The URL can be used to link to this page

3984 General Sewer PlanMOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL August 27, 2024 STUDY SESSION Grant County Trends Dr. Patrick Jones from the Eastern Washington University’s Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis reviewed online data at www.grantcountytrends.org. Dr. Jones emphasized on the city numbers compared to state, county, and national in the categories of population, age groups, income, residential real estate, water quality, graduation rates, and transportation. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Swartz in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center with audio remote access. Special notice for remote attendance and citizen comment were posted on the meeting agenda. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Swartz; Deputy Mayor Madewell; Council Members Lombardi, Skaug, Fancher, Martinez, and Myers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Victor Lombardi led the Flag Salute. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Swartz added confirmation of appointments for Park Board and Airport Commission. Action taken: Council Member Martinez moved to approve the Agenda as amended, second by Council Member Fancher. The motion carried 7 – 0. PRESENTATIONS New Building Official Introduction Interim Community Development Director Vivian Ramsey introduced the city's new Building Official Todd Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham stepped to the podium and expressed his gratitude to the Council for the chance to support the Moses Lake community in his new role. Columbia Basin Cancer Foundation Proclamation Mayor Swartz read and delivered the annual proclamation to Columbia Basin Cancer Foundation Executive Director Angel Ledesma provided an overview of the organization to the Council. She narrated a touching story about a client who battled cancer twice, resulting in a postponed wedding organized by the Foundation. Ms. Ledesma shared inauguration of a new radiation clinic at Confluence Health and the Foundation's introduction of an overnight program for patients traveling from outside Moses Lake seeking treatment. They aim to establish housing for these individuals in the future while local hotels are offering discounted rates for their clients. Street Vacation Process Development Review Manager Corey Davisson delivered a presentation outlining the steps from application to final evaluation for street and right of way vacation requests. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 1 of 774 City Council Minutes - August 27, 2024 CITIZEN’S COMMUNICATION Virginia & Luta St Covenant Michael Riley, Moses Lake, questioned the breakdown of project expenses related to the covenant based on current standards and regulations beyond the designated boundary. Interim City Manager Mike Jackson will follow up with Mr. Riley about questions asked. Miscellaneous Elisia Dalluge, Moses Lake, thanked Parks Director Doug Coutts for attending the Moses Lake Community Coalition Meeting. She also attended meetings for Grant County and Grant Public Utility District to learn that they are having similar issues as the city. Mayor Swartz assured her that Council has met and will continue to meet with these Commissioners, as well as the Port of Moses Lake. SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT Board & Commission Appointments Vacancies for the Municipal Airport Commission and Park Board were posted in accordance to MLMC 2.08.740 and one eligible application was submitted for each position. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Doug Coutts introduced Jennifer McCarthy, a dedicated Museum volunteer and Big Bend Community College Professor, as his recommendation for the unexpired term. Action taken: Council Member Martinez moved to confirm the appointment of Ms. McCarthy, second by Council Member Lombardi. The motion carried 7 – 0. Municipal Airport Commissioner Darrin Jackson introduced Jeremy Davis as their recommendation for the vacancy. Mr. Davis is a new pilot and serves as the president of the local Pilot’s Association. Mr. Davis expressed his gratitude to Council for their consideration. Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to confirm the appointment of Mr. Davis, second by Council Member Lombardi. The motion carried 7 – 0. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT Executive Search Consultant Update GMP Consultants are working with staff to coordinate meetings with Council and Directors for criteria on searches for a new City Manager and Fire Chief. Opioid Abatement Consultant Update Chelan Commissioner Overbay advised staff that they should have all signatures in place to initiate process for determination of funding allocations on September 1. PUBLIC HEARING #1 LKQ Development Agreement Ordinance 3049 LKQ Foster Auto Parts, Inc., Project consists of roughly 159.71 acres. Permit # Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 2 of 774 City Council Minutes - August 27, 2024 PLN2024-0060 (Short Subdivision) describes the Project as development of a vehicle recycling and parts warehousing facility consisting of a 182,000 sq. ft. facility and 140-acre+ stone yard. The Agreement is needed in order for the Developer to secure financing. Mayor Swartz opened the hearing at 7:20 p.m., there being no comments, the hearing was closed. Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to adopt Ordinance 3049 to authorize the City Manager execute the LKQ Development Agreement before October 31, second by Council Member Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0. CONSENT AGENDA #2 a. Meeting minutes dated August 13, 2024 b. Electronic Transfer: N/A Checks: 166621 - 166855 - $1,666,123.92 Payroll Checks: 08-16-2024 PR, #66404 - 66433 - $16,570.20 Electronic Payments: 08-16-2024 Direct Deposit - $793,248.57 c. GIS Ground Radar Purchase Action taken: Council Member Fancher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, second by Council Member Martinez. The motion carried 7 – 0. NEW BUSINESS #3 Valley Road Landscaping GC2023-108 Project Surveyor Levi Bisnett provided a slide deck in the meeting packet to illustrate Valley Road Landscaping options. The project is divided into three sections: Paxson Drive to Grape, Grape to Central, and Central to Stratford Rd. Staff received a $27,000 grant from the Transportation Improvement Board to cover a portion of the project costs. Council requested color where possible and inquired to staff about Code Enforcement on adjacent private properties. Action taken: Council Member Fancher motioned to authorize Valley Road Landscaping GC2023-108, second by Council Member Lombardi. The motion carried 7 - 0. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS Council Member Martinez announced that the Watershed Council will have the State of the Lake address on September 16 at the Civic Center. She shared that Department of Natural Resource contracts generate revenue to support mutual aid of firefighting resources across the state. She later expressed gratitude to the police department for organizing the National Night Out event and that there are openings for police officer positions. Council Member Fancher attended the Community Development and Public Works Committee meeting today where they continue to discuss water. City Engineer Richard Law has been invited to a more senior role with the Bureau of Reclamation. There are plans to have a presentation to full Council regarding the Wheeler Road corridor project. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 3 of 774 City Council Minutes - August 27, 2024 Council Member Skaug provided an update on the challenges faced by Well 17, highlighting the dynamic nature of the water issue. He expressed his gratitude for the hard work put in by the city staff to address water concerns. Council Member Lombardi attended a meeting for the Port of Moses Lake and learned that Boeing employees may strike on September 12. Their discussion covered their capital budget and potential to build a convention center. He hopes the municipal airport commissioners will also work on completing their five-year plan. Council Member Madewell expressed her gratitude to Police and Fire Department for attending the back to school backpack event. Mayor Swartz also thanked Police and the Fire Department for participating in National Night Out. The Sister City Program concluded a successful student exchange and plans to send five students to Japan next year. He acknowledged Police Chief Dave Sands and his team for their prompt response to the unfortunate shooting incident at the Grant County Fair. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Swartz called an Executive Session for 15 minutes from 8 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. to consider acquisition of real estate for lease or purchase pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1) subsection b, followed by a Closed Session, with no action to follow. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. ______________________________________ Dustin Swartz, Mayor ATTEST____________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 4 of 774 RESOLUTION 3984 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2024 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN Recitals: 1. RCW 90.48.110 and Chapter 173-240 WAC require the submission of engineeringreports, plans, and specifications for the construction of new sewerage systems, sewagetreatment or disposal systems to the department of ecology. This includes the submissionof said documents for revised general sewer plans. 2.The City of Moses Lake last prepared a collection system plan with our 2015 WastewaterSystem Master Plan. 3.The City of Moses Lake recognizes that periodic updates to the wastewater/sewer general plan are required to ensure we are properly planning for the further growth, development, and maintenance of our wastewater infrastructure. 4. The General Sewer Plan contains vital information needed for future ComprehensivePlan updates. Resolved: 1.The 2024 Moses Lake General Sewer Plan as set forth is hereby approved and adopted inits entirety. 2.The 2024 Moses Lake General Sewer Plan will be incorporated into the futureComprehensive Plan updates. 3.The 2024 General Sewer Plan will be used to plan future capital improvement projects that will support further growth, development, and maintenance of our wastewater utility infrastructure. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 10, 2024. ________________________________________ Dustin Swartz, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 5 of 774 May 2024 | Project No. 222036 Moses Lake GENERAL SEWER PLAN PREPARED BY 1060 Jadwin Ave, Suite 375 Richland, WA 99352 509-940-2080 PREPARED FOR P.O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837 509-764-3776 7525 166th Ave, Suite D-215 Redmond, WA 98052 425-867-1802 49012STILLMAN A N DREW N O RTONREGIST E R E DPR O FESSIONAL E N G INEERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ON5/17/2024 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 6 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 7 of 774 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Eastern Region Office 4601 North Monroe St., Spokane, WA 99205-1295 • 509-329-3400 June 4, 2024 The Honorable Dustin Swartz City of Moses Lake PO Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837-0244 RE: Approval of General Sewer Plan for City of Moses Lake, Permit Nos. ST008024 and ST008012 Dear Mayor Swartz: The Department of Ecology (Ecology) APPROVES the General Sewer Plan dated May 2024 and received May 21, 2024. This approval is in accordance with RCW 90.48.110 and Chapter 173-240 WAC. If Moses Lake has not incorporated the collection system operations and maintenance into the Operations and Maintenance Manual for each facility, please either incorporate or provide a separate Collection System Operations and Maintenance Manual to Ecology for review and approval. The City of Moses Lake (Moses Lake) must notify this office immediately of any proposed changes or revisions to the approved documents. Moses Lake must provide changes or revisions in the form of addenda, technical appendices, or supplemental reports to the original approved package of documents to Ecology for review and approval. Additionally, Moses Lake must maintain copies of the approved engineering report, plans and specifications, operations and maintenance manual, permit, and Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) on-site at your facility in Moses Lake, Washington. Ecology's review and approval of this document only assures compliance and consistency with the appropriate rules, regulations, guidelines, planning and design criteria, terms of any loan agreement, and/or other similar documents and is not a quality control check. Moses Lake should not consider this approval as satisfying other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations. Please contact Diana Washington at dwas461@ecy.wa.gov or (509) 385-5529 if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Adriane P. Borgias Water Quality Section Manager Eastern Regional Office APB:red cc: Kevin Fuhr, City Manager, City of Moses Lake Brian Baltzell, Public Works Director, City of Moses Lake Stillman Norton, PE, Keller Associates, Inc. Pat Hallinan, Ecology, Eastern Region Lindsey Forward, Ecology, Eastern Region Diana Washington, Ecology, Eastern Region Charlotte Daskalopoulos, Ecology Eastern Region Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 8 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 9 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION & PLANNING INFORMATION ..................................................... 1-1 1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3. Water Quality Management Plan Conformance .................................................................... 1-1 1.4. Related Studies ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.5. Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.6. Proximity to Water Systems .................................................................................................. 1-2 1.7. Proximity to Other Wastewater Facilities ............................................................................... 1-2 1.8. Study Area and Land Use ..................................................................................................... 1-5 1.9. Topography ........................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.10. Population Projections ......................................................................................................... 1-9 1.11. Historical Flows Analysis ................................................................................................... 1-10 1.11.1. Total Yearly Flow ........................................................................................................ 1-11 1.11.2. Annual Average Design Flow ...................................................................................... 1-11 1.11.3. Average Summer Flow ............................................................................................... 1-12 1.11.4. Average Winter Flow .................................................................................................. 1-12 1.11.5. Maximum Month Design Flow ..................................................................................... 1-12 1.11.6. Maximum Day Design Flow ........................................................................................ 1-12 1.11.7. Peak Hour Design Flow .............................................................................................. 1-12 1.11.8. Commercial and Industrial Flows and Loads .............................................................. 1-12 1.11.9. Planning Criteria Flows ............................................................................................... 1-13 1.12. Infiltration & Inflow Analysis ............................................................................................... 1-13 1.12.1. Impact of Precipitation ................................................................................................ 1-13 1.12.2. Winter Influent Flows vs. Winter Water Consumption ................................................. 1-15 1.13. Future Flows Analysis ....................................................................................................... 1-15 1.13.1. Commercial and Industrial Flow Projection ................................................................. 1-15 1.13.2. Influent Flow Projection .............................................................................................. 1-15 1.13.3. Allocation of Projected Flows ...................................................................................... 1-16 1.14. Influent Loading Analysis ................................................................................................... 1-18 1.14.1. BOD5 and TSS Loading .............................................................................................. 1-18 1.14.2. Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................................................ 1-22 1.15. Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................................. 1-24 1.15.1. Sand Dunes WWTP .................................................................................................... 1-25 1.15.2. Larson WWTP ............................................................................................................ 1-26 1.15.3. Biosolids ..................................................................................................................... 1-26 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 10 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 ii 1.15.4. Future Regulations ..................................................................................................... 1-26 1.16. Capacity Criteria ................................................................................................................ 1-27 1.17. Other City Planning Criteria ............................................................................................... 1-28 1.18. Environmental Resources Present .................................................................................... 1-29 1.18.1. Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Land ............................................ 1-29 1.18.2. Floodplains ................................................................................................................. 1-29 1.18.3. Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 1-30 1.18.4. Historic Properties ...................................................................................................... 1-31 1.18.5. Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 1-31 1.18.6. Water Quality Issues ................................................................................................... 1-31 1.18.7. Coastal Resources ..................................................................................................... 1-32 1.18.8. Climate, Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................. 1-32 1.18.9. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................... 1-34 1.18.10. Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 1-36 CHAPTER 2 - COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Description of the Wastewater Service Area ......................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1. Wastewater Collection System ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2. Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.3. Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant ...................................................................... 2-2 2.1.4. Private Wastewater Systems within the City’s Service Area ........................................... 2-3 2.2. Pipelines and Manholes Overview ......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3. Pipeline Conditions Assessment ........................................................................................... 2-7 2.4. Pipeline Capacity Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-8 2.5. Replacement Budget ............................................................................................................. 2-8 2.5.1. Scenario 1 – Annual Replacement Budget (Based on 1% - 2% replacement per year) . 2-8 2.5.2. Scenario 2 – Annual Replacement Budget (Based on Replacing Unlined Pipes in 20 Years) ..................................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.5.3. Replacement Budget Conclusion .................................................................................... 2-9 2.6. Operation and Maintenance Recommendations ................................................................... 2-9 CHAPTER 3 - LIFT STATIONS CONDITION .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Lift Stations ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2. Lift Station Pump Evaluation ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3. Existing Lift Station Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.4. Capital Improvement Recommendations ............................................................................... 3-9 CHAPTER 4 - COLLECTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE .............................................................. 4-1 4.1. Model Development and Calibration ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1. Model Loads ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2. Flow Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 4-3 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 11 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 iii 4.1.3. Calibration ....................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2. Existing Conditions Capacity Assessment ............................................................................. 4-8 4.2.1. Collection System Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................. 4-9 4.2.2. Existing Collection System Capacity Evaluation ............................................................. 4-9 4.3. 20-Year Conditions Capacity Assessment .......................................................................... 4-14 4.3.1. Future Conditions Capacity Analysis ............................................................................ 4-14 CHAPTER 5 - TREATMENT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 5-1 5.1. Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant Condition ..................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1. Headworks ...................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2. Secondary Treatment ..................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3. UV Disinfection ............................................................................................................... 5-4 5.1.4. Rapid Infiltration and Sludge Digestion Basins ............................................................... 5-4 5.1.5. Electricity and Emergency Power ................................................................................... 5-5 5.1.6. Buildings, Site Security, Roads, and Utility Water ........................................................... 5-5 5.2. Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity ...................................................................... 5-5 5.2.1. Effluent BOD5 ................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.2.2. Effluent Total Coliform .................................................................................................... 5-7 5.2.3. Effluent Nitrate Plus Nitrite .............................................................................................. 5-8 5.2.4. Effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ............................................................................. 5-8 5.2.5. Headworks ...................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.2.6. Secondary Treatment ................................................................................................... 5-10 5.2.7. UV Disinfection ............................................................................................................. 5-10 5.2.8. Solids Storage .............................................................................................................. 5-10 5.2.9. Rapid Infiltration Basins ................................................................................................ 5-11 5.2.10. Hydraulic Capacity ...................................................................................................... 5-11 5.3. Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant Condition .......................................................... 5-11 5.3.1. Headworks .................................................................................................................... 5-12 5.3.2. Secondary Treatment ................................................................................................... 5-13 5.3.3. UV Disinfection ............................................................................................................. 5-14 5.3.4. Rapid Infiltration and Sludge Digestion Basins ............................................................. 5-14 5.3.5. Electricity and Emergency Power ................................................................................. 5-15 5.3.6. Buildings, Site Security, Roads, and Utility Water ......................................................... 5-15 5.4. Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity ............................................................ 5-15 5.4.1. Effluent pH .................................................................................................................... 5-16 5.4.2. Effluent CBOD5 ............................................................................................................. 5-16 5.4.3. Effluent TSS .................................................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.4. Effluent TDS ................................................................................................................. 5-18 5.4.5. Effluent Fecal Coliform ................................................................................................. 5-19 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 12 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 iv 5.4.6. Effluent Nitrate .............................................................................................................. 5-19 5.4.7. Effluent Total Nitrogen .................................................................................................. 5-20 5.4.8. Headworks .................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.9. Secondary Treatment ................................................................................................... 5-21 5.4.10. UV Disinfection ........................................................................................................... 5-21 5.4.11. Solids Handling ........................................................................................................... 5-21 5.4.12. Rapid Infiltration Basins .............................................................................................. 5-22 5.4.13. Hydraulic Capacity ...................................................................................................... 5-22 CHAPTER 6 - COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 6-1 6.1. Capacity Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.1. Wheeler / Carnation Basins ............................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.2. Peninsula Trunkline ........................................................................................................ 6-3 6.2. Pipeline Replacement Alternatives ........................................................................................ 6-5 6.3. Potential Construction Challenges......................................................................................... 6-6 6.4. Future Pipeline Layout ........................................................................................................... 6-6 6.4.1. Cascade Valley Service .................................................................................................. 6-6 6.4.2. Southern Residential Service .......................................................................................... 6-9 6.5. Recommended Master Plan ................................................................................................ 6-10 CHAPTER 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ 7-1 7.1. Priority Improvements ............................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.1. COF Wastewater Pump Upgrades ................................................................................. 7-4 7.1.2. New Northshore Lift Station ............................................................................................ 7-5 7.1.3. Westshore and Hansen Road Odor Control ................................................................... 7-5 7.1.4. Peninsula 10” Gravity Sewer and Wetwell Replacement ................................................ 7-6 7.1.5. Upgrade Division Lift Station Pumps .............................................................................. 7-6 7.1.6. Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps and Controls ........................................................ 7-7 7.1.7. Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension ..................................................................... 7-8 7.1.8. Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension ....................................................................... 7-9 7.1.9. Larson WWTP Facility Plan .......................................................................................... 7-10 7.1.10. Sand Dunes WWTP Facility Plan ............................................................................... 7-10 7.1.11. New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main ................................................................... 7-11 7.1.12. New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main ....................................................... 7-12 7.1.13. 24” COF Force Main ................................................................................................... 7-13 7.1.14. City-wide Lift Station Safety Upgrades ....................................................................... 7-14 7.1.15. Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades ......................................................... 7-15 7.1.16. Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson Lift Stations ...................... 7-16 7.1.17. New Generator for Larson Lift Station ........................................................................ 7-17 7.1.18. Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement ...................................................................... 7-17 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 13 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 v 7.1.19. Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer ...................................... 7-18 7.1.20. Mae Valley Treatment Plant AKART Analysis ............................................................ 7-19 7.1.21. Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade ................................................................................. 7-20 7.1.22. Nelson Lift Station Upgrade ........................................................................................ 7-21 7.1.23. Southern Residential Lift Station and Force Main ....................................................... 7-22 7.1.24. Carnation Lift Station Upgrade .................................................................................... 7-23 7.1.25. New Lift Station on Peninsula Dr, Extension to COF Force Main ............................... 7-24 7.1.26. Wheeler Rd Gravity Main Upgrade ............................................................................. 7-25 7.1.27. North Cascade Valley Lift Station and Sewer Mains ................................................... 7-25 7.2. CIP Design Information and Calculations ............................................................................ 7-26 7.2.1. Force Main and Gravity Sewer Pipelines ...................................................................... 7-26 7.2.2. Lift Stations ................................................................................................................... 7-29 7.3. Annual Replacement Program............................................................................................. 7-30 7.4. Operations and Maintenance Impacts ................................................................................. 7-30 7.5. Recommended CIP Program and Rate Increases ............................................................... 7-30 7.6. Development Driven Improvements .................................................................................... 7-30 7.7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 7-30 CHAPTER 8 - FINANCIAL PLAN .................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2. Past Financial Performance .................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2.1. Findings and Trends ....................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3. Current Financial Structure .................................................................................................... 8-3 8.3.1. Financial Plan ................................................................................................................. 8-3 8.3.2. Capital Funding Plan ...................................................................................................... 8-4 8.3.3. Capital Financing Strategy .............................................................................................. 8-6 8.4. Financial Forecast ................................................................................................................. 8-6 8.4.1. Fiscal Policies ................................................................................................................. 8-7 8.4.2. Minimum Fund Balances ................................................................................................ 8-7 8.4.3. Rate Funded System Reinvestment ............................................................................... 8-7 8.4.4. Debt Management .......................................................................................................... 8-8 8.5. Financial Forecast ................................................................................................................. 8-8 8.6. Additional Operation Cost Considerations ........................................................................... 8-10 8.7. Proposed Rate Strategy ...................................................................................................... 8-10 8.7.1. Funds and Reserves ..................................................................................................... 8-10 8.7.2. Current Rates ............................................................................................................... 8-11 8.7.3. Proposed Rates ............................................................................................................ 8-12 8.8. Affordability .......................................................................................................................... 8-12 8.9. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 8-13 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 14 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 vi Appendix A - Figures Figure A1.1 – Proximity to Water Facilities Figure A1.2 – Proximity to Other Wastewater Facilities Figure A1.3 – Study Area and Land Use Figure A1.4 – Sewer Service Expansion Figure A1.5 – Future Growth Areas Figure A1.6 – Topography Figure A2.1 – Existing System, Pipeline Size Figure A2.2 – Existing System, Pipeline Material Figure A4.1 – Future Growth Areas – Max Day Load Allocation Figure A7.1 – Capital Improvement Plan Appendix B – SEPA Appendix C – Environmental Figures Prime Farmland Map FEMA FIRM Panel Map National Wetlands Inventory Map Endangered/Threatened Species Summary Appendix D – Tributary Summary Reports Appendix E – Annual Replacement Costs Appendix F – City List of Planned Improvements Appendix G – Wastewater Model Development Tech Memo Appendix H – Calibrated Model Curves Appendix I – Cascade Valley Sewer Tech Memo Appendix J – City WWTP Permits Appendix K – CIP Information Appendix L – COF Pump Station Tech Memo Appendix M – Industrial WWTP Evaluation Tech Memo Appendix N – City Wastewater Regulations List of Charts: Chart 1.1 Historical and Projected Population, 2010-2042 ............................................ 1-10 Chart 1.2 Sand Dunes Daily Influent Flow vs. Precipitation ........................................... 1-14 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 15 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 vii Chart 1.3 Larson Daily Influent Flow vs. Precipitation .................................................... 1-14 Chart 1.4 Sand Dunes Influent CBOD5 and TSS Concentrations .................................. 1-19 Chart 1.5 Larson Influent BOD5, CBOD5, and TSS Concentrations ............................... 1-19 Chart 1.6 Sand Dunes Influent CBOD5 and TSS Loadings ............................................ 1-20 Chart 1.7 Larson Influent BOD5, CBOD5, and TSS Loadings ........................................ 1-20 Chart 1.8 Sand Dunes Influent TKN Concentrations ...................................................... 1-22 Chart 1.9 Larson Influent TKN and Ammonia Concentrations ....................................... 1-23 List of Figures: Figure 1.1 Proximity to Water Systems ............................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1.2 Proximity to Other Wastewater Facilities .......................................................... 1-4 Figure 1.3 Study Area and Land Use ................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1.4 Sewer Service Expansion ................................................................................ 1-6 Figure 1.5 Future Growth Areas ........................................................................................ 1-7 Figure 1.6 Topography and Elevations .............................................................................. 1-8 Figure 1.7 Wetland Mapping ........................................................................................... 1-30 Figure 1.8 Category 5 – 303(d) Assessed Waters Mapping ............................................ 1-32 Figure 1.9 Moses Lake Area Seismic Hazard Map ......................................................... 1-33 Figure 1.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers in Moses Lake Region .............................................. 1-34 Figure 1.11 Surface Water Elevations Relative to Outfalls ................................................ 1-35 Figure 1.12 Areas of Air Quality Concern .......................................................................... 1-36 Figure 2.1 Existing System, Pipeline Size ......................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2.2 Existing System, Pipeline Material ................................................................... 2-6 Figure 3.1 Sand Dunes Lift Stations Flow Graphic ............................................................ 3-1 Figure 3.2 Larson Lift Stations Flow Graphic ..................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.3 Existing Lift Stations Locations and Sewer Basins ........................................... 3-3 Figure 3.4 WWTP Flow Basins .......................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.5 City Identified Improvements ............................................................................ 3-9 Figure 4.1 Modeled Collection System Pipelines and Lift Stations .................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Loading Methodology Visualization .................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4.3 Flow Monitoring Locations ................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4.4 Peninsula Location 7, Flow Monitoring – Pre-Calibration ................................. 4-6 Figure 4.5 Peninsula Location 7, Flow Monitoring – Post-Calibration ............................... 4-6 Figure 4.6 Existing Peak Hour Capacities, d/D ................................................................ 4-10 Figure 4.7 Flow Velocities, Average Day Condition ......................................................... 4-13 Figure 4.8 20-Year Maximum d/D Capacities .................................................................. 4-15 Figure 5.1 Larson WWTP Map .......................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5.2 Larson WWTP Process Schematic .................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5.3 Effluent BOD5 Concentration (Monthly) ............................................................ 5-6 Figure 5.4 Effluent BOD5 Concentration (Weekly) ............................................................. 5-7 Figure 5.5 Effluent Total Coliform ...................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5.6 Effluent Nitrate Plus Nitrite ............................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5.7 Effluent TDS ..................................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5.8 Sand Dunes WWTP Map ............................................................................... 5-11 Figure 5.9 Sand Dunes WWTP Process Schematic ........................................................ 5-12 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 16 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 viii Figure 5.10 Effluent pH ..................................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5.11 Average Monthly CBOD5 ................................................................................ 5-17 Figure 5.12 Maximum Daily CBOD5 .................................................................................. 5-17 Figure 5.13 Average Monthly TSS .................................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5.14 Maximum Daily TSS ....................................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5.15 Effluent TDS ................................................................................................... 5-19 Figure 5.16 Effluent Fecal Coliform ................................................................................... 5-19 Figure 5.17 Effluent Nitrate ............................................................................................... 5-20 Figure 5.18 Effluent Total Nitrogen .................................................................................... 5-20 Figure 6.1 Wheeler/Carnation Improvement Alternatives .................................................. 6-2 Figure 6.2 Peninsula Improvement Alternatives ................................................................ 6-4 Figure 6.3 Cascade Valley Improvement Alternatives ....................................................... 6-8 Figure 6.4 South Residential Improvement Alternatives .................................................... 6-9 Figure 7.1 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 7-2 List of Tables: Table 1.1 Moses Lake Historical and Projected Populations ........................................... 1-9 Table 1.2 Sand Dunes WWTP Influent Flow Analysis .................................................... 1-10 Table 1.3 Larson WWTP Influent Flow Analysis ............................................................ 1-11 Table 1.4 Sand Dunes + Larson WWTP Influent Flow Analysis ..................................... 1-11 Table 1.5 Consumption by Type (2019) ......................................................................... 1-13 Table 1.6 Consumption by Type (Jan-Feb 2022) ........................................................... 1-13 Table 1.7 Winter Water Consumption vs. Wastewater Flows ......................................... 1-15 Table 1.8 Influent Flow Projection .................................................................................. 