Works Director
Eric Johanson, Assistant City Engineer
Mark Jolissaint, Assistant City Engineer
Levi Jones, Water Superintendent
Hansen, Allen & Luce Project Team
Steven C. Jones, P.E. (Principal in Charge)
Benjamin D. Miner, P.E. (Project Manager/Project Engineer)
Ryan T. Christensen, P.E. (Staff Engineer)
City of Moab IV Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Average Daily Flow: The average yearly demand volume expressed in a flow rate.
Average Yearly Demand: The volume of water used during an entire year.
Build -out: When the development density reaches maximum allowed by planned development.
Demand: Required water flow rate or volume.
Distribution System: The network of pipes, valves and appurtenances contained within a water
system.
Drinking Water: Water of sufficient quality for human consumption. Also referred to as Culinary
or Potable water.
Dynamic Pressure: The pressure exerted by water within the pipelines and other water system
appurtenances when water is flowing through the system.
Equivalent Residential Connection: A measure used in comparing water demand from non-
residential connections to residential connections.
Fire Flow Requirements: The rate of water delivery required to extinguish a particular fire.
Usually it is given in rate of flow (gallons per minute) for a specific period of time (hours).
Head: A measure of the pressure in a distribution system that is exerted by the water. Head
represents the height of the free water surface (or pressure reduction valve setting) above any
point in the hydraulic system.
Head Loss: The amount of pressure lost in a distribution system under dynamic conditions due
to the wall roughness and other physical characteristics of pipes in the system.
Peak Day: The day(s) of the year in which a maximum amount of water is used in a 24-hour
period.
Peak Day Demand: The average daily flow required to meet the needs imposed on a water
system during the peak day(s) of the year.
Peak Instantaneous Demand: The flow required to meet the needs imposed on a water system
during maximum flow on a peak day.
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV): A valve used to reduce excessive pressure in a water
distribution system.
Pressure Zone: The area within a distribution system in which water pressure is maintained
within specified limits.
Service Area: Typically, the area within the boundaries of the entity or entities that participate in
the ownership, planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a water system.
City of Moab V Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Static Pressure: The pressure exerted by water within the pipelines and other water system
appurtenances when water is not flowing through the system, i.e., during periods of little or no
water use.
Storage Reservoir: A facility used to store, contain and protect drinking water until it is needed
by the customers of a water system. Also referred to as a Storage Tank.
Transmission Pipeline: A pipeline that transfers water from a source to a reservoir or from a
reservoir to a distribution system.
Water Conservation: Planned management of water to prevent waste.
ABBREVIATIONS
ac acre
ac-ft acre-feet
DDW The State of Utah Division of Drinking Water
ERC Equivalent Residential Connection
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd Gallons per Day
gpd/conn Gallons per Day per Connection
gpm Gallons per Minute
HAL Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc.
MG Million Gallons
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
psi Pounds per Square Inch
SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
City of Moab VI Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this master plan is to provide guidance to the City of Moab for decisions that will
be made over the next 5 to 40 years in order to help the City provide adequate water to
customers at a reasonable cost. Recommendations are based on City drinking water demand
data and standards established by the Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW).
SCOPE
The scope of this master plan includes a study of the City's drinking water system and customer
water use including: source production, storage volume, distribution system, energy use, water
quality, and 2060 growth projections. From this study of the water system, an implementation
plan with recommended improvements was prepared. The implementation plan includes
conceptual level cost estimates and recommended schedule.
The conclusions and recommendations of this study are limited by the accuracy of the
development projections and other assumptions used in preparing the study. It is expected that
the City will review and update this master plan about every 5 years as new information about
development, system performance, or water use becomes available.
BACKGROUND
The City of Moab is located near the southern edge of Grand County in eastern Utah and is
bounded on the north and west by the Colorado River. Settlement of Moab began around 1880
and Moab was incorporated as a town in 1902. Historically, mining was the dominant industry
within the local economy. However, over the years Moab has experienced several economic
cycles related to the changing demand for locally produced minerals. During the 1970's,
tourism was identified as a potential growth opportunity that could reduce Moab's reliance on
mining jobs. Since that time, Moab's popularity as a tourist destination has grown rapidly. As of
2017, it is estimated that over a million people visit Moab every year and tourism is now the
dominant economic force. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated Moab's 2016 population to be
5,242.
The Moab water system contains about 52 miles of distribution pipes ranging in size from 4 to
21 inches in diameter. The City's water delivery network is comprised of three pressure zones.
Throughout this report, the three zones will be referred to as the Lower, Middle, and Upper
Zones, with the names corresponding to the relative elevations served by each pressure zone.
In general, the topography in Moab slopes toward the Colorado River. Therefore, the Lower
Zone is on the northwest side of the City, closest to the Colorado River, with the progressively
higher Middle and Upper Zones located to the southeast. Figure 1-1 illustrates the extent of the
Moab drinking water system and shows the locations of the pressure zones.
City of Moab 1-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
x
c.7
ET_
0
`o
a
c
m
0
.o
in
a
m
0
o_
0
5,
U
m
0
0
co
M
U
N
O
d
W
N d
�E
'o m 3
U
HansEn
num
& LUCE nc
INGIMEERS
KANE CREEK BLVD
Mountainview Tank
CITY OF MOAB
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE MASTER PLAN
Legend
• Sources
C� Tanks
8 PRV
Pipes
Pressure Zones
Lower
Middle
Upper
Powerhouse
EXISTING MOAB WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
FIGURE
1-1
WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLANNING APPROACH
The Moab water distribution network is made up of a variety of components including pumps,
storage facilities, valves, and pipes. The City water system must be capable of responding to
daily and seasonal variations in demand, while concurrently providing adequate capacity for
firefighting and other emergency needs. In order to meet these goals, each of the distribution
system components must be designed and operated with these uses in mind. Furthermore,
planning is required in order to ensure that the distribution system will be capable of meeting the
City's needs over the next several decades.
Present and future needs were evaluated in preparation of this master plan. Present water
needs were calculated according to Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW) requirements and
compared with actual water use records obtained from billing records and production data.
Future water use projections were calculated by reviewing existing water use patterns for
various land uses in Moab. Based on these existing water use patterns, future use was
projected based on growth projections and planned future land use.
In order to facilitate the analysis of the Moab water system, a computer model of the system
was prepared and analyzed in two parts. First, the performance of existing facilities with current
water demands was analyzed. Next, projected future demands were input to the model and the
analysis was repeated. Recommendations for system improvements were prepared based on
the results of these analyses. In general, this report is organized to follow the DDW
requirements found in section {R309-510 U.A.C.} entitled "Minimum Sizing Requirements".
KEY SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE FINDINGS
Summaries of the key water system design criteria and performance findings for the Moab
drinking water system are included in Table 1-1. These design criteria were used in evaluating
system performance and in recommending future water system improvements. Criteria
development is described in later chapters.
Table 1-2 presents the design flows analyzed for the distribution system modeling.
City of Moab 1-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
TABLE 1-1
KEY SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
ELEMENT
BASIS FOR
STANDARD
2017
EXISTING
CRITERIA
ESTIMATED
2060 CRITERIA
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL
CONNECTIONS
Calculated
3,569
5,662
SOURCE 1
Peak Day Demand
Average Yearly Demand
{R309-510-7(2) & (3) U.A.C.}
{R309-510-7(2) & (3) U.A.C.}
3,321 gpm
2,396 acre-ft
5,270 gpm
3,801 acre-ft
STORAGE 1
Equalization
Fire Suppression
Total
{R309-510-8(2) U.A.C.}
Total fire flow volume
2.64 MG
1.00 MG
4.18 MG
1.00 MG
3.64 MG
5.18 MG
DISTRIBUTION MODELING 1
Peak Instantaneous
Minimum Fire Flow
Max Operating Pressure
Min. Operating Pressure
1.70 x Peak Day Demand
@ 20 psi
City Standard
City Standard (peak day)
5,646 gpm
1,500 gpm
120 psi
40 psi
8,959 gpm
1,500 gpm
120 psi
40 psi
TABLE 1-2
DISTRIBUTION MODELING FLOW SUMMARY
DEMAND
DEMAND
PER ERC
(gpm)
TOTAL EXISTING
DEMAND (gpm)
TOTAL 2060
DEMAND (gpm)
FLOW RATIO
Average Day
0.42
1,485
2,357
ADD/ADD = 1.00
Peak Day
0.93
3,321
5,270
PDD/ADD = 2.24
Peak Instantaneous
1.58
5,646
8,959
PID/ADD = 3.80
City of Moab 1-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 2 - CONNECTIONS
EXISTING CONNECTIONS
According to connection information provided by the City of Moab, the Moab distribution network
included 2,073 connections in 2016. Of that total, 1,575 were residential units, while 498 were
commercial or multifamily units. An Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) is a measure
used in comparing the water demand of a typical single-family residential connection to other
connection types. The number of ERCs served by the Moab drinking water system was
calculated in accordance with guidelines provided by (R309-110-4 U.A.C.}. By definition, an
average single-family residential connection represents 1 ERC. For convenience, connections
will hereafter be categorized as either "residential" or "nonresidential". The term "residential" will
be used to refer to single-family residential connections; all other connection types will be
grouped as nonresidential connections.
The average demand per ERC was determined by dividing the total annual residential demand
by the total number of residential connections. Using water use data submitted by Moab to the
Utah Division of Water Rights, the total annual volume of water used by residential customers in
2016 was 800 acre-feet. Converting the annual volume to an average flow and dividing by the
number of residential connections gives an average demand of 0.315 gpm/ERC. In order to
express non-residential demand in terms of ERCs, the non-residential demand was divided by
the average demand per residential connection. The total nonresidential demand was 1,012
acre-feet which corresponds to an average annual flow rate of 627 gpm. Based on these
values, the total number of ERCs computed for the Moab system was 3,569. The raw data
associated with the ERC calculations are included in Appendix A. ERCs were distributed
geographically within the Moab service area based on billed usage. A zonal breakdown of the
ERC distribution is shown in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1
EXISTING ERCS
ZONE
ERCs
Lower
1,436
Middle
1,367
Upper
766
TOTAL
3,569
FUTURE CONNECTIONS
Future ERCs were calculated by starting with the existing ERCs and adding the incremental
amount of ERCs associated with future demands. The base assumption for projecting future
City of Moab 2-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
ERCs was that ERCs would increase proportionally with population. Population forecasts used
for this master plan are based on data from the Moab Planning Commission and the Utah
Governor's Office of Management and Budget. The forecasts were selected to match those
used within the City's recently completed Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (Bowen Collins &
Associates 2017). Through 2035, a growth rate of 1.10% was applied, and between 2035 and
2060 a growth rate of 1.02% was used. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the projected growth
through 2060.
TABLE 2-2
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
YEAR
POPULATION
Growth Rate
ERCs
2017
5,490
1.10%
3,569
2020
5,736
1.10%
3,728
2025
6,058
1.10%
3,938
2030
6,399
1.10%
4,159
2035
6,758
1.10%
4,393
2060
8,710
1.02%
5,662
In all, 2,093 ERCs were added to represent demands that will be added by 2060. These future
ERCs were distributed throughout the Moab drinking water service area based on planned
future land use (see Figure 2-1). Similar to population projections, the future land use
projections were also selected to match the projections used within the City's Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan. Additional data regarding the future ERC distribution can be found in Appendix A.
A zonal breakdown of the projected 2060 ERC distribution is shown in Table 2-3.
TABLE 2-3
PROJECTED 2060 ERCS
ZONE
ERC
Lower
2,496
Middle
2,033
Upper
1,133
TOTAL
5,662
Each of the City's pressure zones is projected to experience significant growth. In absolute
terms, the zone that is projected to have the largest growth is the Lower Zone. By 2060, the
number of ERCs in the Lower Zone is projected to have increased by 1,060 ERCs, an increase
City of Moab 2-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CITY OF MOAB
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE MASTER PLAN
Numeric values show the distribution of
ERCs associated with future growth
FUTURE LAND USE & DISTRIBUTION OF FUTURE ERCS
of 74%. For comparison, the Middle and Upper zones are projected to increase by just under
50%. Within the following chapters, the effects of this projected growth on source requirements,
storage requirements, and distribution planning will be discussed.
City of Moab 2-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - SOURCES
EXISTING SOURCES
Moab currently uses several wells and springs to provide water to the City's drinking water
system. A summary of the City's sources is provided in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF MOAB WATER SOURCES
NAME
ZONE
CAPACITY (gpm)
Well 6
Upper
1,500
Well 10
Upper
700
Skakel Springs
Lower
440
Spring 1
Upper
350
Spring 2
Upper
Spring 3*
Upper
350
TOTAL
3,340
*Spring 3 is also known as Birch Springs.
In addition to the sources listed in Table 3-1, the City also owns Well 7. Well 7 is operational
but was not included in Table 3-1 because it is not currently used within the drinking water
system. Well 7 has a capacity of about 350 gpm and the water is sold to the Moab Golf Club.
Figure 3-1 presents a snapshot of Moab's drinking water production in 2016.
City of Moab 3-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Monthly Production (ac-ft)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
.i11 111i_._
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
■ Springs 1 & 2 ■ Spring 3 Skakel Springs ■ Well 10 Well 6
FIGURE 3-1: MOAB 2016 DRINKING WATER PRODUCTION
With regard to peak capacity, Well 6 is currently the City's largest source of drinking water.
However, from Figure 3-1, it can be inferred that the City's current usage pattern is to rely on
Springs 1, 2, and 3 to meet the City's base water demands and then to supplement with water
from Skakel Springs and the City's two wells during times of higher demand. In 2016, the
annual breakdown in production volume for each source was: 518 acre-feet for Springs 1 & 2,
516 acre-feet for Spring 3, 232 acre-feet for Skakel Springs, 534 acre-feet for Well 10, and 451
acre-feet for Well 6.
EXISTING SOURCE REQUIREMENTS
DDW standards require that distribution network water sources must be able to meet the
expected water demand for two conditions: peak day demand and average yearly demand.
These criteria will be addressed in the following paragraphs.
Existing Peak Day Demand
Peak day demand is the water demand on the day of the year with the highest water use and is
used to determine the required source capacity. In accordance with rule {R309-510-7 U.A.C.},
the total source requirement is the sum of the peak day indoor and peak day outdoor demands.
The peak day indoor requirement is defined as 800 gpd/ERC (see {R309-510-7(2) U.A.C.}).
Based on 3,569 existing ERCs, the indoor source requirement for Moab City is 1,983 gpm.
The peak day outdoor requirement was calculated according to {R309-510-7(3) U.A.C.}.
Accordingly, the peak day outdoor requirement was calculated by multiplying the state standard
peak day requirement in gpm/acre by the City's irrigated acreage. Moab is located in Zone 5 of
the map "Irrigated Crop Consumptive Use Zones and Normal Annual Effective Precipitation".
As a result, the State Standard peak day irrigation demand for Moab is 4.52 gpm/irrigated acre.
The irrigated acreage associated with an ERC, was determined by randomly selecting 20
residential lots and measuring the irrigable area. Using this process, the average irrigable area
City of Moab 3-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
was 0.115 acres. However, landscaping was found to differ greatly from one lot to the next.
Some residents choose to landscape in a traditional manner with much of the irrigable area
covered by conventional grasses and/or trees. Other residents have chosen to employ low
water use strategies in their landscaping. In order to account for this variation, each lot was
also rated based on the effective irrigated area. After correcting for variation in landscaping
practices, the average effective irrigable area was found to be 0.083 acres. Multiplying the
effective acreage by the unit demand and total ERCs gives a total outdoor demand of 1,339
gpm. Summing the indoor and outdoor demand components gives a total peak day source
requirement of 3,321 gpm or about 0.93 gpm/ERC.
Actual metered source production data was available for the summer of 2017. The highest
observed daily production flow reached 3,185 gpm (July 6, 2017), while the highest 3 day
average was 2,754 gpm (June 23 to Jun 25, 2017). Based on these values, the State Standard
peak day flow was judged to be reasonable. A per zone breakdown of the existing source
requirements is shown in Table 3-2.
TABLE 3-2
EXISTING SOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Zone
ERCs
Zone
Demand
(gpm)
Existing
Source
Capacity
(gpm)
PRV Flows
Remaining
Source
Capacity
(gpm)
In
(gpm)
From
Out
(gpm)
To
Lower
1,436
1,336
440
896
Middle
0
NA
0
Middle
1,367
1,272
0
2,168
Upper
896
Lower
0
Upper
766
713
2,900
0
NA
2,168
Middle
19
Total
3,569
3,321
3,340
3,064
3,064
19
"Existing Source Capacity" is the capacity of the drinking water sources which supply water to
the pressure zone. "PRV Flows" summarizes the flow in and out of each zone through PRVs.
"In" and "Out" are the flows through the PRVs and "From" and "To" are the origination and
destination zones of the flow. "Remaining Capacity" is the summation of all of the flows into the
zone minus all of the flows out of the zone. Overall, the City has a total excess capacity of 19
gpm.
Existing Average Yearly Demand
Water utilities must also be able to supply the average yearly demand. Average yearly demand
is the average volume of water used during the course of one year. State Standards specify an
annual requirement of 146,000 gallons per ERC for indoor use and 2.69 acre-feet per irrigated
acre for outdoor use. Based on 3,569 ERCs and 0.083 irrigated acres per ERC, the State
Standard average yearly demand for the Moab distribution system is 2,396 ac-ft. The actual
metered production volume from 2016 was 2,251 ac-ft.
City of Moab 3-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
FUTURE PROJECTED SOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Water demand is expected to increase as development within the City continues. As with
existing water use, future water source needs were evaluated on the basis of peak day demand
and average yearly demand. Each requirement is addressed separately in the following
paragraphs.
Future Peak Day Demand
The projected total peak day demand is predicted to reach 5,270 gpm by 2060.
Table 3-3 provides a summary of the 2060 source requirements for Moab City, with each
column heading as previously defined. Based on the sources the City is currently utilizing, the
projected deficit in source capacity is 1,930 gpm.
TABLE 3-3
PROJECTED 2060 SOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Zone
ERCs
Zone
Demand
(gpm)
Existing
Source
Capacity
gpm)
PRV Flows
Remaining
Capacity
(gpm)
In
(gpm)
From
Out
(gpm)
To
Lower
2,496
2,323
440
0
Middle
0
NA
-1,883
Middle
2,033
1,892
0
1,845
Upper
0
Lower
-47
Upper
1,133
1,055
2,900
0
NA
1,845
Middle
0
Total
5,662
5,270
3,340
2,798
2,798
-1,930
2060 Average Yearly Demand
Similar to the existing average yearly demand, state standards were also applied to calculate
the 2060 average yearly demand. Based on values of 146,000 gallons per ERC for indoor use
and 2.69 acre-feet per irrigated acre for outdoor use, the projected average yearly demand in
2060 is 3,801 ac-ft, and the increase between the existing and 2060 conditions is projected to
be 1,405 ac-ft.
SOURCE REDUNDANCY
In addition to meeting the peak day and annual source requirements, it is recommended that
redundancy be incorporated into drinking water production. It is recommended that the water
system have adequate capacity to meet all of the demand objectives with a major source
unavailable. Based on the reviewed flow data, the largest source in the Moab system is Well
#6, with a capacity of 1,500 gpm. This recommendation is not considered a deficiency since
since the City sources are expected to be adequate for the existing needs.
City of Moab 3-4 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
SOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Under existing conditions, the City has an estimated surplus capacity of 19 gpm during peak
day conditions with all sources in operation. However, in order for the City to have source
redundancy such that no single drinking water source is indispensable, about 1,500 gpm of
additional source capacity is needed. One potential option for the City to make up a portion of
that deficit would be to use Well #7, or another City owned well that is not currently in service,
within the drinking water system. In order for one of these wells to be a viable drinking water
source, Moab will need to ensure that the well meets all state requirements. In addition, as
water from Well #7 is currently sold to the Moab Golf Club, the City should verify that any
agreements with the Golf Club would allow the City to divert the water into the drinking water
system under an emergency scenario. With a capacity 350 gpm, Well #7 is not sufficient to
provide full redundancy in the event of a loss of operation at Well #6. As an additional option,
the City could consider working with Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA) to
explore the feasibility of adding an interagency connection between the Moab and GWSSA
drinking water systems. Depending on the capacity of the connection, it could potentially serve
all or part of the needed redundancy. An interagency connection has the potential to aid both
parties in supplying quality water to their respective customers. As another option, the City
could also develop an additional water source. For planning purposes, it has been assumed
that the City will construct a new well for source redundancy.
Under 2060 conditions, a source deficiency of 1,930 gpm is projected if no new sources are
developed. In order to address this projected deficiency, it is recommended that the City
develop an additional 1,930 gpm of source capacity. This is in addition to the capacity needed
for existing system redundancy. It is not expected that the City will need to add all of this
capacity in the immediate future. Instead, the City should periodically evaluate their source
capacity and system demand and add capacity as needed. For the purpose of this master plan,
it has been assumed that this future deficiency will be met through the construction of a new
well.
TABLE 3-4
SOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Priority
Improvement
1
Develop an additional drinking water source to provide redundant capacity.
Consider working with GWSSA to explore the feasibility of an interagency
connection.
2
Meet future needs by developing new sources of at least 1,930 gpm A well
has been assumed for the purpose of projecting costs.
City of Moab
3-5 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 4 - STORAGE
EXISTING STORAGE
The City's current drinking water system includes 3 storage facilities with a total capacity of 3.0
MG. The locations of storage facilities are shown on Figure 1-1. Table 4-1 presents a listing of
the names and select attributes of the existing water storage tanks.
TABLE 4-1
EXISTING STORAGE TANKS
Name
Type
Dimensions
(ft)
Volume
(MG)
Outlet
Level
Emergency
Storage
Level
Fire
Suppression
Level
Overflow/
Equalization
Level
Skakel
Steel
72
1.0
5,156.8
(0 feet)
NA
NA
5,190.2
(33.4 feet)
Mountain View
Steel
72
1.0
5,304.0
(0 feet)
NA
5321.2
(17.2 feet)
5,337.4
(33.4 feet)
Powerhouse
Steel
72
1.0
5,305.E
(0 feet)
NA
5321.2
(15.6 feet)
5339.0
(33.4 feet)
Emergency storage levels and fire suppression levels were considered during the master
planning process. The fire suppression levels set in Table 4-1 define the elevation at which the
City's fire suppression storage begins. Defining fire suppression tank levels helps the City
ensure that the storage volume dedicated to fire suppression is available to meet fire flow
requirements at all times. Additional discussion regarding the fire suppression level is included
with the "Fire Suppression Storage" subheading below.
DDW standards suggest that emergency storage can be considered in the sizing of storage
facilities {R309-510-8(1)(c) U.A.C.}. Emergency storage is intended to provide a safety factor
that can be used in the case of unexpectedly high demands, pipeline failures, equipment
failures, electrical power outages, water supply contamination, or natural disasters. However,
based on the City's history and discussions with City staff, no additional storage for
emergencies is recommended. Accordingly, no tank levels were specified for emergency
storage in Table 4-1.
EXISTING STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
According to DDW standards, storage tanks must be able to provide: 1) equalization storage
volume to make up the difference between the peak day flow rate and the peak instantaneous;
and 2) fire suppression storage volume to supply water for firefighting. A summary of the
existing storage requirements for the drinking water system is shown in Table 4-2.