1-16 Table 1.9 Sand Dunes WWTP Influent Flow Projection ................................................. 1-17 Table 1.10 Larson WWTP Influent Flow Projection .......................................................... 1-18 Table 1.11 Sand Dunes Influent CBOD5 and TSS Loading and Planning Criteria ........... 1-21 Table 1.12 Larson Influent BOD5 and TSS Loading and Planning Criteria....................... 1-21 Table 1.13 Sand Dunes Influent CBOD5 Loading Projections .......................................... 1-22 Table 1.14 Larson Influent BOD5 Loading Projections ..................................................... 1-22 Table 1.15 Sand Dunes Influent TKN Loading and Planning Criteria ............................... 1-23 Table 1.16 Larson Influent TKN Loading and Planning Criteria ....................................... 1-23 Table 1.17 Sand Dunes Influent TKN Loading Projections .............................................. 1-24 Table 1.18 Larson Influent TKN Loading Projections ....................................................... 1-24 Table 1.19 Sand Dunes Effluent Limits ............................................................................ 1-25 Table 1.20 Larson Effluent Limits ..................................................................................... 1-26 Table 1.21 Infrastructure Design Life Chart ..................................................................... 1-29 Table 2.1 Pipe Material Legend ....................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2.2 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Size and Material Summary ...................... 2-3 Table 2.3 Collection System Pressure Pipeline Size and Material Summary ................... 2-4 Table 2.4 1% Annual Pipeline Replacement Budget ........................................................ 2-8 Table 2.5 20-Year Unlined Pipe Annual Replacement Budget ......................................... 2-9 Table 3.1 Existing Lift Stations Locations and Sewer Basins ........................................... 3-5 Table 3.2 Reported Pump Capacity vs. Observed Pump Capacity .................................. 3-7 Table 4.1 Calibration Factors Applied to Flow Meter Basins ............................................ 4-5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 17 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 ix Table 4.2 Lift Station Pump Curve and Force Main Roughness Adjustments .................. 4-7 Table 4.3 Model vs. SCADA Output for Calibration Day .................................................. 4-7 Table 4.4 Estimated Daily Inflow into Lift Station vs. Model Inflow ................................... 4-8 Table 4.5 Calibrated Day to Max Day Factors .................................................................. 4-8 Table 4.6 Calibrated Day to Average Day Factors ........................................................... 4-9 Table 4.7 Maximum Velocities in Force Mains ............................................................... 4-11 Table 4.8 20-Year Maximum Inflow Into Modeled Lift Stations vs. Lift Station Reported Capacities ....................................................................................... 4-17 Table 4.9 20-Year Maximum Velocities in Force Mains with Existing Infrastructure and the “Open” Scenario ............................................................................................. 4-18 Table 5.1 Larson Design Criteria vs Current and Projected Flows/Loads ........................ 5-5 Table 5.2 Sand Dunes Design Criteria vs Current and Projected Flows/Loads ............. 5-16 Table 6.1 Wheeler/Carnation Improvement Alternatives .................................................. 6-3 Table 6.2 Peninsula Improvement Alternatives ................................................................ 6-5 Table 6.3 Cascade Valley Improvement Alternatives ....................................................... 6-7 Table 6.4 Southern Residential Improvement Alternatives ............................................ 6-10 Table 7.1 Priority Improvements ...................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7.2 Typical Manning’s Coefficients ....................................................................... 7-26 Table 7.3 Force Main Calculations ................................................................................. 7-27 Table 7.4 Gravity Sewer Main Flow Calculations by Pipe Diameter ............................... 7-28 Table 7.5 Gravity Sewer CIP Calculations ..................................................................... 7-28 Table 7.6 Lift Station Recommended Design Flow Rates .............................................. 7-29 Table 8.1 Historical Financial Statements ........................................................................ 8-2 Table 8.2 20 Year CIP ...................................................................................................... 8-5 Table 8.3 Initial Capital Financing Strategy ...................................................................... 8-6 Table 8.4 Revenue Requirement Summary ..................................................................... 8-9 Table 8.5 Proposed Rate Strategy ................................................................................. 8-10 Table 8.6 Projected Operating and Capital Fund Ending Balances ............................... 8-11 Table 8.7 GSP Financial Plan Rates .............................................................................. 8-12 Table 8.8 Projected Annual Rate Increases ................................................................... 8-12 Table 8.9 Projected Annual Rate Increases for the City ................................................. 8-13 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 18 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 19 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION & PLANNING INFORMATION 1.1. BACKGROUND The City of Moses Lake (City) is in central Washington, situated on the northeast shore of Moses Lake in Grant County. The City operates and maintains a sewer collection system and multiple treatment plants to provide public sewer service within city limits. In February of 2022, the City contracted with Keller Associates to prepare an updated General Sewer Plan (GSP) to replace their 2015 Wastewater System Master Plan. The primary focus of this plan will be on the collection system and may be later supplemented or amended to provide more planning and analysis of the City’s two wastewater treatment plants. The funding for this study was provided by the City of Moses Lake reserves. 1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED It is the goal of the City to maintain a well-planned and livable community through evaluating existing infrastructure and planning for future growth. The City last prepared a collection system plan with their 2015 Wastewater System Master Plan. This GSP will build on previous planning efforts, update outdated information, and build a more up-to-date and accurate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City’s sewer collection system. 1.3. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONFORMANCE The City does not currently have a Water Quality Management Plan; however, the City has discharge permits for each of their treatment plants. Addressing the deficiencies noted in this plan, including the proposed capital improvements projects, will improve the sewage system and the City’s ability to meet state and federal water quality requirements. 1.4. RELATED STUDIES This GSP intends to build on previous capital planning efforts to provide the City with a recommended sewer collection CIP. In addition, the plan will encompass proposed projects such as a planning-level cost estimate for the identified capital improvement projects, phasing recommendations for the suggested alternatives, an annual budget impact with proposed improvements, potential financing options, and section drafted plans. Related studies used in the preparation of this document include the following:  2021 Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future (hereafter referred to as the comprehensive plan; prepared by BERK Consulting, MAKERS, and Perteet)  2015 Wastewater System Master Plan (prepared by City of Moses Lake)  2015 Water System Plan (prepared by City of Moses Lake)  2022 Water System Plan Update (developed concurrent to this study; prepared by City of Moses Lake)  2021 Moses Lake Wastewater Model Development Tech Memo (prepared by Keller Associates) 1.5. SCOPE OF WORK The following list highlights major tasks included in this study:  Data acquisition and review Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 20 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-2  Development of planning criteria  Document environmental resources  Collection system, lift stations, and treatment systems condition assessment  Evaluation of collection system, lift stations, and treatment system’s existing and future performance  Evaluation of collection system improvement alternatives  Development of a capital improvement plan for the collection system  Financial status of sewer utility and financing options 1.6. PROXIMITY TO WATER SYSTEMS In addition to the City’s sewer collection and treatment system, the City also operates and maintains a public water system consisting of wells, reservoirs, pumping facilities, and distribution piping. The locations of water supply sources, water storage reservoirs, water distribution piping and booster pumping facilities are shown in Figure 1.1 (see Figure A1.1 in Appendix A for full size). In addition there are several private wells located within the boundaries of the Moses Lake sewer collection system. These private wells and their proximity to sewer collections can also be seen in Figure 1.1. 1.7. PROXIMITY TO OTHER WASTEWATER FACILITIES In addition to the City’s two wastewater treatment plants - Larson and Sand Dunes - there are several industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants within 20 miles of the City. The locations and names of these facilities are depicted in Figure 1.2 (see Figure A1.2 in Appendix A for full size). Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 21 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-3 FIGURE 1.1 – PROXIMITY TO WATER SYSTEMS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 22 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-4 FIGURE 1.2 – PROXIMITY TO OTHER WASTEWATER FACILITIES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 23 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-5 1.8. STUDY AREA AND LAND USE Current development information and study area mapping was developed by City planning staff and are illustrated in Figure 1.3 (see Figure A1.3 in Appendix A for full size). The study area boundary includes Moses Lake City Limits and the Urban Growth Area (UGA). These shared planning areas were previously included in the 2021 Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. City staff noted that there may be some ongoing changes to the UGA which may not be finalized until after this study is completed. City staff have directed Keller to continue to use the current UGA for this planning study. FIGURE 1.3 – STUDY AREA AND LAND USE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 24 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-6 Future growth areas, including areas of anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial growth within the planning study have been identified by City staff. These areas of anticipated growth have been commonly identified as the Mae Valley Area (southwest area of town), Cascade Valley Area (central area of town), Pelican Point Area (south end of town), and the Wheeler Area (east area of town) and are illustrated in Figure 1.4 (see Figure A1.4 in Appendix A for full size). FIGURE 1.4 – SEWER SERVICE EXPANSION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 25 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-7 These areas of anticipated growth were further defined by City staff and overlaid on the City’s land use map. Future growth areas including areas of anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial growth within the planning study are illustrated in Figure 1.5 (see Figure A1.5 in Appendix A for full size). FIGURE 1.5 – FUTURE GROWTH AREAS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 26 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-8 1.9. TOPOGRAPHY The City of Moses Lake surrounds Moses Lake and the topography generally slopes towards the lake from all directions as shown in Figure 1.6 (see Figure A1.6 in Appendix A for full size). With the lake as a low point, generally all surface water flows to the lake from the surrounding areas. FIGURE 1.6 – TOPOGRAPHY AND ELEVATIONS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 27 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-9 1.10. POPULATION PROJECTIONS This section outlines the historical population for the Moses Lake sewer service area and projects future population for the next 20 years (2042). The 2021 Comprehensive Plan provides historical population data through 2019 for the City of Moses Lake and was taken from the U.S. Bureau of Census and the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). According to the most recent U.S. Census (2020), the population in Moses Lake was 25,146. Table 1.1 summarizes historical and projected populations for the City and Chart 1.1 depicts this data graphically. The future population for the City of Moses Lake in 2042 is projected as 42,371 people. It should be noted that the growth rate used for this report was taken from the 2021 Comprehensive Plan. The 2021 Comprehensive Plan determined that the City’s growth rate averaged 2.4% annually since 2015. If the City sustains this growth rate, the estimated population would be 26,367 in 2022, 33,425 in 2032, and 42,371 by 2042 (20-year planning period). By 2042 the population would have grown almost twice its size. City staff agreed that utilizing a 2.4% growth rate for this plan is appropriate given current developer and industrial interest. Industrial growth has been supported with new interest from several new industrial companies as detailed in the Industrial WWTP Technical Memorandum in Appendix M. Moses Lake has also documented tremendous developer interest in the past years with plans to continue growing residential areas within the City’s Urban Growth Area as seen in Figure 1.5. The large developer interest is largely due to ongoing and planned industrial growth and indicates the potential for significant influxes of people moving in to new homes for new jobs in the area which supports the need to project future populations with an aggressive growth rate of 2.4%. TABLE 1.1 – MOSES LAKE HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS Year Population Growth Rate, r 1960 11,299 - 1970 10,310 -0.91% 1980 10,629 0.31% 1990 11,235 0.56% 2000 14,953 2.90% 2010 20,366 3.14% 2014 21,600 1.48% 2015 22,080 2.22% 2019 24,220 2.34% 2020 25,146 3.82% 2021 25,750 2.40% 2022 26,367 2.40% 2027 29,687 2.40% 2032 33,425 2.40% 2037 37,633 2.40% 2042 42,371 2.40% Moses Lake Population Projection Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 28 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-10 CHART 1.1 – HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION, 2010 - 2042 1.11. HISTORICAL FLOWS ANALYSIS For the City’s wastewater system, historical flow data was reviewed to identify the annual average, average summer, average winter, maximum month, and maximum day (and maximum two day) flow conditions for the system. Influent flows into both the Sand Dunes and Larson WWTPs were analyzed from 2015 through 2021. The results of the analysis for the Sand Dunes and Larson influent flows are found in Tables 1.2 and 1.3, respectively and are totalized for community-wide flows in Table 1.4. TABLE 1.2 – SAND DUNES WWTP INFLUENT FLOW ANALYSIS Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 7-Year Average Design Annual Average 2.09 2.13 2.21 2.12 2.11 2.09 2.12 2.12 2.12 Average Summer2 2.20 2.24 2.30 2.20 2.23 2.19 2.26 2.23 2.23 Average Winter1 1.97 2.01 2.12 2.04 1.99 2.00 1.97 2.01 2.01 Maximum Day 2.57 2.53 2.94 2.55 2.57 2.33 2.44 2.56 2.94 Maximum Day (2-day average)2.36 2.42 2.68 2.54 2.39 2.29 2.43 2.44 2.68 Max Monthly (30-day average)2.23 2.26 2.33 2.25 2.25 2.21 2.29 2.26 2.33 Yearly Total (MG3)762 778 805 774 771 762 774 -- Sand Dunes WWTP Influent Flow (MGD3) 1) Average winter day includes December - February 2) Average summer day includes June - July 3) MGD = million gallons per day; MG = million gallons Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 29 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-11 TABLE 1.3 – LARSON WWTP INFLUENT FLOW ANALYSIS TABLE 1.4 – SAND DUNES + LARSON WWTP INFLUENT FLOW ANALYSIS 1.11.1. Total Yearly Flow The total yearly flow was calculated for each of the last seven years with complete influent flow data (January through December). Over the last seven years the Sand Dunes WWTP received influent flows ranging between 762 million gallons to 805 million gallons, with the high occurring in 2017. The Larson WWTP had a much tighter pattern of influent flows ranging from about 113 million gallons to 116 million gallons over the same time period with the high occurring in 2017 as well. 1.11.2. Annual Average Design Flow The annual average design flow (AADF) is the average daily flow for the entire year. An AADF was calculated for each of the last seven years with complete influent flow data (January through December). The AADF was then averaged for 2015 through 2021 to obtain the current planning criteria AADF of 2.12 MGD for the Sand Dunes WWTP and 0.306 MGD for the Larson WWTP. Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 7-Year Average Design Annual Average 0.316 0.312 0.318 0.308 0.316 0.290 0.283 0.306 0.306 Average Summer2 0.312 0.306 0.319 0.320 0.325 0.292 0.286 0.309 0.309 Average Winter1 0.309 0.310 0.317 0.291 0.309 0.296 0.284 0.302 0.302 Maximum Day4 0.428 0.404 0.469 0.408 0.390 0.356 0.393 0.407 0.469 Maximum Day (2-day average)5 0.418 0.377 0.403 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.375 0.385 0.418 Max Monthly (30-day average)0.343 0.330 0.343 0.336 0.335 0.315 0.299 0.329 0.343 Yearly Total (MG3)115 114 116 113 115 115 115 -- Larson WWTP Influent Flow (MGD3) 1) Average winter day includes December - February. 2) Average summer day includes June - July 3) MGD = million gallons per day; MG = million gallons 4) For 2015 Maximun Day was reported to be 0.585, this was disregarded as an outlier and the second highest day flow of 0.428 was recorded 5)For 2015 Maximum Day flow as a 2 day average was also affected by this 0.585 outlier flow. The value of 0.418 reported in this table is the largest 2 day max flow not affected by this outlier flow Note: only Max Day and and 2 day average flow were affected by the outlier flow in 2015, all other reported values in this table are accurate and true values Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 7-Year Average Design Annual Average 2.41 2.44 2.52 2.43 2.43 2.38 2.40 2.43 2.43 Average Summer2 2.51 2.54 2.62 2.52 2.55 2.49 2.55 2.54 2.54 Average Winter1 2.28 2.31 2.43 2.33 2.30 2.30 2.25 2.31 2.31 Maximum Day 3.00 2.93 3.41 2.96 2.96 2.69 2.83 2.97 3.41 Maximum Day (2-day average)2.81 2.80 3.08 2.91 2.77 2.66 2.81 2.83 3.08 Max Monthly (30-day average)2.57 2.59 2.67 2.59 2.59 2.53 2.59 2.59 2.67 Yearly Total (MG3)878 891 921 886 886 878 889 -- Sand Dunes + Larson WWTP Influent Flow (MGD3) 1) Average winter day includes December - February 2) Average summer day includes June - July 3) MGD = million gallons per day; MG = million gallons Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 30 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-12 1.11.3. Average Summer Flow The average summer flow (ASF) is the average daily flow for the months of June and July when precipitation rates and groundwater levels are generally lower. The ASF was averaged for 2015 through 2021 to obtain the current planning criteria ASF of 2.23 MGD for the Sand Dunes WWTP and 0.309 MGD for the Larson WWTP. 1.11.4. Average Winter Flow The average winter flow (AWF) is the average daily flow for the months of December through February when precipitation rates are higher. The AWF was averaged for 2015 through 2021 to obtain the current planning criteria AWF of 2.01 MGD for the Sand Dunes WWTP and 0.302 MGD for the Larson WWTP. It should be noted that there is not much difference between ASF and AWF for both WWTPs indicating a low presence of infiltration and inflow (I/I). 1.11.5. Maximum Month Design Flow The maximum month design flow (MMDF) represents the highest average daily flow that a WWTP handles over any continuous 30-day period and is not necessarily tied to the highest average daily flow a WWTP processes in a traditional calendar month. This was calculated from daily influent flow data provided by the City of Moses Lake. 1.11.6. Maximum Day Design Flow The maximum day design flow (MDDF) represents the highest daily average flow into the wastewater treatment plant for the year. For Moses Lake, this has typically occurred sometime between January and May each year. The largest monthly flow for the seven years of data was used for the current planning criteria MDDF. MDDF values for the two plants were reviewed with City staff to check that the data included in the analysis was representative of actual conditions. The Sand Dunes’ MDDF of 2.94 MGD occurred during a snow-melt event, but otherwise there is no reason to discredit this point as bad data. As such, a MDDF value of 2.94 MGD was chosen for the Sand Dunes plant. The Larson plant’s MDDF value of 0.585 MGD; however, was shown by City staff to occur on a day when flow readings were taken later than normal. This means that the flow recorded included more than a 24-hour interval. For this period, a 2-day moving average was felt to be more representative. The 2-day maximum period for 2015 was 0.448 MGD which was very close to the one-day max day value of 0.469 MGD observed in 2017. The value of 0.469 was chosen to represent the MDDF for the Larson WWTP. 1.11.7. Peak Hour Design Flow The peak hour design flow (PHDF) typically represents the highest hourly flow at the WWTP. Because 24-hour flow metering data is not available, the peak hour flow was estimated from calibrated model results and flow monitoring data collected in the system. 1.11.8. Commercial and Industrial Flows and Loads A large portion of Moses Lake’s flows are attributed to commercial and industrial flows. As a part of the previously completed Moses Lake 2020 Municipal Hydraulic Modeling Services effort, total consumption by user type was calculated in Table 1.5 and is based on water consumption data for the 2019 year which resulted in approximately 49% of the flows coming from non-residential users. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 31 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-13 TABLE 1.5 – CONSUMPTION BY TYPE (2019) At the time of this study, City staff provided additional consumption data for January and February 2022 with the ability to separate industrial accounts from commercial accounts in Table 1.6. Additionally, government accounts were separated out as well. The resulting commercial/industrial total was similar to the 2019 analysis with an approximate total of 46% of the flows, which consequently sums up to about 49% if you add the government accounts to the commercial/industrial total. TABLE 1.6 – CONSUMPTION BY TYPE (JAN-FEB 2022) The City does not currently measure or sample flow from each of the industries. The City has pretreatment requirements for the larger industries, which bring down the loading to the level of the City’s residential population. As requested in Permit No. ST0008024, the City will be providing the Department of Ecology with an Industrial Users List by June 30, 2025. The City expects that commercial and industrial flows will maintain a similar balance as currently exists. Any new commercial or industrial customers will be expected to pretreat to the levels of domestic wastewater and will be billed on an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis. 1.11.9. Planning Criteria Flows As a part of the previously completed Moses Lake 2020 Municipal Hydraulic Modeling Services effort, residential and commercial water consumption data was provided by the City for 2019. For Moses Lake, average winter consumption data from December 2018 to February 2019 was calculated for each individual user. The City’s billing data was then linked to a meter shapefile in the geographic information system (GIS). Then modeling tools were used to assign average winter loads from the meter shapefile to manholes within the model. See Chapter 4 for additional information on how wastewater flows were allocated throughout the system in the model. 1.12. INFILTRATION & INFLOW ANALYSIS 1.12.1. Impact of Precipitation In wastewater collection systems, rainfall events can have an impact on sewer flows. Rainwater or snow melt can flow directly into manholes or through direct stormwater connections to the sewer (inflow) or seep into the ground and enter the wastewater collection system (infiltration). As such, Residential 7,526 1,234 48.7% Duplex 233 56 2.2% Commercial/ Industrial 1,660 1,244 49.1% 49.1% Total 9,419 2,534 100.0% 100.0% 50.9% Percent of Total ConsumptionNumber of Meters 2019 Consumption (MG)Type Residential 7,890 79.19 48.1% Duplex 236 4.61 2.8% Government 99 5.06 3.1%3.1% Commercial 753 32.11 19.5% Industrial 38 43.81 26.6% Total 9,016 164.77 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 46.1%49.1% 50.9% Percent of Total ConsumptionTypeNumber of Meters Jan-Feb 2022 Consumption (MG) 50.9% Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 32 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-14 the influent flow data for each of the plants was compared to precipitation events that occurred as a part of the previously completed Moses Lake 2020 Municipal Hydraulic Modeling Services effort. A high correlation between rainfall events and an increase in sewer flows is indicative on a system with high infiltration and inflow (I/I). Charts 1.2 and 1.3 depict daily influent follow versus precipitation at both treatment facilities. CHART 1.2 – SAND DUNES DAILY INFLUENT FLOW VS. PRECIPITATION CHART 1.3 – LARSON DAILY INFLUENT FLOW VS. PRECIPITATION As shown, the influent flow generally only experiences a small increase as a result of precipitation events. This is a reflection of a relatively tight system, without significant direct stormwater connections. The low correlation between increased precipitation and increased flows could also be a reflection of lower groundwater levels (i.e. below the level of the pipelines). As demonstrated in this section, there is little impact to flows during precipitation and high groundwater events indicating that the chances of exfiltration is considered minimal. Operators also indicate that exfiltration is not something they are seeing in their maintenance activities as they clean, monitor, and inspect existing pipelines. It should be noted that existing clay and concrete pipe joints could Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 33 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-15 pose a risk for future exfiltration. Concrete pipes currently make up approximately 45% of the collection system and there are no clay pipes. These joints should continue to be monitored to ensure good condition. This will allow the City to continue to operate a contained system with little I/I or exfiltration issues. 1.12.2. Winter Influent Flows vs. Winter Water Consumption The winter influent flows at each of the treatment plants were also compared to the user consumption recorded by water meters. The purpose of this was to generally assess the amount of groundwater infiltration into the system before using the wintertime water consumption data to provide the initial base loadings of the collection system. Wintertime water consumption data does not include irrigation usage and is typically more representative of wastewater flows. For a system with significant infiltration, sewer flows can be much higher than water meter data. For a tight system, the wastewater may be closer to 85-90% of the water entering a typical home/business. Keller Associates’ initial comparison of this data shows a disparity of closer to 35%, which is atypical for a collection system. However, after a more careful accounting of commercial and industrial users that consumed or treated a portion of their water or had a wastewater meter that tracked loading to the system, a much tighter correlation (i.e. within 13%) was realized as shown in Table 1.7. TABLE 1.7 – WINTER WATER CONSUMPTION VS. WASTEWATER FLOWS A 13% difference between water consumption and wastewater flows is typical for collection systems with little infiltration. As such, the analysis moved forward with initial wintertime water usage data loading of the wastewater system reduced by 13%. 1.13. FUTURE FLOWS ANALYSIS 1.13.1. Commercial and Industrial Flow Projection A discussion of potential future industrial growth is included in Appendix M. Even with the growth, the City expects that commercial and industrial flows will maintain a similar balance as currently exists. Also, any new commercial or industrial customers will be expected to pretreat to the levels of domestic wastewater prior to discharging to either the Sand Dunes or Larson treatment plants, so there will not be any unusually significant impact on the sewer system or treatment plants. 1.13.2. Influent Flow Projection Future influent flows to the WWTP were estimated using the population projections, historical flows, and planning criteria previously identified. Table 1.8 shows the projected flows for AADF, MMDF, MDDF, and PHDF rates. The MDDF is projected to exceed 5 MGD in 2037, which is a delineation line for Washington State Department of Ecology. For flows greater than 5 MGD, the City might be required to take on additional industrial pretreatment program administration requirements. Period Larson WWTP(MG) Sand Dunes WWTP (MG) Total Influent Flow (MG) User Consumption (MG) Dec-18 9.19 61.29 70.48 97.27 Jan-19 9.46 61.71 71.17 108.38 Feb-19 8.75 56.42 65.17 98.14 Total 27.4 179.4 207 303.80 0 66 207 237.80 13.0% Water Consumed and not discharged Adjusted Totals Percent Difference Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 34 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-16 TABLE 1.8 – INFLUENT FLOW PROJECTION 1.13.3. Allocation of Projected Flows The future flows to each WWTP are shown in Tables 1.9 and 1.10. Future residential, commercial, and industrial flows were estimated by assigning future flows to residential and commercial developments inside or adjacent to the City area which do not currently have wastewater services (see Figures 1.4 and 1.5). For other areas inside the study area, future flows are allocated spatially based on population increases and future growth areas of the City. Year 2021 2022 2027 2032 2042 Residential Population 25,750 26,367 29,687 33,425 42,371 Residential 1.18 1.21 1.36 1.53 1.94 Commercial 0.53 0.54 0.61 0.69 0.87 Industrial 0.72 0.74 0.83 0.94 1.19 Total 2.43 2.49 2.80 3.15 4.00 Residential 1.30 1.33 1.50 1.68 2.14 Commercial 0.56 0.57 0.64 0.73 0.92 Industrial 0.76 0.78 0.88 0.99 1.26 Total 2.62 2.68 3.02 3.40 4.31 Residential 1.66 1.70 1.91 2.15 2.73 Commercial 0.74 0.76 0.86 0.96 1.22 Industrial 1.01 1.04 1.17 1.31 1.67 Total 3.41 3.49 3.93 4.43 5.61 Residential 2.48 2.54 2.86 3.22 4.09 Commercial 1.11 1.14 1.28 1.44 1.83 Industrial 1.52 1.55 1.75 1.97 2.50 Total 5.12 5.24 5.90 6.64 8.42 Population Increase 618 3,320 3,738 8,946 # of new households 221 1,186 1,335 3,195 Maximum Month (MGD) Total Flows Annual Average (MGD) Maximum Day (MGD) Peak Hour (MGD) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 35 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-17 TABLE 1.9 – SAND DUNES WWTP INFLUENT FLOW PROJECTION Year 2021 2022 2027 2032 2042 Residential Population 25,750 26,367 29,687 33,425 42,371 Residential 1.06 1.09 1.22 1.38 1.75 Commercial 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.65 Industrial 0.54 0.55 0.62 0.70 0.89 Total 2.00 2.05 2.30 2.60 3.29 Residential 1.17 1.20 1.35 1.52 1.92 Commercial 0.42 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.69 Industrial 0.57 0.59 0.66 0.74 0.94 Total 2.16 2.21 2.49 2.80 3.55 Residential 1.49 1.53 1.72 1.93 2.45 Commercial 0.56 0.57 0.64 0.72 0.92 Industrial 0.76 0.78 0.88 0.99 1.25 Total 2.81 2.87 3.24 3.64 4.62 Residential 2.24 2.29 2.58 2.90 3.68 Commercial 0.83 0.85 0.96 1.08 1.37 Industrial 1.14 1.17 1.31 1.48 1.87 Total 4.21 4.31 4.85 5.46 6.93 Population Increase 556 2,988 3,364 8,052 # of new households 199 1,067 1,201 2,876 Dunes WWTP Annual Average (MGD) Maximum Day (MGD) Peak Hour (MGD) Maximum Month (MGD) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 36 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-18 TABLE 1.10 – LARSON WWTP INFLUENT FLOW PROJECTION 1.14. INFLUENT LOADING ANALYSIS 1.14.1. BOD5 and TSS Loading Each WWTP samples influent wastewater weekly for five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS). Chart 1.4 shows the monthly average concentrations for BOD5 and TSS from 2019 to 2023 for the Sand Dunes WWTP. Chart 1.5 shows monthly average concentrations for carbonaceous BOD5 (CBOD5), BOD5, and TSS for the Larson WWTP; CBOD5 was monitored until April 2022 when BOD5 was sampled for instead. The Larson WWTP also stopped testing for TSS in the influent in April 2022. Year 2021 2022 2027 2032 2042 Residential Population 25,750 26,367 29,687 33,425 42,371 Residential 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.19 Commercial 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.22 Industrial 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.30 Total 0.43 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.71 Residential 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.21 Commercial 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.23 Industrial 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.31 Total 0.46 0.47 0.53 0.60 0.76 Residential 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.27 Commercial 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.31 Industrial 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.42 Total 0.60 0.62 0.70 0.78 0.99 Residential 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.41 Commercial 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.46 Industrial 0.38 0.39 0.44 0.49 0.62 Total 0.91 0.93 1.04 1.18 1.49 Population Increase 62 332 374 895 # of new households 22 119 133 320 Maximum Month (MGD) Peak Hour (MGD) Larson WWTP Annual Average (MGD) Maximum Day (MGD) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 37 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-19 CHART 1.4 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT CBOD5 AND TSS CONCENTRATIONS CHART 1.5 – LARSON INFLUENT BOD5, CBOD5, AND TSS CONCENTRATIONS Using the average monthly flow to the WWTP and the monthly BOD5 or CBOD5 and TSS concentrations shown above, the influent CBOD5, BOD5, and TSS loads in pounds per day (ppd) were calculated. These load estimates are shown in Chart 1.6 for the Sand Dunes WWTP and in Chart 1.7 for the Larson WWTP. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Concentration (mg/L)CBOD5 TSS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1-Jan1-Apr1-Jul1-Oct1-Jan1-Apr1-Jul1-Oct1-Jan1-Apr1-Jul1-Oct1-Jan1-Apr1-Jul1-Oct1-Jan1-Apr1-Jul1-OctConcentration (mg/L)TSS BOD5 CBOD5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 38 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-20 CHART 1.6 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT CBOD5 AND TSS LOADINGS CHART 1.7 – LARSON INFLUENT BOD5, CBOD5, AND TSS LOADINGS The 2019 through 2023 loading data for CBOD5, BOD5, and TSS was normalized using the populations during those years (pounds per capita per day [ppcd]). Loading planning criteria for the average day load (ADL) and maximum month load (MML) were developed by choosing the highest CBOD5 and TSS normalized loads for Sand Dunes WWTP (Table 1.11). Because the permit requirements for Larson WWTP specify BOD5 and not CBOD5, the highest BOD5 and TSS normalized loads were used for the WWTP’s planning criteria (Table 1.12). 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Concentration (ppd)CBOD5 TSS 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Concentration (ppd)CBOD5 TSS BOD5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 39 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-21 TABLE 1.11 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT CBOD5 AND TSS LOADING AND PLANNING CRITERIA TABLE 1.12 – LARSON INFLUENT BOD5 AND TSS LOADING AND PLANNING CRITERIA The planning criteria (ppcd) was then multiplied by the future population to calculate the projected influent loads. The projected influent loads for CBOD5 and TSS for the Sand Dunes WWTP are shown in Table 1.13. For the Larson WWTP, projected influent loads for BOD5 and TSS are shown in Table 1.14. Parameter 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning Criteria Population 21,067 22,064 21,193 21,708 23,731 - ADL 3,464 3,411 3,428 3,190 3,390 - MML 4,478 3,965 4,031 3,612 4,466 - ADL 0.164 0.155 0.162 0.147 0.143 0.164 MML 0.213 0.180 0.190 0.166 0.188 0.213 ADL 3,668 3,976 3,866 3,180 3,474 - MML 5,525 6,060 5,287 3,789 4,306 - ADL 0.174 0.180 0.182 0.146 0.146 0.182 MML 0.262 0.275 0.249 0.175 0.181 0.275 CBOD5 (ppd) CBOD5 (ppcd) TSS (ppd) TSS (ppcd) Parameter 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning Criteria Population 3,153 3,082 4,557 4,659 3,276 - ADL 697 625 602 589 656 - MML 812 735 683 702 906 - ADL 0.221 0.203 0.132 0.127 0.200 0.200 MML 0.258 0.239 0.150 0.151 0.277 0.277 ADL 792 733 701 648 -- MML 1,066 962 763 685 -- ADL 0.251 0.238 0.154 0.139 -0.251 MML 0.338 0.312 0.167 0.147 -0.338 CBOD5 (ppd)BOD5 (ppd) CBOD5 (ppcd)BOD5 (ppcd) TSS (ppd) TSS (ppcd) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 40 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-22 TABLE 1.13 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT CBOD5 AND TSS LOADING PROJECTIONS TABLE 1.14 – LARSON INFLUENT BOD5 AND TSS LOADING PROJECTIONS 1.14.2. Nitrogen Loading Each WWTP samples influent for total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) weekly. The Larson WWTP also sampled for ammonia weekly until April 2022. Average monthly concentrations of TKN from 2019 to 2023 for the Sand Dunes WWTP are shown in Chart 1.8. Chart 1.9 shows the average monthly concentrations of TKN and ammonia from 2019 to 2023 for the Larson WWTP. CHART 1.8 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT TKN CONCENTRATIONS Parameter 2027 2032 2037 2042 Population 24,441 27,518 30,983 34,883 ADL 4,019 4,525 5,095 5,737 MML 5,196 5,850 6,586 7,415 ADL 4,458 5,020 5,652 6,363 MML 6,713 7,558 8,510 9,581 CBOD5 Loading Projections (ppd) TSS Loading Projections (ppd) Parameter 2027 2032 2037 2042 Population 5,246 5,907 6,650 7,488 ADL 1,050 1,182 1,331 1,498 MML 1,451 1,633 1,839 2,071 ADL 1,318 1,484 1,670 1,881 MML 1,774 1,997 2,248 2,532 BOD5 Loading Projections (ppd) TSS Loading Projections (ppd) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Concentration (mg/L)TKN Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 41 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-23 CHART 1.9 – LARSON INFLUENT TKN AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS Tables 1.15 and 1.16 provide the TKN loading (ppd) and normalized loading (ppcd) for the Sand WWTP and Larson WWTP respectively. The planning criteria were chosen based on the maximum ADL and MML loadings during this period. TABLE 1.15 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT TKN LOADING AND PLANNING CRITERIA TABLE 1.16 – LARSON INFLUENT TKN LOADING AND PLANNING CRITERIA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Nitrogen (mg/L)TKN Ammonia Parameter 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning Criteria Population 21,067 22,064 21,193 21,708 23,731 - ADL 676 695 666 630 729 - MML 784 766 790 740 924 - ADL 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.029 0.031 0.032 MML 0.037 0.035 0.037 0.034 0.039 0.039 TKN (ppd) TKN (ppcd) Parameter 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Planning Criteria Population 3,153 3,082 4,557 4,659 3,276 - ADL 149 135 132 129 133 - MML 182 157 147 147 172 - ADL 0.047 0.044 0.029 0.028 0.041 0.047 MML 0.058 0.051 0.032 0.032 0.052 0.058 TKN (ppd) TKN (ppcd) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 42 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-24 Using the selected planning criteria for TKN, future loads for each WWTP were estimated based on projected populations. Table 1.17 shows the influent TKN loading projections for Sand Dunes WWTP, and Table 1.18 shows the projections for Larson WWTP. TABLE 1.17 – SAND DUNES INFLUENT TKN LOADING PROJECTIONS TABLE 1.18 – LARSON INFLUENT TKN LOADING PROJECTIONS 1.15. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The Department of Ecology has established design standards for municipal wastewater infrastructure which must be met. The City of Moses Lake has adopted the Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book) by ordinance (see Appendix N for a copy). Below is a summary of major requirements outlined in the Orange Book. The Orange Book will be used as minimum requirements for all designs.  Lift Stations o Lift station shall be designed to remain fully operational during the 100-year flood/wave action. o Must have adequate accessibility and safety and ventilation for maintenance personnel and visitors. o Must have redundancy, enabling the facilities to continue to operate when a pump/motor is down. o Alarm systems, preferably with transmission to 24-hour response center. o Capability for emergency power supply. o Emergency storage for stations that rely on portable generators during power outages.  Force Mains o Velocity of at least two (2) feet per second is required at the design pumping rate. Velocity should not exceed eight (8) feet per second. o Air relief valve is required at high points in the force main. o Adequate cover is required to prevent freezing or damage. Parameter 2027 2032 2037 2042 Population 24,441 27,518 30,983 34,883 ADL 785 883 994 1,120 MML 952 1,071 1,206 1,358 TKN Loading Projections (ppd) Parameter 2027 2032 2037 2042 Population 5,246 5,907 6,650 7,488 ADL 248 280 315 354 MML 302 340 383 432 TKN Loading Projections (ppd) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 43 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-25  Gravity Sewer o Minimum pipe size for gravity sewer is eight (8) inches in diameter.  Six (6) inch diameter may be approved if certain criteria are met. o Wastewater pipelines must be installed with enough ground cover to prevent freezing and protect facilities from surface loading (generally no less than 3 feet deep). o Gravity pipelines must be designed to have sufficient slope and velocity to “self-clean” or transport constituent solids (no less than 2.0 feet per second). o Must maintain horizontal and vertical separation from potable water pipelines (5 feet minimum horizontally; 18 inches minimum vertically). o Must be Installed with a maximum length of 300-feet between manholes.  Manholes o Manholes must be installed at the end of each line, changes in grade, pipe size, alignment change, and in all intersections.  Manholes shall be installed at distances not greater than 300 feet (pipe <15 inches in diameter).  Manholes shall be installed at distances not greater than 500 feet (pipe 18 to 30 inches in diameter). o Cleanouts may be used only for special conditions and may not be substituted for manholes or installed at the ends of laterals greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. o Manholes shall be a minimum of 48 inches in diameter. 