City of Moab 4-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
TABLE 4-2
EXISTING STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
PRESSURE
ZONE
ERCs
REQUIRED STORAGE (MG)
EXISTING
STORAGE
(MG)
REMAINING
MG
( )
Equalization
(MG)
Fire
Suppression
(MG)
Total (MG)
Lower
1,436
1.06
0
1.06
1.00
-0.06
Middle
1,367
1.01
0
1.01
0
-1.01
Upper
766
0.57
1.00
1.57
2.00
0.43
TOTAL
3,569
2.64
1.00
3.64
3.00
-0.64
Due to PRV interconnections between pressure zones, excess storage located in higher zones
can be applied to zones that are lower. Therefore, the City has an existing deficit of 0.64 MG in
drinking water storage capacity. Recommendations for addressing the storage deficit have
been included at the end of this chapter.
Equalization Storage
The need for equalization storage is highest during the irrigation season on days of peak water
use. Equalization storage is used to meet peak demands when demand exceeds the capacity
of the sources. For the City of Moab, the required equalization storage was calculated
according to the guidelines outlined by {R309-510-8(2) U.A.C.). The equalization storage
requirement includes an indoor and outdoor component. The indoor component is 400 gallons
per ERC. The outdoor component is 4,081 gallons/irrigated acre. Based on 0.083 irrigated
acres per ERC, the outdoor component is 339 gallons per ERC. Therefore the total equalization
storage required for each ERC is 739 gallons. With 3,569 existing ERCs, the existing
equalization storage requirement for the City of Moab was found to be 2.64 MG.
Fire Suppression Storage
Fire suppression storage is required for water systems that provide water for firefighting. The
Moab Valley Fire Protection District has jurisdiction over the City with Phillip Mosher serving as
fire chief. The contact information for the Moab Valley Fire Protection District is as follows:
Phone: (435) 259-5557
Address: 45 South 100 East
Moab, UT 84532
The water system should be managed so that the storage volume dedicated to fire suppression
is available to meet fire flow requirements when needed. This can be accomplished by
designating minimum storage tank water levels that provide reserve storage equal to the
City of Moab 4-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
required fire suppression storage. Although it is important to utilize equalization storage, typical
daily water fluctuations in the tanks should never be allowed below the minimum established
levels except during fire or emergency situations. Fire suppression tank levels are included in
Table 4-1. The assigned tank levels assume that all of the fire suppression storage in the Moab
system is provided by the Mountain View and Powerhouse tanks. Between the two tanks, a
total volume of 1.0 MG has been allocated for fire storage, which is sufficient to provide a 4,000
gpm fire suppression flow over a duration of 4 hours.
FUTURE PROJECTED STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
The projected storage volumes required in 2060 are based on the same equalization, fire
suppression, and operational storage requirements as were calculated for the existing
conditions. The 2060 equalization storage will be higher than existing conditions because the
number of ERCs is projected to increase. The City's future storage projections are presented in
Table 4-3.
TABLE 4-3
2060 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
PRESSURE
ZONE
ERCs
REQUIRED STORAGE (MG)
EXISTING
STORAGE
(MG)
REMAINING
MG
( )
Equalization
(MG)
Fire
Suppression
(MG)
Total (MG)
Lower
2,496
1.84
0
1.84
1.00
-0.84
Middle
2,0331
1.50
0
1.50
0
-1.50
Upper
1,133
0.84
1.00
1.84
2.00
0.16
TOTAL
5,662
4.18
1.00
5.18
3.00
-2.18
The projected equalization storage requirement in 2060 is 4.18 MG, an increase of 1.54 MG
over the existing condition. Although the storage requirements in Table 4-3 have been
categorized by zone, the City is not required to address each zone on an individual basis.
Storage located in higher zones can be applied to lower zones. As a result, the City has some
flexibility in deciding where to locate future storage tanks.
Fire suppression requirements are not projected to increase over the existing scenario. Often,
fire suppression requirements do not increase over time. Instead, as older buildings are
replaced with newer buildings that conform to newer building codes, fire suppression
requirements may decrease.
City of Moab 4-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
STORAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to address the existing storage needs, it is recommended that the City construct a new
storage tank with a capacity of up to 2.2 MG. The new tank will meet the City's existing needs
while providing some additional capacity that would be allocated to future growth. It is
recommended that the storage tank should be constructed east of the intersection of Spanish
Valley Drive and Spanish Trail Road. The City already owns the property, and the location is
advantageous for system hydraulics and energy. Further discussion on the benefits of the tank
site is included within the optimization chapter of this report.
City of Moab 4-4 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The distribution system consists of all pipelines, valves, fittings, and other appurtenances used
to convey water from the water sources and storage tanks to the water users. The existing
water system contains about 52 miles of distribution pipe ranging in size from 4 to 21 inches in
diameter. Figure 5-1 presents a summary of pipe length by diameter.
FIGURE 5-1: SUMMARY OF PIPE LENGTH BY DIAMETER
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Rule {R309-105-9(1) U.A.C.} applies to existing systems approved prior to January 1, 2007 and
requires that distribution systems be able to maintain 20 psi at all points in the system during
normal operating conditions and during conditions of fire flow plus peak day demand. Rule
{R309-105-9(2) U.A.C.} adds the following minimum water pressure constraints: (a) 20 psi
during conditions of fire flow plus peak day demand; (b) 30 psi during peak instantaneous
demand; and (c) 40 psi during peak day demand. Rule {R309-105-9(2) U.A.C.} applies to new
systems approved after January 1, 2007 and to new areas or subdivisions of existing systems
approved after the same date. Much of Moab is subject to {R309-105-9(1) U.A.C.}; however,
new developments will need to meet the criteria outlined by {R309-105-9(2) U.A.C.}.
City of Moab 5-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Existing Peak Instantaneous Demand
Peak instantaneous demand is the highest demand on the peak day. The pipes in the
distribution system must be large enough to convey the peak instantaneous demand while
maintaining a pressure at connections above 30 psi. The peak day instantaneous demand was
determined based on the peak day flow of 3,321 gpm and a peaking factor of 1.70. Based on
these values, the peak instantaneous flow rate is 5,646 gpm.
Existing Peak Day Plus Fire Flow Demand
In accordance with DDW regulations, the distribution system must be capable of maintaining "20
psi during conditions of fire flow and fire demand experienced during peak day demand" (R309-
105-9(2)). Based on discussions with Moab City personnel, a minimum fire flow criterion of
1,500 gpm was selected for all locations in the distribution system. Larger fire flows may be
required at larger structures throughout the system based on the International Fire Code and
recommendations from the Moab Valley Fire Protection District. All fire flows were simulated
under the state defined peak day demand conditions of 3,321 gpm as outlined by
{R309-510-9(4) U.A.C.}.
FUTURE PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
The same performance standards used for the existing system also apply to the projected 2060
system. The performance of the 2060 system was evaluated for the following scenarios: peak
day demands, peak instantaneous demands, and peak day plus fire flow demands.
2060 Peak Instantaneous Demand
The projected peak day demand for the 2060 distribution system was 5,270 gpm. Assuming the
same peaking factor of 1.70 applies to the build -out peak day demand gives a 2060 peak
instantaneous demand of 8,959 gpm.
2060 Peak Day Plus Fire Flow Demand
The build -out peak day plus fire flow scenario was evaluated in a similar manner as compared
to the existing peak day plus fire flow scenario. It was assumed that the fire flow requirements
would not change between the existing and build -out conditions. Generally, this is a
conservative assumption as, over time, older buildings are replaced with newer buildings
constructed in accordance with updated building codes. The build -out fire flow scenario was
evaluated with a model demand of 5,270 gpm.
COMPUTER MODEL
A computer model of the City's water distribution system was developed to analyze the
performance of the existing and future distribution system and to prepare solutions for existing
facilities that cannot meet the DDW or City criteria for water system pressures. The software
City of Moab 5-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
used for the model was EPANET 2.0, which is a computer program that models the hydraulic
behavior of piping networks.
Computer models were developed for three phases of water system development. The first
phase was the development of a model of the existing system (existing model). This model was
used for calibration and to identify deficiencies in the existing system. The geometry of the
existing model was assembled using GIS data of distribution pipelines and facilities provided by
Moab City. The model was calibrated based on SCADA data for Moab tanks and sources and
based on additional communication with City personnel.
A second model was developed which was used to identify those corrections necessary to
improve existing system deficiencies (corrected existing model). This model includes the
improvements recommended for the existing system. The third phase was the development of
a future model to indicate those improvements that will be necessary for the projected 2060
condition (future model).
MODEL COMPONENTS
The two basic elements of the computer model are pipes and nodes. A pipe is described by its
inside diameter, overall length, minor friction loss factors, and a roughness value associated
with friction head losses. A pipe can include elbows, bends, valves, pumps, and other
operational elements. Nodes are the end points of a pipe and they can be categorized as
junction nodes or boundary nodes. A junction node is a point where two or more pipes meet,
where a change in pipe diameter occurs, or where flow is put in or taken out of the system. A
boundary node is a point where the hydraulic grade is known (a reservoir or PRV).
The computer model of the water distribution system is not an exact replica of the actual water
system. Efforts were made to make the model as complete and accurate as possible.
Nonetheless, pipeline locations used in the model are approximate and some pipelines,
particularly those smaller than 4 inches, may not be included in the model. Moreover, it is not
necessary to include all of the distribution system pipes in the model to accurately simulate its
performance.
Pipe Network
As indicated previously, the pipe network layout was based on GIS data proved to HAL. During
model preparation, accuracy of the new model was verified by reviewing data through
discussion with City personnel. Updates to the model were made by HAL throughout the
master plan study.
Demands
Water demands were input to the model based on billing data from the summer of 2017. The
peak demand month was determined from the billing data, and the billing addresses were
geocoded in GIS in order to link the demands to a physical location. The geocoded demands
City of Moab 5-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
were then assigned to the closest model demand node and the peak monthly flows were scaled
to convert them into peak day flows.
Daily variation in demand was modeled by applying a typical diurnal demand curve to the model
demands. The diurnal curve is used to scale the average peak day demand to the peak
instantaneous demand. The non -dimensional demand curve used for Moab is shown in Figure
5-2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Y 0.8
co
a 0.6
0.4
0.2
0 T
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00
Time
FIGURE 5-2: NON -DIMENSIONAL PEAK DAY DIURNAL CURVE
Based on the diurnal curve, the peak instantaneous demand occurs at 6:00 AM and the
associated peaking factor is 1.70. Demand is elevated throughout the night as a result of
automatic sprinkler irrigation. The high morning peak results from night time irrigation combined
with high indoor use from people waking up and preparing for the day. The smaller evening
peak is a result of evening irrigation and water use associated with people preparing for bed.
Sources and Storage Tanks
Moab's wells and springs serve as the drinking water sources in the model. The levels in the
tanks are modeled in the extended period model scenario. The extended period model predicts
the levels in the tanks as they fill from sources and empty to meet demand in the system.
MODEL CALIBRATION
A water system computer model should be calibrated before it may be relied on to accurately
simulate the performance of the distribution system. Calibration was performed by comparing
computer results with actual system performance. When the computer model does not match
the field tests within an acceptable level of accuracy, the computer model is adjusted to match
City of Moab 5-4 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
field conditions. Calibration is especially useful for identifying pipe sizes that are not correct and
PRVs or isolation valves that are not operating as expected. Pipe roughness is an additional
characteristic which may be adjusted during calibration.
The model was calibrated primarily through the use of SCADA data. Source flows and tank
levels were provided to HAL and the model was calibrated by adjusting production volumes and
PRV settings so that the overall behavior of the network was reproduced within the model. A
Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficient of 0.85 millifeet was used for most model pipes.