1.15.1. Sand Dunes WWTP The Sand Dunes WWTP discharges treated effluent to rapid infiltration basins under a permit issued by the Department of Ecology. The permit (No. ST-8012) outlines the discharge limits, which are summarized in Table 1.19. The current permit became effective on July 1, 2007. Although the expiration date was June 30, 2012, it has been administratively extended. TABLE 1.19 – SAND DUNES EFFLUENT LIMITS Parameter Average Monthly Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) 4.00 4.64 pH (S.U.) 6.5 to 8.5 - CBOD5 (mg/L) 15 23 TSS (mg/L) 15 23 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) - 1,000 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 mL) - 50 Nitrate (mg/L as N) - 6 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) - 10 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 44 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-26 1.15.2. Larson WWTP The Larson WWTP discharges treated effluent to rapid infiltration basins under Permit No. ST0008024. The permit limits are outlined in Table 1.20. The current permit became effective on April 1, 2022. The permit was amended on June 6, 2023, and will expire on March 31, 2027. TABLE 1.20 - LARSON EFFLUENT LIMITS Parameter Average Monthly Average Weekly BOD5 (mg/L) 10 15 Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L as N) 6 - Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 600 - Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL) 50 (geometric mean) - 1.15.3. Biosolids The use and disposal of solids from the treatment plants are regulated under Chapter 70.95RJ RCW and Chapter 173-350 WAC, and also by 40 CFR 503. Biosolids for both treatment plants are permitted by the Department of Ecology for land application on the city-owned farmland surrounding the Sand Dunes WWTP. Biosolids from both treatment plants are stored in basins, tested, and then if the test results are compliant, transported and land applied. The disposal of other wastes from the treatment plants is done in accordance with the Grant County Health Department. 1.15.4. Future Regulations Effluent limitations are driven by groundwater quality standards. These standards are defined in Chapter 173-200 WAC and in RCW 90.48.520. WAC 173-200 040 notes a groundwater quality standard of 500 mg/L for total dissolved solids (TDS). As noted in the recent Larson WWTP fact sheet, an Overriding Public Interest (OPI) determination was previously provided that allowed the TDS limit to be higher than 500 mg/L. In the current permit the City was granted an interim limit of 600 mg/L with the understanding that the City would meet the more stringent 500 mg/L standard near the end of the permit period. Within the general wastewater industry, a class of 'emerging contaminants' has been discussed increasingly as regulators' attention has turned from nutrient pollutants to other constituents. It is not anticipated that limitations will be imposed on these contaminants as part of the City's next permits. However, the potential for permit implications is possible. Among these emerging contaminants are pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and 'forever chemicals,' such as per and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PPCPs are becoming more common in surface waters due to societal changes and advancements in medical technologies. As the relative concentration of these compounds increases, there is concern regarding the impacts these products may have on aquatic life and communities located downstream of where they are introduced. Many PPCPs that persist after wastewater treatment are included in a class of compounds called endocrine disruptors (EDCs). EDCs are compounds that alter the normal function of organisms' endocrine (hormonal) system and can result in various adverse health impacts. Because of the nature of these compounds, negative health impacts are chronic rather than acute, and traditional toxicity tests do not adequately predict nor detect their effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to update current water quality protections to better accommodate these emerging pollutants. No imminent regulations regarding PPCPs are anticipated. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 45 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-27 There are thousands of known PFAS chemicals used in various products, such as non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing. These substances have become prevalent as emerging contaminants due to their ability to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment. The EPA specifically calls out point source dischargers and municipally generated biosolids as sources of PFAS contamination; however, the principal parties responsible for these compounds are those industries involved in their manufacture and use. The EPA has identified a strategic roadmap that will lead to future regulatory guidance regarding PFAS within the next several years. The most significant impact on municipal wastewater treatment plants will likely be regarding biosolids. 1.16. CAPACITY CRITERIA The collection system capacity is assessed by determining the available capacity in pipelines and lift stations. Based on the available capacity and expected growth in an area, improvements are suggested to increase the capacity as required to meet future infrastructure needs. A lift station is assumed to have sufficient capacity if it can convey peak hour flows with the largest pump out of service. For planning purposes, lift station upgrades were assumed to be needed if the peak hour inflows reached 85% of the lift station’s firm capacity, or the capacity with the largest pump out of service. Additionally, it is the municipality’s responsibility to ensure that sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) do not occur. Extended power outages may lead to wastewater backing up into homes and onto the streets. Mobile generators or portable trash pumps may be acceptable for lift stations, depending on the risk of overflow, available storage in the wet well and pipelines, alarms, and response time. A gravity pipeline is generally assumed to have insufficient capacity if surcharging occurs during a peak hour flow condition. Surcharging refers to a condition when the flow in the pipe backs up into manholes and begins flowing under pressure. This condition presents an increased risk of wastewater backing up into people’s homes, overflows, and the increased potential for exfiltration (escape of raw wastewater into the groundwater). There is a wide range of standards used to determine when a pipe is considered too full or overcapacity. For the purposes of this plan, two triggers were considered in prioritizing improvements:  The need for capital improvements should be triggered when peak hour flow within the pipe reaches a ratio of depth to diameter (d/D) of 0.75. Under special circumstances (i.e. areas currently built- out with no historical issues or downstream of a lift station discharge that creates surges of flow), slightly higher d/D values may be appropriate, provided that routine flow monitoring can confirm that flows do not result in surcharging of the pipeline.  In sizing new pipelines for areas where growth densities may vary, where inter-basin pumping may occur, and for smaller basin areas where peak hour factors are likely to be higher than those used in the system-wide model calibration, trunklines were sized with d/D values of closer to 0.5. Force mains are assumed to have exceeded their capacity if velocities exceed 8 feet per second. Redundancy requirements for the treatment plants are outlined in the Orange Book. The EPA also provides guidance on redundancy requirements (EPA 430-99-74-001). For the highest level of reliability (Reliability Class I per EPA guidance), unit operations in the main treatment system should be designed so that when the unit with the largest flow capacity is out of service, the hydraulic capacity of the remaining units is sufficient to handle peak wastewater flow. General requirements for Reliability Class I, as they apply to the City’s treatment plants, are summarized below. A. Mechanically cleaned bar screens: A backup bar screen shall be provided. Facilities with only two bar screens shall have at least one bar screen designed to permit manual cleaning. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 46 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-28 B. Pumps: A backup pump shall be provided for each set of pumps performing the same function. The capacity of the pumps shall be such that, with any one pump out of service, the remaining pumps will have the capacity to handle the peak flow. C. Final sedimentation basins: The units shall be sufficient in number and size so that, with the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design flow capacity of at least 75 percent of the total design flow. D. Activated sludge process components: a. Aeration basin: A backup basin is not required; however, at least two equal-volume basins shall be provided. b. Aeration blowers: There shall be a sufficient number of blowers or mechanical aerators to enable the design oxygen transfer to be maintained with the largest-capacity-unit out of service. It is permissible for the backup unit to be an uninstalled unit, provided that the installed units can be easily removed and replaced. However, at least two units shall be installed. c. Air diffusers: The air diffusion system for each aeration basin shall be designed so that the largest section of diffusers can be isolated without measurably impairing the oxygen transfer capability of the system. E. Disinfectant contact basins: The units shall be sufficient in number and size so that, with the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design flow capacity of at least 50 percent of the design basin flow. Ten States Standards, (a well-known industry resource), also recommends that UV disinfection facilities be able to provide full treatment with one bank out of service. 1.17. OTHER CITY PLANNING CRITERIA Other planning criteria have been incorporated into this master plan:  Trunkline Depth and Location: The maximum depth for new trunk lines should be approximately 20 to 25 feet. Very localized locations may exceed this depth up to 30 feet. Trunklines should be routed along road corridors where practical.  Clean Pipelines: Providing minimum slopes that allow for scouring velocities is important to keeping pipelines free from debris. Additionally, the condition of the pipe may affect pipeline capacity. Root intrusions, broken sections of pipeline, accumulation of fats, oil, and grease (FOG), and excessive debris can all affect the capacity of the pipelines. For purposes of computer modeling, it was assumed that operation, maintenance, and repair activities would keep pipelines clean and free of obstructions.  Emergency Storage: The City lift stations are evaluated for emergency storage on a case-by-case basis at City discretion. New lift stations (if any) will also be evaluated for emergency power (on site or portable).  City Standards: Construction of new sewer facilities should be consistent with existing approved City standards. Additionally, the following typical design life shown in Table 1.21 for various components of the collection system established in the 2015 Wastewater System Comprehensive Plan will be considered when determining timing for replacement of existing facilities. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 47 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-29 TABLE 1.21 – INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN LIFE CHART Description Design Life (years) Replacement Criteria Lift Stations 30 Inefficiency, Safety, Maintenance Pumps 20 Inefficiency, Maintenance Electronics 20 Updated Technology, Compatibility Concrete Wet Well or Manhole, Unlined 50 Infiltration, Structural Deficiency Concrete Wet Well or Manhole, Lined 100 Infiltration, Structural Deficiency Metal Castings 50 Structural Deficiency PVC Pipe 110 Infiltration/exfiltration Cast Iron Pipe 100 Infiltration/exfiltration Concrete Pipe, Unlined 50 Infiltration/exfiltration AC Pipe 50 Infiltration/exfiltration CIPP 100 Infiltration/exfiltration 1.18. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT This facility wastewater collection plan is in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and the City of Moses Lake submitted a non-project SEPA review form and associated notifications and determinations to Ecology at the conclusion of this study (see Appendix B for a final SEPA checklist and SEPA determination). The environmental impacts of recommended improvements are briefly discussed in this plan; however, a full environmental analysis is not included. For future project-related improvements that results in a construction effort, the City of Moses Lake will follow the SEPA / NEPA requirements, as necessary to document environmental impacts. The following paragraphs present a summary of the environmental features within or near the City of Moses Lake. 1.18.1. Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Land The wastewater collection service area encompasses about 33,458 acres within the City of Moses Lake. Of this acreage, approximately 29% is considered prime farmland, and this land coincides with areas of fine, gravelly, and silt loams, with 0 to 5 percent slopes as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Additionally, there are areas designated as “Farmland of statewide importance” throughout the service area, which corresponds to approximately 3% of the total acreage. Lastly, there are areas designated as “Farmland of unique importance” which account for approximately 4% of the study area. However, all three of these designations also coincide with the urban development of Moses Lake. As such, potential development that is discussed in this plan would not affect prime farmland as development has already altered the land use. See Appendix C for a map of prime farmland in the Service Area. 1.18.2. Floodplains Information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was reviewed using the FEMA Map Service Center. These maps show that portions of the service area lie within the 100-year floodplain surrounding Moses Lake and Potholes Reservoir as well as along Crab Creek and Rocky Coulee. The regulatory floodplain and floodway designation identify areas that are crucial to maintaining the current water bodies and channels, and subject to regular flooding and high-water Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 48 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-30 velocities. Development in the jurisdictional floodplain boundaries has the potential to increase upstream flood elevations and damage to structures. Individual FEMA FIRM Panel maps should be referenced for specific areas and can be found in Appendix C. 1.18.3. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides GIS data outlining wetlands in Washington. This data shows Moses Lake and Potholes Reservoir and corresponding wetlands and ponds surrounding each. Additionally, wetlands are identified along Crab Creek and the Rocky Coulee as well. FIGURE 1.7 (see Appendix C for full size) shows the wetlands within the service area. FIGURE 1.7 – WETLAND MAPPING Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 49 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-31 1.18.4. Historic Properties The National Register of Historic Places does not currently list any places on their registry within the City of Moses Lake or with the UGA. 1.18.5. Biological Resources The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service utilizes the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool to determine if endangered/threatened species are likely to occur within a specified project boundary (see Appendix C for the May 6, 2022 summary). Using the service area for the UGA, endangered species include the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit, Gray Wolf. Threatened species include the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and the Monarch Butterfly is considered a candidate for threatened species. Improvements on previously disturbed lands are not likely to have impacts on these species, though any improvements considered for undeveloped portions of land may have some impact and should be mitigated further prior to commencing with construction activities. 1.18.6. Water Quality Issues According to the Washington State Water Quality Atlas, Moses Lake is listed as a Category 5 303(d), 4C, 2, and 1 assessed waterway. The lake is listed for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Category 5 303(d)), 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)( Category 5 303(d)), Invasive Exotic Species (Category 4C), Dieldrin (Category 2), Total Phosphorus (Category 2), 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (Category 2), Chloride (Category 1), 4,4’-DDD (Category 1), 4,4’-DDE (Category 1), 4,4’-DDT (Category 1), Beta-BHC (Category 1), Endrin (Category 1), Endrin Aldehyde (Category 1), Heptachlor (Category 1), Heptachlor Epoxide (Category 1), Hexachlorobenzene (Category 1), Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) (Category 1), Toxaphene (Category 1), Chlordane (Category 1), Endosulfan (Category 1), Mercury (Category 1), Aldrin (Category 1), Alpha-BHC (Category 1), Endosulfan II (Category 1), and Endosulfan I (Category 1) near the Potato Hill Bridge (an overpass over I-90 in Moses Lake, WA). It is listed for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen south of Potato Hill Bridge. Refer to Figure 1.8 for the mapped areas of the Categories listed above. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 50 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-32 FIGURE 1.8 – CATEGORY 5 - 303(D) ASSESSED WATERS MAPPING The Moses Lake Water System has a public drinking water system, owned and operated by the City. The water system is supplied with groundwater by a system of wells and associated pump stations. The proposed improvements in this wastewater collection study are not expected to pose a threat to the existing water quality. In fact, community sewer collection and treatment facilities reduce risks to groundwater by reducing the number of individual septic tanks and drain fields. Best management practices should be employed during construction activities, ensuring the protection of surface water quality in the area. 1.18.7. Coastal Resources The Coastal Zone Management Act does not list any areas within this region of Washington; therefore, no coastal area will be affected by the proposed improvements. 1.18.8. Climate, Topography, Geology, and Soils The Western Regional Climate Center climate summary (September 1979 through January 1987) for the Moses Lake area shows minimum average monthly temperatures ranging from 21.2°F to 44.5°F, and maximum average monthly temperatures ranging from 34.9°F to 86.2°F. Over this same period, the total annual precipitation averaged about 10.12 inches, with an average snowfall of 14.8 inches per year. The coldest month was December, and the hottest month was August. The Moses Lake, Washington weather station (ID 455608) in Moses Lake, Washington, was used as this is the closest station with consistent data. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 51 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-33 Based on Western Regional Climate Center wind data (1992 to 2002) for Moses Lake, the prevailing wind direction is north from August through November. The prevailing wind direction is south for May and July and is south-southwest for June. The average wind speed for the area is 7.3 mph at the Moses Lake Airport. According to USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, most soils in the Moses Lake service area are Ephrata fine sandy loam (slopes between 0 and 10%) comprising approximately 24.9% of the total area. The remaining percentage of soils are made up of numerous soil groups with very small percentages of each ranging from loams to rock outcrop complexes. These soils groups are: Burbank, Ekrub, Ephrata-Malaga, Esquatzel, Kittitas, Malaga, Neppel, Outlook, Pits, Prosser, Prosser-Starbuck, Quincy, Royal, Sagehill, Scoon, Shano, Starbuck, Starbuck-Prosser, Taunton, Timmerman, Umapine, Wanser-Quincy, Warden, Wiehl, and Winchester. Water makes up approximately 13.5% of the area. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard map for the Moses Lake area is shown in Figure 1.9. Moses Lake lies within the 7 to 8% hazard zone. FIGURE 1.9 – MOSES LAKE AREA SEISMIC HAZARD MAP Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 52 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-34 1.18.9. Wild and Scenic Rivers This City of Moses Lake borders a lake of the same name, is north of the Potholes Reservoir and also includes Crab Creek that runs in a north-south direction on the north end of town. No rivers are listed as a Scenic River within the region of Moses Lake according to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A map of waterways within the Moses Lake region is provided in Figure 1.10. FIGURE 1.10 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN MOSES LAKE REGION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 53 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-35 FIGURE 1.11- SURFACE WATER ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO OUTFALLS The City of Moses Lake operates an extensive storm water collection system which has several outfalls that drain directly to the lake. The City also operates its own sanitary sewer collection system to convey wastewater to each of its two treatment plants. Treated wastewater from each plant utilizes rapid infiltration to discharge treated effluent. Figure 1.11 shows a map of Moses Lake and each known location where stormwater is discharged to the lake. One concern with discharging directly to the lake could be backflow into the stormwater system from the lake. Figure 1.11 calls out all outfall elevations as well as the high lake level and reveals little need for concern. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 54 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-36 1.18.10. Air Quality Moses Lake is not in an air non-attainment area as shown in Figure 1.12. No impacts to air quality are anticipated from the recommended improvements. Dust control measures will be implemented during construction of improvements. FIGURE 1.12 – AREAS OF AIR QUALITY CONCERN Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 55 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-1 CHAPTER 2 - COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION The City owns and operates its own wastewater collection system, which receives flows from the residents within the City limits. This chapter provides an overview of the existing physical conditions of the collection system pipelines. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the existing lift station conditions. Chapter 4 documents hydraulic deficiencies of the existing collection system for both existing and future conditions. 2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA As part of the utility infrastructure, the City owns and operates two independent collection, treatment, and disposal systems. The Sand Dunes System, which serves the majority of the service area except for the former Larson Air Force Base, and the Larson System, which serves an area corresponding to the old Larson Air Force Base in the northern portion of the City and the Urban Growth Area. 2.1.1. Wastewater Collection System The City’s collection system consists of collection gravity pipelines, pressure pipelines, manholes, and lift stations. The gravity pipelines feed into a series of lift stations that convey flow to one of the two City wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) -- the Sand Dunes WWTP and Larson WWTP. 2.1.2. Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant The Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant (Larson WWTP) is located on a 34-acre site on the north end of Moses Lake at 6691 NE Randolph Road. Larson receives effluent from a combination of 5 municipal lift stations and one gravity trunk line that drains directly to the treatment plant. Due to porous soil and low rainfall, infiltration and inflow is not a significant contributor to flows entering the Larson WWTP; however, portions of the collection system have maintenance problems due to deterioration and root problems. Infiltration and inflow, deterioration, and root problems are all routinely addressed by the City through systematic inspections, repair, maintenance, in-situ lining to the sewer mains, and occasional replacement. The Larson WWTP consists of the following:  Headworks, including a grit chamber, a mechanical screen, and composite sampler,  One aeration basin,  Two clarifiers,  Two HDPE-lined sludge wasting basins,  Two concrete-lined sludge drying basins,  Three rapid infiltration basins,  One concrete pad for biosolids storage,  Housing for the ultra-violet disinfection system, control room, workshop, and blower room,  An office building with laboratory. The treatment facilities remove solids during the treatment of the wastewater at the headworks (grit and screenings). Grit, rags, scum, and screenings removed from the headworks, and incidental solids like rags, scum, and other debris that are removed as part of the routine maintenance of equipment, are drained and disposed of as solid waste at the local landfill. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 56 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-2 The Biolac System includes an integral clarifier for sludge separation and recycle. Sludge from the clarifier is placed in two concrete lined drying basins, then placed on a concrete storage pad for final drying prior to transport to a designated land application site under permit from Department of Ecology Solid Waste Services Program. Larson is authorized by Ecology, in accordance with State Waste Discharge Permit ST0008024, issued on July 20, 2011, to discharge treated sanitary wastewater to infiltration basins. The permit was last renewed and issued on February 28, 2022 and is set to expire on March 31, 2027. 2.1.3. Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant The Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant (Sand Dunes WWTP) is located on the south end of Moses Lake at 1801 Road K SE. The Sand Dunes WWTP receives effluent from a combination of 27 lift stations including a plant lift station at the headworks. All of the lift stations except Clover and Nelson discharge through the Central Operations Facility (COF), which is a preliminary treatment plant that removes grit and provides screening. Treatment at Sand Dunes is provided by an extended aeration activated sludge Biolac treatment system with ultra-violet disinfection discharging to rapid infiltration basins. The infiltration basins are rotated monthly. The treatment facilities remove solids during the treatment of the wastewater at the headworks located at the COF (grit and screenings) as well as at the headworks located at Sand Dunes. Grit, rags, scum, and screenings removed from the headworks, and incidental solids like rags, scum, and other debris that are removed as part of the routine maintenance of equipment, are drained and disposed of as solid waste at the local landfill. The Sand Dunes WWTP was approved by Ecology on April 18, 2002, and was constructed in 2005, and consists of the following components:  Headworks with an aerated grit chamber, a cylindrical mechanical screen filter, and a composite sampler,  Two aeration basins,  Six clarifiers,  Four HDPE - lined sludge wasting basins,  Eight rapid infiltration basins,  One concrete pad for biosolids storage,  Housing for the ultra-violet disinfection system, control room, workshop, and blower room,  An office building with shop and laboratory. The effluent water is disinfected to meet effluent limitation of 50 fecal coliforms at the end of the treatment train, and to meet groundwater standards for Total Coliforms in the shallow aquifer below the infiltration basins. Total nitrogen at the end of the treatment process is designed to be less than 10 mg/L with nitrates less than 6 mg/L. These design parameters are less than the groundwater criteria, but above the background concentrations. The Sand Dunes WWTP is authorized to discharge wastewater to groundwater via infiltration basins in accordance with State Discharge Permit ST0008012, as administratively extended by Ecology notification received on July 25, 2012. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 57 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-3 2.1.4. Private Wastewater Systems within the City’s Service Area Some private systems that discharge to the municipal wastewater system are outlined as tributaries. Sub-tributaries are smaller areas within wastewater tributaries, that are created to help analyze and predict flows within a wastewater tributary. Sub-tributaries are created for all schools, many manufactured home/RV parks, significant industrial dischargers (SIDs), users with private pump stations, and other specific areas within a tributary that differ substantially from the remainder of the tributary. Summary reports were prepared as part of the 2015 Master Plan and are included for reference in Appendix D. 2.2. PIPELINES AND MANHOLES OVERVIEW The City’s collection system consists of approximately 131 miles of collection gravity pipelines, 27 miles of pressure pipelines, 2,713 manholes, and 32 active lift stations. The gravity pipelines range from 4 inches to 21 inches in diameter and feed into lift stations that convey flow to one of the two City wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) -- the Sand Dunes WWTP and Larson WWTP. The pressure pipelines range from 2 to 24 inches in diameter. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of pipeline diameters and Figure 2.2 shows the pipe material types in the City’s collection system (see Figures A2.1 and A2.2 in Appendix A for full-size figures). Please refer to Table 2.1 for the word or phrase for pipe material abbreviation. A summary of pipe materials, diameters, and lengths are in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 below. TABLE 2.1 – PIPE MATERIAL LEGEND AC CAS PVC DIP HDPE PE SP CT PCC Copper Tube Portland Cement Concrete Polyethylene Steel Pipe LEGEND High-density Polyethylene Ductile Iron Pipe Polyvinyl Chloride Cast Iron Asbestos-Cement TABLE 2.2 – COLLECTION SYSTEM GRAVITY PIPELINE SIZE AND MATERIAL SUMMARY Pipe Diameter AC PVC DIP CT PCC SP Unknown Total by Diameter (ft)% of Total ≤ 6 - 615 - - 2,073 - 2,179 4,867 0.70% 8 5,836 277,509 - 291 240,451 - 8,934 533,022 76.88% 10 229 31,831 - - 37,532 - - 69,593 10.04% 12 - 48,901 - - 13,837 - - 62,738 9.05% 15 - 3,100 - - 8,119 - - 11,218 1.62% 18 - 2,511 91 - 7,056 6 - 9,664 1.39% 21 - - - - 2,247 - - 2,247 0.32% Total by Material 6,066 364,467 91 291 311,315 6 11,113 693,349 100.00% % of Total 0.87% 52.57% 0.01% 0.04% 44.90% 0.00% 1.60%131 miles Gravity Main Pipe Material Lengths (ft) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 58 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-4 TABLE 2.3 – COLLECTION SYSTEM PRESSURE PIPELINE SIZE AND MATERIAL SUMMARY Pipe Diameter AC CAS PVC DIP HDPE PE SP Total by Diameter (ft)% of Total ≤ 3 - - 18,863 - - - - 18,863 13.07% 4 101 - 15,280 145 - - - 15,526 10.76% 6 - - 28,385 - 11,192 - 1,275 40,853 28.30% 8 656 3,969 13,624 840 - - 1,087 20,177 13.98% 10 240 - - 2,697 - - - 2,937 2.03% 12 - - 3,047 - - - - 3,047 2.11% 16 - - 2,820 1,067 - - - 3,887 2.69% 18 - - 966 - - - - 966 0.67% 20 5,550 - 29,409 - - 1,638 - 36,597 25.35% 21 - - 412 - - - - 412 0.29% 24 - - 1,075 - - - - 1,075 0.74% Total by Material 6,547 3,969 113,882 4,749 11,192 1,638 2,363 144,341 100.00% % of Total 4.54% 2.75% 78.90% 3.29% 7.75% 1.13% 1.64%27 miles Force Main Pipe Material Lengths (ft) Over half of the Moses Lake collection system is relatively new. Approximately 53% of the existing gravity pipe material and 79% of the existing pressure pipe material is PVC, which contributes to the minimal influence of inflow and infiltration (I/I) in the system. Pipes made of concrete (approximately 44 % of gravity pipes) are more susceptible to hydrogen sulfide corrosion and should be replaced with PVC pipes over time. Pipe material records are important in defining future pipeline projects. The City should periodically review its existing gravity and force main material and size attributes contained in the GIS and update as additional fieldwork and pipeline inspections are completed in the future. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 59 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-5 FIGURE 2.1 – EXISTING SYSTEM, PIPELINE SIZE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 60 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-6 FIGURE 2.2 – EXISTING SYSTEM, PIPELINE MATERIAL Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 61 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-7 2.3. PIPELINE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT As mentioned in Section 2.2, the majority (approximately 53%) of the City’s collection gravity pipelines are made of PVC. Generally, PVC pipelines, modern gasket materials, and current construction standards contribute to a tighter system, meaning less groundwater infiltration enters the collection system. A tight system minimizes surcharging in the pipelines and manholes during wet weather events and reduces the total volume entering the system, helping to maximize efficiency. Another 45% of the City’s gravity pipelines are PCC, or cement concrete, pipelines. While concrete pipelines are more susceptible to hydrogen sulfide corrosion over time, it is not atypical to see larger diameter pipelines constructed out of concrete to this day. Other pipeline materials represent the final 2% of the system. The City maintains a repair and replacement program for addressing pipeline deficiencies, and has utilized the program to repair approximately 51 miles of their existing system, primarily utilizing Cure-In- Place Pipe (CIPP) for the repair of non-PVC material. As a result, there are only approximately 13 miles of City-owned gravity pipe remaining in the City that have not been repaired or replaced, and isn’t made of PVC material. These remaining pipelines should be considered the priority for inspection and repair as they near the end of their useful lives. The majority of pressure pipelines within the City’s collection system are PVC as well (about 79%), with another 9% also using plastic material (High-density polyethylene or polyethylene). The remaining 12% of pipelines, whose material consists of asbestos-concrete, cast iron, ductile iron, and steel, should be considered the priority for inspection and replacement as they near the end of their useful lives. In general, the expected design life of CIPP is approximately 50 years. The City has already made use of trenchless technologies within the system, and should consider its continued use where applicable. Benefits of trenchless repair or rehabilitation, such as pipe bursting or CIPP, include lower costs and reduction of exposure to asbestos fibers when replacing asbestos concrete pipes. Prior to utilizing CIPP on pipelines, the City will need to assess whether the d/D of the existing pipeline can handle the added thickness of a CIPP liner. In general, if the d/D is over 0.85 during peak flow conditions, CIPP may not be appropriate and the City may need to explore in-trench pipeline replacement or pipe bursting. Before utilizing CIPP, proper design considerations should be made to ensure the replaced pipe will continue to have enough capacity to convey flow for the anticipated lifespan of the CIPP replacement. Should a design review reveal that a pipeline should be upgraded in the future, then traditional open cut trenching or pipe bursting should be considered to upsize the pipe accordingly. As mentioned before, the City maintains a CCTV program to monitor the conditions within their collection system. Currently the City has one length of gravity pipeline identified as poor conditions and is scheduled for replacement: a 10-inch pipeline just upstream of the Peninsula Lift Station beneath the railroad tracks (GIS code WWG-08135 between manholes 27-003 and 27-064). It is generally recommended that municipalities clean their collection system pipelines and structures once every three years (1/3 of the system annually, and CCTV inspect the pipelines and structures once every six years (1/6 of the system annually). The City does not currently have an official CCTV program in place. It is recommended the City develop a CCTV program following these guidelines to evaluate conditions and identify deficiencies within their collection system. The majority of the known issues identified in the City’s collection system, which have associated projects planned to address them, lie within the lift stations and force mains. The conditions assessment of the force mains and lift stations are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 62 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-8 2.4. PIPELINE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Chapter 4 of this report includes a capacity analysis of the collection system informed by the City’s model. Based on the capacity evaluation, the majority of gravity mains have adequate capacity to convey existing flows. Refer to Chapter 4 for further analysis of the system’s gravity pipeline capacity. Refer to Chapter 3 for analysis of the lift stations. 2.5. REPLACEMENT BUDGET As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, the life of PVC pipeline is believed to be approximately 75-100 years, manholes listed at about 50 years of average life, and lift stations having various components with varying lifespans. Typically, it is recommended that municipalities set aside enough money per year to fund replacements of their collection system as its components reach the end of their useful life. It was also noted, however, that the City has made efforts to repair or replace pipelines with observed deficiencies, thus increasing the total lifespan of pipes and manholes within the system. To calculate an annual replacement budget, Keller looked at two funding scenarios: one where a percentage of system is replaced according to their useful life (1% of pipelines per year, 2% of manholes per year), and a second where all non-PVC and non-rehabilitated pipes are replaced within the next 20 years. Lift station replacement budgets are explored in Chapter 3. 2.5.1. Scenario 1 – Annual Replacement Budget (Based on 1% - 2% replacement per year) Assuming that 1% of both gravity and pressure pipelines are replaced each year and 2% of manholes are replaced each year, the City should be funding an annual replacement budget of $2,345,000 as shown in Table 2.4. It should be noted that this analysis assumed half of the gravity pipelines were replaced with traditional open-cut trench technology, and the other half was rehabilitated using CIPP. It also assumes a 50/50 split of replacement and rehabilitation when addressing manholes. Using this approach, the City would fund the replacement of approximately 6,950 feet of gravity pipeline, 1,440 feet of pressure pipeline, and 54 manholes annually. Calculations for replacement of pipelines, manholes, and lift station components can be found in Appendix E. This scenario produces the higher cost between the two alternatives but highlights the importance of budgeting to replace the sewer collection system as it ages. TABLE 2.4 – 1% ANNUAL PIPELINE REPLACEMENT BUDGET Item Lifespan Cost/Year Gravity Pipelines 100 Years 1,508,000$ Pressure Pipelines 100 Years 403,000$ Manholes 50 Years 434,000$ Total (rounded)2,345,000$ 2.5.2. Scenario 2 – Annual Replacement Budget (Based on Replacing Unlined Pipes in 20 Years) The alternate approach to replacing 1% of pipelines per year would be to focus on replacing all the non-PVC, unlined pipes in the system within the next 20 years. Assuming open cut technology to replace these pipelines, the City would be budgeting to replace approximately 3,385 feet of gravity pipeline per year. This methodology still assumes replacing 1% of pressure pipelines (approximately 1,400 feet) and 2% of manholes (54 manholes) annually. The total annual cost of this alternative would amount to $2,002,000 as shown in Table 2.5. This number could further be Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 63 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2-9 reduced by utilizing trenchless pipe rehabilitation such as CIPP. Refer to Appendix E for the calculations used to produce this cost. TABLE 2.5 – 20-YEAR UNLINED PIPE ANNUAL REPLACEMENT BUDGET Item Lifespan Cost/Year Gravity Pipelines 100 Years 1,165,000$ Pressure Pipelines 100 Years 403,000$ Manholes 50 Years 434,000$ Total (rounded)2,002,000$ 2.5.3. Replacement Budget Conclusion With the system in its current aged condition, Keller Associates recommends building the replacement budget over time in smaller, more attainable increments until the budget becomes fully funded. This budget should be regularly reviewed and updated as the City gathers additional pipeline and manhole condition data. With input from City staff, Keller Associates recommends beginning an annual pipeline/manhole replacement fund of approximately $500,000 per year. It is recommended that this budget is established year one. These funds could also help offset replacement costs for pipelines that will ultimately be undersized to serve future pipeline needs (if any). Over time, the City should continue to increase the annual replacement. For planning purposes, we suggest ratcheting up the replacement budget to $1,000,000 for planning year 2, and $1,500,000 for planning year 3, and to fully fund the 20-year unlined pipe replacement budget by year 4, or the full $2,000,000 amount. This budgeting plan should be reassessed every one to two years to determine if funding up to 1% of the total system should be budgeted based on system-wide conditions. If deemed necessary, the City could continue increasing the budget past 1% throughout the 20 year planning period. 2.6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Cleaning and maintenance are necessary to prolong the life of pipelines. CCTV inspection allows problems such as cracking, ponding, and grease buildup to be identified early on before larger problems or even failure occurs. The City currently does not have a system-wide CCTV inspection program. Inspections are completed, as needed, in response to reported problems. Keller Associates recommends CCTV inspections on PVC pipelines every 10 years, and more frequently for clay and concrete pipelines and where deficiencies are identified. The City should also focus cleaning and maintenance efforts on areas where the pipelines do not meet the recommended scour velocity of 2 fps at average annual daily flows. Chapter 4 of this report shows the results of velocity modeling in Moses Lake and recommendations for cleaning. The City currently inspects and logs pipeline conditions utilizing CityWorks software, which is a cloud- based program designed record conditions, inspections, and update assets in real time. Keller Associates recommends developing a pipeline preservation/rehabilitation program to organize and track pipeline cleaning, CCTV, and other maintenance. This program should include pipeline cleaning every three years and CCTV inspections every three to ten years (depending on pipe material and conditions), with once every 6 years being the baseline recommendation. Monitoring conditions over time will allow City staff to optimize the appropriate frequencies for maintenance and refine pipeline replacement budgets. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 64 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 65 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-1 CHAPTER 3 - LIFT STATIONS CONDITION 3.1. LIFT STATIONS The City currently maintains thirty one lift stations. Due to the complexity of the system, visual representations of how wastewater is conveyed within the system are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Figure 3.1 depicts what is conveyed to the Sand Dunes WWTP, and Figure 3.2 depicts what is conveyed to the Larson WWTP. The locations of the lift stations and associated basins are illustrated in Figure 3.3. This section provides a general description, identifies deficiencies, and documents existing conditions and previous studies for the City’s lift stations. FIGURE 3.1 – SAND DUNES LIFT STATIONS FLOW GRAPHIC Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 66 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-2 Table 3.1 depicts the reported capacities of the lift stations, and whether or not the lift station is equipped with a VFD. Additional recommendations based on existing and forecasting capacity deficiencies are addressed in Appendix N. FIGURE 3.2 – LARSON LIFT STATIONS FLOW GRAPHIC Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 67 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-3 FIGURE 3.3 – EXISTING LIFT STATIONS LOCATIONS AND SEWER BASINS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 68 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-4 FIGURE 3.4 – WWTP FLOW BASINS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 69 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-5 TABLE 3.1 – EXISTING LIFT STATIONS LOCATIONS AND SEWER BASINS Lift Station Pump Reported Firm Capacity (gpm) VFD? Blue Heron1 255 No Boeing 150 No C.O.F. Lift Station 33 No C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) 3800 No Carnation 200 Yes* Carswell 100 Yes* Castle 50 No Clover 400 No Division 270 Yes* Eka 180 No Farmer 350 No Hallmark 100 No Hermit 580 No Laguna 190 No Lakeland 70 No Larson No.1 300 No Main 2100 Yes Marina 180 No Moses Pointe 60 No Nelson 250 No Northshore2 1020 Yes Omni 205 No Patton 250 No Peninsula 556 No Sun Terrace 225 No Tana 234 No Westlake 388 No Wheeler 960 Yes* Winona 125 No 1) Blue Heron’s reported firm capacity comes from field drawdown tests performed by the City 2) The Northshore Lift Station replaced a temporary Northshore and the Sage Bay Lift Stations in 2023 *VFD operated similar to soft start The system also has an inline booster station, referred to as the Eastlake Booster Station, along the pressure main from the COF Raw Waste Lift Station to the Sand Dunes WWTP plant. This booster pump speed is controlled by a VFD and ramps up and down based off the level in the COF Raw Waste Lift Station wet well. The booster has a 100% running setpoint at 3,000 gpm. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 70 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-6 3.2. LIFT STATION PUMP EVALUATION As part of the creation of the model in 2020, Keller Associates also evaluated the pumping capacity of each lift station. The daily pump runtime data was analyzed for each of the lift stations within the system. The goal of this effort was to identify potential issues within each of the lift stations and to check whether each station was operating on its pump curve. If a pump is operating off its curve, it may indicate blockages, impeller wear, damage to the pump, or other factors that make the lift stations run less efficiently. The pump run times (from 5/16/2019 to 5/13/2020) for each of the City’s 31 lift stations were provided in excel format by the City. Dates, daily run times, and daily start times were included. Additionally, the City provided record drawings of each of the lift stations. Using this information, the volumes between the pump on and off setpoints were estimated. An inflow rate into the wet-well was estimated, by multiplying the daily starts by the volume between the on and off setpoints of the pumps, divided by the hours the pumps are not running. A volume pumped for the day was calculated using the number of starts multiplied by the volume between the on and off setpoints, with the inflow volume added. The total volume pumped was then divided by the daily pump run time to estimate the flowrate of the pump. The average pumping rates were then compared to the pump curve. There were cases where the data provided was suspect or did not provide long enough daily runtimes to make results reliable. For these lift stations, Keller Associates and City staff performed field flow tests at the lift stations to estimate the pumping rates. Pressure readings were also taken by City staff for the static (not running) and running conditions of the pump, to approximate the head output of the pump. The pump capacities estimated by the pump runtime analysis and the pump field pump tests were then compared to the individual reported capacities of the pumps. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 3.2. The italicized lift stations reflect lift stations that are included in the model. Since originally completing this effort in 2020, the values in this table were updated in 2023 for the Blue Heron, Division, and Northshore lift stations. The Blue Heron and Division lift stations were field tested again by city staff and the Old Northshore and Sage Bay lift stations were decommissioned with the completion of the new Northshore lift station. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 71 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-7 TABLE 3.2 – REPORTED PUMP CAPACITY VS. OBSERVED PUMP CAPACITY Lift Station Individual Pump Reported Capacity (gpm) Pump Capacity from Analysis (gpm) Difference Method Blue Heron 440 255 -42% Field Pump Test Boeing 150 188 25% Field Pump Test C.O.F. Lift Station 33 21 -37% Pump Runtime Analysis C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) 1900 1641 -14% Pump Runtime Analysis Carnation 200 225 13% Pump Runtime Analysis Carswell 100 135 35% Pump Runtime Analysis Castle 50 51 2% Field Pump Test Clover 400 464 16% Field Pump Test Division 270 238 -12% Pump Runtime Analysis Eka 180 167 -7% Pump Runtime Analysis Farmer 350 285 -19% Pump Runtime Analysis Hallmark 100 124 24% Pump Runtime Analysis Hermit 580 591 2% Field Pump Test Laguna 190 197 4% Field Pump Test Lakeland 70 59 -16% Pump Runtime Analysis Larson No.1 300 804 168% Field Pump Test Main 1050 1097 4% Field Pump Test Marina 180 30 -83% Field Pump Test Moses Pointe 60 33 -45% Pump Runtime Analysis Nelson 250 294 18% Pump Runtime Analysis Old Northshore (temp) Decommissioned in 2023 New Northshore* 620 new; not tested n/a n/a Omni 205 156 -24% Field Pump Test Patton 250 198 -21% Pump Runtime Analysis Peninsula 556 475 -15% Pump Runtime Analysis Sage Bay Decommissioned in 2023 Sun Terrace 225 171 -24% Field Pump Test Tana 234 237 1% Field Pump Test Westlake 388 313 -19% Field Pump Test Wheeler 960 960 0% Pump Runtime Analysis Winona 125 75 -40% Pump Runtime Analysis * The New Northshore Lift Station is a triplex lift station and has a fir capacity of about 1,020 gpm with two pumps running. As shown, most of the lift stations are within 25% of their reported capacities, with many operating below their reported capacities. However, there are a few that exceed this number. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 72 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-8 One major discrepancy is at the Larson lift station, which is operating at 500 gpm above its reported capacity. City staff informed Keller that this increase in the capacity was due to head changes that resulted from improvements made at the discharge in the Larson WWTP. However, based on the pump curve for this lift station provided by the City and the updated record drawings, Keller would only anticipate a maximum operating flow of around 500 gpm, not 800 gpm. Additional field investigation may be warranted to resolve this discrepancy. A second discrepancy is with the Marina lift station, which appears to be operating far below its reported capacity. A discrepancy this large may indicate blockages in the force main or worn pumps. Generally, a lot of the lift stations appear to be operating below their reported capacities. This indicates that there may be wear on the impellers at the pumps, which reduce pumping capacity and energy efficiency. Periodic completion of pump tests can assist the City in identifying problems and prioritizing preventative maintenance activities. 3.3. EXISTING LIFT STATION DEFICIENCIES Additionally, the City identified several deficiencies within their system, and developed a list of planned improvements to address these deficiencies. General lift station improvements identified include installing DAVIT fall arrest holes (fall protection) on all of the lift station wet wells, and upgrades to the Wheeler, Division, Carswell, Carnation, Patton, Castle, Larson, and COF Raw Waste lift stations. The complete list of improvements identified by City operators can be found in Appendix F, and a visual map of the lift station and force main improvements is depicted in Figure 3.5. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 73 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3-9 FIGURE 3.5 – CITY IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS 3.4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7 summarizes recommended capital improvements for lift station upgrades. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 74 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 75 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-1 CHAPTER 4 - COLLECTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This chapter highlights the results of a capacity evaluation of the City’s sewer collection system under existing and anticipated future flow conditions. This chapter also includes a description of the hydraulic model development and calibration process used for the analysis. Refer to Chapters 6 and 7, for an evaluation of improvement alternatives and recommended capital improvements to correct capacity deficiencies in the collection system. 4.1. MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION Keller Associates had previously constructed the City’s wastewater collection system model in InfoSWMM Suite 14.7, whose creation and analysis were documented in the Tech Memo titled “Moses Lake Wastewater Model Development,” titled February 17, 2021 (see Appendix G). InfoSWMM is a fully dynamic model which operates in conjunction with Esri ArcGIS and allows for evaluation of complex hydraulic flow patterns. The collection system model includes 10-inch diameter and larger gravity pipelines (approximately 29.3 miles), 12.7 miles of pressure pipelines, and the lift stations directly connected to these pipelines. The model also includes approximately 10.6 miles of 8-inch diameter pipelines selected with input from the City to capture some of the larger existing and future service areas and locations where pipeline extensions were likely. The final pipelines and lift stations included in the model are depicted in Figure 4.1. It should be noted that no changes were made to the existing model developed in 2020 and that changes in the system completed since that time were later reflected in the future model discussed later in this chapter. See Section 4.2 for additional information. 4.1.1. Model Loads Wastewater system loads were allocated to manholes in the model once the model framework was complete. Model loads refer to the wastewater flows that enter the sewer collection system. Loads are typically comprised of wastewater collected from individual services. Most sewer collection systems also convey some amount of groundwater and stormwater. These additional flows are generally referred to as inflow and infiltration (I/I) and are a result of groundwater infiltration through leaks in the pipes and manholes and overland flow into manhole lids during storm events. As discussed in Chapter 1, additional flows from I/I do not have a significant impact on total inflow at either of the wastewater treatment plants. It is important to note that one of the basic assumptions of the hydraulic model is that all pipelines are free from physical obstructions such as roots and accumulated debris. Such maintenance issues, which certainly exist, must be discovered and addressed through consistent maintenance efforts. The modeled capacities discussed in this chapter represent the capacities assuming the wastewater collection lines are in good working order. Wastewater flows, or loads, were assigned to the model to reflect field conditions. Initial loads were assigned based on average winter water consumption from consumers’ metered billing data. Winter water consumption data is used in lieu of the summer since summertime water consumption includes the use of irrigation that does not discharge into the wastewater system. For Moses Lake, average winter consumption data from December 2018 to February 2019 was calculated for each individual user. The City’s billing data was then linked to a meter shapefile in the GIS. Then modeling tools were used to assign average winter loads from the meter shapefile to manholes within the model. Because only major trunklines and selected 8-inch pipelines were modeled, larger areas, such as subdivisions, that drained into a single manhole were identified via a GIS polygon. Using model tools, these areas had their loads placed on the appropriate downstream manhole. For meters located adjacent to modeled pipelines, loads were assigned to the manhole nearest to them. For a Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 76 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-2 visual reference, see Figure 4.2, which depicts meters as purple triangles, the subdivision polygon which captures the meters, and the manhole to which their loads were assigned. FIGURE 4.1 – MODELED COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES AND LIFT STATIONS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 77 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-3 FIGURE 4.2 – LOADING METHODOLOGY VISUALIZATION 4.1.2. Flow Monitoring Eight flow monitors were installed in the collection system to better assess the distribution of flow within the collection system. Monitors were strategically placed to capture various regions of the system. Flow monitoring data was collected from 6/11/2020 to 6/25/2020 at each of the sites. During testing, site 6 (upstream of the Larson WWTP) showed suspect data. As such, this site was retested from 7/13/2020 to 7/27/2020. Refer to Figure 4.3 for the flow monitoring locations in the City. Of these periods, the day with the highest peak was chosen as a reference calibration day. Using the flows at the reference day (July 21st for Larson plant, and June 12 - 13th for basins feeding the Sand Dunes Plant), an hourly diurnal (daily) curve was created for each of their corresponding upstream drainage areas, or basins. This hourly diurnal curve was applied to the loads at the respective manholes upstream of each flow monitoring location to recreate the flow patterns observed in the field. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 78 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-4 FIGURE 4.3 – FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 79 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-5 4.1.3. Calibration The initial modeled flows were compared to the observed flows at each of the flow monitoring sites. Model loads in each sewer basin were factored either up or down with the intent to match the modeled flows to the observed flows with emphasis on matching peak flows. If the model outputs did not match the field results, a factor was applied to all the loading within the sewer basin to match the field results, with emphasis on capturing the peak hour flow conditions observed in the field. The calibration adjustment applied to each of the sewer basins’ loading is shown in Table 4.1. The peak model flows were generally targeted to be within five percent of the observed flows to be considered accurate. TABLE 4.1 – CALIBRATION FACTORS APPLIED TO FLOW METER BASINS Basin Number Basin Name Factor Applied 1 Nelson 0.75 2 Division 1 3 Wheeler 1.60 4 Knolls Vista Bypass 1.08 5 Sage Bay 1.66 6 Larson 0.7 7 Peninsula 1.43 8 NE of Northshore 1 Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show an example of the comparison between the model and flow monitoring data before and after the factors were applied, respectively. The blue line represents the modeled flows and the green line reflects observed field measurements. All calibrated curves can be found in Appendix H. It should be noted that the area directly upstream of the Main Lift Station, not including the lift station basins that flow into the Main Lift Station (Wheeler/Division), did not have a calibration factor applied to it, as there was no flow monitoring that occurred directly upstream of the Main Lift Station. However, flows from these areas were captured in the total system flows observed at the downstream wastewater treatment plant, and flows at the wastewater treatment plant also matched closely with reported SCADA flow conditions. While developing the model, it was noted that even with modified pump curves to match field conditions, there were still lift stations that were not matching field conditions for pressure head. Adjustments in the pressure main pipe roughness were made to better simulate field conditions. Relatively close results were realized for most pressure mains with typical C values of 100 to 140. In some cases, however, reducing the C value to 100 was insufficient to reduce the flow to reflect observed field conditions. In these cases, the C value was further dropped to a value of 70, which could be an indication that either some of the field data is suspect or that valve / pipe obstructions may exist in the line. Additional investigations into the force mains with C values below 100 are recommended. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 80 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-6 FIGURE 4.4 – PENINSULA LOCATION 7, FLOW MONITORING, RECORDED DATA (GREEN) VS. MODEL OUTPUT (BLUE) – PRE-CALIBRATION FIGURE 4.5 – PENINSULA LOCATION 7, FLOW MONITORING, RECORDED DATA (GREEN) VS. MODEL OUTPUT (BLUE) – POST-CALIBRATION There were cases where the reduction of the C factor was insufficient to achieve the lower flows observed in the field; and for these locations, the pump curves were further modified to better reflect observed flow conditions. Table 4.2 displays the lift stations modeled, if their pump curve was originally changed to match the runtime analysis/pump test, the C factor applied to the force mains, and whether or not the curve was further modified to match flows. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 81 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-7 TABLE 4.2 – LIFT STATION PUMP CURVE AND FORCE MAIN ROUGHNESS ADJUSTMENTS (EXISTING MODEL) Modeled Lift Station Modified Pump Curve? Force Main C Factor Further Modified Pump Curve? Blue Heron yes 70 yes C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) no 100 no Carnation yes 100 no Clover yes 140 no Division yes 70 yes Farmer yes 140 no Laguna no 140 no Lakeland yes 100 yes Larson No.1 yes 140 no Main yes 70 no Moses Pointe yes 70 yes Nelson yes 100 yes Northshore (temp. Sage Bay) no 100 no Peninsula yes 70 yes Sage Bay yes 100 no Westlake no 140 no Wheeler yes 130 no Winona yes 70 yes After calibrating the individual basins and lift stations, the daily flows at the wastewater treatment plants in the model were compared to influent flows recorded by City SCADA on the reference calibration day. Table 4.3 depicts the model and recorded flows for each wastewater treatment plant on their respective calibration reference day. As shown, the final model produced flows that matched the field data within 2%, which grants additional confidence to the calibrated model. TABLE 4.3 – MODEL VS. SCADA OUTPUT FOR CALIBRATION DAY WWTP Calibration Day SCADA data output (MGD) Model output (MGD) Difference Larson WWTP July 21st, 2020 0.274 0.273 0.3% Sand Dunes WWTP June 13th, 2020 2.255 2.295 1.8% As a final check of calibration, Keller Associates checked the estimated average daily flows into the pump stations versus model flows. Using the pump runtime data, average daily flows into the lift stations were estimated. These numbers were compared to the average inflow in the model, which is shown in Table 4.4. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 82 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-8 TABLE 4.4 – ESTIMATED DAILY INFLOW INTO LIFT STATION VS MODEL INFLOW (EXISTING MODEL) Lift Station Runtime Estimated Average Daily Flow (gpm) Model Average Inflow (gpm) Difference (gpm) Blue Heron 69 60 9 COF-Raw 1,316 1413 -97 Carnation 75 122 -47 Clover 2 3 -1 Division 1211 179 -58 Farmer 1 4 -4 Laguna 2 6 -4 Lakeland 15 35 -21 Larson 2 97 -96 Main N/A 622 N/A Moses Point 3 13 -10 Nelson 90 139 -49 Peninsula 178 385 -207 Sage Bay 273 422 -149 Westlake 22 87 -65 Wheeler 270 342 -72 Winona 8 24 -16 1) City staff evaluated this flow again in early 2023 and determined that this average daily flow is closer to 153 gpm. In the table, the red numbers indicate data pump runtime that was considered bad data, and thus is unreliable. While examining this comparison, the SCADA data appears to underestimate actual flows at the majority of the lift stations. Because the final flows at the wastewater treatment plants match the model, and because these values are universally low, this calibration check was considered informative, but not used to make model adjustments. Additional refinement of the City’s SCADA system is recommended to better assess the accuracy of the reported data. 4.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT After calibrating the model to the reference days, an existing maximum day model was created. The maximum day model contains all the same pump, pipe, and manhole information as the calibrated model, but the loads were increased by a factor as shown in Table 4.5. TABLE 4.5 – CALIBRATED DAY TO MAX DAY FACTORS WWTP Calibration Day (MGD) Max Day (MGD) Factor Used Larson WWTP 0.273 0.47 1.72 Sand Dunes WWTP 2.295 2.94 1.28 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 83 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-9 Keller Associates also created an average day scenario. Factors were applied to the calibrated day loading to get to average day. Table 4.6 depicts the average days and factors applied. TABLE 4.6 – CALIBRATED DAY TO AVERAGE DAY FACTORS WWTP Calibration Day (MGD) Average Day (MGD) Factor Used Larson WWTP 0.273 0.314 1.15 Sand Dunes WWTP 2.295 2.13 0.93 With a calibrated, average day, and max day model, the City of Moses Lake is able to more accurately evaluate existing conditions of the collection system. 4.2.1. Collection System Evaluation Criteria The following planning criteria was used to evaluate the existing collection system:  Depth over Diameter (d/D): For gravity pipelines within the system, a good indicator of pipeline capacity is the maximum flow depth as it relates to the pipeline, or depth over diameter (d/D). For interceptor pipelines, if the d/D of a pipeline exceeds 0.85 during peak hour flow conditions, a pipe upsize project should be considered.  Surcharging: Surcharging refers to when the water level in a manhole rises above the top invert of the ingoing or outgoing pipe. If surcharging is occurring, it is usually indicative of insufficient pipe capacity downstream. As a rule of thumb, no surcharging should be occurring in gravity sewer pipelines.  Lift station firm capacity: Firm capacity refers to a lift station’s pumping capacity with its largest pump offline. The lift station firm capacity should be capable of handling peak hour flows into the lift station. This ensures that the lift station has redundancy and can handle peak flows in the event of a pump failure. In duplex systems, a station is exceeding its firm capacity if both pumps must run to convey flows into the lift station. The same applies to a triplex lift station if all three of its pumps are required to run.  Minimum (scouring) velocities: For average conditions, daily peak velocities of 2 to 3 feet per second (fps) are desired in pipelines to prevent solids from building up in the pipeline.  Maximum velocities in force mains: In force mains, it is important to keep velocities less than 8 fps. Exceeding this velocity means that headlosses can become very large, reducing the efficiency and capacity of the pump station. Additionally, high velocities can cause water hammering when valves open or close, which can cause damage to infrastructure. A high force main velocity is generally indicative of an undersized force main or an oversized pump. For longer force mains, maximum velocities of 3.5 to 5 fps may be preferred to minimize headloss and long-term pumping costs. 4.2.2. Existing Collection System Capacity Evaluation Existing Maximum Day Evaluation – d/D The existing maximum day model was first examined for gravity pipeline capacity via the d/D ratio. With the maximum day model and the 24-hour diurnal curve, the model can estimate the peak hour flow conditions which is the driving design criteria for collection system pipelines. Figure 4.6 depicts pipelines colored by their respective d/D during peak hour flows. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 84 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-10 FIGURE 4.6 – EXISTING PEAK HOUR CAPACITIES, d/D The primary area that was seeing a large d/D was the new pipeline upstream of the Northshore lift station. However, the surcharging that is occurring in this area was not a result of an undersized pipeline, but a result of pump station controls which allow water to back up into the pipeline before turning on. Since the 2020 existing conditions model was created, this problem has been resolved with the completion of the new Northshore lift station in 2023. The old Northshore and Sage Bay lift stations have both been decommissioned and demolished. There are a few pipelines within the Peninsula and Division sub-basins that are in the 0.5 to 0.75 d/D range. City staff confirmed that there are currently minor capacity issues already present in the Peninsula basin. Apart from this, it does not appear that the City suffers from any major capacity deficiencies in their gravity collection system. As the system develops, the City should continue to watch the pipelines with d/D greater than 0.5 and complete pipe capacity improvements as the peak hour flows approach a d/D condition of 0.85. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 85 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-11 Surcharging Since the Northshore Lift station was replaced in 2023, there have been no issues with surcharging in manholes. If there were any surcharging issues they would have shown up as red pipelines in Figure 4.6. Lift Station Firm Capacity As noted previously, duplex lift stations that have both pumps running during peak flows are operating above their firm capacity. In the model, those lift stations with insufficient pumping capacity, requiring all of their pumps to convey peak flows include: • Carnation • Division • Lakeland • Main • Nelson • Peninsula • Sage Bay • Westlake Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the City confirm pump capacity concerns by monitoring pump run times and alerting the operator any time that every pump is required to run to convey flow. Additional investigation is also warranted to monitor pumping capacities and explore alternatives to increase the lift stations pumping capacities to meet existing and future demands. Maximum Velocities in Force Mains Maximum velocities were examined in each of the force mains. The maximum velocity experienced is summarized in Table 4.7. TABLE 4.7 – MAXIMUM VELOCITIES IN FORCE MAINS Modeled Lift Station Maximum Velocity in Force Main (fps) Blue Heron 1.65 C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) 2.94 Carnation 1.99 Clover 6.02 Division 3.23 Farmer 3.65 Laguna 4.97 Lakeland 2.01 Larson No.1 7.59 Main 2.38 Moses Pointe 0.7 Nelson 3.13 Northshore (temp. Sage Bay)1 17.41 Peninsula 5.23 Sage Bay2 3.41 Westlake 4.04 Wheeler 7.27 Winona 1.48 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 86 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-12 1) In 2023, the Northshore force main was abandoned and replaced with a gravity sewer main extending to the new Northshore lift station that replaced both the Sage Bay and old Northshore lift stations. 2) In 2023, the new Northshore lift station was constructed to replace both the Sage Bay and old Northshore lift stations. These changes are reflected in the future conditions model. As shown, the only force main to experience velocities of higher than 10 fps was the old Northshore force main that has since been abandoned in 2023. Also, it appears that the velocities in Blue Heron and Moses Pointe lift stations may be too low to regularly achieve scouring velocities. City operators should periodically allow the lift station to surcharge and run both pumps concurrently to create better scouring conditions. Minimum Velocities in Gravity Pipelines Finally, the minimum velocities during average day conditions were analyzed. In the average day model, pipelines which experienced less than a 1.5 fps velocity during their respective high flows were identified. The pipelines which do not meet the criteria of greater than 1.5 fps velocity for scouring are highlighted red or orange in Figure 4.7. As shown, approximately 18.8 miles of pipelines modeled do not meet the minimum velocity criteria. These pipelines are more at risk for buildup of solids as they may not have high enough velocities to scour the pipe. For pipelines that do not meet this criteria, more frequent cleaning and maintenance can mitigate the issues caused by buildup. In general, the slower velocities require more regular cleaning. Maintenance of Existing Gravity Pipelines Currently, the City of Moses Lake flushes gravity mains on an annual basis and if problems are located, a CCTV crew is dispatched for inspection. Rodding occurs biannually for segments of pipe where flushing is not feasible or if the line is flagged as underperforming. This includes any pipelines that are not meeting minimum scour velocities. Much of the system is newer PVC pipe or concrete pipe with polyethylene liners; these segments do not need to be flushed as frequently unless they have been identified as a known problem line. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 87 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-13 FIGURE 4.7 – FLOW VELOCITIES, AVERAGE DAY CONDITION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 88 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-14 4.3. 20-YEAR CONDITIONS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Keller Associates worked with City personnel who assisted in identifying the type and distribution of future growth in the area of City impact. See Section 1.12 in Chapter 1 and Table 1.9 which detail expected flows over the next 20 years due to population growth. The locations of future growth, the associated loading, and the location of loading on the model are shown in Figure A4.1 in Appendix A. Additionally, the model was updated to reflect several changes:  An 18-inch gravity extension was implemented per City record drawings along Westshore Dr.  The Division force main is extended and connects directly to the Main lift station force main  The Blue Heron force main is extended and connects directly to the Westlake force main.  The new Northshore lift station was included to replace the old Northshore and Sage Bay lift stations. It should be noted that the western residential loads were split between upstream of the existing Moses Pointe lift station and the added 18” gravity main within Westshore Dr. The 20-year loading was added to the existing model at the locations specified in the figure and examined for defects. The model was first created with two alternatives, displaying loading from the Cascade Valley area in the former Sage Bay sewer basin (now the Northshore sewer basin) and the Peninsula sewer basin to review the downstream impact of either loading, as the direction of anticipated flow from this area of the city was unknown. After the creation of the model and initial examination of the capacity issues, a sub-scenario was created that modeled each lift station as an ideal pump (all water in is equal to water being pumped), so lack of capacity in lift stations upstream did not constrain maximum flows being conveyed downstream. Additionally, another sub-scenario was modeled which increased the size of upstream undersized pipes, which allowed examination of maximum flows through all gravity pipes and lift stations. Gravity capacity issues are presented in Section 4.3.1 and lift station/force main capacity issues are presented in Section 4.3.2. 4.3.1. Future Conditions Capacity Analysis Sizing new infrastructure in the 20-year conditions model was an iterative process. Beginning with existing pipeline sizes and lift stations, 20-year conditions were modeled to identify areas with deficiencies. Any pipelines that did not meet the conditions outlined in the planning criteria section were increased in diameter until all conditions were satisfied. For lift stations, any flows over the reported firm capacities of each lift station triggered the need for improvements unless another improvement would divert flow from that lift station. Using the same criteria presented in the existing system evaluation in Chapter 2, which was based off of the minimum design requirements outlined in the Orange Book and the City of Moses Lake’s standards, the 20-year model was examined for capacity issues. The analysis is presented in the following sections. 20-Year Maximum Day Evaluation – d/D First, the 20-year maximum day model was examined for gravity pipeline capacity via the d/D ratio. Figure 4.8 depicts pipelines colored by their respective d/D during peak hour flows. The d/D figure shown below specifically reflects the pumps running as ideal pumps, so maximum flows are not restricted by lift station capacities. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 89 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-15 FIGURE 4.8 – 20-YEAR MAXIMUM d/D CAPACITIES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 90 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-16 As shown, several areas of the model experience a d/D ratio of greater than 0.75, and thus can be considered over capacity. A list of the recorded issues are as follows:  The trunkline upstream of the Peninsula Lift Station is undersized for the conveyance of gravity flows and peak discharge flows from the Westlake and Blue Heron lift stations.  The trunkline upstream of the temporary Northshore Lift Station. This issue has already been alleviated with the construction of the new Northshore lift station in 2023. Figure 4.8 represents the capacity in this line after the completion of the new Northshore lift station.  The trunkline downstream of the Carnation force main discharge and upstream of the Wheeler Lift Station is undersized due to the additional anticipated industrial loads from the Wheeler area, as the trunkline experiences surcharging and high d/Ds when conveying peak flows.  The trunkline downstream of the Wheeler force main discharge and upstream of the Main Lift Station. Similar to the trunkline upstream of the Wheeler lift station, the trunkline upstream of the Main lift station experiences high d/Ds with the inclusion of new industrial loads.  The southern trunkline upstream of the Nelson Lift Station. This trunkline borders on the trigger point of 0.75 d/D and doesn’t experience surcharging based on 20-year growth allocations. Should this area continue to build out beyond 20-year anticipated flows, it is recommended that this trunkline be upsized. However, within the 20-year planning window, this trunkline can adequately convey peak flows. No other significant Alternatives to resolve these capacity issues are listed in Chapter 5, while recommended improvements are listed in Chapter 7. Lift Station Firm Capacity Next, the 20-year model was evaluated for capacity issues at the lift stations. Table 4.8 below lists all of the modeled stations’ firm pumping capacities, and their respective 20-year model flows. Again, this analysis was performed using the existing infrastructure, and an “open” model which assumed ideal pumps and larger diameter pipes to alleviate any capacity issues upstream of each station, and allows the model to accurately capture all loads upstream of each station. Additionally, it was assumed that the Blue Heron force main bypasses the Westlake lift station and connects directly into the Westlake force main and the Division force main bypasses the Main lift station and connects directly into the Main force main. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 91 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-17 TABLE 4.8 – 20-YEAR MAXIMUM INFLOW INTO MODELED LIFT STATIONS VS. LIFT STATION REPORTED CAPACITIES The 2042 modeled flow incorporates the expected population growth patterns and average wastewater production per ERU into the model to predict future flows. The “open” scenario eliminates all upstream constrictions from the model to create an estimated measurement for the worst-case scenario. The open flow scenario assumes that upstream infrastructure is improved to alleviate all flow restrictions. It is unlikely that we would achieve these flow numbers at all locations, but it is possible that some locations may experience flows predicted by this scenario. As shown, the Blue Heron, C.O.F., Carnation, Division, Lakeland, Larson, Main, Moses Pointe, Nelson, Peninsula, and Wheeler lift stations all experience peak flows greater than their reported firm capacities. Alternatives to resolve these issues, increase firm capacity, or divert peak flow away from these stations are recorded in Chapter 5 of this report. Recommended improvements are documented in Chapter 7. It should be noted that the Lakeland lift station experiences peak flows slightly higher than the firm capacity. This station is small, and the City does not anticipate much more development within the 20-year planning period upstream of this lift station. It is recommended that the City perform flow monitoring and an flow analysis of this lift station to determine if an upgrade is appropriate. Lift Station Pump Reported Firm Capacity (gpm) Peak 2042 Model Inflow (gpm) Peak 2042 Model Inflow - Open Scenario (gpm) Blue Heron 211 825 940 C.O.F. Raw Waste 3800 3120 4830 Carnation 200 1170 1170 Clover 400 82 82 Division 270 370 370 Farmer 350 12 12 Laguna 190 12 12 Lakeland 70 72 72 Larson No.1 300 362 362 Main 2100 2100 2160 Moses Pointe 60 372 372 Nelson 250 678 678 Northshore 1100 970 970 Peninsula 556 1110 1633 Westlake 388 52 52 Wheeler 960 1180 2000 Winona 125 50 54 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 92 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4-18 Peak Hour Velocities in Force Mains The peak velocities in each of the force mains in the 20-year model was also examined to determine force main capacity. The model was run using both existing infrastructure and the “open” scenario. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 4-9 below. It was assumed that if one or more lift stations share a force main, that the larger of the two values between their isolated and shared force main was presented in Table 4.9. TABLE 4.9 – 20-YEAR MAXIMUM VELOCITIES IN FORCE MAINS WITH EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE “OPEN” SCENARIO As shown, the Peninsula and Wheeler force mains experience maximum velocities of over 10 feet per second, and those force mains can be considered undersized in the 20-year window, assuming that the lift stations are upgraded to handle peak 20-year flows. Additionally, the Carnation, Westlake/Blue Heron, the Northshore/Main/Division, and the C.O.F./Nelson force mains experience velocities higher than 5 ft/s and can be considered longer force mains. Alternatives to resolve these issues are recorded in Chapter 5 of this report. Recommended improvements are documented in Chapter 7. Minimum Velocities in Gravity Sewer Pipelines Minimum velocities are a concern of the existing system evaluation, as total system flow increases then minimum velocities will increase. The evaluation and recommendations regarding minimum velocities are recorded in section 4.2.2 and Figure 4.7, in the existing system evaluation. Lift Station Maximum Forcemain Velocity (fps) Maximum Forcemain Velocity - Open Scenario (fps) Blue Heron 3.56 6.32 C.O.F. Raw Waste 3.41 5.84 Carnation 2.79 7.45 Clover 6.04 6.04 Division 2.34 5.50 Farmer 3.65 3.65 Laguna 4.97 4.97 Lakeland 2.30 2.31 Larson No.1 6.94 6.94 Main 4.09 5.50 Moses Pointe 0.97 3.27 Nelson 3.41 5.84 Northshore 4.35 5.50 Peninsula 5.25 10.42 Westlake 3.56 6.32 Wheeler 9.36 12.77 Winona 1.49 1.49 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 93 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-1 CHAPTER 5 - TREATMENT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT This chapter highlights the condition and capacity of the City’s treatment plants under existing and anticipated future flow conditions. Maps showing the location of the treatment plants and the collection systems feeding each treatment plant are in Chapter 1. 5.1. LARSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONDITION A general description of the components of the Larson WWTP is provided in Section 2.1.2. A map of the features is shown in Figure 5.1. FIGURE 5.1 – LARSON WWTP MAP The City of Moses Lake operates two wastewater treatment plants. The Larson WWTP is located in northern Moses Lake and serves the areas around the old Larson Air Force Base and the Urban Growth Area. Located on a 34-acre site, the Larson WWTP receives flows from five municipal lift stations and one gravity trunk line. Since its original design in 1943, the WWTP has been upgraded several times. The WWTP currently consists of headworks, including a grit chamber, a mechanical screen, and composite sampler; one aeration basin; two clarifiers; two high-density polyethylene (HDPE)-lined sludge storage basins; two concrete-lined sludge drying basins (sedimentation ponds); three rapid infiltration basins; one concrete pad for biosolids storage; a control building housing the ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system, workshop, and blower room; and an office building with a laboratory. The WWTP discharges treated effluent to infiltration basins according to State Waste Discharge Permit ST0008024. A simplified schematic process layout of the WWTP is shown in Figure 5.2. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 94 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-2 FIGURE 5.2 – LARSON WWTP PROCESS SCHEMATIC 5.1.1. Headworks Influent flows by gravity through an 18-inch sewer pipe into the aerated grit basin. Heavy grit settles out in the aerated grit basin with air supplied by coarse bubble diffusers. Grit is pumped out of the basins by two grit pumps to the sludge digestion basin. Solids are also collected on the mechanically cleaned Hycor® Helisieve screen. The screen operates automatically when the water level reaches the start level. A shaftless spiral screw conveyor with a brush cleans the screen basket when the water level rises. The screened solids are conveyed, dewatered and discharged into a dumpster. A backup manual bar screen is used in a parallel channel when the Hycor screen is taken down for maintenance. Screened wastewater flows out of the headworks through a 15-inch line into the Biolac® basin. Deficiencies  Grit must be manually removed from the aerated grit chamber.  The screenings in the Hycor conveyor can freeze. During the site visit a tarp and space heater were used to keep the screen in operation. 5.1.2. Secondary Treatment At the start of secondary treatment, return activated sludge (RAS) is mixed with the screened influent. The RAS is removed by an air lift, passes through a manual screen, and then flows by gravity through an 18-inch line back to the aerated Biolac® basin. In the aeration basin, biological oxidation and denitrification occur. The Biolac® process is an extended aeration process that allows for the production of highly treated effluent with low sludge production. To remove total nitrogen to levels acceptable for rapid infiltration, aerobic and anoxic zones are Larson WWTP Headworks Larson WWTP Biolac® System Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 95 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-3 created through wave oxidation. The basin contains floating aeration chains that can be turned on or off to alter dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. A minimum of three adjacent chains are typically turned off for 20-50 minutes to create anoxic conditions. Aerobic and anoxic zones are then alternated every 20-50 minutes. A DO probe is provided for blower control. DO is measured by a probe near the outlet of the basin prior to the clarifiers. The operators also use an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) probe to perform checks on the status of the basins and make changes to the timers. Aeration chains consist of floating HDPE pipes with 1-inch hanging hoses attached to the fine bubble diffusers which are suspended over the basin floor. Air is provided by three, 40 HP Sutorbilt 7MP blowers and ninety BioFuser 2004 fine bubble diffusers. According to the manufacturer, one blower is sufficient to completely mix the basin. Two of the blowers are operated with variable frequency drives (VFDs). The basin itself has a capacity of 1.36 million gallons and is HDPE-lined with a side slope of 1.5:1. Two 40-foot by 24-foot concrete clarifiers receive flows from the aeration basin and separate the clear effluent from the suspended solids. Flows enter through 16-inch flap gates at the bottom of the wall separating the basin from the clarifier. Effluent is discharged through an overflow weir, while sludge is removed by the sludge removal system. Flocculating rakes which consist of a vertically hung assembly with chains suspended from the bottom angle distribute sludge across the length of the clarifier floor. Waste activated sludge flow is controlled by an automatic gate valve with a timer in its electrical control panel. Deficiencies  There is only one aeration basin, so the basin cannot be taken down for maintenance such as when the liner needs to be replaced.  