Calibration results are included in Appendix B. The overall flow patterns in the model matched
the observed values very well.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The EPANET model was used to analyze the performance of the water system for current and
projected future demands under three main operating conditions: low flow (highest pressure)
conditions, peak instantaneous conditions, and peak day plus fire flow conditions. Each of
these conditions stresses the water system so that the performance of the distribution system
may be analyzed for compliance with DDW and Moab City's requirements. The results of the
model for each of the conditions are discussed below.
High Pressure Conditions
Low flow or static conditions are usually the worst case for high pressures in a water distribution
system. In the winter time, water demand during night time hours is very low, tanks are nearly
full, and movement of water through the system is minimal. Under these conditions, the water
system approaches a static condition and water pressure in the distribution system is dependent
only upon the elevation differences and pressure regulating devices. Another condition similar
to static condition that can also cause high pressures in the City's water system occurs in the
summer when demand is low and pumps are on to fill storage tanks. The highest pressures are
reached when pumps are on, tanks are almost full, and demand is low. Both of these high
pressure conditions were simulated with the model.
Peak Instantaneous Demand Conditions
Peak Instantaneous demand conditions can sometimes be the worst -case scenario for low
pressures throughout a water distribution system. A water system often reaches peak
instantaneous demand conditions during the hottest days of the summer when both indoor and
outdoor water use is the highest. The high demand creates elevated velocities in the
distributions pipes which reduces pressure. DDW requires the pipes in the distribution system
be capable of delivering peak instantaneous demand to the entire service area and maintain a
minimum pressure of 30 psi at any service connection within the distribution system.
Peak Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Conditions
Even though peak instantaneous conditions are the worst -case for the lowest pressure and
highest demand for the entire system, the peak day plus fire flow is often the worst -case
City of Moab 5-5 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
scenario for the lowest pressures for specific locations in the system. This condition occurs
when fire hydrants are being used on a day of high water demand. The distribution system
must be capable of delivering the required fire flow to the specified location within the system,
while supplying the peak day demand to the entire distribution system. In accordance with the
requirements outlined by {R309-105-9(4) U.A.C.}, the required fire flows must be delivered while
maintaining 20 psi minimum residual pressure at the delivery point and to all service
connections within the distribution system.
Peak Day Extended Period
The peak day extended period model was used to model the water system performance over
time. An extended period model is actually a static model run several times for each time
period. The peak day extended period model was used to set system conditions for the static
models, calibrate zone -to -zone water transfers, analyze system controls and the performance of
the system over time, analyze system recommendations for performance over time, and
analyze the water system for optimization recommendations. The peak day extended period
model was run for several days with the peak day demand curve repeating every 24 hours such
that the model operated in a stable pattern. The model has reached stabilization when the filling
and emptying cycles of the tanks repeat in a consistent pattern without running empty. System
recommendations for existing conditions and future conditions at build -out were checked with
the extended period model to confirm adequacy.
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
The model output primarily consists of the computed pressures at nodes and flow rates through
pipes. The model also provides additional data related to pipeline flow velocity and head loss to
help evaluate the performance of the various components of the distribution system. Results
from the model are available on a CD in Appendix C. Due to the large number of pipes and
nodes in the model, it is impractical to prepare a figure which illustrates pipe numbers and node
numbers. The reader should refer to the CD to review the full model output. Summary results
for the various modeling scenarios are included below.
For nearly all areas of the City, the observed pressures were below the City's preferred
maximum pressure of 120 psi. The lone exception is a small area along the east side of Main
Street near the intersection with Kane Creek Boulevard. The maximum observed pressures at
that location reach 123 psi, slightly higher than the City's standard. One option that would
reduce pressures in the area would be to transfer supply for the area from the Upper Pressure
Zone to the Middle Pressure Zone by changing isolation valves. The pressure zone change
would reduce the maximum pressure to about 76 psi. However, since the peak pressures are
only slightly higher than the City's standard it may be preferable to accept the elevated
pressures. Water users become accustomed to their existing level of service and changes in
pressure (increases or decreases) may lead to complaints. In addition, automatic sprinkler
systems and irrigation systems are often designed based on available pressures. Changes to
available pressures may cause poor irrigation system performance.
City of Moab 5-6 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Minimum pressures were evaluated against a 40 psi standard under peak day demand
conditions and 30 psi under peak instantaneous demand conditions. One small area of the
system was not able meet the peak day demand minimum pressure criterion. The modeled
pressure at the far south end of David Court was about 39 psi during peak day demand. The
most direct solution for increasing the pressures at that location is to make piping changes at
the corner of David Court and Doc Allen Drive. Currently, the pipeline in David Court is part of
the Middle Pressure Zone. However, there is an Upper Zone transmission pipeline in Doc Allen
Drive that connects to Mountain View Tank. Connecting the David Court pipe to the Upper
Zone transmission pipeline in Doc Allen Drive would increase the peak day pressure at the
south end of Doc Allen Drive to about 85 psi. Before making any changes, it is recommended
that the City verify the pressures along David Court.
All other areas of the City's drinking water system are able to meet the 40 psi peak day
minimum pressure standard. The area of the system with the second lowest pressure under
peak day demands is along 100 South at about 550 East. Peak day pressures in this area are
about 44 psi. The remainder of the system is generally able to maintain at least 50 psi under
peak day demands conditions.
All areas of the system were able to meet the 30 psi minimum pressure under peak
instantaneous demands. The two areas with lowest observed pressures were along David
Court and 550 East 100 South. The minimum pressures at each location were 37 psi and 42
psi, respectively.
Using modeling, several locations were identified that are not able to provide the minimum fire
suppression flow of 1,500 gpm under peak day demand conditions. The majority of the
identified shortcomings result from 4-inch and 6-inch diameter pipelines in residential areas.
Projects that address the fire flow capacity at these locations are included within the
recommendations toward the end of this chapter.
Another distribution consideration relates to the Sunset Grill. Currently, it is connected to the
City water system by way of a private individual booster pump. Typically, the Utah Division of
Drinking Water does not approve private booster stations, unless through an "exception to rule".
It is recommended that Moab City consult with the Division to determine if an exception is
necessary.
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE FUTURE SYSTEM
The build -out system was analyzed based on the same parameters that were considered for the
existing system. In general, the build -out model behaves similarly to the existing model.
However, each of the pressure zones is expected to experience moderate growth. As a result
of the growth, pressures within the future model are generally slightly lower and the pipeline
velocities are slightly higher as compared to the existing model. A copy of the future model is
included on the CD in Appendix C.
City of Moab 5-7 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
The area with the highest pressures remained unchanged within the future model as compared
to the existing model. The peak observed pressure occurs in the small area along the east side
of Main Street near the intersection with Kane Creek Boulevard. Within the build -out model the
peak observed pressure was 121 psi. As with the existing recommendation, it is suggested that
the City accept these slightly elevated pressures.
Regarding low pressures under peak day demand conditions, the area along David Court that
had the lowest pressures in the existing model is assumed to be connected to the upper
pressure zone within the future 2060 model. As a result, the observed pressure at that location
will be about 75 psi under future peak day conditions. The lowest observed pressure within the
future model occurred at about 550 East 100 North and is predicted to be 43 psi. Therefore,
under 2060 peak day demand conditions, all locations within the future model are projected to
meet the 40 psi minimum pressure standard.
Similar to the existing model, all areas within the future model were able to meet the 30 psi
minimum standard under peak instantaneous demand conditions. The lowest observed
pressure in the future model was 40 psi at 550 East 100 North.
Fire suppression modeling was also conducted for the future model. In general, fire
suppression capacity is slightly lower in the future model due to the higher future demands.
However, assuming that projects recommended for the existing system will be completed, no
future fire flow deficiencies were identified.
Lions Back Development
The Lion's Back Development is a proposed development located northeast of the City (see
Figure 5-3). Water supply for the Development was analyzed while reviewing the future system.
It is projected that the development will contribute about 188 ERCs to the future Moab system,
with an associated peak day demand of 175 gpm. In order to supply water to the development,
a pump station, transmission pipeline, and a storage tank will be needed.
The location of the proposed Development is somewhat higher in elevation than the existing
Moab pressure zones. The highest elevation of any existing Moab service connection is about
4,195 feet. It is expected that the elevation of the Lion's Back Development will be at least
4,470 feet. In order to provide water to the development, it will be necessary to pump water
from the existing Upper Pressure Zone into a future Lion's Back Zone. A logical water source to
pump from is the existing 12-inch transmission pipeline that terminates at about 950 Sand Flats
Road. The pump station will need to have two pumps, each with enough capacity to supply the
peak day demand of the development. The peak day demand requirement should be verified
once plans for the development have been finalized.
Water is assumed to be conveyed from the pump station to the development via a pipeline
installed in Sand Flats Road. The pipeline configuration shown in Figure 5-3 includes about
6,200 feet of pipe. At a conceptually level, the lower portion of the pipeline starting from the
pump station up to the point where the storage tank pipeline splits off will need to be an 8-inch
City of Moab 5-8 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
x
m
a
Q
M
N
LL
C
(0
d
N
N
(6
2
N
(0
O
a
m
c
0
j
O
d
m
0
o_
0
5,
U
9
(0
O
2
O
W
M
N
U
N
O
d
S
W
o m
N d
Ncts 8
U
00
LionsBackPump
Lion's Back Tank
Lion's Back Pipeline
HansEn
num
LUCE nc
ENGINEERS
CITY OF MOAB
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND
STORAGE MASTER PLAN
LION'S BACK
DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
5-3
pipe. Larger pipe may be needed for the upper pipeline portion between the storage tank and
the development; the sizing of that section will be governed by fire flow requirements. If an 8-
inch pipe is installed between the tank and the development, modeling performed for this
analysis indicates the fire suppression capacity will be about 1,500 gpm with a 20 psi residual
pressure. Critical variables that affect fire flow capacity include the tank elevation, development
elevation, and the distance between the tank and the development. The final determination for
pipes sizes should be made during design.
The storage tank will need to have capacity for equalization storage and fire suppression
storage. For each ERC, the required equalization storage is 738 gallons. As a result, the total
equalization storage requirement for the development is projected to be about 140,000 gallons.
The total volume of a 2 hour fire suppression flow of 1,500 gpm is 180,000 gallons. In addition,
due to the isolated nature of the development, it is recommended that consideration be given to
allocating a portion of the storage volume as emergency storage. If 20% of the sum of
equalization storage and fire suppression storage is set aside as emergency storage, the
emergency storage volume would be 64,000 gallons. Summing the equalization, fire
suppression, and emergency gives a total storage volume of 384,000 gallons. Prior to
construction of this tank, the fire official should be consulted to verify that the fire flow volume is
still adequate.
Based on a review of the area's topography, the highest elevation that can be conveniently
reached in constructing a storage tank is about 4,580 feet. Higher elevations are available, but
only by significantly increasing the length of installed pipeline. If the tank is constructed with a
floor elevation of 4,580 feet, a static pressure of 50 psi could be maintained to a connection at
an elevation of 4,465 feet.
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a basic framework for the proposed Lion's Back
Development. All values should be verified once development plans have been completed. It
has been assumed that the City will require the developer to construct all of the improvements
that are needed for the development. For this reason, no project costs have been included for
Lion's Back Development.
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for improvement projects were based on the modeling, as outlined above,
and guidance provided by Moab City personnel. Recommendations have been categorized as
existing system projects or as build -out system projects. Table 5-1 lists the existing distribution
system projects.
City of Moab 5-9 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROJECTS
PROJ
#
LOCATION
PROBLEM
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
1
970 David Court
Peak day pressure is
less than 40 psi
Disconnect David Court pipeline
from the Middle Zone at the
intersection of David Court and Doc
Allen Drive. Reconnect to Upper
Zone transmission pipeline
2
Mill Creek Drive
Frequent leaks and
ruptures
Replace 2,600 feet of 10-inch pipe
and 2,700 feet of 12-inch pipe on
Mill Creek Drive between
Powerhouse Road and 400 East.