Inorganic material periodically enters the WWTP. This material has damaged two of the diffuser chains, so that they no longer provide air to the basin. The City is still working to identify the source of the inorganics.  The diffuser bubble pattern is not uniform, indicating diffuser replacement is needed. Even though the diffusers were replaced in 2015, the useful life is typically ten years. Diffuser replacement should be planned in the relatively near future.  The blower VFDs tend to fight each other rather than optimize the aeration. Therefore, the City operates one of the VFD controlled blowers with the other as a backup.  It would be beneficial if the ORP probe were permanently mounted in the aeration basin and used to automatically adjust the aeration timer.  Effluent performance is negatively affected when one clarifier is taken offline.  The screens and piping on the RAS require frequent cleaning.  The WAS valve requires frequent maintenance and needs to be replaced.  The Biolac® control panel human machine interface (HMI) is obsolete and is currently being replaced. Larson WWTP Blowers Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 96 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-4 5.1.3. UV Disinfection The UV disinfection system inactivates pathogens and other microorganisms before the effluent is discharged to the rapid infiltration basins. UV lamps are enclosed in quartz sleeves attached to modules inside waterproof connectors. Each UV bank holds five modules; modules consist of a stainless-steel type 316 frame holding six UV lamps 64-inch long, each rated at 40 watts output. Lamps are submerged parallel to the flow. Submersible UV sensors continuously monitor the UV intensity produced in each bank of modules. Deficiencies  The UV system, including the controls, are obsolete and beyond its expected useful life. This leads to more expensive parts and less effective treatment.  There is only one channel, so the water must be stopped to clean the channel.  The operators report that fly larva are periodically found in the piping between the clarifiers and UV system. It is also easy for bacteria and scum to hide in the UV channel. 5.1.4. Rapid Infiltration and Sludge Digestion Basins Treated effluent is discharged into rapid infiltration basins. The WWTP is equipped with three basins, each with its own isolation valve. Basins are periodically rotated to maintain an even distribution. Sludge removed from the clarifiers is sent to the long-term sludge digestion basins. The amount of sludge wasted is controlled by an electrically activated gate valve that opens after an adjustable number of minutes. Scum lines and pump sediments also drain to the sludge digestion basins; it is preferred for pump sediments to be removed with the City’s vacuum truck. The WWTP is equipped with two 2,700,000 gallon sludge storage basins with 10-foot depth. Sludge is drained daily and continuously dewatered through evaporation. Through aerobic and anaerobic digestion, volatile solids in the sludge are reduced to 30% and thickened to 3-4% solids. A 1-foot water cap is maintained over the sludge layer. Biosolids are tested according to WAC 173-308 and Larson Treatment Plant Statewide General Permit for Biosolids Management. Biosolids are then applied to rangeland adjacent to the Sand Dunes WWTP. Currently sludge is removed approximately every four years. Despite the long duration, hauling the sludge is very expensive. Deficiencies  The elevation of the supernatant valve does not allow for easy removal of water from the sludge basins. The operators report that the frequent, manually controlled supernatant withdrawals make it difficult to achieve permit compliance. The operators are currently trying to reduce the amount of supernatant recycle by increasing the evaporation at the basins.  Drying bed should drain to lined containment.  A sludge drying bed liner needs repair (other drying bed was recently repaired).  The sludge is not dewatered prior to hauling, which leads to very expensive removal costs. Washington has a roadmap to reduce food waste in the landfill by 50% by 2030. Dewatering and composting the biosolids at the WWTP could be beneficial to the City, especially with the waste transfer station nearby. Larson WWTP UV System Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 97 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-5 5.1.5. Electricity and Emergency Power The WWTP is equipped with an emergency generator. The generaotr is a 125 kW Cummins/Onan, Model 125DGDK, diesel engine powered unit. It has its own local control panel and alarms. The generator base holds a single 194-gallon capacity fuel tank which has a leak sensor and a low fuel alarm. If there is a power failure to the WWTP, the auto-transfer switch transfers the plant to generator power. Deficiencies  The generator cannot operate all equipment at the WWTP simultaneously.  Despite the WWTP being smaller than the Sand Dunes WWTP, it uses much more electricity. It is believed that there are several ground faults that are causing major electricity losses. 5.1.6. Buildings, Site Security, Roads, and Utility Water The office building was constructed when the original WWTP was built in the 1940s. All roads and most of the drivable surfaces within the WWTP are paved. During the site visit it was noted that the drivable areas within the WWTP site where in good condition. The entire WWTP site is enclosed by a chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire. Lockable gates are located at the entrances to the WWTP. City staff did not note any deficiencies with regards to security or roads at the plant. A groundwater well is used to provide utility water for the headworks screens and for washdown water throughout the WWTP. The groundwater is protected by a reduced pressure backfow preventor. Deficiencies  There is not an air gap to separate the groundwater, (which is also used for potable water at the WWTP), and the utility water system. 5.2. LARSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY The design criteria for the Larson WWTP is outlined in the permit. The current and future flows and loadings from Chapter 1 and the design criteria from the permit are compared in Table 5.1. Although not currently exceeded, it is anticipated that the design criteria will be exceeded during the planning period. TABLE 5.1 – LARSON DESIGN CRITERIA VS CURRENT AND PROJECTED FLOWS / LOADS Parameter Permit Design Criteria 2022 Flows/Loads 2042 Flows/Loads Monthly Average Flow 0.75 MGD 0.44 MGD 0.71 MGD Peak Instantaneous Design Flow 1.20 MGD 0.93 MGD 1.49 MGD BOD5 Maximum Month Influent Loading 1,970 lbs/day 702 lbs/day 2,071 lbs/day TSS Maximum Month Influent Loading 2,523 lbs/day 685 lbs/day 2,532 lbs/day TKN Maximum Month Influent Loading 296 lbs/day 147 lbs/day 432 lbs/day Plant effluent data taken from the DMRs for January 2019 through December 2023 were analyzed. The plant effluent was monitored for BOD5, CBOD5, TSS, TDS, temperature, E. coli bacteria, pH, ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and nitrite-nitrate (NO2+NO3). At least once per week, 24-hour composite Larson WWTP Generator Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 98 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-6 effluent samples were taken to test for BOD5 or CBOD5, TDS, TKN, and NO2+NO3. Grab samples were collected to test the effluent E. coli bacteria and TP once per week. Effluent was continuously monitored for pH. As of April 2022, the WWTP stopped sampling for CBOD5, TSS, NH3, and FDS, and it began sampling for BOD5, TDS, and TP. 5.2.1. Effluent BOD5 As shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.4 the effluent BOD5 requirements as of the 2022 permit are a monthly limit of 10 mg/L and a weekly limit of 15 mg/L. Concentrations have been consistently below the limits. In April and September 2023, concentrations were below the respective detection limits of 2.0 and 1.5 mg/L. FIGURE 5.3 – EFFLUENT BOD5 CONCENTRATION (MONTHLY) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Jan-24BOD5Concentration (mg/L)BOD5 Monthly Limit (10 mg/L)Effluent BOD5 Concentration Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 99 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-7 FIGURE 5.4 – EFFLUENT BOD5 CONCENTRATION (WEEKLY) 5.2.2. Effluent Total Coliform Effluent total coliform data is shown in Figure 5.5. While there have been some spikes in total coliform over the past two years, counts have generally remained under the limit of 50 CFU/100 mL. Detection limits typically ranged from 1 to 11. Two sampling dates (March and April 2023) had higher detection limits of 48.2 and 211. Samples that were reported as below detection limits have been displayed as zero as these data could not be confidently quantified. FIGURE 5.5 – EFFLUENT TOTAL COLIFORM 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Concentration (mg/L)BOD5 Weekly Limit (15 mg/L)Weekly Effluent CBOD5 Weekly Effluent BOD5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Total Coliform (#/100 mL)Total Coliform Monthly Limit (50/100 mL)Effluent Coliform Concentration Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 100 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-8 5.2.3. Effluent Nitrate Plus Nitrite Effluent nitrate and nitrite concentrations are shown in Figure 5.6. The monthly limit of 6 mg/L nitrate plus nitrite as N has been breached once in August 2023. Until April 2022, concentrations were typically below the detection limit which varied monthly but ranged from 0.17 to 5.32. Concentrations below the detection limit are shown on Figure 5.6 as zero. FIGURE 5.6 – EFFLUENT NITRATE PLUS NITRITE 5.2.4. Effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) As shown in Figure 5.7 effluent concentrations of TDS have consistently been below the monthly limit of 600 mg/L. Sampling for TDS began in April 2022. The City may need to consider more stringent industrial pretreatment requirements and land treatment of the effluent if the limits become more stringent. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Nitrate Plus Nitrate (mg/L as N)Effluent Nitrate and Nitrate Monthly Limit (6 mg/L as N) Effluent Nitrate and Nitrite Concentration Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 101 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-9 FIGURE 5.7 – EFFLUENT TDS 5.2.5. Headworks Aerated grit chambers should provide a detention time of 3-5 minutes at the peak-design flow rate. At the current peak design flow rate of 1.2 MGD, the detention time is approximately 6 minutes. At the 2042 projected peak design flow rate of 1.49 MGD, the detention time will be approximately 4.9 minutes which is in the recommended range. Other design criteria according to the Orange Book are summarized below.  Location: Grit removal should be installed downstream of the screening devices to prevent clogging of grit aeration diffusers. The aerated grit basin at the Larson WWTP is upstream of the mechanical screen. To bypass the grit basin, influent must go through the manual screen instead of the mechanical screen. Addition of a second channel would allow the grit basin to be bypassed and the mechanical screen to be kept in use. The aerated grit basin is in an open area and can be easily accessed.  Number of units: For small facilities (less than 2 MGD average design flow), only one unit is required with provisions for bypassing. The average design flow at the Larson WWTP is less than 2 MGD.  Inlet: The inlet should be carefully designed to minimize turbulence so the flow is evenly distributed among channels and does not promote dead spots. The air diffusers are located on the floor below the influent pipe to allow mixing and reduce dead spots.  Drains: Drain provisions are required for dewatering the basin. The grit basin drain effluent flows to the grit basin drain pump station and is pumped to the long term sludge digestion basins.  Flow and internal effects: Flow rates and short-circuiting affect the performance of grit removal systems. Provide control devices to regulate the wastewater velocity at approximately 1 foot per second (fps) and baffling as a way to control short-circuiting. At the monthly average design flow rate of 0.75 MGD, the velocity of influent through the grit basin is approximately 0.03 fps. The 2042 annual average flow rate is 0.71 MGD, so the horizontal velocity will be approximately 0.02 fps.  Grit removal control systems: Either a computer system or the operators at the facility may provide control of the grit removal system. Operators control the grit basin process. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23TDS Concentration (mg/L)TDS Monthly Limit (mg/L)Effluent TDS Concentration Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 102 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-10 The grit basin drain pump station has two pumps, each with a rated capacity of 200 gpm. The pump station is used to remove grit and pump it to the sludge digestion basins. The mechanical screen is a self-cleaning, rotary drum screen with 1/4-inch (6 mm) openings and an integral washing/compaction area in the unit. The screenings are washed/compacted as they are removed from the drum. When maintenance is required the influent must bypass the grit basin to go through the manual bar screen. According to the O&M Manual, the screen has a capacity of 3 MGD, which is greater than the 2042 peak hour flow of 1.49 MGD. 5.2.6. Secondary Treatment The Larson WWTP has a design influent maximum month loading design criteria of 1,970 ppd BOD5, 2,523 ppd TSS, and 296 ppd TKN. Based on the loading projections discussed in Chapter 1, the TKN design criteria is already exceeded, but the BOD5 and TSS design criteria will not be exceeded until near the end of the 20-year planning period. The Biolac® aeration basin was designed for 97% removal of BOD5 and 97% removal of TKN at the monthly average flow rate of 0.75 MGD. The basin was evaluated based on the 2042 influent flow and loading projections discussed in Chapter 1. At these flow and loading rates, the basin was found to have adequate detention time and it is estimated that there will be adequate mean cell retention time (MCRT) for the biological treatment. For Reliability Class I per EPA 430-99-74-001, at least two equal-volume basins must be provided. To obtain this level of reliability, a second aeration basin would need to be installed. The required airflow for the aeration basins for biological treatment was calculated to be approximately 3,500 SCFM. With two blowers in operation and one on standby, the blower capacity provided is 2,800 SCFM. As the provided capacity is lower than that required, either an additional blower should be provided or the current blowers upgraded during the planning period. Each clarifier was evaluated based on the information in the Orange Book. With both clarifiers in service, the peak flow in 2042 (1.49 MGD) would exceed the allowable peak overflow rate of 500 gpd/ft2 since the Biolac® system is an extended aeration process. The difficulty to handle the peak flows matches the City’s experience, as effluent performance has suffered when one of the clarifiers is offline. Solids loading was also evaluated and the clarifiers do not have enough capacity to meet the EPA Reliability Class I requirements. Following the clarifiers, the effluent flows by gravity to the UV channel through a 15-inch PVC pipe. At the average day flow of 0.75 MGD, the flow rate would be approximately 0.95 fps which is lower than recommended and may cause solids buildup. As the average day flow in 2042 (0.71 MGD) is projected to be below the current design flow, this pipe should be monitored to ensure buildup is not occurring. 5.2.7. UV Disinfection The open channel horizontal UV system was designed to treat the peak design flow of 1.2 MGD. At the peak design flow, the detention time through the UV channel is approximately 0.65 minutes. There is only one channel, so maintenance time is limited and must be carefully planned. 5.2.8. Solids Storage The solids storage was evaluated to see if there is sufficient storage for the 20-year planning period. If the basins are completely empty, the total capacity of the two long term sludge digestion basins is 5.4 MG or 24.8 ac-ft. Conservatively assuming no seepage, and assuming the 2042 sludge flow is approximately 27,000 gpd, and historical evaporation and precipitation data, the storage capacity needed to hold a full year of sludge is approximately 23 ac-ft. Therefore, the current basins will nearly be at capacity during the 20-year period. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 103 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-11 5.2.9. Rapid Infiltration Basins The infiltration basins were previously found by Shannon and Wilson to have an infiltration rate of 20 inches/hour. Using this infiltration rate, the rapid infiltration basins have adequate capacity for the 2042 average day flow rate of 0.71 MGD. 5.2.10. Hydraulic Capacity A standard step calculation method was used to calculate water surface elevations throughout the treatment plant. The hydraulic evaluation began at the rapid infiltration basins and ended at the aerated grit basin. Evaluated scenarios included current and 2042 peak hour flows. It was assumed that all effluent was flowing into the farthest rapid infiltration basin and that the water surface elevation in the infiltration basin was equal to the invert elevation of the discharge pipe. At the current peak hour flow, the clarifier weirs will be submerged by approximately 0.76 feet; at the maximum month flow, the weirs will be submerged by approximately 0.34 feet. There will be approximately 1.46 feet of freeboard in between the weir and the top of wall in the clarifier at peak hour flow. In the grit basin, there will be approximately 4.34 feet of freeboard at 2042 monthly average flow and 4.25 feet of freeboard at 2042 maximum monthly flow. Expansion of the clarifiers is needed to meet hydraulic capacity over the planning period. 5.3. SAND DUNES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONDITION A general description of the components of the Sand Dunes WWTP is provided in Section 2.1.2. A map of the features is shown in Figure 5.8. FIGURE 5.8 – SAND DUNES WWTP MAP Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 104 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-12 The Sand Dunes WWTP is also owned and operated by the City of Moses Lake. Located south of Moses Lake, the WWTP receives flows from a greater area than the Larson WWTP. The Sand Dunes WWTP was constructed in 2005 and currently consists of headworks, including an aerated grit chamber, a cylindrical mechanical screen, and a composite sampler; two aeration basins; six clarifiers; four HDPE-lined sludge storage basins; eight rapid infiltration basins; one concrete pad for biosolids storage; housing for the UV disinfection system, workshop, and blower room; and an operations building with shop and laboratory. The WWTP discharges effluent to groundwater via infiltration basins according to State Discharge Permit ST0008012. Most of the effluent testing is performed at the WWTP laboratory, with a few sent out for specialized analysis. A simplified schematic process layout is shown in Figure 5.9. FIGURE 5.9 – SAND DUNES WWTP PROCESS SCHEMATIC 5.3.1. Headworks Influent flows are pumped through a 20-inch sewer force-main into the pre-aeration and grit removal basin and mechanical screen. Heavy grit particles settle in the aerated grit basin with coarse bubble diffusers. Following the grit basin are two Hycor Helisieve screens (Model HLS500XL) The screens operate automatically based on water level. The screens are self-cleaning and use water and brushes to remove particles collected on the screen surface. Deficiencies  Even though it is only approximately five years old, the concrete near the screens is deteriorated and is currently scheduled for replacement.  Grit must be manually removed from the aerated grit chamber.  The screenings in the Hycor conveyor can freeze. During the site visit a tarp and space heater were used to keep the screen in operation.  The long pipe run to the WWTP can lead to odors. Sand Dunes WWTP Headworks Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 105 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-13 5.3.2. Secondary Treatment Biolac® wave oxidation treatment, similar to the Larson WWTP, occurs in the aeration basin. The aeration basins contain floating aeration chains. Each aeration chain consists of a floating HDPE pipe with 1-inch hanging hoses attached to the fine bubble diffusers. By turning chains on or off, aerobic and anoxic conditions can be created. DO probes are provided for blower control. There are two HDPE-lined aeration basins, each with a basin volume of 2.39 million gallons and a side slope of 1.5:1. Five 75 HP Heliflow blowers are provided, with 612 diffusers per basin. Two of the blowers must always be in operation to ensure basin mixing. Two of the blowers have VFDs, which allow for blower control based on the basin DO. The DO is measured by a probe prior to the clarifiers. Flow enters each clarifier through 16-inch flap gates at the bottom of the wall between the aeration basin and the clarifier. Effluent is discharged through an overflow weir, while sludge is removed through the sludge removal system. Flocculating rakes which consist of a vertically hung assembly with chains hanging from the bottom angle distribute sludge across the bottom of the clarifier. There are six 50-foot by 36-foot concrete clarifiers, three per aeration basin. Sludge is recycled through four 8-inch airlifts. Return activated sludge flows by gravity through an 18-inch line into the aeration basin 21-inch influent line. Waste activated sludge is piped to the long-term sludge digestion basins. Deficiencies  The diffuser bubble pattern is not uniform. One of the diffuser manifolds and all of the diffusers were replaced in 2023. However, the chain with the new manifolds has much higher air flow than the other diffusers. Replacing the other manifolds is recommended to equally distribute the air flow through each chain.  The blower and aeration control do not allow for each basin to be operated independently. The operator must select one basin as the control basin, which can lead to over or under aeration in the other basin.  It would be beneficial if the ORP probe were permanently mounted in the aeration basin and used to automatically adjust the aeration timer.  Effluent performance is negatively affected when one clarifier is taken offline.  The screens and piping on the RAS require frequent cleaning. The RAS valves also vibrate and change position without operator modification, which leads to inaccurate RAS control.  The WAS flow meter for Basin 1 needs to be replaced.  The Biolac® control panel human machine interface (HMI) is obsolete and is currently being replaced. Sand Dunes WWTP Biolac® System Sand Dunes WWTP Blower and UV Building Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 106 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-14 5.3.3. UV Disinfection Effluent from the clarifier may still contain bacteria. In the UV channel (located in the control building), this effluent is treated with ultraviolet light which inactivates bacteria and pathogens. This is the final treatment of plant effluent before it is discharged into the rapid infiltration basins. There are four UV banks, each consisting of six modules in parallel. Each module has a stainless steel type 316 frame holding eight UV lamps 64-inch long. Modules are connected to the power distribution center. There is a submersible UV sensor which continuously monitors the intensity produced by each set of UV lamp modules; the system control center is programmed to alarm when UV intensity is too low. Deficiencies  The UV system, including the controls (with the exception of the HMI), are obsolete and beyond its expected useful life.  The UV system is not able to communicate with the SCADA system. New wiring is needed to connect the SCADA to the UV system.  Effluent channels have built-in stainless-steel fillets (boxes) that retain water and leak during shutdown and channel cleaning. 5.3.4. Rapid Infiltration and Sludge Digestion Basins The WWTP has eight rapid infiltration basins each with their own isolation valve. Basins are periodically rotated in order to maintain an even distribution. Sludge is thickened in the clarifier, allowing it to be stabilized and consolidated. Wasted sludge is then discharged to the long-term sludge digestion basins. There are two electrically activated valves and cycle timers (one for each aeration basin) that control how much sludge is wasted from the Biolac® process. Four 4,104,000 gallon sludge basins (with 15-foot depth) are on site and allow for wasted sludge to be reduced through long-term digestion and dewatered through evaporation. Scum lines and sediments from the grit basin also terminally drain into the long-term sludge digestion basins. When volatile solids in the sludge reach 30% and sludge has been thickened to 3-4% solids, the biosolids can be applied to neighboring rangeland. Biosolids are tested according to WAC 173-308 and Sand Dunes Treatment Plant Statewide General Permit for Biosolids Management. The Sand Dunes WWTP has been conducting land application of biosolids since first permitted in 2005. The application site consists of 193 acres of City-owned property around the Sand Dunes WWTP. Deficiencies  The elevation of the supernatant valve does not allow for easy removal of water from the sludge basins. The operators report that the frequent, manually controlled supernatant withdrawals make it difficult to achieve permit compliance. The operators are currently trying to reduce the amount of supernatant recycle by increasing the evaporation at the basins.  Liners on the sludge digestion basins and rock filters need repair.  Drying bed should drain to lined containment.  The sludge is not dewatered prior to hauling, which leads to very expensive hauling costs. Sand Dunes WWTP UV System Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 107 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-15 5.3.5. Electricity and Emergency Power The WWTP has an emergency generator. It is a Caterpillar Generator Set Model 3456, 400 bkW diesel engine powered unit. The generator has a local control panel and is equipped with alarms. If power to the WWTP fails, the automatic transfer switch in the control room signals the generator to start, checks the voltage, and transitions the WWTP to generator power. However, the generator is not capable of powering all of the WWTP’s equipment at the same time. Deficiencies  The generator cannot operate all equipment at the WWTP simultaneously.  The wiring throughout the WWTP is old. Blown fuses are frequent in the UV building. Also, in the lab building, power usage frequently trips the breakers.  There is not sufficient power to run both the irrigation and supernatant pump at the same time.  The SCADA system is very old, wiring does not communicate with all the equipment (e.g., UV), and the system is not able to provide information with the alarms. The chart recorder replacement parts are difficult to find and expensive. 5.3.6. Buildings, Site Security, Roads, and Utility Water All roads and most of the drivable surfaces within the WWTP are paved. During the site visit it was noted that the drivable areas within the WWTP site were in good condition. The entire WWTP site is enclosed by a chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire. Lockable gates are located at the entrances to the WWTP. City staff did not note any deficiencies with regards to security or roads at the plant. A groundwater well is used to provide utility water for the headworks screens and for washdown water throughout the WWTP. The groundwater is protected by a mechanical reduced pressure backflow preventor. Deficiencies  The windows in the lab building need to be replaced.  There is not an air gap to separate the groundwater, which is also used for potable water at the WWTP, and the utility water system. 5.4. SAND DUNES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY The design criteria for the Larson WWTP is outlined in the permit. The current and future flows and loadings from Chapter 1 and the design criteria from the permit are compared in Table 5.2. It is anticipated that the design criteria will be near the capacity nearing the end of the planning period. These design criteria should not be exceeded. When actual flow or waste load reaches 85 percent of any of the design criteria for three consecutive months, or when projected increases would reach design capacity within five years, the WWTP must submit a plan and schedule to the Department of Ecology for maintaining capacity. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 108 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-16 TABLE 5.2 – SAND DUNES DESIGN CRITERIA VS CURRENT AND PROJECTED FLOWS / LOADS Parameter Permit Design Criteria 2022 Flows/Loads 2042 Flows/Loads Average Annual Flow 4.00 MGD 2.05 MGD 3.29 MGD Maximum Monthly Average Flow 4.41 MGD 2.21 MGD 3.55 MGD Maximum Daily Flow 4.64 MGD 2.87 MGD 4.62 MGD BOD5 Average Annual Influent Loading 7,169 lbs/day 3,190 lbs/day (CBOD5) 5,737 lbs/day (CBOD5) BOD5 Maximum Monthly Influent Loading 9,960 lbs/day 3,612 lbs/day (CBOD5) 7,415 lbs/day (CBOD5) TSS Average Annual Influent Loading 5,034 lbs/day 3,180 lbs/day 6,363 lbs/day TSS Maximum Monthly Influent Loading 7,977 lbs/day 3,789 lbs/day 9,581 lbs/day TKN Average Annual Influent Loading 798 lbs/day 630 lbs/day 1,120 lbs/day TKN Maximum Monthly Influent Loading 1,110 lbs/day 740 lbs/day 1,358 lbs/day Plant effluent data taken from the DMRs for January 2019 through December 2023 were analyzed. The plant effluent was monitored for CBOD5, TSS, TDS, E. coli bacteria, pH, ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). At least once per week, 24-hour composite effluent samples were taken to test for CBOD5, TSS, TKN, TN, nitrate, TP, and TDS. Flow and pH were continuously monitored. Grab samples were collected to test the effluent E. coli weekly. Effluent limitations according to permit ST8012 exist for flow, pH, CBOD5, TSS, TDS, fecal coliform, nitrate, and TN. 5.4.1. Effluent pH pH was continuously monitored. The minimum and maximum daily pH were consistently within the permitted boundaries as shown in Figure 5.10. FIGURE 5.10 – EFFLUENT pH 5.4.2. Effluent CBOD5 Effluent CBOD5 concentrations were maintained to be below the average monthly limit (15 mg/L) as shown in Figure 5.11. 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23pHMinimum pH Effluent Minimum pH Maximum pH Effluent Maximum pH Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 109 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-17 FIGURE 5.11 – AVERAGE MONTHLY CBOD5 The maximum daily limit for CBOD5 is 23 mg/L. Effluent concentrations have remained below the limit as shown in Figure 5.12. FIGURE 5.12 – MAXIMUM DAILY CBOD5 5.4.3. Effluent TSS Effluent TSS concentrations were continuously below the monthly limit (15 mg/L). In February 2019, the limit was almost reached as shown in Figure 5.13. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23CBOD5Concentration (mg/L)CBOD5 Monthly Limit (15 mg/L)Effluent CBOD5 Concentration 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23CBOD5Concentraiton (mg/L)Maximum Daily CBOD5 (23 mg/L)Effluent CBOD5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 110 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-18 FIGURE 5.13 – AVERAGE MONTHLY TSS The maximum daily limit for effluent TSS is 23 mg/L. This limit was breached in January and February 2019 as shown in Figure 5.14. FIGURE 5.14 – MAXIMUM DAILY TSS 5.4.4. Effluent TDS Effluent TDS concentrations stayed below the daily limit of 1,000 mg/L as shown in Figure 5.15. The City may need to consider more stringent industrial pretreatment requirements and land treatment of the effluent if the limits become more stringent. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23TSS Concentration (mg/L)Monthly TSS Limit (15 mg/L)Effluent TSS Concentration 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23TSS Concentraiton (mg/L)Maximum Daily TSS (23 mg/L)Effluent TSS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 111 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-19 FIGURE 5.15 – EFFLUENT TDS 5.4.5. Effluent Fecal Coliform As shown in Figure 5.16, effluent fecal coliform breached the daily limit of 50/100 mL four times, most recently in September 2023. It had previously been breached in May 2021. According to the operators, the high results took place when a clarifier was down for maintenance and the other clarifiers received additional flow. Also, the vibration of the RAS valves leads to more flow being recycled and higher flows to the clarifiers. FIGURE 5.16 – EFFLUENT FECAL COLIFORM 5.4.6. Effluent Nitrate Effluent nitrate concentrations have twice breached the daily limit of 6 mg/L as N, most recently in May 2023 as shown in Figure 5.17. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23TDS Concentration (mg/L)TDS Daily Limit (1000 mg/L)Effluent TDS Concentration 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Fecal Coliform (#/100 mL)Fecal Coliform Daily Limit (50/100 mL)Effluent Fecal Coliform Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 112 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-20 FIGURE 5.17 – EFFLUENT NITRATE 5.4.7. Effluent Total Nitrogen Effluent total nitrogen concentrations breached the daily limit of 10 mg/L once in July 2019 but have been under the limit since then as shown in Figure 5.18. FIGURE 5.18 – EFFLUENT TOTAL NITROGEN 5.4.8. Headworks Aerated grit chambers should be sized to provide a detention time of 3-5 minutes at the peak-design flow rate. At the projected 2042 maximum day flow rate of 4.62 MGD, the detention time is approximately 8 minutes which is higher than recommended. Other design criteria according to the Orange Book are summarized as follows:  Location: The aerated grit basin at the Sand Dunes WWTP is upstream of the mechanical screen, which could lead to clogging of the grit diffusers. The basin is in an open area and can be easily accessed. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Nitrate Concentration (mg/L N)Nitrate Daily Limit (6 mg/L)Effluent Nitrate Concentration 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Oct-23Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L N)Total Nitrogen Daily Limit (10 mg/L)Effluent Total Nitrogen Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 113 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-21  Number of units: Since the annual average flow is greater than 2 MGD, there should be two grit removal units. However, the Central Operations Facility (COF) lift station (where 90% of the wastewater is pumped to the Sand Dunes WWTP) has two grit chambers, so the grit is mostly removed prior to the Sand Dunes WWTP aerated grit basin.  Inlet: Air diffusers are located on the floor below the influent pipe to promote mixing and reduce dead spots.  Drains: Captured grit from the grit basin drain flows to the grit basin drain pump station and is pumped to the long term sludge digestion basins.  Flow and internal effects: At the 2042 peak hour flow rate of 4.64 MGD, the horizontal velocity of influent through the grit basin is approximately 0.05 fps.  Grit removal control systems: Operators control the grit basin. There are two mechanical screens. Each is a self-cleaning, rotary drum screen with 1/4-inch (6 mm) openings and an integral washing/compaction area in the unit. The screenings are washed/compacted as they are removed from the drum. According to the O&M Manual, the screen has a capacity of 3,500 gpm (5.0 MGD), which is less than the 2042 peak hour flow of 6.93 MGD. The grit basin drain pump station has two pumps, each with a rated capacity of 492 gpm. The pump station is used to remove grit and pump it to the sludge digestion basins. 5.4.9. Secondary Treatment The Sand Dunes WWTP has design influent maximum month loading design criteria of 9,960 ppd BOD5, 7,977 ppd TSS, and 1,110 ppd TKN. Based on the loading projections discussed in Chapter 1, influent loadings for TSS and TKN will be exceeded by 2042. The aeration basins in the Biolac® system were each designed for 95% removal of BOD5 and 96% removal of TKN. At the 2042 flow and loading rates, the basins were found to not have adequate detention time or mean cell retention time (MCRT) for the biological treatment. Additional aeration basin volume is needed. Similarly, the existing blowers do not provide sufficient aeration for the 20-year period. Approximately 12,900 SCFM are needed, but the firm capacity (four blowers in operation and one on standby) is 6,516 SCFM. Higher capacity blowers are recommended to replace the existing blowers. Each clarifier was evaluated based on the information in the Orange Book. With all six clarifiers in service, the peak flow in 2042 (6.93 MGD) would exceed the allowable peak overflow rate of 500 gpd/ft2 since the Biolac® system is an extended aeration process. The difficulty to handle the peak flows matches the City’s experience, as effluent performance has suffered when one of the clarifiers is offline. Solids loading was also evaluated and the clarifiers do not have enough capacity to meet the EPA Reliability Class I requirements. Similar to the Larson WWTP, the effluent flows by gravity to the UV system. This pipe should be monitored to ensure buildup is not occurring. 5.4.10. UV Disinfection The open channel horizontal UV system was designed to treat the peak design flow of 4.62 MGD. There are two channels with two banks each. The 2042 peak design flow is 6.93 MGD. 5.4.11. Solids Handling The total capacity of the four long term sludge digestion basins is 16.4 MG or 76.9 ac-ft. Conservatively assuming no seepage, a 2042 sludge flow is approximately 100,000 gpd, and historical evaporation and precipitation data, the storage capacity needed to hold a full year of sludge is approximately 94 ac-ft. Therefore, additional sludge storage basins are needed to meet 2042 capacity. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 114 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5-22 5.4.12. Rapid Infiltration Basins The actual infiltration rate at the Sand Dunes rapid infiltration basins is unknown, so a rate was chosen from the typical range of 0.5 to 2 inches per hour. Assuming a conservative infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour, the rapid infiltration basins have sufficient capacity to meet the 2042 projected average day flow of 3.29 MGD. 5.4.13. Hydraulic Capacity A standard step calculation method was used to calculate water surface elevations throughout the treatment plant. Leaving the UV channel, effluent travels through a 24-inch PVC pipe towards the rapid infiltration basins. Before any flow is discharged, the velocity through this pipe at average day flow is 2.36 fps. Scenarios evaluated include the current and 2042 peak hour flows and assumed that all effluent was flowing to the farthest rapid infiltration basin, the water surface elevation in the rapid infiltration basin was at the discharge invert elevation, and only one aeration basin was in use. Considering head loss through the system, no flooding will occur. The aerobic basin will have approximately 1.63 feet of freeboard during 2042 average day flow and 1.60 feet of freeboard during 2042 maximum day flow. The grit basin will have approximately 4.79 feet of freeboard during 2042 average day flow and 4.21 feet of freeboard during 2042 maximum day flow. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 115 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-1 CHAPTER 6 - COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES This chapter discusses project alternatives to correct the existing collection system deficiencies discussed in earlier chapters, and to prepare the system for future sewer loads. General capacity and condition upgrades are discussed along with specific alternatives that were explored in more detail with City staff. Where recommended improvements appeared relatively straight forward, no additional improvements were explored. Recommended alternatives are included in the Capital Improvement Plan in Chapter 7. 6.1. CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES As pipelines approach their capacity, action must be taken to ensure that manhole surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows do not occur. Based on modeling efforts, several portions of the City experience depths of flow higher than the 75% capacity range or surcharging within the 20-year planning window, The following subsections present the alternatives for addressing capacity issues within the system. 6.1.1. Wheeler / Carnation Basins The Carnation lift station, the trunkline downstream of the Carnation discharge, the Wheeler lift station, the trunkline downstream of the Wheeler discharge, and the Main lift station are all undersized for 20-year peak flows. Alternatives to address this deficiency are shown below; a visual representation is shown in Figure 6.1. Table 6.1 presents a pro and con comparison of each alternative. Alternative 1: Construct Separate Industrial WWTP In order to handle the additional industrial flows planned within the eastern Wheeler area, the City can opt to construct a new treatment plant near the Wheeler area that would collect and treat industrial flows, eliminating the need for downstream improvements. This option requires that industrial developers constructing in this area to be partially or wholly responsible for the cost of construction. This option presents the highest operations and maintenance costs due to additional city staff that will be required to operate the wastewater treatment plant. Alternative 2: Upgrade the Carnation LS and construct a new force main directly to Sand Dunes WWTP The second alternative includes upgrading the Carnation lift station to handle new industrial flows, and construction of a new force main that discharges to the Sand Dunes WWTP. This option takes all industrial flows off of the existing collection system, and again gives the opportunity for new development to be partially or wholly responsible for the cost of construction. Alternative 3: Upgrade the Carnation LS, Wheeler LS, Main LS, and all gravity pipeline downstream of Carnation LS This alternative involves upsizing all the undersized pipelines and lift stations downstream of the Wheeler Industrial area, including the Carnation, Wheeler, and Main lift stations. This upgrade will likely incur a significant cost but can be used as an opportunity to replace existing aging infrastructure. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 116 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-2 Alternative 4: No Action If a no action is taken, then the increased flowrates within existing system will cause some surcharging in gravity mains, and the downstream lift stations to be operating using multiple pumps. In the case of high flows and pump failure, the City could experience severe surcharging or sewer flooding, which has significant impact to public health. This alternative is not considered viable. FIGURE 6.1 – WHEELER/CARNATION IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 117 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-3 TABLE 6.1 – WHEELER/CARNATION IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES No. Alternative Description Pros Cons 1 Construct Separate Industrial WWTP • All or most of the industrial flows can be treated on-site, no impact to existing collection system, no need for further upgrades downstream • Industrial users can be partially or fully responsible for cost of construction • May discharge some treated wastewater to existing collection system. Treated wastewater may have a negative impact on the biology of the Sand Dunes WWTP • Can incur high cost depending on contributions from developers • Additional staffing needed 2 Upgrade Carnation LS and construct new force main directly to Sand Dunes WWTP • All industrial flows can be directed around the existing collection system, no need for further downstream upgrades • Industrial users can be partially or fully responsible for cost of construction • Can incur high cost depending on contributions from developers • Adds an additional net ~5.5 miles of pressure pipeline for the City to maintain (adds 6.3, abandon 0.75) 3 Upgrade Carnation LS, Wheeler LS, Main LS, and all gravity pipeline downstream of Carnation LS • Can serve as an opportunity to upgrade aging lift stations/collection infrastructure • High cost option depending on contributions from developers • Requires multiple upgrades of downstream lift stations and force mains 4 No Action • Lowest Cost • Surcharging and/or flooding in downstream collection pipeline/Carnation LS • Possible health and safety hazards to city residents 6.1.2. Peninsula Trunkline The trunkline upstream of the Peninsula lift station and the Peninsula lift station are undersized for 20-year flows. The primary upstream lift station, Blue Heron, is undersized for future flows and is recommended for an upgrade. Alternatives to address this deficiency are shown below; a visual representation is shown in Figure 6.2. Table 6.2 presents a pro and con comparison of each alternative. Each of these alternatives assumes that the pipeline will be attached to the bridge where it crosses the water. Alternative 1: Upgrade the Westlake LS and extend the existing force main to connecting to the 20” force main to the Sand Dunes WWTP The first alternative is to upgrade the Westlake lift station, and to extend its force main to Potato Hill Rd, where it will connect with the existing 20” C.O.F. force main and be conveyed to the Sand Dunes lift station. This option eliminates the need for downstream improvements but will be pumping into a shared force main with two other stations. Alternative 2: Upgrade Peninsula LS, Upgrade the 12” trunkline to 18” This alternative involves upsizing the undersized gravity trunkline and the Peninsula lift station to handle 20-year peak hour flows. This option utilizes the routing of existing infrastructure. If growth occurs in this upstream of this trunkline past the 20-year period, then the 18” trunkline may have to be further upsized to handle flows. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 118 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-4 Alternative 3: Construct New LS at the Westlake discharge, extend force main to existing 20” force main to Dune WWTP Construct a new lift station near the Westlake discharge point, around I-90, and construct a new force main along the interstate that would connect into the existing force main between the C.O.F and the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant With permission, the force main could be attached to the bottom of the interstate, reducing environmental risk of a broken pipe within the water. Design and construction could also happen concurrently with the recommended COF and Nelson lift station and force main improvements, which would allow for a more symbiotic operation. Alternative 4: No Action No action taken would likely cause surcharging and potential flooding within the Peninsula trunkline within the 20-year window, particularly if upgrades to the Blue Heron lift station are made. This is not considered a viable alternative due to the large risk to public health and safety. FIGURE 6.2 – PENINSULA IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 119 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-5 TABLE 6.2 – PENINSULA IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES No. Alternative Description Pros Cons 1 Upgrade Westlake LS and force main, connecting to the 20” force main to the Sand Dunes WWTP • Pressure pipeline can be installed in existing bridges • No need for upgrades at the Peninsula LS • Upgrades can coincide with other projects (20” AC pipe upgrade/replacement) • Higher consequence of failure with 2 water crossings • Potential interference with COF/Nelson LS performance 2 Upgrade Peninsula LS, Upgrade 12” Peninsula trunkline to 18” • Shorter length of force main to maintain. • Established corridor, can use existing trench • Higher cost, replacement of gravity main and manholes, upgrades of Peninsula LS 3 Construct New LS at the Westlake discharge, extend force main to existing 20” force main to Dune WWTP • Allows the capture of additional flows • Pressure pipeline can be installed in existing bridges • No need for upgrades at the Peninsula LS • Upgrades can coincide with other projects (20” AC pipe upgrade/replacement) • Higher O&M costs with additional lift station • Higher consequence of failure with 2 water crossings • Potential interference with COF/Nelson LS performance • Highway permitting 4 No Action • Lowest Cost • Surcharging in 12” Peninsula collection pipeline • Risk to the public’s health and safety 6.2. PIPELINE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES As pipelines and manholes approach the end of their useful life, the City will need to look into replacement, rehabilitation, and repair options for all of its aging infrastructure. Aging infrastructure increases the chance of failure and sanitary sewer overflows, and the amount of infiltration into the system generally increases. The City has two main options to address pipeline and manhole condition issues: reconstruct the pipelines and manholes through a traditional open cut construction approach or rehabilitate them utilizing trenchless technologies. These alternatives are discussed briefly here. Condition Alternative 1: No Action This alternative is not viable because the system will need to continue operating even as pipelines and manholes fail. If pipelines and manholes are not replaced or repaired as they fail, the City would not be able to continue providing service to wastewater users. Additionally, failure to rehabilitate infrastructure results in increased health and safety risks associated with pipeline and manhole failures. Condition Alternative 2: Replace with Traditional Open Cut Technology As the collection system infrastructure approaches the end of their useful life, they could be replaced with new pipelines and manholes using traditional open cut installation. This alternative would extend the useful life of the pipeline by the life span of a new pipe. The City could also choose to increase pipe size or correct pipeline grades as they replace the pipelines. Depending on site constraints (pipe depth, surface restoration, sewer bypass requirements, services, groundwater, soil conditions, existing pipe size and grade, etc.), this alternative may be a preferred approach. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 120 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-6 Condition Alternative 3: Utilize Trenchless Technology for Repair Alternatively, the City could utilize trenchless rehabilitation technologies such as pipe bursting, cured-in-place-pipe installation, or slip lining for pipelines and applying special coatings to manholes. Under the right circumstances, these approaches can be less costly than the open cut construction approach. Spot repairs can also be a means of extending the life of a pipeline segment and under certain conditions can be completed without open cut trenching. Each pipeline segment will be evaluated to determine the optimum replacement strategy as part of an ongoing collection system replacement program. This effort includes a careful review of CCTV conditions and other site constraints and should be completed as part of the concept or pre-design phase of pipeline rehabilitation / replacement projects. Recommended annual collection system replacement budgets are discussed in Chapter 6 and conservatively assume open cut replacement for budgeting purposes. 6.3. POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES It is believed that a large portion of land located to the south and east of the existing City limits contain shallow bedrock; the presence of shallow rock may affect the construction of future alternatives. Subsurface investigations were not within the scope of this project, so the depth and exact location of this shallow rock will need to be evaluated on each project. Recommended Capital Improvements presented in Chapter 7 include the additional cost of bedrock and/or caliche excavation where it is believed to be present. Construction techniques to effectively manage excavation, dewatering, and sloughing issues should be required of any construction plans. Construction plans for any of the alternatives should also include provisions to control dust and runoff. 6.4. FUTURE PIPELINE LAYOUT To properly convey flow from anticipated growth areas within the 20-year planning boundary, the City has several options on how to serve. 6.4.1. Cascade Valley Service The Cascade Valley area is anticipated to build out in the near future and will need to be serviced via a lift station and force main. Alternative routing options for the force main are presented below, with a visual representation shown in Figure 6.3. Table 6.3 presents a pro and con comparison of each alternative. Alternative 1: Construct a new Cascade Valley Lift Station, send all flow “around the horn” to Northshore sewer basin This option includes construction of a new lift station at the south-eastern portion of the Cascade Valley area (topographically the lowest elevation), and send flow to the north, then east, and connect to the existing trunkline along North Crestview Drive, near the discharge of the Cascade Park lift station. This alternative includes potential cost savings by allowing for lift stations serving future development north of the Cascade Valley area to connect and share a force main. Alternative 2: Construct a new Cascade Valley Lift Station, send flow through a force main (with bend) connecting to Peninsula sewer basin This alternative includes construction of a new lift station in the same location as Alternative 1. However, the force main will be routed to the east through a directional drilling under Moses Lake that would connect with the Peninsula sewer basin along West Marina Drive. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 121 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-7 Alternative 3: Construct a new Cascade Valley Lift Station, send flow through a force main (no bend) connecting to Peninsula sewer basin This alternative includes construction of a new lift station in the same location as Alternatives 1 and 2. The force main path is similar to Alternative 2 but takes a more direct path without bending to connect with the Peninsula sewer basin along West Marina Drive. Alternative 4: No Action No action taken would mean no sewer service provided to the Cascade Valley area and is not considered a viable alternative. Concurrent to this study, the City completed further analysis of these alternatives and determined that Alternative 2 was the recommended solution. See Appendix I for a full copy of the Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Technical Memorandum. TABLE 6.3 – CASCADE VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES No. Alternative Description Pros Cons 1 Construct a new Cascade Valley LSs, send all flow “around the horn” to Northshore sewer basin • Allows for phasing in and connecting new northern LS as development occurs to the north, can tie into the same force main • No below water directional drilling necessary • Longer length of force main to maintain • Expensive surface repairs 2 Construct a new Cascade Valley Lift Station, send flow through a force main (with bend) connecting to Peninsula sewer basin • Second shortest length of force main to maintain • Not enough flow anticipated from Cascade Valley to require an upsize at the Peninsula LS • Requires directional drilling beneath the water • More difficult force main maintenance • Expensive drilling costs 3 Construct a new Cascade Valley Lift Station, send flow through a force main (no bend) connecting to Peninsula sewer basin • Shortest length of force main to maintain • Not enough flow anticipated from Cascade Valley to require an upsize at the Peninsula LS • Fewer changes in direction for force main • Requires directional drilling beneath the water • More difficult force main maintenance • Expensive drilling costs 4 No Action • Lowest Cost • No service to Cascade Valley area Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 122 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-8 FIGURE 6.3 – CASCADE VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 123 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-9 6.4.2. Southern Residential Service Population growth is forecast to occur in the southeastern portion of the City. However, due to topology, the existing system cannot service the entire designated area with gravity pipelines. As such, the following alternatives to service this area were developed. A visual representation is shown in Figure 6.4. Table 6.4 presents a pro and con comparison of each alternative. Alternative 1: Construct new LS, route force main to connect to Nelson gravity sewer basin The first alternative involves constructing a new lift station at the lowest elevation in the area and routing the force main to the Nelson sewer basin. This option utilizes existing infrastructure but involves double-pumping wastewater to get to the Sand Dunes WWTP. Alternative 2: Construct new LS, route force main to connect to existing 20” force main This alternative involves constructing a new lift station at the same location as alternative 1, but the force main extends south and connects to the existing 20” C.O.F. force main. This project can coincide with improvements made to the 20” force main and the other lift stations that utilize it, namely C.O.F. and Nelson. Alternative 3: No Action No action taken would mean no sewer service or limited service provided to the southern residential area. This is not considered a viable alternative. FIGURE 6.4 – SOUTH RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 124 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6-10 TABLE 6.4 – SOUTHERN RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES No. Alternative Description Pros Cons 1 Construct new LS, route force main to connect to Nelson gravity sewer basin • No risk of interference with performance of other lift stations • Nelson anticipated to require an upgrade due to other developments • Longer length of pipeline to maintain • Double pumps the same water a longer distance 2 Construct new LS, route force main to connect to existing 20” force main • Shorter length of pipeline to maintain. • Can coincide with other projects (20” AC pipe upgrade/replacement) • Potential interference with COF/Nelson LS performance 3 No Action • Lowest Cost • No service to new residential area 6.5. RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN The Capital Improvement Plan (Chapter 7) Provides project Summaries and recommendations for addressing the wastewater system deficiencies. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 125 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-1 CHAPTER 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This chapter summarizes the recommended improvements, along with their associated costs and phasing. Annual budget recommendations and a 6-year CIP are included in Chapter 7. Each project description in this chapter includes a site graphic, project issues, project capacity triggers, and total project costs. For individual project sheets including the same information as well as more detailed cost assumptions, refer to Appendix K. 7.1. PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Table 7.1 summarizes needed capital improvements along with their estimated capital improvement costs for the existing collection system. Projects in the 5-year planning period are expected to be required from 2022 to 2027. Improvements made in the 10-year planning period are expected to be completed by 2032. The City should recognize that flexibility in the completion of many of these improvements may be warranted. The costs associated with these improvement projects are planning level estimates and should be reviewed and updated through the predesign and design phases of each project. Projects are shown in Figure 7.1 (See Figure A7.1 in Appendix A for full size). Projects were identified and prioritized using the following criteria:  Identified current or future system deficiencies.  Projects designed to meet the needs of expected growth.  Project budgets and feasibility.  Timing projects to coordinate with construction projects from other public agencies (i.e. Grant County).  Projects that will require developer funding to fund developer driven growth.  Projects within city limits will be given preference and priority.  Other factors may increase the priority of projects outside city limits in some cases. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 126 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-2 FIGURE 7.1 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 127 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-3 TABLE 7.1 – PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Project ID#Collection System Project Name Project Trigger Total Estimated Cost (2023 Dollars) P1 COF Wastewater Pump Upgrades Project Underway In Progress P2 New Northshore Lift Station Project Underway In Progress P3 Westshore and Hansen Road Odor Control Conditions/Defects In Progress P4 Peninsula 10" Gravity Sewer and Wetwell Replacement Conditions/Defects In Progress P5 Upgrade Division Lift Station Pumps Capacity, Operations and Maintenance $891,000 1.1 Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps & Controls Operations and Maintenance $2,244,000 1.2 Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension Capacity, Operations and Maintenance $1,363,000 1.3 Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension Development $6,316,000 1.4 Larson WWTP Facility Plan Treatment Capacity, Planning $95,000 1.5 Sand Dunes WWTP Facility Plan Treatment Capacity, Planning $95,000 $10,113,000 2.1 New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main Capacity, Operations and Maintenance $2,387,000 2.2 New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main Capacity, Conditions/Defects $1,097,000 2.3 24" COF Force Main Capacity, Conditions/Defects $20,640,000 2.4 City-wide Lift Station Safety Upgrades Safety, Operations and Maintenance $260,000 2.5 Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades Conditions/Defects, Operations and Maintenance $883,000 2.6 Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson Lift Stations Operations and Maintenance $882,000 2.7 New Generator for Larson LS Redundancy, Operations and Maintenance $498,000 2.8 Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement Conditions/Defects $234,000 $26,881,000 3.1 Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer New Development $16,109,000 3.2 Mae Valley Treatment Plant AKART Analysis Development $50,000 3.3 Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade Development, Future Capacity $512,000 3.4 Nelson Lift Station Upgrade Development, Future Capacity $1,603,000 3.5 Southern Residential Lift Station and Force Main Development $4,168,000 3.6 Carnation Lift Station Upgrade Development, Future Capacity $2,039,000 3.7 New LS on Peninsula Dr, Extension to COF Force Main Capacity $9,276,000 3.8 Wheeler Rd Gravity Main Upgrade Development $6,791,000 3.9 North Cascade Valley Lift Station & Sewer Mains Development By Development $40,548,000 $77,542,000 Notes Priority 3 Improvements (Development Driven) City of Moses Lake The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. Total Priority 1 Improvements (rounded) TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COSTS (rounded) Total Priority 2 Improvements (rounded) Total Priority 3 Improvements (rounded) Priority 2 Improvements (Prior to 2043) In Progresss Projects Priority 1 Improvements (2023-2028) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 128 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-4 7.1.1. COF Wastewater Pump Upgrades This plan identified the need to upsize the pumps at the COF pump station in order to handle the projected increase in wastewater flows. This alternative would include replacement of electrical/mechanical and increased pump capacity. This project was identified as a required system improvement and was in progress at the time of this study. See Appendix L for a copy of a design phase tech memo for this project. Project Title: Location: COF Wastewater Pump Upgrades 1303 W. Lakeside Dr. Project Identifier: P1 Need for Project: The COF pump station acts as a regional lift station and is a critical pumping facility. An increase in wastewater flows are expected over the next 20-year planning period. Objective: Replace aging electrical and mechanical infrastructure, increase pumping capacity and reduce O&M requirements. Design Considerations: This project will require approval from Ecology due to capacity increases, pumping analysis, wet well sizing analysis, structural evaluation of existing wet well, and an electrical evaluation for short term and long term impacts. Project is expected to finish design and seek Ecology approval in early 2024. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): Project in progress Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 129 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-5 7.1.2. New Northshore Lift Station This plan identified that a new Northshore lift station will need to be constructed. This is to address surcharging that occurs due to undersized design of Sage Bay and Northshore Lift Stations. The new lift station is a required system improvement that would convey flows to the COF. This project was in progress at the time of this study. Project Title: Location: New Northshore Lift Station Edgewater Ln. Project Identifier: P2 Need for Project: The existing Sage Bay and Northshore lift stations are undersized and cause surcharging. Objective: Construct a new lift station and convey flows to COF. Design Considerations: Lake crossing, abandoning/replacing existing lift stations Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): Project in progress 7.1.3. Westshore and Hansen Road Odor Control This plan has identified a need to install odor control devices to minimize odors originating from the discharge point of the Moses Pointe force main. This project was identified as a required system improvement and was in progress at the time of this study. Project Title: Location: Westshore and Hansen Road Odor Control Westshore Dr. Project Identifier: P3 Need for Project: Odor issues have been an issue at the discharge of the Moses Pointe force main. Objective: Install odor control devices to reduce odor. Design Considerations: Number of odor control devices to be installed, locations of devices. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): Project in progress Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 130 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-6 7.1.4. Peninsula 10” Gravity Sewer and Wetwell Replacement This plan identified the peninsula sewer was not compliant with railroad requirements. This force main will need to be replaced with a deeper pipe to meet railroad requirements. A triplex system complete with wetwell replacement and bypass will also be installed along with the new deeper pipe. Design for this project was identified as a required system improvement and was in progress at the time of this study. Project Title: Location: Peninsula 10” Gravity Sewer and Wetwell Replacement Penn Ivy St., Lakeside Dr. Project Identifier: P4 Need for Project: Existing pipe doesn’t meet railroad depth requirements. Objective: Replace pipe with deeper pipe, upgrade Peninsula to triplex system. Design Considerations: Method of bypass pumping, railroad permitting, method of pipeline replacement. Costs assume conservative open trenching. Replacement of existing Peninsula wetwell and room for third pump. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): Project in progress 7.1.5. Upgrade Division Lift Station Pumps This plan identified a need to upgrade pumps at the Division lift station to handle the flows from the force main extension and connection. This is a required system improvement to ensure that this lift station doesn’t surcharge under its demand. Project Title: Location: Upgrade Division Lift Station Pumps S Division St. Project Identifier: P5 Need for Project: Existing pumps need to be sized for the new force main extension and connection. Objective: Upgrade pumps to deliver flow and head to the Main LS force main. Design Considerations: Multiple pump stations share the same force main; the new Northlake upgrade and Wheeler extension will feed into this shared force main. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): Project in progress Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 131 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-7 7.1.6. Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps and Controls This plan identified deficiencies at the Wheeler Lift Station. Upgrading pumps at this lift station will be required so that it can meet current and projected flow rates. This lift station could also be connected to SCADA and have new controls added as a part of these required improvements. Project Title: Location: Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps & Controls Wheeler Rd. Project Identifier: 1.1 Need for Project: To serve immediate and 20-year flows, replace aging pumps, add controls and connect to SCADA. Objective: Upgrades the lift station to handle anticipated flow, O&M improvements. Design Considerations: Size pumps for Wheeler force main extension and connection to the Main force main; Multiple pump stations share the same force main. Potential coordination with the Industrial lift station for phasing. Per the future conditions model discussed in Chapter 4 (Table 4.8) the pumping capacity will need to be increased from its current capacity of 960 gpm to the maximum modeled 2042 capacity of 2,000 gpm to meet the demands of the 2042 future conditions model. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $2,244,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 132 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-8 7.1.7. Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension This plan identified that the Main Lift Station needs reduced demand. Installation of a new bypass line that ties into the Main force main will be required to meet this need. Project Title: Location: Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension 5th Ave., 6th Ave. Project Identifier: 1.2 Need for Project: The intent is to reduce capacity on the Main pump station and pump in a more direct route to the COF. Objective: Bypass the downstream Main LS and tie into the Main force main. Design Considerations: Design considerations include permitting issues, right-of-way/easement and construction schedule. The need for this upsize in force main was due to the insufficient ability of the current force main to keep velocities below 10 fps. In the 2042 model this force main conveyed sewage at 12.77 fps which indicates the need to upsize this force main to bring velocity down below 10 fps. The 2042 future conditions model also indicates that pump capacity in the Wheeler Lift Station would need to be increased from 960 gpm to 2,000 gpm. This is discussed in further detail in Chapter 4 and shown in Table 4.9 and 4.8 respectively. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $1,363,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 133 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-9 7.1.8. Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension This plan identified the Mae Valley area as having high potential for growth. This alternative replaces the Moses Pointe Lift Station which will not be able to accommodate future flows with a gravity main. This project is a high priority and a required system requirement. The City would like the timing of this project to correspond with the timing of the planned Grant County Road Construction Project. Project Title: Location: Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension Westshore Dr. Project Identifier: 1.3 Need for Project: The Moses Pointe Lift Station is not sized to convey future flows. The Mae Valley area is expected to experience major growth within 20 years. Objective: Construct a gravity main to replace the Moses Pointe lift station and service the Mae Valley area. Design Considerations: Service area, dewatering of trench, depth of pipelines, traffic control along Westshore Drive. Coordinate work with Westshore Drive roadway project. The 2042 sewer model indicates that this will need to be designed as an 18” sewer main to accommodate an anticipated max design flow of 372 gpm. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $6,316,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 134 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-10 7.1.9. Larson WWTP Facility Plan This plan identified a need to prepare a facility plan to evaluate future upgrades at the Larson WWTP. Current facility conditions are detailed in Chapter 5 and would be highlighted again in this evaluation. This evaluation could be combined with the Sand Dunes WWTP Master Plan. Project Title: Location: Larson WWTP Facility Plan 6691 Randolph Rd. Project Identifier: 1.4 Need for Project: The Larson Treatment Facility requires a planning study to inform future improvements and operations. Objective: To identify defects and provide recommended improvements to treatment and operations. Design Considerations: Includes reviewing reuse feasibility at the treatment plant. Can be combined with the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan for some cost savings. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $95,000 7.1.10. Sand Dunes WWTP Facility Plan This plan identified a need to prepare a facility plan to evaluate future upgrades at the Sand Dunes WWTP. Current facility conditions are detailed in Chapter 5 and would be highlighted again in this evaluation. This evaluation could be combined with the Larson WWTP Master Plan. Project Title: Location: Sand Dunes WWTP Facility Plan Road K Project Identifier: 1.5 Need for Project: The Sand Dunes Treatment Facility requires a planning study to inform future improvements and operations. Objective: To identify defects and provide recommended improvements to treatment and operations. Design Considerations: Includes reviewing reuse feasibility at the treatment plant. Can be combined with the Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan for some cost savings. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $95,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 135 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-11 7.1.11. New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main This plan identified that redundancy is required for the Northshore force main. Project Title: Location: New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main Edgewater Ln., Dogwood St. Project Identifier: 2.1 Need for Project: City identified redundancy and condition concerns with the existing Sage Bay force main. Objective: Construct a parallel force main from the Northshore lift station to the Main force main. Design Considerations: Assumed directional drilling under the lake. Other considerations include environmental permitting, operations of parallel force mains. The 2042 sewer model indicated this force main would be flowing with a velocity of 5.5 fps. This is considered a longer force main and should have a maximum allowable velocity is 5 fps. Table 4.9 in Chapter 4 provides additional details and discussion on this project. It is recommended that this force main be upsized to allow for lower velocity flows under future flow conditions. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $2,387,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 136 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-12 7.1.12. New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main This plan identified the need to increase capacity and upgrade the COF force main by replacing the existing AC pipe. Increasing this capacity and upgrading the COF Main is a required system improvement. Project Title: Location: New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main W Lakeside Dr., W Nelson Rd. Project Identifier: 2.2 Need for Project: City identified capacity and condition concerns with the existing COF force main. Objective: Replace existing AC force main, increase capacity and resolve defects. Design Considerations: Assumed laying pipe along the bottom of the lake. Other considerations include environmental permitting, pipe protection within lake. The 2042 sewer model indicated that this force main would be flowing with a velocity of approximately 5.84 fps. This is considered a longer force main and should have a maximum allowable velocity is 5 fps. Table 4.9 in and Chapter 4 provides additional details and discussion on this project. It is recommended that this force main be upsized to allow for lower velocity flows under future flow conditions. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $1,097,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 137 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-13 7.1.13. 24” COF Force Main This plan identified that construction of a parallel COF force main extending from the Sand Dunes WWTP to the proposed lake crossing force main is a required system improvement. This would meet demand for 20-years flow and replace the existing AC pipe. Project Title: Location: 24" COF Force Main Potato Hill Rd., Baseline Rd. E, Road K Project Identifier: 2.3 Need for Project: The existing COF force main is experiencing defects and may be undersized for 20-year flows. Objective: Construct new parallel COF force main to the Sand Dunes WWTP, replace AC pipe. Design Considerations: Assumed construction of pipeline within existing ROWs. Rock Excavation may be required, include geotechnical investigation. The 2042 sewer model indicated that this force main would be flowing with a velocity of approximately 5.84 fps. This is considered a longer force main and should have a maximum allowable velocity is 5 fps. Table 4.9 in Chapter 4 provides additional details and discussion on this project. It is recommended that this force main be upsized to allow for lower velocity flows under future flow conditions. It should be noted this force main shares flows from the COF and Nelson Lift Stations. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $20,640,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 138 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-14 7.1.14. City-wide Lift Station Safety Upgrades This Plan identified that fall arrest Davit mounts should be installed at each lift station to improve and prioritize Operator safety. Project Title: Location: City-wide LS Safety Upgrades City Owned Lift Stations Project Identifier: 2.4 Need for Project: The City needs fall arrest cranes on each of the lift stations to provide safety for operators. Objective: Add Davit Fall Arrest cranes at each lift station, excluding the new Northshore and COF lift stations. Design Considerations: Space constraints at each site. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $260,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 139 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-15 7.1.15. Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades This plan identified deficiencies at the Patton Lift Station. This is due to deteriorating conditions of existing pumps and electrical equipment. It is a required system improvement to move these controls above ground to increase ease of access and reduce response time as well as replace all existing pumps at the Patton Lift Station. Project Title: Location: Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades Patton Blvd. Project Identifier: 2.5 Need for Project: The Patton lift station's pumps and electrical equipment are in poor condition and in need of replacement. Objective: This work will replace the existing pumps and bring the lift station up to current City standards, move controls above ground, allow operators to monitor these pumping facilities remotely, and improve operator response time and reduce risk of catastrophic failure. Design Considerations: Panels will be designed to current City standards. During design, methods of communications will need to be determined for each site. Future modeling did not indicate any need for changes to the existing lift station capacity. Future improvements should be designed to retain its existing size. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $883,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 140 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-16 7.1.16. Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson Lift Stations This plan has identified these locations as being out of specification with the City’s control standards. It is a required system improvement to bring them up to standard. They will be redesigned to be above ground and allow operators to monitor the pumping facilities remotely. Project Title: Location: Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson Lift Stations Carswell, Carnation, Castle, and Larson Lift Stations Project Identifier: 2.6 Need for Project: These five locations have been identified as areas of improvement that don't meet City's controls standards. Objective: This work will bring these lift stations up to current City standards, bring controls above ground, allow operators to monitor these pumping facilities remotely, and improve operator response time and reduce risk of catastrophic failure. Design Considerations: Panels will be designed to current City standards. During design, methods of communications will need to be determined for each site. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $882,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 141 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-17 7.1.17. New Generator for Larson Lift Station This plan identified that the Larson Lift Station has no means of emergency backup power. This is a required system improvement to install new emergency power as well as electrical upgrades to keep these lift stations operational in the event of a power outage to prevent any sewer overflows. Project Title: Location: New Generator for Larson LS 6691 Randolph Rd. Project Identifier: 2.7 Need for Project: Backup power is needed at the Larson Lift Station. Objective: Install emergency power generators and electrical upgrades at the Larson Lift Station. Design Considerations: Size electrical upgrades for new generator and ATS. May be able to reuse the Sage Bay generator at Larson. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $498,000 7.1.18. Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement This plan identified that existing pumps at the Marina Lift Station are operating below capacity and that they will need to be replaced. Project Title: Location: Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement W Marina Dr. Project Identifier: 2.8 Need for Project: Pump tests reveal that the Marina Lift Station is operating well below its reported capacity. Objective: Replace the pumps in the Marina Lift Station, replace mechanical and electrical components as necessary. Design Considerations: Recommended inspection to determine cause of low pumping rate prior to replacement. Pumps are reported to have a capacity of 180 gpm and tested to have a capacity of 30 gpm. See Chapter 3 table 3.2 for further detail. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $234,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 142 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-18 7.1.19. Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer This plan identified that an area of Cascade Valley within city limits is still on septic systems and requires improvements to extend sewer service to existing residents and for future expansion. See Appendix I for additional information. Project Title: Location: Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer H.4 NE, Cascade Valley Peninsula Project Identifier: 3.1 Need for Project: The Cascade Valley area includes existing homes on septic, and land which is anticipated to grow, which can be served by the City's collection system. Objective: Service the Cascade Valley area with City sewer. Design Considerations: Location of the lift station, pipe route and installation methodology, environmental impacts, land purchasing, gravity line alignments. As described in Appendix I, this area was modeled to see a max design flow of 1,700 gpm according to the 2042 sewer model. At this design flow 8” lines and a medium size lift station are anticipated. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $16,109,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 143 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-19 7.1.20. Mae Valley Treatment Plant AKART Analysis This plan identified the need to conduct an AKART Analysis for design and construction of a new WWTP in the Mae Valley area to account for the anticipated growth area. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Mae Valley Treatment Plant AKART Analysis TBD Project Identifier: 3.2 Need for Project: The Mae Valley is expected to experience significant growth, may be more reasonable to create a new treatment facility. Objective: Determine the feasibility of a new Mae Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant. Design Considerations: Topology, anticipated growth, service areas, geotechnical aspects, discharge limits. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $50,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 144 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-20 7.1.21. Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade This plan identified that the existing pumps at the Blue Heron Lift Station will be insufficient to accommodate future growth and that pump replacement, electrical, and mechanical upgrades will be required in order to meet future flow demands. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade Westshore Dr. Project Identifier: 3.3 Need for Project: The Blue Heron Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20-year flows. Objective: Upgrade the existing Blue Heron pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary. Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. Mae Valley Treatment Plant eliminates this improvement. Per the future conditions model discussed in Chapter 4 (see Table 4.8) the pumping capacity will need to be increased from its current capacity of 211 gpm to the maximum modeled 2042 capacity of 940 gpm to meet the demands of the 2042 future conditions model. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $512,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 145 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-21 7.1.22. Nelson Lift Station Upgrade This Plan identified that the existing pumps at the Nelson Lift Station will be insufficient to accommodate future growth and that pump replacement, electrical, and mechanical upgrades will be required in order to meet future flow demands. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Nelson Lift Station Upgrade W Nelson Rd. Project Identifier: 3.4 Need for Project: The Nelson Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20-year flows. Objective: Upgrade the existing Nelson pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. Per the future conditions model discussed in Chapter 4, table 4.8 the pumping capacity will need to be increased from it’s current capacity of 250 gpm to the maximum modeled 2042 capacity of 678 gpm to meet the demands of the 2042 future conditions model. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $1,603,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 146 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-22 7.1.23. Southern Residential Lift Station and Force Main This plan identified that there is no new infrastructure in areas slated for development and that a new lift station and force main will be required to service that area due to topography. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Southern Residential Lift Station and Force Main South of Interstate 90, east of Potato Hill Rd. Project Identifier: 3.5 Need for Project: Future development is planned for this area but cannot be serviced by existing collection infrastructure. Objective: Construct a new lift station to service anticipated residential growth. Design Considerations: Location of the lift station, sizing of the pumps for area buildout, service area. For the purposes of this study a medium sized lift station and 6” force main were assumed, however the capacity required for this area is anticipated to be largely developer driven and further analysis will need to be completed when development occurs to properly size this lift station and force main. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $4,168,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 147 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-23 7.1.24. Carnation Lift Station Upgrade This plan identified that the existing pumps at the Carnation Lift Station will be insufficient to accommodate future growth and that pump, electrical, and mechanical upgrades will be required in order to meet future flow demands. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Carnation Lift Station Upgrade Wheeler Rd. Project Identifier: 3.6 Need for Project: The Carnation Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20-year flows. Objective: Upgrade the existing Carnation pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary. Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. Per the future conditions model discussed in Chapter 4 (see Table 4.8) the pumping capacity will need to be increased from its current capacity of 200 gpm to the maximum modeled 2042 capacity of 1,170 gpm to meet the demands of the 2042 future conditions model. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $2,039,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 148 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-24 7.1.25. New Lift Station on Peninsula Dr, Extension to COF Force Main This plan Identified that the sewer trunkline feeding the Peninsula Lift Station and subsequently the COF Lift Station would be unable to accommodate 20-year flows. Improvement will be required to construct a new lift station and force main that diverts flow away from the undersized trunkline and lift station. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: New Lift Station on Peninsula Dr, Extension to COF Force Main Interstate 90 Project Identifier: 3.7 Need for Project: The trunkline upstream of the Peninsula and COF Lift Stations are undersized for 20-year flows. Flow needs to be diverted away from this trunkline. Objective: Construct new lift station and force main to send flows to COF force main. Design Considerations: Would likely start with a smaller flowrate, then phase into a peak flow of 1,150 gpm based on the 2042 sewer model. Other considerations include environmental permits of the land bridge, coordination with state highway district, routing of pipeline, right-of- way. Mae Valley WWTP eliminates this improvement. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $9,276,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 149 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-25 7.1.26. Wheeler Rd Gravity Main Upgrade This plan identified that the gravity main on Wheeler Road is undersized and improvements will be required to accommodate 20-year flows. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. Project Title: Location: Wheeler Rd Gravity Main Upgrade Wheeler Rd. Project Identifier: 3.8 Need for Project: The Wheeler Rd gravity trunkline is inadequate to convey future flows. The Wheeler area is expected to experience major growth within 20 years. Objective: Upsize the existing gravity trunkline to convey future flows. Design Considerations: Service area, dewatering of trench, depth of pipelines, traffic control along Westshore Drive, potential rock excavation. Per the 2042 future conditions sewer model, portions of the Wheeler Rd. gravity main are currently flowing at a d/D of 0.75-1. This indicates significant gravity flows and full pipes that have to potential to become pressurized flow. These high d/D numbers indicate the need for upsize. Total Project Cost (2023 dollars): $6,791,000 7.1.27. North Cascade Valley Lift Station and Sewer Mains Extension of sewer service to the northern portion of Cascade Valley won’t occur till after the completion of project #3.1. This project is expected to supply the needs of developer driven growth and will require funding through a development agreement. This will need further analysis and no costs were evaluated at this time. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 150 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-26 7.2. CIP DESIGN INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS As discussed in Chapter 4, the sewer collection system was modeled for 20-year conditions to identify deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Through an iterative process, pipelines and lift stations were upsized to correct these deficiencies and meet the planning criteria outlined in Chapter 1. 7.2.1. Force Main and Gravity Sewer Pipelines The modeling software calculates flow capacities in pipelines to identify which lines meet the established planning criteria for minimum velocity, maximum velocity, and capacity. To assist with the design process and support the modeling results, the following tables were developed to calculate existing and future condition pipeline conditions. The Manning’s Formula and Discharge Formula are the two primary equations used to calculate velocity, flow, and pipeline capacity. These formulas are as follows: 𝑉𝑉=𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑛𝑅𝑅ℎ2 3�𝑆𝑆1 2� Manning’s Formula Q = VA Discharge Formula V = Velocity (ft/s) Q = Flow Rate (ft3/s) A = Area (ft2) n = Manning’s Coefficient (s/ft1/3); typical values Rh = A/P, Hydraulic Radius (ft) P = Wetted Perimeter (ft) S = Hydraulic Gradient, Slope (ft/ft) k = 1.49 (conversion factor; English units) Table 7.2 includes typical Manning’s roughness coefficients used when calculating velocity in different pipeline materials. Coefficients are provided for the pipeline materials present in the City’s sewer collection system. TABLE 7.2 – TYPICAL MANNING’S COEFFICIENTS Table 7.3 summarizes force main calculations for 20-year conditions and compares them to the modeling results under the same conditions. In general, all force mains should have a minimum velocity of 2 ft/s and a maximum velocity of either 5 ft/s (longer force mains) or 8 ft/s (shorter force mains). Note the following for each project:  New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main (CIP #2.1) – This improvement is primarily for adding redundancy, however upsizing the new force main to a 12” instead of matching the existing 10” size will allow for additional future capacity.  New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main (CIP #2.2) – The existing 20” force main is aging and will need to be replaced with a new 24” force main to keep 20-year flow conditions below 5 ft/s. Pipe Material n Asbestos Cement 0.011 Cast Iron (new)0.012 Concrete (centrifugally spun)0.013 Plastic (PVC/HDPE)0.009 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 151 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-27  24” COF Force Main (CIP #2.3) – The existing AC 20” force main will need to be replaced with a new 24” force main to keep 20-year flow conditions below 5 ft/s.  Cascade Valley Force Main (CIP #3.1) – The size of this force main will depend on how many existing and future homes are connected to the City’s sewer system in the Cascade Valley area. Some of this has yet to be determined. Development of sewer service in this area may require phasing the size of the force main, pumps, and/or frequency of pumping. This will need to be reassessed when this project is addressed. Table 7.3 shows two possible outcomes for force mains, though this needs to be evaluated more closely when this project is designed.  Southern Residential Force Main (CIP #3.5) – The size of this force main will depend on how many services are initially developed in this area. Development of sewer service in this area may require phasing the size of the force main, size of pumps, and pumping frequency. This will need to be evaluated more closely when this project is designed.  New Peninsula Drive Force Main (CIP #3.7) – The size of this new force main is currently modeled as an 8” force main, however much of what will flow through this new force main is dependent on development. Development in this area may require phasing the size of the force main, size of pumps, and pumping frequency. This will need to be evaluated more closely when this project is designed. TABLE 7.3 – FORCE MAIN CALCULATIONS For sizing gravity sewer main improvements, velocities and flow rates were calculated for each pipe diameter at minimum design slopes (see Table 7.4). These calculated results were then applied to each of the gravity sewer CIP projects in Table 7.5. Note the following for each project:  Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension (CIP #1.3) – Though only a 14” gravity sewer main is needed for the peak 2042 flow conditions in this portion of the system, an 18” main was required due to minimum pipe slope restrictions. Existing Pipeline Dia. (in) Modeled Maximum Velocity, Open Scenario (ft/sec) Calculated Maximum Velocity (ft/sec) Proposed Pipeline Dia. (in) Modeled Maximum Velocity, Open Scenario (ft/sec) Calculated Maximum Velocity (ft/sec) 2.1 - New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main 970 10 4.00 3.96 12 2.80 2.75 2.2 - New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main 4830 20 4.93 4.93 24 3.40 3.43 2.3 - 24" COF Force Main 5455 20 5.56 5.57 24 3.85 3.87 3.1 - Cascade Valley Force Main (City Limit Buildout)211 N/A N/A N/A 6 Scenario Not Modeled 2.39 3.1 - Cascade Valley Force Main (South Area Buildout)640 N/A N/A N/A 8 4.21 4.09 3.5 - Southern Residential Force Main 68 N/A N/A N/A 6 Scenario Not Modeled 0.77 3.5 - Southern Residential Force Main 210 N/A N/A N/A 6 2.40 2.38 3.7 - New Peninsula Drive Force Main 1115 N/A N/A N/A 8 7.20 7.12 Peak 2042 Conditions - Existing Facilities Peak 2042 Conditions - Proposed CIP Inflow - Open Scenario (gpm) CIP Project (# - Name) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 152 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-28  Cascade Gravity Sewer (CIP #3.1) – The size of gravity sewer lines in the Cascade Valley area were evaluated further in the Cascade Valley tech memo included in Appendix I. Flows in the Cascade Valley area could range between 18 gpm up to 1,700 gpm at full buildout. This will require gravity sewer mains between 8” and 21” in size. To provide some guidance on sizing future gravity sewer mains in this development, it is recommended that the flow ranges and corresponding main sizes provided in Table 7.5 be used in the design phase for this project.  Wheeler Road Gravity Sewer (CIP #3.8) – An 18” sewer main will add sufficient capacity for 20-year flow conditions with additional room for growth. The trigger for this improvement is increasing flows from industrial users in the Wheeler area. It should be noted that as the City receives requests from industries in the Wheeler area, they will require industries to assist with an AKART analysis to evaluate whether an industrial WWTP should be established rather than incorporating new industrial flows into the City’s current system. TABLE 7.4 – GRAVITY SEWER MAIN FLOW CALCULATIONS BY PIPE DIAMETER TABLE 7.5 – GRAVITY SEWER CIP CALCULATIONS Pipe Diameter (in) Min Slope, S (ft/ft)n Area, A (ft2) Wetted Perimeter, P (ft) Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) Manning Velocity, V (ft/s) 0.50 d/D Flow, Q (gpm) 0.75 d/D Flow, Q (gpm) 8 0.0040 0.009 0.35 2.09 0.167 3.16 248 421 10 0.0028 0.009 0.55 2.62 0.208 3.07 376 639 12 0.0022 0.009 0.79 3.14 0.250 3.07 542 921 15 0.0015 0.009 1.23 3.93 0.313 2.94 811 1,379 18 0.0012 0.009 1.77 4.71 0.375 2.97 1,179 2,005 21 0.0010 0.009 2.41 5.50 0.438 3.01 1,624 2,761 24 0.0008 0.009 3.14 6.28 0.500 2.94 2,074 3,526 Existing Pipeline Dia. (in) Inflow - Open Scenario (gpm) Proposed Pipeline Dia. (in) 0.5 d/D Pipe Flow (gpm) 0.75 d/D Pipe Flow (gpm) 1.3 - Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension N/A 675 18.0 1,179 2,005 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (8" mains)N/A 0 - 300 8.0 248 421 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (10" mains)N/A 300 - 600 10.0 376 639 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (12" mains)N/A 600 - 800 12.0 542 921 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (15" mains)N/A 800 - 1100 15.0 811 1,379 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (18" mains)N/A 1100 - 1500 18.0 1,179 2,005 3.1 - Cascade Gravity Sewer (21" mains)N/A 1500 - 1700 21.0 1,624 2,761 3.8 - Wheeler Road Gravity Sewer 10 1615 18.0 1,179 2,005 Peak 2042 Conditions CIP Project Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 153 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-29 7.2.2. Lift Stations The CIP includes nine total lift station projects including design of new pumping facilities to either address aging equipment, capacity issues, or to provide new service in areas not currently serviced by the City’s gravity sewer system. Two of these pumps stations; the Patton and Marina Lift Stations; were identified as having underperforming pumps that are not operating according to their designed firm pumping capacities. These pumps will be replaced with newer pumps that meet or exceed the original designed capacities of these two lift stations. The Wheeler, Blue Heron, Nelson, and Carnation lift stations were identified in this GSP as requiring additional pumping capacity to accommodate peak 2042 conditions. See Table 4.8 in Chapter 4 for differences in reported firm capacities and required peak 2042 flow conditions. These lift stations will need to be sized to at least accommodate the peak 2042 flow conditions as shown in Table 7.6. The Cascade Valley, Southern Residential, and Peninsula Drive areas are primarily development driven CIP improvements and will need to be sized based on how the areas they serve are developed. Flows in the Cascade Valley area are anticipated to range between 18 gpm to 1,700 gpm. Flows in the Southern residential area are anticipated to range up to 68 gpm over the next 20 years. Flows in the New Peninsula Drive area are anticipated to range up to 1,115 gpm over the next 20 years. Each of these facilities may need to be phased up to 20-year peak flow conditions depending on how they develop. Pump curves will need to be selected in the design phase for each of these projects that either meet or exceed the 2042 peak flow conditions. Table 7.6 summarizes recommended design flow rates minimums when each of these projects is designed. Actual pump sizing will depend on number of pump cycles per hour, size of the development, and growth. Designed improvements must meet the City of Moses Lake’s and Ecology’s (Orange Book) minimum design requirements. TABLE 7.6 – LIFT STATION RECOMMENDED DESIGN FLOW RATES CIP Project (# - Name) Existing Firm Pumping Capacity (gpm) Peak 2042 Conditions Inflow - Open Scenario (gpm) Recommended Design Flow Rate (gpm) 1.1 - Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pump Upgrade 960 2,000 >2,000 2.5 - Patton Lift Station Pump Upgrade 198 N/A ≥250 2.8 - Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement 30 N/A ≥180 3.1 - Cascade Valley Lift Station N/A 1,700 ≥100 to ≥1,7001, 2 3.3 - Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade 255 940 >940 3.4 - Nelson Lift Station Upgrade 294 678 >678 3.5 - Southern Residential Lift Station N/A 68 ≥1001 3.6 - Carnation Lift Station Upgrade 225 1,170 >1,170 3.7 - New Lift Station on Peninsula Drive N/A 1,150 >1,1501 1 Depends on size and timing of development. 2 See Appendix I for additional development information on the Cascade Valley area. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 154 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7-30 7.3. ANNUAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM In addition to the capital improvement projects identified in Table 7.1, the City will also budget each year for replacement of assets associated with the existing collection system, including gravity pipelines, force mains, manholes, and lift stations. The collection system pipeline and manhole replacement budget are based on the analysis described in Chapter 2. As stated before, the City’s collection system is relatively new. With 53% of existing gravity pipes and 79% of existing pressure pipes made of PVC, I/I contribution to flowrates are minimal. Around 44% of gravity pipes are made of concrete which is susceptible to hydrogen sulfide corrosion and monitored by the City’s repair and replacement program. The program has resulted in around 51 miles of repaired pipe using Cure in Place Pipe (CIPP). This plan identifies the need to thoroughly inspecting the remaining 13 miles of gravity pipe and complete repairs as necessary. Pressure pipelines in the collection system are 79% PVC and 9% HDPE/PE). The need for inspection and repairs have also been identified for the for the remaining 12% of pressure pipeline made of asbestos-concrete, cast iron, ductile iron, and steel. These targets should be reassessed and updated periodically by the City based on updated pipeline condition information and budget constraints. Construction costs are in 2023 dollars. Actual costs of Construction will depend on the actual rate of inflation, time of construction, and other factors. Keller Associates recommends the City periodically review and update the CIP and complete a comprehensive update about every five to ten years. 7.4. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS This plan has identified the need for existing pipelines to be CCTV inspected at least every 5 years. Assuming a 5-year CCTV inspection cycle, the City would need to inspect approximately 166,850 feet of pipeline per year. At current contracted rates, this equates to an annual budget of approximately $420,000. There would be potential cost savings by completing the work in-house, although additional staff would need to be hired and the supporting equipment and software would need to be purchased. 7.5. RECOMMENDED CIP PROGRAM AND RATE INCREASES The Priority 1 improvements were budgeted over the next five years, along with the annual pipe replacement program, to determine the required monthly user rate increase to fund these projects. See Chapter 8 for a summary of this financial analysis as well as recommendations for rate increases. 7.6. DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN IMPROVEMENTS For development driven improvements, the City of Moses Lake has an established permit and plan review process that requires developers and their consultants to prepare stamped plans and specifications that must be submitted to the City for review before a building permit can be issued. At a minimum, plans are reviewed against City of Moses Lake standards and specifications, Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book), and planning documents including the General Sewer Plan. The City regularly updates their standards and specifications every two years. 7.7. CONCLUSION This planning document is intended to provide a roadmap for accommodating continued growth for years to come. The wastewater computer model is intended to be a tool for ongoing planning and evaluation efforts. As various components of the collection system approach capacity, additional monitoring and predesign efforts will be implemented to better define projects and priorities. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 155 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-1 CHAPTER 8 - FINANCIAL PLAN 8.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter describes a financial program that allows the wastewater utility to remain financially viable during the 20-year planning period, and to provide stable revenue for execution of the capital improvement program (CIP) identified in this comprehensive GSP and in the Capital Facilities Element of the General Comprehensive Plan. This financial viability analysis considers the historical financial condition of the utility, the sufficiency of utility revenues to meet current and future financial and policy obligations, the need to provide sufficient revenue to meet operation and maintenance needs, and the utility’s ability to support the financial impact related to the completion of the identified projects in the CIP. Furthermore, this chapter provides a review of the utility’s current rate structure with respect to customer affordability. 8.2. PAST FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE This section includes a historical summary of financial performance on the statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net position. The City legally owns and operates both a water and wastewater utility. The City’s historic financial reports do not distinguish between water and wastewater operations or funds. Thus, the historical financial statements examine the City’s operations and financial history as a whole. Table 8.1 shows a summary of the division fund resources and uses arising from cash transactions for the previous 6 years (2015 through 2020) for the water and wastewater combined utilities. During the development of this chapter, the City’s most recent financial statements covered through 2020. Noteworthy findings and trends are discussed to demonstrate the historical performance and condition of the City’s combined water and wastewater division. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 156 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-2 TABLE 8.1 – HISTORICAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 8.2.1. Findings and Trends The following identifies findings for the 2015 through 2020 historical period for the combined water and wastewater systems as the City’s historic financial reports do not distinguish between water and wastewater operations or funds.  Total revenue from charges for services increased nearly 14% from 2015 – 2020. This change is due to a combination of growth and annual cumulative rate increases of 11%. Other miscellaneous operating revenue increased by 6% over the six-year period, remaining fairly level at an average of $646,000 from 2016-2020. This revenue source is largely comprised of hydrant rentals, wastewater permit fees and space/facility leases.  Cash operating expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization) increased by 57% from 2015 - 2020, or approximately 11% per year. Including depreciation and amortization, the City’s cash operating expenses increased nearly 41% over the same period.  The operating ratio provides a means of evaluating the City’s self-sufficiency as an enterprise fund, measuring the ability of annual operating revenues to cover annual Summary of Historical Financial Performance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Operating RevenuesCharges for Services 9,999,651$ 10,114,866$ 10,391,233$ 10,784,392$ 10,954,710$ 11,374,058$ Licenses and Permits - - - 22,300 14,262 5,100 Miscellaneous Revenue 598,303 635,446 664,832 636,801 657,918 635,509 Total Operating Revenues 10,597,954$ 10,750,312$ 11,056,065$ 11,443,493$ 11,626,890$ 12,014,667$ Operating ExpensesCash Operating Expenses 5,367,110$ 5,002,778$ 5,467,221$ 6,989,490$ 8,894,051$ 8,431,194$ Depreciation & Amortization 2,360,114 2,437,968 2,403,898 2,372,363 2,430,885 2,449,428 Total Operating Expenses 7,727,224$ 7,440,746$ 7,871,119$ 9,361,853$ 11,324,936$ 10,880,622$ Operating Income (Loss)2,870,730$ 3,309,566$ 3,184,946$ 2,081,640$ 301,954$ 1,134,045$ Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Interest and Other Earnings 148,103$ 146,687$ 129,770$ 106,223$ 61,133$ 38,128$ Insurance Recoveries 13,014 75,630 - - 199,832 - Intergovernmental Revenue - - - 8,110 - Intergovernmental Payments (50,000) (61,961) (61,961) (61,961) (62,854) (11,961) Debt Service Interest Expense (428,615) (360,941) (326,666) (289,457) (261,805) (171,642) Miscellaneous Revenue 81,605 285,746 6,824 164,750 127,911 240,927 Miscellaneous Expense - - - - - - Gain/Loss on Disposition of Assets - - - 140 (487,575) - Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)(235,893)$ 85,161$ (252,033)$ (72,195)$ (423,358)$ 95,452$ Income (Loss) Before Contributions 2,634,837$ 3,394,727$ 2,932,913$ 2,009,445$ (121,404)$ 1,229,497$ Capital Contributions 130,996 859,836 225,707 795,109 325,913 1,015,103 Change in Net Assets 2,765,833$ 4,254,563$ 3,158,620$ 2,804,554$ 204,509$ 2,244,600$ Total Net Assets - January 1 76,140,655 76,252,965 80,507,528 83,666,148 86,470,702 87,630,609 Change in Accounting Principle - GASB 68 (2,653,523) - - - - - Total Net Assets - December 31 76,252,965$ 80,507,528$ 83,666,148$ 86,470,702$ 86,675,211$ 89,875,209$ Operating Ratio Excluding Depreciation 1.97 2.15 2.02 1.64 1.31 1.43 Including Depreciation 1.37 1.44 1.40 1.22 1.03 1.10 Current Ratio 6.73 6.67 8.89 9.16 7.53 6.24Days of Cash On Hand 390 606 684 688 486 476 Debt Service Coverage Ratio 4.13 4.27 3.88 3.15 2.96 2.91 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 157 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-3 operating costs. A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the City is collecting exactly enough revenue to pay for its operating costs; based purely on cash operating expenses, the City’s operating ratio has varied from 1.31 to 2.15 for the historical period. Including depreciation expense in this calculation provides insight as to whether the City is charging customers enough to fund the replacement of assets in addition to daily operating costs – the City’s operating ratio including depreciation has varied from 1.03 to 1.44 over the past six years. Table 8.1 indicates that the City was able to cover cash operating expenses and fully fund depreciation expenses for all years.  The current ratio is a measure of short-term liquidity or the City's ability to pay its current bills – it is calculated by dividing unrestricted current assets (excluding inventories and prepaid items) by current liabilities. A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the utility has exactly enough to pay its bills; higher values are desirable as they suggest an ability to pay large or unanticipated bills. The City has attained current ratios varying from 6.24 to 9.16 during this time period, suggesting that the City has ample capacity to meet its short-term financial obligations.  Days of cash on hand is a measure of financial security, quantifying how long the City would be able to fund daily operating and maintenance costs if it received no additional revenue. It is calculated by dividing unrestricted cash and investments by the average daily cost of operations (excluding depreciation). While there is no minimum standard for this metric, bond rating agencies have recently expressed a preference for a minimum of 180 days of cash on hand for utilities seeking the highest bond ratings. The City has been able to maintain well above 180 days of cash on hand for the entire historical period (range of 390 to 688 days).  The debt service coverage ratio measures the amount of cash flow available to meet principal and interest payments. Typically, revenue bond debt service coverage generally requires a minimum factor of 1.25 during the life of the loans. This ratio is calculated by dividing cash or net operating income (operating revenues less operating expenses) by annual revenue bond debt service. The debt service coverage ratio for all outstanding revenue bond debt ranged from a high of 4.27 to a low of 2.96. The City has a practice of targeting a higher debt service coverage ratio of 1.50. The fact that this ratio has sustained levels higher than the covenant minimum target of 1.25 indicates a stable capacity for new debt and will likely result in favorable terms when entering the bond market. 8.3. CURRENT FINANCIAL STRUCTURE The City’s wastewater utility is responsible for funding all of its related costs through user fees on a stand- alone basis. It does not depend on general tax revenues or general fund resources. Unlike the combined financials, the financial plan developed as part of this GSP separates the specific revenues and expenses for the wastewater utility for an independent evaluation. Where revenue or expenses are combined (e.g. certain miscellaneous revenue and fund balances), they have been split 50% to the wastewater utility and the remaining 50% to the water utility. The primary source of funding for the wastewater utility is derived from ongoing user charges for service, with additional revenues coming from facilities leases, permit fees, system development fees and other miscellaneous fees. The City controls the level of user charges by ordinance, and subject to statutory authority, can adjust user charges as needed to meet financial objectives. 8.3.1. Financial Plan This section summarizes the current financial structure used as the baseline for the capital financing strategy and financial forecast developed for this GSP. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 158 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-4 The financial plan can only provide a qualified assurance of financial feasibility if it considers the total system costs of providing wastewater services, both operating and capital. To meet these objectives, the following two elements have been completed. Capital Funding Plan Identifies the total CIP obligations of the GSP planning period. The plan defines a strategy for funding the CIP, including an analysis of available resources from rate revenues, existing reserves, system development Charges (SDCs), debt financing, and any special resources that may be readily available (e.g., grants, developer contributions, etc.). The capital funding plan impacts the financial plan through the use of debt financing (resulting in annual debt service) and the assumed rate revenue resources available for capital funding. Financial Forecast Identifies future annual non-capital costs associated with the operating, maintenance and administration of the wastewater system. Included in the financial plan is a reserve analysis that forecasts cash flow and fund balance activity along with testing for satisfaction of actual or recommended minimum fund balance policies. The financial plan ultimately evaluates the sufficiency of utility revenues in meeting all obligations, including cash uses such as operating expenses, debt service, capital outlays, and reserve contributions, as well as any coverage requirements associated with long-term debt, and identifies the future adjustments required to fully fund all utility obligations in the projection period. Outstanding Covenants There are a number of outstanding covenants throughout the City representing funds that are owed to the City. These funds are not included in this financial plan nor should be viewed as guaranteed income, however, are mentioned here for future consideration. 8.3.2. Capital Funding Plan The CIP developed for this GSP identifies $49.2 million in project costs. The projects over the shorter term 2023-2026 planning period which covers the current in progress capital and the projects listed as Priority 1 total $22.2 million. The remaining capital spanning the 2027 – 2042 period include Priority 2 capital totaling $26.9 million. The GSP also lists Priority 3 capital of $83.9 million that are developer driven and will be scheduled as needed. The City should consider carefully how to implement impact fees and system development charges to meet the goal of generating revenue for projects designated as developer driven. The full 20-year capital plan totals $121.6 million in 2023 dollars. The capital funding plan must consider the cash funding needs during the year of planned construction requiring that the current CIP which is stated in 2023 dollars be escalated annually to the year of planned construction for financial projections. The capital funding plan has only considered the in progress projects, Priority 1, and Priority 2 projects. The updated CIP funding needs increase to $64.3 million in project costs ($23.6 million in 2023-2026 and $40.7 million during 2027-2042). The CIP consists of lift station projects, main extensions, improvements, replacements and upgrade projects. A summary of the 20-year CIP is shown in Table 8.2. As shown, each year has varied capital cost obligations depending on construction schedules and infrastructure planning needs. Approximately 45% of the capital costs are included in the 2023 - 2026 planning period. The Northshore lift station, Peninsula lift sewer repair, COF raw water upgrade, Wheeler lift station upgrade of pumps & controls and the Westshore drive gravity main extension account for nearly 80% of the near-term CIP. The Priority 2 projects are spread evenly across the 2027 - 2042 time horizon, specific project execution will be planned as funds are accumulated and available. Table 8.2 provides the detail project listing of the 2023-2042 CIP. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 159 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-5 TABLE 8.2 – 20 YEAR CIP CIP Summary 2023-2042 Description 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2042 Total In Progress Northshore Lift Station 2,075,000$ 32,100$ -$ -$ -$ 2,107,100$ Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan 65,000 15,900 - - - 80,900 Westshore Biofilter 279,000 - - - - 279,000 2022 Sand Dunes WWTF Biofuser 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Peninsula Lift Sewer Repair 40,000 10,000 2,676,000 - - 2,726,000 Larson Sedimentation Pond Rehabilitation 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Division Lift Station Upgrade 35,000 790,000 790,000 - - 1,615,000 COF Valve Replacement 86,000 214,000 - - - 300,000 Biosolids Land Application 200,000 - - - - 200,000 COF Raw Waste Upgrade 75,000 3,645,000 - - - 3,720,000 Redundant WW Forcemain Lake Crossing (design only)- 25,000 25,000 - - 50,000 Priority 1 Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps & Controls - - 2,244,000 - - 2,244,000 Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension - - - 1,363,000 - 1,363,000 Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension 15,000 35,000 6,266,000 - - 6,316,000 Larson Wastewater Treatment Master Plan - - 95,000 - - 95,000 Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Master Plan - - 95,000 - - 95,000 Priority 2 New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main - - - - 2,387,000 2,387,000 New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main - - - - 1,097,000 1,097,000 24" COF Force Main - - - - 20,640,000 20,640,000 City-wide LS Safety Upgrades - - - - 260,000 260,000 Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades - - - - 883,000 883,000 Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson LS - - - - 882,000 882,000 New Generator for Larson LS - - - - 498,000 498,000 Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement - - - - 234,000 234,000 - - - - - - Total (2023 Dollars)3,320,000$ 4,767,000$ 12,191,000$ 1,363,000$ 26,881,000$ 48,522,000$ Total (Escalated Dollars)3,320,000 4,957,665 13,734,008 1,549,677 40,716,259 64,277,610 Priority 3 Projects (Developer Funded)40,548,000$ Total Priority 1, 2, 3 Projects 77,542,000$ Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 160 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-6 8.3.3. Capital Financing Strategy An ideal capital funding strategy would include the use of grants and low-cost loans when debt issuance is required. Building a financial program relying on assumptions of being awarded scarce grants or access to low interest loans should be limited as these resources are very limited and competitive in nature and do not provide a reliable source of funding for planning purposes. The City should pursue these funding avenues but assume bond financing to meet needs for which the City’s available cash resources are insufficient. Revenue bonds have been used as the debt funding instrument in this analysis. The capital financing strategy developed to fund the CIP identified in this GSP assumes the following funding resources:  Accumulated capital cash reserves;  Annual revenue collected from system development charges (SDC);  Annual transfers of excess cash (over minimum balance targets) from the Operating Fund, if any;  Interest earning on capital fund balances and other miscellaneous capital resources;  Revenue bond financing. Table 8.3 presents the initial 10-year capital financing strategy for the capital costs during the year of construction. The capital funding plan identifies 58% of cash funding for capital, which includes System Development Charge revenue, rate funding and capital fund balances. It is assumed that revenue bonds will cover the remaining 42% of capital costs. The City will continue applying for available low interest loans for eligible projects. TABLE 8.3 INITIAL CAPITAL FINANCING STRATEGY The initial $3.7 million transfer from the operating fund in 2023 relates to moving all available funds from the operating reserve once the 90-day operating policy target has been met. 8.4. FINANCIAL FORECAST The primary goal of the financial forecast is to develop a multi-year rate strategy that generates enough revenue to cover the City’s operating costs and execute the capital program identified in the GSP. This study focuses on defining the amount of revenue needed to meet the system’s financial obligations including:  Operation and maintenance costs  Administrative and overhead costs  Policy-based needs (e.g., reserve funding)  Capital costs Capital Financing Plan 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 - 2032 Beginning Balance 2,739,675$ 3,369,195$ 15,093,761$ 2,933,865$ 10,507,663$ plus: Interest Earnings 13,698 25,269 150,938 29,339 105,077 plus: System Development Charges 211,500 203,272 208,151 213,146 1,390,705 plus: Transfers from Operating Fund 3,724,321 453,690 603,409 834,055 11,116,840 plus: Revenue Bond Proceeds - 16,000,000 - - - Total Capital Funding Resources 6,689,195 20,051,426 16,056,258 4,010,405 23,120,285 less: Capital Expenditures (3,320,000) (4,957,665) (13,122,392) (1,518,483) (12,717,434) Ending Balance 3,369,195$ 15,093,761$ 2,933,865$ 2,491,922$ 10,402,851$ Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 161 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-7  Existing/new debt service obligations As the City operates as an enterprise, it relies on revenue from its wastewater rates (as opposed to taxes or other external resources) to cover the expenses outlined above. The financial forecast evaluates the financial viability of the City’s ability to fund its capital improvement program (CIP), the corresponding capital facility elements of the general comprehensive plan, and other financial needs while maintaining affordable wastewater rates. It is a comprehensive analysis that includes both operating and capital elements:  The revenue requirement analysis determines the amount of revenue necessary to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance, and administration of the utility on an annual basis, focusing specifically on the needs funded from operating revenues. It includes a framework of fiscal policies intended to promote long-term financial stability and viability.  The capital funding plan develops a funding strategy for the CIP that considers rate revenues, existing reserves, system development charges, debt financing, and any other anticipated resources (e.g., grants, developer contributions, etc.). It can impact the revenue requirement analysis through the use of debt financing (resulting in annual debt service) and capital funding embedded in rates. 8.4.1. Fiscal Policies The City of Moses Lake maintains a fund structure and implements financial policies that target management of a financially viable and fiscally responsible enterprise fund utility. In developing the financial plan underlying the recommended rate structures, the City has assumed the attainment of certain recommended fiscal policies. The purpose of establishing fiscal policies for the City’s wastewater utility is to promote the financial integrity and stability of the utility and help ensure the sustainability of essential utility services. A brief summary of the key financial policies employed by the City, as well as future considerations are discussed below. 8.4.2. Minimum Fund Balances Operating reserves are designed to provide a liquidity cushion to ensure that adequate cash working capital will be maintained to deal with significant cash balance fluctuations, such as seasonal fluctuations in billings and receipts, unanticipated cash expenses, or lower than expected revenue collections. The City’s current policy is to maintain a minimum balance in the Operating Fund equal to 90 days of O&M (approximately 25%), ranging from nearly $1.0 million in 2023 to $1.4 million in 2032. A capital contingency reserve is an amount of cash set aside in case of an emergency should a piece of equipment or a portion of the utility’s infrastructure fail unexpectedly. The reserve also could be used for other unanticipated capital needs including capital project cost overruns. Industry practice ranges from maintaining a balance equal to 1 to 2% of fixed assets, an amount equal to a 5-year rolling average of CIP costs, or an amount determined sufficient to fund an equipment failure (other than catastrophic failure). The final target level should balance industry practice with the risk level of the City. The City does not have a formal policy for cash reserves in the Capital Fund; referencing industry practice a target of 1.0% of existing asset value would set a target ranging from $800,000 to $1.1 million increasing with annual asset additions. For a complete description of the City's financial policies see the City's "Financial Management Policy and Stewardship of Public Funds" document. 8.4.3. Rate Funded System Reinvestment The purpose of system reinvestment funding is to provide for the replacement of aging system facilities to ensure sustainability of the system for ongoing operation. Each year, the utility’s assets lose value, and as they lose value, they are moving toward eventual replacement. That accumulating loss in value and future liability is measured for reporting purposes through annual depreciation expense, which is based on the original cost of the asset. While this reported expense reflects the Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 162 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-8 consumption of the existing asset and its original investment, the replacement of that asset will likely cost much more, factoring in inflation and construction conditions. Therefore, the added annual replacement liability is even greater than the annual depreciation expenses. System reinvestment funding policies generate cash through rates above operating expenses and debt service to provide a source of funding for capital needs. There are a variety of potential benchmarks for annual system reinvestment, including:  Reported depreciation expense, generally based on the original cost of assets  Estimated replacement-cost depreciation expense, which recognizes that replacing infrastructure in the future will likely cost more than the original installation costs  Annual contributions based on anticipated replacement needs, as defined in an asset management plan The City has historically funded annual system reinvestment based on the availability of funds. The wastewater utility’s year end 2021 annual depreciation expense was reported at $1.4 million. The financial plan indicates the City is able to fund near depreciation expense at an annual average of $1.4 million for the initial 10-year period of the plan. 8.4.4. Debt Management It is prudent to consider policies related to debt management as part of broader utility financial policy structure. Debt management policies should be evaluated and formalized, including level of acceptable outstanding debt, debt repayment, bond coverage and total debt coverage targets. The City’s existing bond covenants require a 1.25 debt coverage ratio. The City has an internal target of 1.50. 8.5. FINANCIAL FORECAST The financial forecast is based on budget 2022 and 2023 documents. Various other key factors and assumptions are used to develop a complete portrayal of the wastewater utility’s annual financial obligations. The following is a list of the key revenue and expense factors and assumptions used to develop the financial forecast.  