3
Southeast portion of
Doc Allen Drive
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 m
gp
Install 260 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Dogwood Avenue between
Mountain View Drive and Doc Allen
Drive to connect existing Middle
Zone pipelines
4
1000 West Kane
Creek Boulevard
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 3,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline
in Kane Creek Boulevard between
500 West and 1000 West
5
Riversand Drive
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 1,200 feet of 8-inch pipe to
connect the pipeline in Riversand
Road to the pipeline in Palisade
Drive
6
1000 West 400 North
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 1,200 feet of 10-inch pipe in
400 North between 750 West and
1000 West
7
200 North Stewart
Lane
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 850 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Stewart Lane between 400 North
and 200 North
8
470 West Carlos Court
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 470 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Carlos Court
9
1261 North Highway
191
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Rubicon Trail between Highway 191
and Portal RV Resort
10
1700 North Highway
191
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 1,600 feet of 8-inch pipe on
the south side of Highway 191
between 1500 North and 1700
North
11
300 North 100 West
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
The fire hydrant is connected to 4-
inch pipeline. Swap connection to
12-inch pipeline
12
250 Williams Way
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 820 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Williams Way between 100 West
and 250 Williams Way
13
264 West Center
Street
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 m
gp
Install 900 feet of 8-inch pipe in
West Center Street between 100
West and 264 West Center Street
City of Moab
5-10
Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
PROJ
#
LOCATION
PROBLEM
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
14
194 North 300 East
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 490 feet of 8-inch pipe in 300
East between 100 North and 194
North
15
521 East Center
Street, 540 East 100
North
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 800 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Center Street between 400 East
and 500 East
16
559 East to 672 East
Nichols Lane
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Connect to upstream side of 300
South 400 East PRV and install
1,280 feet of 8-inch pipe in 400 East
between 300 South and Rosetree
Lane and 1,050 feet of 8-inch pipe
in Nichols Lane between 400 East
and 674 East
17
498 East to 632 East
Rosetree Lane
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 500 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Rosetree Lane between 400 East
and 504 East
18
530 Bowen Circle
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 680 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Bowen Circle between 403 Bowen
Circle and 530 Bowen Circle
19
350 East Pueblo Court
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 910 feet of 8-inch pipe
beginning at approximately 306
East 300 South to Pueblo Court
20
910 Powerhouse Lane
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Disconnect fire hydrant from 8-inch
pipe and reconnect to 12-inch pipe
21
730 Bartlett Avenue
and 740 Bartlett Circle
Available fire flow is
less than 1,500 gpm
Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipe in
Bartlett Avenue between 500 West
and 632 West
The projects listed in Table 5-1 represent existing deficiencies and should be addressed in the
near future. A project map is included as Figure 5-4. One additional item for the City to
consider is upsizing the pipeline in Red Devil Drive. There is currently a 6-inch pipeline in Red
Devil Drive which provides drinking water service and fire suppression flow to Grand County
High School. The 6-inch pipeline receives water from a 10-inch pipeline in 400 East. Under
current conditions, a fire suppression flow of 1,500 gpm can be supplied to the fire hydrant near
the southeast corner of the school. Increasing the size of the pipe in Red Devil Drive to 10
inches boosts the available fire flow to more than 4,000 gpm. The school's fire flow requirement
was not available for this study. The City should consider a more extensive review of the fire
suppression requirements for the school and increase the pipe size, if needed.
Recommended PRV Settings
During the course of analyzing the system, PRV settings were adjusted with the goal of
maximizing the usage of equalization storage while minimizing pressure fluctuations and energy
costs. Table 5-2 presents the recommended PRV settings.
City of Moab 5-11 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
HansEn
nun%
& LUCE nc
INGIMEERS
Skakel Spring
and Tank
KANE CREEK BLVD
2.4 Miles
CITY OF MOAB
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE MASTER PLAN
Lion's Back Tank
Pump Station
ij
i
Legend
� Source
8 PRV
b Future PRV
b Existing Tank
Future Tank
b Lion's Back Tank
Lion's Back Pump Station
® Connection Project
Pipeline Project
Dia
8
10
12
Existing Pipes
Lion's Back Pipeline
Pressure Zones
Lower
Middle
Upper
Proposed Tank
WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL PROJECT MAP
FIGURE
5-4
TABLE 5-2
RECOMMENDED PRV SETTINGS
PRV Address
From Zone
To Zone
Elevation
(ft)
Setting
(psi)
300 South 400 East
Upper
Middle
4,070
76
890 Mountain View Drive
Upper
Middle
4,079
72
776 South Main Street
Upper
Middle
4,063
79
150 South 100 West
Middle
Middle
4,012
Open
983 North Main Street
Middle
Lower
4,021
63
170 South 500 West
Middle
Lower
3,992
76
The elevations and pressures given in Table 5-2 represent modeled values. Precise elevations
were not available for the PRVs; as a result it is expected that some adjustment will be needed
to these values. The guiding principle in selecting PRV settings is that settings should be high
enough to protect pressures in the lower zone, but not so high that tank levels are prevented
from diurnal fluctuation.
FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Assuming that each of the existing recommendations is implemented, no pressure or fire flow
deficiencies are projected to exist in the future system. Still, it is recommended that the City
fund a pipeline replacement program. Pipelines should be scheduled for replacement based on
priority, and in order to take advantage of road resurfacing projects and other situations of
convenience. Pipelines smaller than 8-inches in diameter, older pipelines, and pipelines where
frequent repairs have been needed should all be considered as high priority for replacement.
The State recommends that at least 5% of the annual drinking water budget be set aside for
facility replacement.
CONTINUED USE OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM
It is recommended that the City continue updating the model as the water system changes.
Below is a list of ways in which the model could help the City with water system management.
The computer model can assist City staff in determining:
• Effect on the system if individual facilities are added or taken out of service
• Selection of pipe diameters and location of proposed water mains
• Capacity of the water system to provide fire flows in specific areas
• Water age for water quality monitoring
• Residual chlorine and fluoride levels in the system
The computer model should be maintained for future use. Necessary data required for
continued use of the program are:
City of Moab 5-12 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
" T h e l o c a t i o n , l e n g t h , d i a m e t e r , p i p e m a t e r i a l , a n d g r o u n d e l e v a t i o n a t e a c h e n d o f
e a c h n e w p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t e d
" C h a n g e s i n w a t e r s u p p l y l o c a t i o n a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
" L o c a t i o n a n d d e m a n d f o r n e w l a r g e c u s t o m e r s
" C h a n g e s i n c h l o r i n e a n d f l u o r i d e d o s i n g r a t e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s
C i t y o f M o a b 5 - 1 3 W a t e r D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d S t o r a g e M a s t e r P l a n
CHAPTER 6 - OPTIMIZATION
OPTIMIZATION OVERIEW
Three parameters drive the operation of a water system: system performance, water quality,
and energy efficiency (Figure 6-1). Water systems can be characterized by any degree or
combination of these three parameters. One system may perform well but incur high energy
costs. Another may be energy efficient but is not sufficiently pressurized during peak demand.
Still another may perform well hydraulically but fail to meet requirements for chlorine residual.
System optimization is the process whereby a distribution network is evaluated in order to
identify potential improvements that will allow the network to operate in the region where energy
efficiency, system performance, and water quality are balanced.
ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
OPTIMIZED
SYSTEM
SYSTEM WATER
PERFORMANCE QUALITY
FIGURE 6-1: WATER SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION DIAGRAM
System optimization was considered throughout the development of this master plan. One of
the basic principles used was to limit unnecessary energy losses. Energy losses have a direct
impact on energy efficiency and system performance. Many of the changes that reduce energy
losses also promote water circulation, which improves water quality. The following paragraphs
describe how optimization was applied in the development of the recommendations included in
this master plan to further optimize the system.
City of Moab 6-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
ENERGY AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PRV settings are an ideal example for the application of optimization principles. PRVs can
provide a useful means of reducing pressure fluctuations in lower zones by allowing water to
flow to the lower zone during peak flow events. However, setting a PRV too high can have the
opposite effect within the upper zone. High PRV flows elevate the flow velocity in the upper
zone, which in turn increases pressure fluctuations. Furthermore, high PRV settings prevent the
equalization storage in tanks from being fully utilized, leading to wasted energy. The solution is
to set PRVs at a level where pressures in the lower zones are protected, but flow through the
PRV is limited. The settings included within the previous chapter were chosen to keep daily
pressure fluctuations under 20 psi while meeting minimum pressure standards for peak day,
peak instantaneous, and emergency demand scenarios.
Another example of applying optimization principals during the development of this master plan
is in selecting a location for the future drinking water storage tank. The location of the storage
tank was selected in order to make use of existing facilities, while providing hydraulic and
energy advantages. The proposed location is at an elevation that allows sources to gravity flow
to the tank, but also preserves as much energy as possible. Because the tank is at a higher
elevation than other existing tanks, the City will have additional flexibility to push water to lower
pressure zones. It may even be possible to install an in -line generator or micro -hydro station
that could convert excess head into electricity.
Pumping Costs
Producing, treating, and delivering high -quality water requires energy, which is usually a water
utility's largest operational expense and can account for 30%-40% of municipal energy
consumption (EPA 2015). Efforts to increase energy efficiency bring financial savings and can
facilitate improvements in water quality and hydraulic performance. The City should prioritize
water usage from sources with the lowest cost water. Springs 1, 2, and 3 are the cheapest
sources because no pumping is needed. Moab's pumped sources should only be used during
times when Springs 1, 2, and 3 cannot supply enough water to meet the City's demand.
As part of the optimization analysis HAL performed a qualitative review of the City's pumping
facilities. Energy intensity describes the amount of energy needed to produce a unit volume of
water and is often measured in kilowatt-hours per million gallons. Since energy use and
pumping costs are directly related, energy intensity serves as a useful proxy for comparing the
relative pumping costs of different sources. The energy intensity of a pumped source is
proportional to the pump's lift, assuming efficiency is constant. Therefore, if two wells with
identical pump efficiencies are considered, one that lifts water from a depth of the 500 feet, and
one that lifts from a depth 1,000 feet. The well that lifts water 500 feet will have half the energy
intensity of the other well, and produce water at half the cost in energy. Due to the relationship
between pump lift and energy use, it is expected that the next City's next cheapest water source
after Springs 1, 2, and 3 will be Skakel Springs. Although Skakel Springs requires pumping to
lift water into Skakel Tank, the lift associated with pumping a spring is generally much less than
the lift needed to pump a well. Wells 6 and 10 are expected to be the City's highest cost water
City of Moab 6-2 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
sources and should be used when the flow of the Springs is not sufficient to meet the City's
demand.
Based on Figure 3-1, the City is already utilizing sources quite efficiently. In 2016, Springs 1, 2,
and 3 met the base demand for the City through the year. As demand increased, Skakel
Springs and Well 6 were added in March, and Well 10 was added in May. One potential area of
improvement is to focus on not utilizing Well 6 to the detriment of Skakel Springs. In Figure 3-1
Skakel Springs does not reach peak volume until June. Based on the data provided it is not
clear whether this is due to water availability as a result of seasonal fluctuations in spring flow,
or due to discretionary choices in source utilization. When possible, water from Skakel Springs
should be utilized before water from the wells, and the wells should not be utilized until
production from Skakel Springs has been maximized.
CHLORINE MODELING
Moab City provided chlorine field test results for locations within the distribution system that
were collected during 2017. A comparison of the chlorine modeling data and field sampling
results is included in Appendix D. The modeled concentrations were generally in good
agreement with field concentrations. Figure 6-2 shows the model output from the chlorine
modeling. Within the figure, pipes shown in blue represent locations with relatively low chlorine
residual while areas shown in green represent comparatively high chlorine concentration. Areas
with low chlorine residual include locations that are relatively far from chlorinated sources or
else dead end pipelines with low flow velocities.
Operational practices can help maintain good chlorine residuals. For example, water levels in
storage tanks should be allowed to fluctuate throughout the day. Peak flows should be met by
water from storage tanks rather than by increasing source production. Meeting peak flows with
storage volume helps turnover the water in the tank, improving residual chlorine concentrations.
As long as the water levels do not drop below the fire suppression levels outlined in Table 4-1,
diurnal variation in tank level is beneficial.
WATER AGE AND DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS
While chlorine is an effective disinfectant in controlling many microorganisms in drinking water,
it reacts with natural material found in drinking water to form potentially harmful disinfection
byproducts (DBPs). Accordingly, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has developed
rules to balance the risks between microbial pathogens and DBPs. A drinking water system
needs enough chlorine to destroy pathogens but also not produce excessive DBP.
The extended period model was used to predict the areas in the water system that have the
highest potential for DBP production. The potential for DBP production is higher in warmer and
older water. Consequently, a water age model provides valuable insight into areas with the
highest potential for DBP production. Water age was calculated for every location in the system
by running the model to simulate several days in the summer scenario. Figure 6-3 illustrates
the results of the water age model scenario at 240 hours using the Existing Model.
City of Moab 6-3 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Nearly all of the system receives fresh water every three days. Dead end lines with little to no
demand have the worst circulation in the model. Areas located along the extremities of the
system also tend to have higher water age. It is recommended that the City use the water age
model to ensure DBP sampling is occurring at the locations with the highest DBP production
potential.
SUMMARY OF OPTIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the finding and observations presented above, the following recommendations are
provided:
1. Set PRVs so that equalization storage is utilized while pressure fluctuations are
controlled.
2. Prioritize usage of lower cost source water.
3. Monitor water quality test results. In particular, chlorine should be tested in areas the
model identifies as having lower chlorine residual levels.
4. Monitor water quality in areas identified as having higher age.
City of Moab 6-4 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Legend
Chlorine Residual (mg/L)
> 0.40
0.31 - 0.40
0.21 - 0.30
0.11 - 0.20
0.00 - 0.10
FIGURE 6-2: CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS IN MOAB CITY
City of Moab
6-5 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Legend
Water Age (hours)
- > 96
72 - 96
48 - 72
24 - 48
- 0-24
FIGURE 6-3: WATER AGE IN MOAB CITY
City of Moab
6-6 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Throughout the master planning process, the three main components of the City's water system
(source, storage, and distribution) were analyzed to determine the system's ability to meet
existing demands and the anticipated future demands at build -out. After identifying system
deficiencies, possible solutions were studied by HAL for feasibility. Conceptual costs were
developed for the most cost effective solutions.
PRECISION OF COST ESTIMATES
When considering cost estimates, there are several levels or degrees of precision, depending
on the purpose of the estimate and the percentage of detailed design that has been completed.
Master planning level (sometimes referred to as conceptual or feasibility design level) costs are
relatively crude as compared to costs developed based on preliminary design or final design.
The purpose of master planning is to develop general sizing, location, cost, and scheduling
information on a number of individual projects that may be designed and constructed over a
period of many years. Master planning also typically includes the selection of common design
criteria to help ensure uniformity and compatibility among future individual projects. Details
such as the exact capacity of individual projects, the level of redundancy, the location of
facilities, the alignment and depth of pipelines, the extent of utility conflicts, the cost of land and
easements, the construction methodology, the types of equipment and material to be used, the
time of construction, interest and inflation rates, permitting requirements, etc., are typically
developed during the more detailed levels of design.
At the preliminary or 10% design level, some of the aforementioned information will have been
developed. Major design decisions such as the size of facilities, selection of facility sites,
pipeline alignments and depths, and the selection of the types of equipment and material to be
used during construction will typically have been made.
After the project has been completely designed, and is ready to bid, all design plans and
technical specifications will have been completed and nearly all of the significant details about
the project should be known. Cost estimates at this level of design will be more precise as
compared to master planning and preliminary design levels. However, there are still many
factors that can heavily influence the cost of a project. A few of those include construction
timing, contractor work backlog, the time of year in which bids are held, etc.
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
As discussed in previous chapters, several source, storage and distribution system deficiencies
were identified during the system analysis. Project costs for water system improvements are
presented in Table 7-1 with map IDs corresponding to the project locations shown in Figure 5-4.
Each recommendation includes a conceptual cost estimate for construction.
City of Moab 7-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Unit costs for the construction cost estimates are based on conceptual level engineering.
Sources used to estimate construction costs include:
1. "Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 2017"
2. Price quotes from equipment suppliers
3. Recent construction bids for similar work
All costs are presented in 2018 dollars. Recent price and economic trends indicate that future
costs are difficult to predict with certainty. Engineering cost estimates provided in this study
should be regarded as conceptual level for use as a planning guide. Only during final design
can a definitive and more accurate estimate be provided for each project. A cost estimate
calculation for each project is provided in Appendix E and Table 7-1 provides a cost summary
for the recommended system improvements.
TABLE 7-1
PROJECT COSTS FOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
(Listed by Map ID order)
TYPE
MAP ID
RECOMMENDED PROJECT
COST
Source
NA
Develop source redundancy
$2,025,000
Source
NA
Construct a new drinking water well for future growth
$2,025,000
Storage
NA
o struct a new storage tank with a capacity of 2.2
Construct
MG
$2 970,000
Distribution
1
Disconnect David Court pipeline from the Middle Zone
at the intersection of David Court and Doc Allen Drive.
Reconnect to Upper Zone transmission pipeline
$27,000
Distribution
2
Install 2,600 feet of 10-inch pipe and 2,700 feet of 12"
pipe along Mill Creek Drive between Powerhouse
Road and 400 East.
$956,000
Fire
3
Install 260 feet of 8-inch pipe in Dogwood Avenue
between Mountain View Drive and Doc Allen Drive to
connect existing Middle Zone pipelines
$39,000
Fire
4
Install 3,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline in Kane Creek
Boulevard between 500 West and 1000 West
$522,000
Fire
5
Install 1,200 feet of 8-inch pipe to connect the pipeline
in Riversand Road to the pipeline in Palisade Drive
$180,000
Fire
6
Install 1,200 feet of 10-inch pipe in 400 North between
750 West and 1000 West
$209,000
City of Moab
7-2
Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
TYPE
MAP ID
RECOMMENDED PROJECT
COST
Fire
7
Install 850 feet of 8-inch pipe in Stewart Lane
between 400 North and 200 North
$127,000
Fire
8
Install 470 feet of 8-inch pipe in Carlos Court
$70,000
Fire
9
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipe in Rubicon Trail
between Highway 191 and Portal RV Resort
$115,000
Fire
10
Install 1,600 feet of 8-inch pipe on the south side of
Highway 191 between 1500 North and 1700 North
$240,000
Fire
11
The fire hydrant is connected to 4-inch pipeline.
Swap connection to 12-inch pipeline at 300 North 100
West
$115,000
Fire
12
Install 820 feet of 8-inch pipe in Williams Way
between 100 West and 250 Williams Way
$240,000
Fire
13
Install 900 feet of 8-inch pipe in West Center Street
between 100 West and 264 West Center Street
$14,000
Fire
14
Install 490 feet of 8-inch pipe in 300 East between
100 North and 194 North
$73,000
Fire
15
Install 800 feet of 8-inch pipe in Center Street
between 400 East and 500 East
$120,000
Fire
16
Connect to upstream side of 300 South 400 East PRV
and install 1,280 feet of 8-inch pipe in 400 East
between 300 South and Rosetree Lane and 1,050
feet of 8-inch pipe in Nichols Lane between 400 East
and 674 East
$349,000
Fire
17
Install 500 feet of 8-inch pipe in Rosetree Lane
between 400 East and 504 East
$75,000
Fire
18
Install 680 feet of 8-inch pipe in Bowen Circle
between 403 Bowen Circle and 530 Bowen Circle
$102,000
Fire
19
Install 910 feet of 8-inch pipe beginning at
approximately 306 East 300 South to Pueblo Court
$136,000
Fire
20
Disconnect fire hydrant from 8-inch pipe and
reconnect to 12-inch pipe at Mill Creek Drive and
Powerhouse Lane
$14,000
Fire
21
Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipe in Bartlett Avenue
between 500 West and 632 West
$111,000
TOTAL
$10,854,000
City of Moab
7-3
Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
The above noted projects have been prioritized to provide the City guidance for which order the
projects should be pursued. The fire flow projects were prioritized based on available fire flow
volume. The future project was given lower priority since it provide for future growth and isn't
immediately needed. It should be noted that the selection of criteria and priorities is subjective.
As the City personnel evaluate project priorities, the City may wish to alter the order of the
priorities.
TABLE 7-2
PROJECT COSTS FOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
(Listed in Priority order)
PRIORITY
MAP ID
RECOMMENDED PROJECT'
COST
1
NA
Develop source redundancy
$2,025,000
1
NA
Construct a new storage tank with a capacity of 2.2 MG
$2,970,000
2
2
Install 2,600 feet of 10-inch pipe and 2,700 feet of 12"
pipe along Mill Creek Drive between Powerhouse Road
and 400 East.
$956,000
3
16
Connect to upstream side of 300 South 400 East PRV
and install 1,280 feet of 8-inch pipe in 400 East between
300 South and Rosetree Lane and 1,050 feet of 8-inch
pipe in Nichols Lane between 400 East and 674 East
$349,000
4
17
Install 500 feet of 8-inch pipe in Rosetree Lane between
400 East and 504 East
$75,000
5
9
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipe in Rubicon Trail between
Highway 191 and Portal RV Resort
$115,000
6
13
Install 900 feet of 8-inch pipe in West Center Street
between 100 West and 264 West Center Street
$14,000
7
8
Install 470 feet of 8-inch pipe in Carlos Court
$70,000
8
5
Install 1,200 feet of 8-inch pipe to connect the pipeline
in Riversand Road to the pipeline in Palisade Drive
$180,000
9
6
Install 1,200 feet of 10-inch pipe in 400 North between
750 West and 1000 West
$209,000
10
7
Install 850 feet of 8-inch pipe in Stewart Lane between
400 North and 200 North
$127,000
11
19
Install 910 feet of 8-inch pipe beginning at
approximately 306 East 300 South to Pueblo Court
$136,000
City of Moab
7-4
Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
PRIORITY
MAP ID
RECOMMENDED PROJECT'
COST
12
4
Install 3,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline in Kane Creek
Boulevard between 500 West and 1000 West
$522,000
13
1
Disconnect David Court pipeline from the Middle Zone
at the intersection of David Court and Doc Allen Drive.
Reconnect to Upper Zone transmission pipeline
$27,000
14
3
Install 260 feet of 8-inch pipe in Dogwood Avenue
between Mountain View Drive and Doc Allen Drive to
connect existing Middle Zone pipelines
$39,000
15
18
Install 680 feet of 8-inch pipe in Bowen Circle between
403 Bowen Circle and 530 Bowen Circle
$102,000
16
11
The fire hydrant is connected to 4-inch pipeline. Swap
connection to 12-inch pipeline at 300 North 100 West
$115,000
17
14
Install 490 feet of 8-inch pipe in 300 East between 100
North and 194 North
$73,000
18
20
Disconnect fire hydrant from 8-inch pipe and reconnect
to 12-inch pipe at Mill Creek Drive and Power House
Lane
$14,000
19
10
Install 1,600 feet of 8-inch pipe on the south side of
Highway 191 between 1500 North and 1700 North
$240,000
20
15
Install 800 feet of 8-inch pipe in Center Street between
400 East and 500 East
$120,000
21
12
Install 820 feet of 8-inch pipe in Williams Way between
100 West and 250 Williams Way
$240,000
22
21
Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipe in Bartlett Avenue
between 500 West and 632 West
$111,000
23
NA
Construct a new drinking water well for future growth
$2,025,000
TOTAL
$10,854,000
The proposed future well project addresses future needs and the proposed storage tank and
redundancy projects address a combination of future and existing needs. All other projects
address existing deficiencies and are not impact fee eligible. The existing system improvement
projects are recommended to be completed within 5 years. A summary of the expected project
costs, over the next 5 years, is shown in Table 7-, separated by non -impact fee eligible costs
and impact fee eligible costs.
City of Moab 7-5 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
TABLE 7-3
FIVE YEAR COST SUMMARY
Project
Non -Impact Fee
Eligible Cost
Impact Fee
Eligible Cost
Fire Flow Projects:
$2,851,000
$0
Distribution Projects:
$983,000
$0
Source Projects:
$1,276,400
$749,000
Storage Projects:
$864,000
$2,106,000
Subtotal
$5,974,400
$2,855,000
Total
$8,830,000
Aside from pipeline replacement, the only project forecasted during the 6 to 40 year time frame
is the proposed drinking water well. The estimated cost for the well is $2,025,000 and the full
cost is eligible to be funded by impact fees.
FUNDING OPTIONS
Funding options for the recommended projects, in addition to water use fees, could include the
following options: general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, State/Federal grants and loans, and
impact fees. In reality, the City may need to consider a combination of these funding options.
The following discussion describes each of these options.
With respect to water use fees, it is recommended that the City evaluate water rates
periodically. Rates should be sufficient to cover the full cost of producing and delivering water
and maintaining the system so that it is not necessary to subsidize the water system with other
funding sources. Failure to perform proper maintenance and pipeline replacement may create
an eventual significant financial burden on ratepayers. Old, unstable and leaky pipes cause
significant inefficiency, interfere with conservation efforts, and increases the potential for a water
quality health risk. Also, failure to collect the proper impact fees can also place a burden on
user rates because once the new connections are on the system, the system upgrades cannot
be paid for by impact fees. Charging customers for the true current cost of water reinforces the
idea that water is a valuable commodity, and helps fund the system.
General Obligation Bonds
This form of debt enables the City to issue general obligation bonds for capital improvements
and replacement. General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are debt instruments backed by the full faith
and credit of the City, which would be secured by an unconditional pledge of the City to levy
assessments, charges or ad valorem taxes necessary to retire the bonds. G.O. bonds are the
lowest -cost form of debt financing available to local governments and can be combined with
other revenue sources such as specific fees, or special assessment charges to form a dual
City of Moab 7-6 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
security through the City's revenue generating authority. These bonds are supported by the
City as a whole, so the amount of debt issued for the water system is limited to a fixed
percentage of the real market value for taxable property within the City.
Revenue Bonds
This form of debt financing is also available to the City for utility related capital improvements.
Revenue bonds are not backed by the City as a whole, but constitute a lien against the water
service charge revenues of a Water Utility. Revenue bonds present a greater risk to the
investor than do G.O. bonds, since repayment of debt depends on an adequate revenue
stream, legally defensible rate structure and sound fiscal management by the issuing
jurisdiction. Due to this increased risk, revenue bonds generally require a higher interest rate
than G.O. bonds. This type of debt also has very specific coverage requirements in the form of
a reserve fund specifying an amount, usually expressed in terms of average or maximum debt
service due in any future year. This debt service is required to be held as a cash reserve for
annual debt service payment to the benefit of bondholders. Typically, voter approval is not
required when issuing revenue bonds.
State/Federal Grants and Loans
Historically, both local and county governments have experienced significant infrastructure
funding support from state and federal government agencies in the form of block grants, direct
grants in aid, interagency loans, and general revenue sharing. Federal expenditure pressures
and virtual elimination of federal revenue sharing dollars are clear indicators that local
government may be left to its own devices to fund infrastructure. However, state/federal grants
and loans should be investigated as a possible funding source for needed water system
improvements.
Impact Fees
Impact fees can be applied to water related facilities under the Utah Impact Fees Act. The Utah
Impacts Fees Act is designed to provide a logical and clear framework for establishing new
development assessments. It is also designed to establish the basis for the fee calculation
which the City must follow in order to comply with the statute. However, the fundamental
objective for the fee structure is the imposition on new development of only those costs
associated with providing or expanding water infrastructure to meet the capacity needs created
by that specific new development. Also, impact fees cannot be applied retroactively.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations were made throughout the master report. The following is a summary
of the recommendations organized by category.
City of Moab 7-7 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
Source
1. Develop an additional drinking water source to provide redundant capacity.
2. Meet future needs by developing new sources of at least 1,930 gpm.
Storage
1. Construct a new storage tank with a capacity of 2.2 MG.
Distribution
1. Construct all of the projects addressing existing deficiencies within 5 years if
possible.
2. Maintain an updated model of the drinking water system.
3. Fund a pipeline replacement project.
Optimization
1. Set PRVs so that equalization storage is utilized while pressure fluctuations are
controlled.
2. Prioritize usage of lower cost source water.
3. Monitor water quality test results. Chlorine should be tested in areas the model identifies
as having lower chlorine residual levels.
4. Monitor water quality in areas identified as having higher age through disinfection
byproduct testing.
City of Moab 7-8 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
REFERENCES
Bowen Co!lens & Associates. 2017. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Fluoride: Dose -Response Analysis For Non -
cancer Effects. EPA 820-R-10-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. "Water/Wastewater." State and Local
Climate and Energy Program. http://www3.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/topics/water.html.
(accessed Sep. 28, 2017)
Governor's Office of Planning & Budget, 2012. 2012 Baseline Projections: Sub -County
Population Projections
gomb. utah.gov/wp-content/u ploads/sites/7/2013/08/Subcounty-Pop-Projections-2013.xlsx
(accessed Sep. 28, 2017).
International Fire Code Institute, Uniform Fire Code, 2017.
RSMeans, 2017. RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data. Norwell, MA: Construction
Publishers & Consultants.
United States Census Bureau. 2016. QuickFacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4950700/accessible (Accessed
09/28/2017).
Utah Administrative Code R309-200. Monitoring and Water Quality: Drinking Water Standards.
rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r309/r309-200.htm (accessed Sep. 28, 2017)
Utah Administrative Code R309-500. Facility Design and Operation: Plan Review, Operation
and Maintenance Requirements. rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r309/r309-500.htm (accessed
Sep. 28, 2017)
Utah Administrative Code R309-510. Facility Design and Operation: Minimum Sizing
Requirements. rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r309/r309-510.htm (accessed Sep. 28, 2017)
City of Moab R-1 Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
APPENDIX A
ERC Calculations
H nn A
& LucEinc
ENGINEERS
CLIENT City of Moab SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT Water Distirbution and Storage Master Plan
FEATURE ERC Calculations COMPUTED RTC
PROJECT NO 380.09.100 DATE 2/24/18
Abbreviations:
AF = acre-feet
DWR = Utah Division of Water Rights
ERC = equivalent residential connection
GOMB = Governor's Office of Management and Budget
gpm = gallon per minute
Referenced DWR data can be found at:
https://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/wuseview.exe?Modinfo=Pwsview&SYSTEM ID=1164
Key:
Input
Calculated Value
Water Use and ERC Calculations
Moab service area population
Total water use
Residential connections
Total Connections
Residential water use
Average Residential flow rate
Residential demand per ERC
Non residential water use
Non residential water use
Summation of ERCs from non-residential demands =
Total ERCs =
Existing State Standard Peak Day Flow Computation
5,490
1,812
1,575
2,073
800
0.315
1,012
627
1,994
3,569
Indoor Demand Calculations
Peak Day Indoor Demand =
Total Peak Day Indoor Demand =
800
1,983
Outdoor Demand Back Calculating Using Production Data
July 2016 volume =
July 2016 average flow =
December 2016 volume =
December 2016 avg. flow =
December 2016 Per ERC avg. demand =
December 2016 daily volume per ERC =
Peak Month outdoor demand =
Add 20% to estimate peak day
Outdoor demand per ERC =
State Standards, outdoor demand =
Irrigated acres/ERC =
Total irrigated acreage =
306.6
2,238
97.3
710
0.199
286.51
1528
1833
0.514
4.52
0.114
406
(from 2016 use data reported to DWR)
AF (See DWR 2016 annual use data)
(from 2016 DWR data)
(from 2016 DWR data)
AF (from 2016 DWR data)
496 gpm
gpm/ERC
AF
gpm
ERCs
ERCs
ERCs were
calculated based on
R309-110-4 of Utah
Admin. Code
gallons/day (see R309-510-7)
gpm
AF (from DWR data)
gpm
AF (from DWR data)
gpm
gpm/ERC
gal/day
g pm (2,238 gpm-710 gpm)
gpm
gpm/ERC
This analysis
assumes the
difference between
July and December
demands is outdoor
demand
gpm/irr acre (see R309-510-7)
acres
acres
C:\Users\rchristensen\OneDrive\Synced Folders\380.09.100 Water Distribution and Storage Master PIan\ENG\Calculations\Moab cost estimate.xlsx
HA ufn
& LUCE=
ENGINEERS
CLIENT City of Moab SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT Water Distirbution and Storage Master Plan
FEATURE ERC Calculations COMPUTED RTC
PROJECT NO 380.09.100 DATE 2/24/18
Outdoor Demand Calculated Based on Random Sample Lot Measurements
There is wide variation between lot sizes, and some clearly do not irrigate
Average irrigable acreage =
Effective irrigated acreage =
Total Outdoor Peak Day Demand =
Outdoor demand per ERC =
Recommended Indoor Plus Outdoor Peak Day Demand
State standard total peak day demand =
Total demand/ERC =
Indoor Plus Outdoor Average Day Demand
Indoor state standard demand =
Outdoor state standard demand =
State Standard Annual Demand =
State Standard Annual Demand =
Demands Based on Measured Production Volumes
0.115
0.083
1,339
0.375
3,321
0.93
146,000
0.448
2.69
0.223
2,396
1,485
Estimated peak day flow using production
data (peak month+20%) =
Demand per ERC using peak month+20% =
From daily meter readings, the overall highest value was
From daily meter readings, the highest 3 day average was
Peak Day/Average Day peaking factor =
Assumed Peak Instantaneous/Peak Day peaking factor =
Calculated peak instantaneous flow =
Future Peak day Model Flow Computation
2,946
3,185
2,754
2
1.7
1.40
Existing Moab Population =
5,490
irr acre/ERC
irr acre/ERC
gpm THIS VALUE USED
gpm/ERC
gpm (1,983 gpm+1,339 gpm)
gpm/ERC
gallons/ERC
AF/ERC
AF/irr. Acre
AF/ERC
acre-feet
gpm (compare to 1,123 gpm)
State standard
values for annual
average demand are
defined within
R309-510-7
gpm (from Sep. 2016 DWR data)
gpm/ERC
gpm (July 6, 2017)
gpm (June 23 to 25, 2017)
(using peak month+20%)
(Based on HAL experience)
gpm/ERC
The recent update to Moab's sewer master plan used a growth rate of 1.1 % through 2035
and 1.02% between 2035 and 2060. These values result in the following forecasts.
Year
Population L 5,490 I 5,736 I 6,058 I 6,399 I 6,758 I 8,71 L,
ERCs I 3,569 1 3,728 1 3,938 1 4,159 1 4,393 1 5,662
2060 ERCs =
2060 Peak Day Demand =
2060 Average Day Demand =
5,662
5,269
2,356
ERCs
gpm
gpm
APPENDIX B
Calibration Data
Tank Level Calibration Data
4171 0
4170.0
4169.0
4168.0
ead fo Node S a el Tan
•
•
6 10 12
Time (hours)
22 24
4332.0
4331.0
ead fo Node Po e o se Tan
•
12
Time (hours)
•
14
16
18
20
22
24
ead fo Node Mo ntain ie Tan
4334.0-
4333.0-
m 4332.0-
z
x
4331.0-
■
4330.0-
•
2 4
6
8
10 12 14
Time (hours)
16
18
20
22
24
APPENDIX C
Model Data
APPENDIX D
Water Quality Data
Comparison of Field Sampling and Modeled Chlorine Residuals
Field Samping Results
Model Results
Chlorine Sampling Location
Jan-17
Feb-17
Mar-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
High
Low
Avg.
Node
Public Works Shop
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.35
0.31
0.34
18982
Riverside Plumbing
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.30
0.34
0.32
14352
City Market
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.31
0.37
0.36
16282
Grand County School District
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.33
0.35
0.34
16582
Super 8 Motel
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.40
0.41
0.41
11812
Western Spirit
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.36
0.32
0.35
1186
USU Extension Office
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.35
0.30
0.33
1170
Dr. Hackney Office
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.38
0.31
0.36
16300
BLM Office Dog Wood
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.38
0.29
0.33
11594
Grand Senior Center
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.34
0.30
0.33
1508
Sweet Cravings
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.28
0.25
0.26
12024
Eastern Utah Credit Union
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.38
0.36
0.38
11078
Grand County Credit Union
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.27
0.20
0.25
13386
Moab City Hall
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.32
0.30
0.31
1928
Sleep Inn Motel
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.37
0.31
0.35
16260
Shell Gas Station
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.28
0.27
0.27
14778
Field results represent a snap shot of the day and time water samples were collected. The model results vary
continuously and water moves through the system. For this reason a range is provided for the model results.
APPENDIX E
Cost Estimate Calculation
City of Moab - Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
July 17, 2018
Cont Estimate
Project Description
UNIT
UNIT TYP
NIT CO
Contingency
(20%) and
Engineering
(15%
TOTAL C•
NA
Develop Source Redundancy
1
each
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$525,000
$2,025,000
NA
Construct new well
1
each
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$525,000
$2,025,000
NA
Construct a 2.2 MG Storage Tank
1
each
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$770,000
$2,970,000
1
Disconnect and reconnect pipeline
1
each
$20,000
$20,000
$7,000
$27,000
2a
Install 2,600 feet of 10-inch pipe
2,600
foot
$129
$335,400
$117,390
$453,000
2b
Install 2,700 feet of 12-inch pipe
2,700
foot
$138
$372,600
$130,410
$503,000
3
Intall 260 feet of 8-inch pipe
260
foot
$111
$28,860
$10,101
$39,000
4
Install 3,000 feet of 10-inch pipe
3,000
foot
$129
$387,000
$135,450
$522,000
5
Install 1,200 feet of 8-inch pipe
1,200
foot
$111
$133,200
$46,620
$180,000
6
Install 1,200 feet of 10-inch pipe
1,200
foot
$129
$154,800
$54,180
$209,000
7
Install 850 feet of 8-inch pipe
850
foot
$111
$94,350
$33,023
$127,000
8
Install 470 feet of 8-inch pipe
470
foot
$111
$52,170
$18,260
$70,000
9
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipeline
770
foot
$111
$85,470
$29,915
$115,000
10
Install 1,600 feet of 8-inch pipe
1,600
foot
$111
$177,600
$62,160
$240,000
11
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipeline
770
foot
$111
$85,470
$29,915
$115,000
12
Install 1,600 feet of 8-inch pipe
1,600
foot
$111
$177,600
$62,160
$240,000
13
Disconnect and reconnect fire hydrant
1
each
$10,000
$10,000
$3,500
$14,000
14
Install 490 feet of 8-inch pipe
490
foot
$111
$54,390
$19,037
$73,000
15
Install 800 feet of 8-inch pipeline
800
foot
$111
$88,800
$31,080
$120,000
16
Install 1,280 feet of 8-inch pipe
1,280
foot
$111
$142,080
$49,728
$192,000
Install 1,050 feet of 8-inch pipe
1,050
foot
$111
$116,550
$40,793
$157,000
17
Install 500 feet of 8-inch pipeline
500
foot
$111
$55,500
$19,425
$75,000
18
Install 680 feet of 8-inch pipe
680
foot
$111
$75,480
$26,418
$102,000
19
Install 910 feet of 8-inch pipeline
910
foot
$111
$101,010
$35,354
$136,000
20
Disconnect and reconnect fire hydrant
1
each
$10,000
$10,000
$3,500
$14,000
21
Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipeline
740
foot
$111
$82,140
$28,749
$111,000
TOTAL
$10,854,000
APPENDIX F
Division of Drinking Water Certification
APPENDIX
CHECKLIST FOR HYDRAULIC MODEL DESIGN ELEMENTS REPORT
This hydraulic model checklist identifies the components included in the Hydraulic
Model Design Elements Report for
City of Moab - Water Distribution and Storage Master Plan
(Project Name or Description)
10003
(Water System Number)
Moab City Water
(Water System Name)
07/16/2018
(Date)
The checkmarks and/or P.E. initials after each item indicate the conditions supporting
P.E. Certification of this Report.
1. At least 80% of the total pipe lengths in the distribution system affected by the
proposed project are included in the model. [R309-511-5(111 ❑X
2. 100% of the flow in the distribution system affected by the proposed project is
included in the model. If customer usage in the system is metered, water demand
allocations in the model account for at least 80% of the flow delivered by
distribution system affected by the proposed project. [R309-511-5(2» Fl<
3. All 8-inch diameter and larger pipes are included in the model. Pipes smaller than
8-inch diameter are also included if they connect pressure zones, storage facilities,
major demand areas, pumps, and control valves, or if they are known or expected
to be significant conveyers of water such as fire suppression demand. [R309-511-
50»
4. All pipes serving areas at higher elevations, dead ends, remote areas of a
distribution system, and areas with known under -sized pipelines are incluin
the model. [R309-511-5(4)] n
5. All storage facilities and accompanying controls or settings applied to govern the
open/closed status of the facility for standard operations are included in t
model. [R309-511-5(5)] 1111
DDW-Eng-0012 Page 1
10/8/2015
6. Any applicable pump stations, drivers (constant or variable speed), and
accompanying controls and settings applied to govern their on/off/speed status for
various operating conditions and drivers are included in the model. [1t30911-5(6)]
a
7. Any control valves or other system features that could significantly affect the flow
of water through the distribution system (i.e. interconnections with other systems,
pressure reducing valves between pressure zones) for various operating c°,�'- ns
are included in the model. [R309-511-5(7)]
8. Imposed peak day and peak instantaneous demands to the water system's
facilities are included in the model. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements
Report explains which of the Rule -recognized standards for peak day and peak
instantaneous demands are implemented in the model (i.e., (i) peak day and peak
instantaneous demand values per R309-510, Minimum Sizing Requirements, (ii)
reduced peak day and peak instantaneous demand values approved by the
Director per R309-510-5, Reduction of Sizing Requirements, or (iii) peak day and
peak instantaneous demand values expected by the water system in excess of the
values in R309-510, Minimum Sizing Requirements). The Hydraulic Model
Design Elements Report explains the multiple model simulations to account for
the varying water demand conditions, or it clearly explains why such simulations
are not included in the model. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements Report
explains the extended period simulations in the model needed to evaluate changes
in operating conditions over time, or it clearly explains (e.g., in the context of the
water system, the extent of anticipated fire event, or the nature of the new
expansion) why such simulations are not included in the model. [R309-511 5(8) &
R309-511-6(1)(b)] 0
9. The hydraulic model incorporates the appropriate demand requirements as
specified in R309-510, Minimum Sizing Requirements, and R309-511, Hydraulic
Modeling Requirements, in the evaluation of various operating conditions of the
public drinking water system. The Report includes:
• the methodology used for calculating demand and allocating it to the
model;
• a summary of pipe length by diameter;
• a hydraulic schematic of the distribution piping showing pressure zones,
general pipe connectivity between facilities and pressure zones, storage,
elevation, and sources; and
• a list or ranges of values of friction coefficient used in the hydraulic model
according to pipe material and condition in the system. In accordance with
Rule stipulation, all coefficients of friction used in the hydraulic analysis
are consistent with standard practices.
[R309-511- 7(4)] U
DDW-Eng-0012 Page 2
10/8/2015
10. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements Report documents the calibration
methodology used for the hydraulic model and quantitative summary of the
calibration results (i.e., comparison tables or graphs). The hydraulic model is
sufficiently accurate to represent conditions likely to be experienced in the water
delivery system. The model is calibrated to adequately represent the actual field
conditions using field measurements and observations. [R309-511-4(2)(b), R 09-511-
5(9), R309-511-6(1)(e) & R309-511-7(7»
11. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements Report includes a statement regarding
whether fire hydrants exist within the system. Where fire hydrants are connected
to the distribution system, the model incorporates required fire suppression flow
standards. The statement that appears in the Report also identifies the local fire
authority's name, address, and contact information, as well as the standards for
fire flow and duration explicitly adopted from R309-510-9(4), Fireflow, or
alternatively established by the local fire suppression agency, pursuant to R309-
510-9(4), Fireflow. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements Report explains if a
steady-state model was deemed sufficient for residential fire suppression demand,
or acknowledges that significant fire suppression demand warrants extended
model simulations and explains the run time used in the simulations for tl period
of the anticipated fire event. [R309-511-5(10) & R309-511-7(5)]
C
12. If the public drinking water system provides water for outdoor use, teport
describes the criteria used to estimate this demand. If the irrigation demand map
in R309-510-7(3), Irrigation Use, is not used, the report provides justification for
the alternative demands used in the model. If the irrigation demands are based on
the map in R309-510-7(3), Irrigation Use, the Report identifies the irrigation zone
number, a statement and/or map of how the irrigated acreage is spatially
distributed, and the total estimated irrigated acreage. The indicated irrigation
demands are used in the model simulations in accordance with Rule stipulation.
The model accounts for outdoor water use, such as irrigation, if the drinkin
system supplies water for outdoor use. [R309-511-5(11) & R309-511-7(1)]
IXI
13. The Report states the total number of connections served by the water system
including existing connections and anticipated new connections served by the
water system after completion of the construction of the project. [R309-5;v 7 2)
0
14. The Report states the total number of equivalent residential connections (ERC)
including both existing connections as well as anticipated new connections
associated with the project. In accordance with Rule stipulation, the number of
ERC's includes high as well as low volume water users. In accordance with Rule
stipulation, the determination of the equivalent residential connections is based on
flow requirements using the anticipated demand as outlined in R309-510,
Minimum Sizing Requirements, or is based on alternative sources of info ation
that are deemed acceptable by the Director. [R309-511-7(3)] n
DDW-Eng-0012 Page 3
10/8/2015
15. The Report identifies the locations of the lowest pressures within the distribution
system, and areas identified by the hydraulic model as not meeting each scenario
of the minimum pressure requirements in R309-105-9, Minimum Water P e sure.
[R309-511-7(6)] 0
16. The Hydraulic Model Design Elements Report identifies the hydraulic modeling
method, and if computer software was used, the Report identifies the soft;, are
name and version used. M309-511-6(1)0]
17. For community water system models, the community water system management
has been provided with a copy of input and output data for the hydraulic model
with the simulation that shows the worst case results in terms of water sy_tem
pressure and flow. [R309-511-6(2)(c)J C
18. The hydraulic model predicts that new construction will not result in any service
connection within the new expansion area not meeting the minimum distribution
system pressures as specified in R309-105-9, Minimum Water Pressure. ,•, �9-
511-6(1)(c)J 5-ee r164
19. The hydraulic model predicts that new construction will not decrease the
pressures within the existing water system to such that the minimum pressures as
specified in R309-105-9, Minimum ater Pressure are not met. [R309-511-6 )(d)]
,5:ee retrA-4 at -Al
20. The velocities in the model are not excessive and are within industry stan
0
rds.
DDW-Eng-0012 Page 4 10/8/2015