Revenue – The City has two general revenue sources: revenue from charges for service (rate revenue) and miscellaneous (non-rate) revenue. In the event of a forecasted annual shortfall, rate revenue can be increased to meet the annual revenue requirement. o Rate revenue for 2023 was calculated using budget 2022 plus the 5.0% approved rate increase for 2023. Future year revenue projections apply annual growth developed as part of this GSP. o Non-rate revenue consists of a share of the operations complex rent, sewer connection revenue and other miscellaneous operating revenue. No escalation was applied to these revenue sources. o System development charges (SDC)– based on the projected growth of this GSP, the SDC will generate between $211,500 and $245,700 per year. This equates to an average of 248 new customer connections per year. The City currently charges all new wastewater connections an SDC of $898.80 for a 3/4” meter connection increasing with the size of the meter.  Growth – rate revenues were escalated based on 2.4% growth per year consistent with the 2021 City Comprehensive plan.  Expenses – O&M expense projections are based on the 2023 budget and are forecast to increase annually with general cost inflation of 3.0-4.0%, labor cost inflation of 4.0%, benefits cost inflation of 3.50% and construction cost inflation of 4.0% in 2024 decreasing to 3.5% thereafter. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 163 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-9  Excise tax projections are calculated based on forecasted revenue and prevailing collection utility tax rate (3.852%) and business & occupation tax rates (1.75%). The City’s tax worksheet indicated 44.05% of sewer service revenue is taxable at the collection tax rate. Per the Revised Code of Washington 35.92.460 Utility Fee or Tax the City’s water, sewer and garbage rates include a 10.0% utility Excise Tax per year.  Existing Debt – the City currently has a total of two debt obligations in its wastewater utility. The debt consists of: o Two (2) bonds – a 2004 water/sewer revenue bond and a 2015 General Obligation bond. The wastewater portion of the annual debt service for the two debt issues is 50%. Total annual obligations range from a high of $650,000 to a low of $38,100 as the debt runs closer to maturity. Both bonds will mature in 2024 and 2036, respectively.  Future Debt – the capital financial strategy developed for this GSP forecasts the need to issue new debt in the amount of $16.0 million in 2024 to execute the $36.3 million in capital scheduled during 2023 - 2032.  Revenue Bond Assumptions – the forecast assumes a revenue bond interest rate of 5.0%, an issuance cost of 1.0% and a term of 20 years. Based on these assumptions the new annual debt service will range from $879,300 in 2024 with an interest only payment up to $1.46 million in 2025 as the full principal and interest payments begin.  Transfers to Capital – any operating fund balance above the minimum requirement is assumed to be available to fund capital projects and is projected to be transferred to the capital fund. Table 8.4 summarizes the annual revenue requirement based on the forecast of revenues, expenditures, fund balances and fiscal policies. It should be noted that the table summarizes the consecutive years of 2023-2028 and skips to year 2032 to show the results at year 10. TABLE 8.4 REVENUE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY The financial forecast indicates at existing rate levels the utility has an operating revenue surplus in 2023 of $1.4 million. The surplus decreases in 2024 as new debt service is added to help fund the capital improvement plan contained in the GSP. A revenue deficiency results in 2025 and beyond as full principal and interest payments are due on the new debt and inflation continues to outpace annual growth in revenue. The deficiency increases from $21,500 in 2025 to $103,100 by 2032. To resolve the deficiency an 8.0% increase is needed in 2024 followed by 3.5% annual increases from 2025-2028, reducing to 2.5% thereafter. Revenue Requirements 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2032 Revenue Rate Revenues at 2022 Rates 5,596,707$ 5,731,028$ 5,868,572$ 6,009,418$ 6,153,644$ 6,301,332$ 6,928,387$ Other Operating Revenue 352,692 345,052 156,362 156,760 157,157 157,570 159,377 Total Revenues 5,949,399$ 6,076,080$ 6,024,934$ 6,166,178$ 6,310,802$ 6,458,902$ 7,087,765$ ExpensesCash Operating Expenses 3,914,955$ 4,409,658$ 4,553,323$ 4,705,661$ 4,863,205$ 5,026,138$ 5,735,616$ Existing Debt Service 649,583 652,217 37,867 38,133 - - - New Debt Service - 879,355 1,455,245 1,455,245 1,455,245 1,455,245 1,455,245 System Reinvestment - - - - - - - Total Expenses 4,564,538$ 5,941,230$ 6,046,435$ 6,199,039$ 6,318,451$ 6,481,383$ 7,190,861$ Net Operating Cash Flow 1,384,861$ 134,850$ (21,501)$ (32,862)$ (7,649)$ (22,482)$ (103,096)$ Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00% 8.00% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% After Rate Increases Net Operating Cash Flow 1,384,861$ 575,672$ 643,188$ 873,829$ 1,160,380$ 1,427,493$ 2,709,084$ Debt Service Coverage 3.48 1.53 1.67 1.75 1.96 2.15 3.04 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 164 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-10 It is important to note table 8-4 contains a rate strategy to fully fund and execute the capital program as scheduled and identified in this GSP. The rate strategy contained herein will inform final rates reviewed and approved by the City Council. Title 13 Water, Sewer and Public Utilities of the City’s Municipal Code contains section 13.12.030 Residential Sewer Rates, 13.12.035 Duplex Sewer Rates and 13.12.040 Commercial Sewer Rates stating rates will be assessed in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 8.6. ADDITIONAL OPERATION COST CONSIDERATIONS It should be noted that the operational costs discussed in the previous section did not include any forecasts of additional staff for the life of this general sewer plan. When the City develops their operation and maintenance manual for submission to Ecology, the City will need to conduct a staffing analysis for the sewer utility that will need to identify what additional staff will be needed as capital improvements discussed in the GSP are completed. The Operation and Maintenance manual will also need to update this financial analysis to forecast operation and maintenance expenses including additional staff needs. 8.7. PROPOSED RATE STRATEGY It is the City’s practice to approve annual rate increases informed by the CPI All-Urban Consumers – West Index. The proposed rate strategy imposes a 5.0% annual maximum. Table 8.5 compares the proposed 2024-2028 rate strategy to the 3.0% historical policy practice. The additional rate increase is 2.0% in 2024 through 2028, before dropping to the 3.0% historical average policy induced increases in 2029 and beyond. TABLE 8.5 PROPOSED RATE STRATEGY Limiting the rate adjustment in any given year to a maximum of 5.0% requires adjustments to the GSP financial plan.  New debt would be reduced from $16.0 million to $14.5 million in 2024 as the 5.0% increase can only support a lower debt issue and meet the 1.50 City debt service coverage minimum.  Capital fund balances remain positive but trend lower due to a lower initial rate increase and a smaller debt issue. Balances rebound to target in 2031. The City will continue to actively monitor fund balances and can alleviate the low fund balances by delaying certain CIP expenditures in any given year. 8.7.1. Funds and Reserves Separate accounting is provided for utility restricted and unrestricted cash reserves. Restricted reserves typically include funds set aside as part of revenue bond covenants and cannot be used for purposes other than financial payment on outstanding revenue bond debt obligations. Unrestricted cash is maintained in the operating and capital funds. As noted in the Past Financial Performance section of this chapter, the water and wastewater fund balances are combined. For the wastewater financial plan, the fund balances have been split 50% to wastewater and 50% to water to evaluate the wastewater utility independently. Table 8.6 shows a summary of the projected wastewater operating and capital fund ending balances through 2032 contained in the financial plan. The operating fund has the only formal policy set at 90 days of O&M (approximately 25%). The capital fund target balance is a soft target set at 1.0% of Actual 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032Wastewater Rate AdjustmentsHistorical Assumed Policy Based Increase 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Additional Proposed Increase 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total Annual Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Projected Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 165 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-11 original cost asset value. The capital fund target does not drive the rate increases proposed, rather the minimum fund balance is achieved over time. The combined target ranges from $1.7 million to $2.6 million for the 10-year time period. The 90-day operating balance is maintained in all years of the financial plan. The capital balance dips below the target in 2025 – 2030 influenced by the capital funding schedule, however, recovers to above target levels in 2031. TABLE 8.6 PROJECTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL FUND ENDING BALANCES 8.7.2. Current Rates The sewer rate structure consists of a fixed charge and a consumption charge. The City currently has four main rate classes, which are the Single Family Residential, Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial. Specific rates are as follows:  The Single Family Residential class is charged only a fixed sewer charge per month. The duplex rate is twice the single family rate.  Multi-Family also only has a fixed sewer charge per month. This rate is based on each dwelling unit rather than each account.  The commercial/Industrial classes have both a fixed charge and consumption charge per 100 cubic feet of water consumed on the premise.  An outside city rate surcharge of 25% is assessed for sewer service furnished outside the city limits with the exception of the area formerly known as the Larson Air Base that has a surcharge of 8% (municipal code 13.12.050). The current 2023 sewer charges as presented in the City’s Fee Schedule and adopted by Resolution 3923 & 3927 are detailed below. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2032 Ending Fund Balances Operating Fund 965,331$ 1,087,313$ 1,127,092$ 1,166,866$ 1,208,103$ 1,250,860$ 1,438,300$ Capital Fund 3,369,195 15,093,761 2,933,865 2,491,922 1,912,698 1,530,559 2,387,110 Total Ending Fund Balances 4,334,526$ 16,181,073$ 4,060,957$ 3,658,789$ 3,120,801$ 2,781,419$ 3,825,410$ Minimum Target Balances Operating Target (90 days)965,331$ 1,087,313$ 1,127,092$ 1,166,866$ 1,208,103$ 1,250,860$ 1,438,300$ Capital Target (1% of asset value)799,038 848,614 979,838 995,023 1,014,438 1,034,533 1,122,197 Combined Minimum Target Balance 1,764,369$ 1,935,927$ 2,106,930$ 2,161,889$ 2,222,542$ 2,285,394$ 2,560,497$ Ending Cash Balance Summary Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 166 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-12 TABLE 8.7 GSP FINANCIAL PLAN RATES 8.7.3. Proposed Rates The Financial Plan rate impacts were applied across-the-board, meaning the fixed monthly charge and the consumption rates were increased by the overall rate increase shown. No structural changes were made to the rate structure as part of this GSP. The city may consider adding new rate categories in the future. For example, ADU's, and differing forms of multi-family, commercial, and industrial rate categories. Table 8.8 shows the rate impacts based on the proposed rate strategy for the 2024-2032 planning period. The current fixed monthly single family residential monthly bill is $39.89. The monthly bill increases annually to $57.29 by 2032 or $17.40 over the current rate. This equates to an average annual increase of $1.93 per month. TABLE 8.8 PROJECTED ANNUAL RATE INCREASES 8.8. AFFORDABILITY A key objective of this chapter is to evaluate the City’s ability to execute the capital improvement plan while maintaining affordable sewer rates. While the term “affordable” is relatively subjective in its definition, agencies that offer low-cost loans to utilities often use an “affordability index” based on median household income to define a threshold beyond which utility rates impose financial hardship on ratepayers. The benchmark most often used in this evaluation is 2.0% of the median household income in the relevant demographic area. The median household income for the City in the 2016-2020 United State Census Bureau Quick Facts was $60,136. The figures were escalated annually based on the Consumer Price Index Adopted 2023 Annual Rate Increase Fixed Sewer Charge (per month) Single Family Residential 39.89$ Duplex 79.79$ Multi-Family (per unit)11.26$ Commercial 42.80$ Industrial 48.14$ Consumption Charge (per 100 cubic feet) Comercial 1.91$ Industrial 2.11$ Sewer Rate Schedule Adopted Projected2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Annual Rate Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Fixed Sewer Charge (per month) Single Family Residential 39.89$ 41.88$ 43.97$ 46.17$ 48.48$ 50.90$ 52.43$ 54.00$ 55.62$ 57.29$ Duplex 79.79$ 83.78$ 87.97$ 92.37$ 96.99$ 101.84$ 104.90$ 108.05$ 111.29$ 114.63$ Multi-Family (per unit)11.26$ 11.82$ 12.41$ 13.03$ 13.68$ 14.36$ 14.79$ 15.23$ 15.69$ 16.16$ Commercial 42.80$ 44.94$ 47.19$ 49.55$ 52.03$ 54.63$ 56.27$ 57.96$ 59.70$ 61.49$ Industrial 48.14$ 50.55$ 53.08$ 55.73$ 58.52$ 61.45$ 63.29$ 65.19$ 67.15$ 69.16$ Consumption Charge - (per 100 cubic feet) Comercial 1.91$ 2.01$ 2.11$ 2.22$ 2.33$ 2.45$ 2.52$ 2.60$ 2.68$ 2.76$ Industrial 2.11$ 2.22$ 2.33$ 2.45$ 2.57$ 2.70$ 2.78$ 2.86$ 2.95$ 3.04$ Sewer Rate Schedule Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 167 of 774 MOSES LAKE GENERAL SEWER PLAN CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8-13 All Urban Consumer Group (CPI-U) ten-year average of 2.70% (2011-2020). The most recent years of 2021 and 2022 were removed due to higher than average inflation rates experienced. Table 8.9 presents the City’s rates with the projected annual rate increases for the forecast period, tested against the 2.0% affordability threshold. TABLE 8.9 PROJECTED ANNUAL RATE INCREASES FOR THE CITY The City’s rates are forecasted to range between 0.73 to 0.83% for the 2023 and 2032 time period, suggesting that the City’s rates are and will remain within the affordability threshold. 8.9. CONCLUSION The results of this analysis indicate that rate increases are necessary to support the ongoing capital improvement program identified in this GSP and to fund the operating cost increases as inflation begins to outpace growth. Needed rate increases to fund the GSP capital program as stated and meet all fiscal policy targets require an 8.0% increase in 2024 followed by 3.5% increases in 2025-2031, before dropping to 2.5% annually thereafter. The proposed rate strategy for City Council consideration is a 5.0% maximum increase in any given year. The annual 5.0% rate increase would be needed in 2024 through 2028 before decreasing to 3.0% in 2029 and thereafter. This alternative strategy supports less debt funding and holding lower capital reserve balances until 2031 when capital balances recover to above target levels. It is important to note that the analysis performed in this chapter relies on a number of assumptions including inflation rates, growth rates, future revenues, and future expenses. It is the City’s practice to assess the need for rate increases annually. By doing this, the City can adapt to changing economic and financial conditions and provide for continued financial viability while maintaining affordable rates. Adopted 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Single Family Mo. Bill (flat rate)39.89$ 41.88$ 43.97$ 46.17$ 48.48$ 50.90$ 52.43$ 54.00$ 55.62$ 57.29$ Median HH Income 63,427$ 65,140$ 66,898$ 68,705$ 70,560$ 72,465$ 74,421$ 76,431$ 78,494$ 80,614$ 82,790$ Monthly Income 5,428$ 5,575$ 5,725$ 5,880$ 6,039$ 6,202$ 6,369$ 6,541$ 6,718$ 6,899$ Percent of Mo. Income 0.73% 0.75% 0.77% 0.79% 0.80% 0.82% 0.82% 0.83% 0.83% 0.83% Projected Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 168 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 169 of 774 Figures APPENDIX A Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 170 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 171 of 774 !W( !W(!W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W( !W(!W(!W(!W( !W( !W("T)"T) "T) "T) "T) "T) "T) "T) "T) !B( !B( !B( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( XY XY Well 12 Well 7 Well 18 Well 28 Well 10 Well 11 Well 4 Well 19 Well 9 Well 23 Well 24 Well 17 Well 29 Well 8 Well 14 Well 33 Well 31 Well 21 Moses Point BSJockey, Fire 1, 2, 3 Stratford BS Juniper BS W Valley Rd Road M SESPi o n eer W ayAirw a y D r N E West shor e Dr NEWheeler Rd NEStratford Rd NE¬«17 ¬«171 ¬«17 §¨90 WWTP WWTP R-1 R-2 R-3 R-5 R-6 R-8 R-4 R-7 R-9 Stratford Booster Pump Juniper Booster Pump Moses PointeBooster Pump Wastewater Plan ± 0 ½1 1½2Miles LEGEND !B(Booster Pump "T)Tank !W(Well !(Private WellsXYWaste Water Treatment Plant Sewer Lines Water Lines Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area City Limits Proximity to Water Facilities Figure A1.1 City of Moses Lake, WA February 2024 M o s e sL a k e General Sewer Plan Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 172 of 774 Othello Warden Basic AmericanFoods (private)Moses LakeSand Dunes Two Rivers Terminal (private) Eka Chemicals(private) Western Polymer (private) Simplot (private) National FrozenFoods (private) Americold Logistics (private) REC Silicon Moses Lake Larson Ephrata Port of Moses Lake Moses Lake Farms (private) Ephrata Moses Lake Othello Warden McDonald Wheeler ¬«17 ¬«17 ¬«262 ¬«26 §¨90 Wastewater Plan ± 0 1 2 3 4 5Miles LEGEND Wastewater Treatment Plants Urban Growth Area City Limits Proximity to Other Wastewater Facilities Figure 1.2 City of Moses Lake, WA March 2022 Figure A1.2 General Sewer Plan Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 173 of 774 INTERSTATE 90 ROAD 10 ROAD OROAD ESR - 1 7 STRATFORD RDROAD LROAD NROAD 4 ROAD 3ROAD FROAD KROAD 5 WHEELER RD BROADWAY AVEROAD INEP P E L R D ROAD 1RANDOLPH RDWESTSHORE DRROAD DNELSON RDMAE VALLEY RD SAND DUN E S R D ROAD 2 MCCONIHE RD BASELINE RDDIVISION STPATTON BLVD NORTH FRONTAGE RD VALLEY RD HARRIS RD ROAD MMAPLE DR ROAD N.9RR CLROAD 6.5 POTATO HILL RDGRAPE DRDICK RD FAIRWAY D R BOLLING ST SAGE RD YONEZAWA BLVD PANORAMA D R IVY AVEELGIN RDDUNN STRD J.6ROAD 7.8 SCENIC DRROAD 9.7 SCOTT RD DAHL RD 1.1 KOPP L N COX ST GRACE LN ROAD KROAD 3 ROAD 10 SR - 1 7 ROAD 5 ROAD NROAD 4 ROAD 5 ROAD DROAD O General Sewer Plan ± 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND City Limits Urban Growth Area Land Use Downtown Environmentally Sensitive Gateway Commercial General Commercial High Density Residential Industrial Lake Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Parks Open Space Port of Moses Lake Public Facilities Residential Redevelopment Area ROW RR ROW WSDOT Existing Land Use And Study Area Figure 1.1 City of Moses Lake, WA March 2022 Figure A1.3 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 174 of 774 Cascade Valley Area Mae Valley Area Pelican Point Area Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Wastewater Plan ± 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND CITY LIMITS UrbanGrowthArea SewerPressureMain SewerGravityLine Basin Cascade Valley Area Mae Valley Area Pelican Point Area Sewer Service Expansion Figure X City of Moses Lake, WA March 2022 Figure A1.4 General Sewer Plan Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 175 of 774 General Sewer Plan ± 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND City Limits Urban Growth Area Gravity Pipeline Pressure Pipeline !(Unmodeled Lift Station !(Modeled Lift Station Land Use Industrial Growth Commercial Growth Residential Growth Gateway Commercial General Commercial High Density Residential Industrial Lake Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Parks Open Space Port of Moses Lake Public Facilities Residential Redevelopment Area ROW RR ROW WSDOT Future Growth Areas Figure A1.5 City of Moses Lake, WA April 2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 176 of 774 13001 2 0 0 13001 2 0 0 140013001300120012001100120011001 2 0 0 1100 120011001300 1200 1100 1400 1300 1300 1100 1100 1100 110 0 Wastewater Plan ± 0 ½1 1½2Miles LEGEND Contours - 10' Contours - 100' Major Roads Direction of Ground Slope Urban Growth Area City Limits Toppography Figure A1.6 City of Moses Lake, WA February 2024 M o s e sL a k e Figure A1.6 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 177 of 774 General Sewer Plan ± 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND City Limits Force Main (in.) < 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 > 20 Urban Growth Area Gravity Main (in.) 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 Existing System Pipe Diameter Figure A2.1 City of Moses Lake, WA November 2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 178 of 774 Wastewater System Master Plan ± 0 0.95 1.9 2.85Miles LEGEND City Limits Force Main (in.) AC CAS DIP HDPE PE PVC SP OTHER Urban Growth Area Gravity Main (in.) AC CT DIP PCC PVC SP Unknown Existing System Pipe Material Figure A2.2 City of Moses Lake, WA November 2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 179 of 774 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( S R - 1 7 INTERSTATE 90 ROAD NSTRATFORD RDROAD 10 ROAD 4ROAD KROAD 5 ROAD LWHEELER RDROAD IROAD 1WESTSHORE DRSAND DUN E S R DRANDOLPH RDS FRONTAGE RD BASELINE RDMARINA DRVALLEY RDA I RW A Y DR HARRIS RD ROAD MPOTATO HILL RDMAPLE DR PAXSON DRRR CLROAD 7 ROAD 3 DICK RD DUNE LAKE RDSAGE RD FAIRWAY DR OTTMAR RDKITTELSON RD KORY LN RD 5.9 HANSEN RDROAD 2 LAKESHORE DRDUNN ST SCENIC DRROAD HEASY STALMA RDRD 5.6 NE ROAD 9.7ROAD H.1WINESAP RD ORCHARD DRMCCONIHE RD WI L D GOO S E RD DAHL RD CAMAS PLRD K.7 SEKOPP LN COX ST ROAD 4.2 J U D Y R D N E ROAD MROAD 1ROAD LROAD NROAD 5 ROAD 10 ROAD 5 ROAD KROAD M General Sewer Plan 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND Maximum d/D < 0.5 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.85 0.85 - 1 Surcharged !(Unmodeled Lift Station !(Modeled Lift Station Pressure Main 2042 Gravity Main Capacity d/D w/ Northshore Figure A4.1 City of Moses Lake, WA February 2024 . Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 180 of 774 General Sewer Plan ± 0 1 2 3Miles LEGEND City Limits Force Main (in.) < 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 > 20 Urban Growth Area Gravity Main (in.) 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 Capital Improvement Plan Figure A7.1 City of Moses Lake, WA March 2024 10" LEGENDForce Main (in.) < 4 Gravity Main (in.) 4 LEGEND City Limits Force Main (in.) Urban Growth Area Gravity Main (in.)< 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 > 20 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 Force Main (in.) < 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 > 20 Gravity Main (in.) 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 Existing Existing Capital Improvement Plan - Project Locations In Progress Projects Identifer Priority 1 Improvements Identifier Priority 2 Improvements Identifier Priority 3 Improvements Identifier Proposed Gravity Sewer Proposed Pressure Sewer Proposed Lift Station X X X X 3.9 3.1 1.3 3.2 3.3 P3 P1 P2 P4 P5 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 24" 24" 6" 10" 8" 18" 24" 24" 8" 21" 8"8"21" 18" Existing Lift Station Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 181 of 774 SEPA APPENDIX B Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 182 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 183 of 774 ST ATE ENVIRONMENT AL POLICY ACT Determination of NonSignificance May 17, 2024 Lead Agency: City of Moses Lake Agency Contact: Amy Harris, aharris@cityofml.com 509.7ei4.3747 Agency File Number: PLN2024-0045 Moses Lake Sewer General Plan Update/ Non-project Action. Description of proposal: The City of Moses Lake has contracted with Keller Associates to provide planning services for the City's General Sewer Plan. The general sewer plan builds on previous planning efforts while updating outdated information and including recent improvements/development projects. The hydraulic model flags areas with capacity issues which can be prioritized to create a Capital Improvement Plan. Location of proposal -The City Moses Lake, WA 98837, Grant County, WA Applicant: Richard Law, P.0. Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837,509-764-3782, rlaw@cityofml.com The City of Moses Lake has determined that this proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (ELS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). We have reviewed the attached Environmental Checklist. This information is available at: www.cityofml.com This determination is based on the following findings and conclusions: This project falls in the parameters for exemption under WAC 197-11-355. This is a legislative decision for the Adoption of Comprehensive Plan and any Plan amendments. This DNS is issped under WQ 197-11 -340(2) and the comment period ended on January 31, 2024 Appeals: This DNS may be appealed pursuant to the requirements of the Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter I 4.06. The I 4-day appeal period commences on the date following the issuance of this DNS. Any appeal must be addressed to the Hearing Examiner, accompanied by a filing fee pursuant to the adopted fee schedule, and be filed in writing at the Community Development Department, 321 S. Balsam Street, PO Box 1579, Moses Lake, WA. The appeal must contain the items set forth in Moses Lake Municipal Code section 14.06.070. Please note that failure to file a timely and compete appeal including the required items shall constitute waiver of all rights to an administrative appeal under City code. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 184 of 774 Notice of Application and Preliminary SEPA Decision Date of Notice: April 8, 2024 Project Name: Moses Lake General Sewer Plan Physical Address of Property: The City of Moses Lake Limits and Urban Growth Area Moses Lake, Washington, 98837 Applicant Contact: Mark Beaulieu (509.764.3776) Mailing Address (Applicant): P.O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, Washington, 98837 File Number: PLN2024-0045 Date of Application Submitted: March 25, 2024 Date of Notice of Completion: April 5, 2024 Comment Due Date: April 22, 2024 Project Location: The City of Moses Lake Limits and Urban Growth Area Moses Lake, Washington, 98837 Project Description: The City of Moses Lake has contracted with Keller Associates to provide planning services for the City’s General Sewer Plan. The general sewer plan builds on previous planning efforts while updating outdated information and including recent improvements/development projects. The hydraulic model flags areas with capacity issues which can be prioritized to create a Capital Improvement Plan. Required Studies: None Required/Existing Environmental Documents: The applicant has submitted a completed SEPA Checklist, a Custom Soil Resource Report for Grant County, Washington. Preliminary Determination of Consistency: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-158, the City will regulate impacts and other local, state, and federal laws or rules. These laws and rules should provide adequate analysis of the impacts of this project. Required Permits: Approval from the Department of Ecology. Public Comment/Review/Appeals: The public and other agencies with jurisdiction are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable impacts. The comment period ends April 22, 2024. For more information, contact the project planner at the City of Moses Lake, Community Development Department. Submit written comments to Amy Harris, by phone at (509)764-3747, e-mail at aharris@cityofml.com or by mail at City of Moses Lake, Community Development Department, 321 S. Balsam, P.O. Box 1579, Moses Lake, WA 98837. Copies of the information related to this application are available for review at no charge. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 185 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 1 (WAC 197-11-960) SEPA1 Environmental Checklist Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or “does not apply” only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non- projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/Checklist-guidance Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 186 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 2 (WAC 197-11-960) A. Background Find help answering background questions2 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Moses Lake General Sewer Plan 2. Name of applicant: City of Moses Lake 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837 509.764.3776 4. Date checklist prepared: March 25, 2024 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Moses Lake 6. Proposed timing of schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Not applicable. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The general sewer plan identifies possible improvements to the City’s sewer system. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Department of Ecology approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-A-Background Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 187 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 3 (WAC 197-11-960) The City of Moses Lake has contracted with Keller Associates to provide planning services for the City’s General Sewer Plan. The general sewer plan builds on previous planning efforts while updating outdated information and including recent improvement/ development projects. The hydraulic model flags areas with capacity issues which can be prioritized to create a Capital Improvement Plan. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The General Sewer Plan encompasses the City of Moses Lake Limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA). B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions3 a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? According to the natural resources conservations service, the steepest slope is 35%, however this is for less than 3% of the service area. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. In general, sandy loams and fine sands are found in the area. Around 7,500 acres or (22.7% of the service area) is Ephrata fine sandy loam and around 4,000 acres (12.2% of the service area) is Magela gravelly sandy loam. 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-earth Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 188 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 4 (WAC 197-11-960) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Washington’s Geologic Information Portal (Washington Department of Natural Resources) provides maps on geologic stability. It indicates a historical earthquake of magnitude 1 occurring in Range 28E, Section 31, in 1996. No other earthquakes have been recorded within the UGA according to this mapping database. Near the UGA boundary there was also a 1.3 magnitude earthquake in R28E, Section 12 in 1981. A 3.3 magnitude earthquake occurred in R28E, section 18 in 2001. No landslides have been recorded in the project vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None proposed. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No additional impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. None. 2. Air Find help answering air questions4 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None. 4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-Air Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 189 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 5 (WAC 197-11-960) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 3. Water Find help answering water questions5 a. Surface: Find help answering surface water questions6 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Moses Lake is a freshwater lake that bisects the UGA. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No, this is only a planning project at this time. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None, this is only a planning project at this time. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Due to the Moses Lake bisecting the UGA boundary, portions of the study area will be in a Zone A or AE, 100-year flood zone. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. 5 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental- elements-Surface-water Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 190 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 6 (WAC 197-11-960) b. Ground: Find help answering ground water questions7 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a planning only project at this time, no changes are proposed to existing ground water sources. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals…; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: None. 7 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental- elements-Groundwater Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 191 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 7 (WAC 197-11-960) 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☒ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☒ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☒ shrubs ☒ grass ☒ pasture ☒ crop or grain ☒ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☒ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☒ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☒ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. None. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. There are numerous Class A, B, and C noxious weeds in Grant County according to the Grant County Weed Board website. Class A: Common Crupina Cordgrass, Common Cordgrass, Dense-Flowered Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Cordgrass, Smooth Dyer's Woad Eggleaf Spurge False Brome Floating Primrose-Willow Flowering Rush French Broom Garlic Mustard Giant Hogweed Goatsrue Hydrilla Johnsongrass Knapweed, Bighead Knapweed, Vochin Kudzu Meadow Clary Oriental Clematis Purple Starthistle Reed Sweetgrass Ricefield Bulrush Sage, Clary Sage, Mediterranean Silverleaf Nightshade South American Spongeplant Spanish Broom Syrian Beancaper Texas Blueweed Thistle, Italian Thistle, Milk Thistle, Slenderflower Thistle, Turkish Variable-Leaf Milfoil And Hybrids Wild Four-O'Clock Small-Flowered Jewelweed Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 192 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 8 (WAC 197-11-960) Class B: Blueweed Brazilian Elodea Dalmatian Toadflax Eurasian Watermilfoil European Coltsfoot Fanwort Gorse Ulex europaeus Hairy Willowherb Hawkweed Oxtongue Herb-Robert Kochia Bassia scoparia Lesser Celandine Malta Starthistle Ravenna Grass Scotch Broom Spurge Flax Wild Basil/Basil Savory Bugloss, Annual Bugloss, Common Camelthorn Common Fennel Common Reed Common Tansy Grass-Leaved Arrowhead Hanging Sedge Hawkweed, Orange Hawkweeds: Nonnative Meadow Subgenus Hawkweeds: Nonnative Wall Subgenus Hoary Alyssum Houndstongue Indigobush Knapweed, Russian Knapweed, Black Knapweed, Brown Knapweed, Diffuse Knapweed, Meadow Knapweed, Spotted Knotweed, Bohemian Knotweed, Himalayan Knotweed, Japanese Knotweed, Giant Loosestrife, Garden Loosestrife, Purple Parrotfeather Perennial Pepperweed Poison Hemlock Policeman’s Helmet Puncturevine Rough Chervil Rush Skeletonweed Saltcedar Shiny Geranium Spurge Laurel Spurge, Leafy Spurge, Myrtle Sulfur Cinquefoil Tansy Ragwort Thistle, Scotch Thistle, Musk Thistle, Plumeless Velvetleaf Water Primrose White Bryony Wild Chervil Yellow Archangel Yellow Floating Heart Yellow Nutsedge Yellow Starthistle Class C: Eurasian Watermilfoil Hybrid Swainsonpea Black Henbane Buffalobur Cereal Rye Common St. Johnswort Common Barberry Common Groundsel Field Bindweed Hairy Whitetop Hoary Cress Jointed Goatgrass Longspine Sandbur Oxeye Daisy Russian Olive Scentless Mayweed Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull White Cockle Wild Carrot To Exclude Daucus Carota Subsp. Sativus (Garden Carrot) Grown Commercially or for Food Yellowflag Iris 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions8 a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: See IPaC list • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: catfish, whitefish, perch, blue gill, crappie, carp 8 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-5-Animals Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 193 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 9 (WAC 197-11-960) b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Gray wolf, yellow-billed cuckoo, monarch butterfly. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None. 6. Energy and natural resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions9 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. None. 7. Environmental health Health Find help with answering environmental health questions10 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Washington Department of Ecology publishes a web map application with toxic cleanup sites. Over 40 are listed near Moses Lake. Refer to the map for type/location. 9 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-6-Energy-natural-resou 10 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 194 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 10 (WAC 197-11-960) 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? None, this is a planning project only at this time. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. 8. Land and shoreline use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions11 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Refer to the Moses like land use map. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 11 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-8-Land-shoreline-use Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 195 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 11 (WAC 197-11-960) There is farmland with the UGA. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? No, this is a planning project only at this time. c. Describe any structures on the site. This is a planning only project at this time. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? This is a planning only project at this time and no zoning classifications will be affected. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Refer to shoreline map. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Not applicable. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None, this is a planning project only at this time. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, this is a planning project only at this time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None, this is a planning project only at this time. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. None, this is a planning project only at this time. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 196 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 12 (WAC 197-11-960) 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions12 a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None, this is a planning project only at this time. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None, this is a planning project only at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions13 a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A, this is a planning project only at this time. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A, this is a planning project only at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. 11. Light and glare Find help answering light and glare questions14 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None, this is a planning project only at this time. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, this is a planning project only at this time. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None, this is a planning project only at this time. 12 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-9-Housing 13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-10-Aesthetics 14 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-11-Light-glare Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 197 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 13 (WAC 197-11-960) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Moses Lake provides many opportunities for recreation including boating, fishing, swimming, etc. Refer to the Parks and Trails map for location of additional recreational routes within the UGA. Actual development will not occur and the proposal is planning focused. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No, this is a planning project only at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None, this is a planning project only at this time. 13. Historic and cultural preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions15 a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Not applicable, this is a planning project only. No development will occur. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Not applicable, this is a planning project only. No development will occur. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. None, this is a planning project only at this time. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None, this is a planning project only at this time. 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-13-Historic-cultural-p Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 198 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 14 (WAC 197-11-960) 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions16 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The main arterial through Moses Lake is I-90 east to west and Highway 17 north to south. There are numerous additional collectors and arterial roads that serve the City. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, rail and bus are services within the UGA. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? None, this is a planning project only at this time. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No, this is a planning project only at this time. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. Public services Find help answering public service questions17 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, this is a planning project only at this time. 16 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-14-Transportation 17 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-15-public-services Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 199 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 15 (WAC 197-11-960) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None, this is a planning project only at this time. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions18 a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None, this is a planning project only at this time. C. Signature Find help about who should sign19 The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. X Type name of signee: Stillman Norton Position and agency/organization: Project Manager, Keller Associates Date submitted: 3/25/2024 18 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-16-utilities 19 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-C-Signature Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 200 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 16 (WAC 197-11-960) D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions worksheet20 Do not use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No effect anticipated/not applicable. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal will not likely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is not expected to deplete energy or natural resources. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal will not use or affect these areas. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No effect anticipated/not applicable. 20 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-d-non-project-actions Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 201 of 774 SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 17 (WAC 197-11-960) • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No effect anticipated/not applicable. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts anticipated. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 202 of 774 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Moses Lake Supplemental Sheet SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farm lands? Not applicable. The proposal will not likely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Not applicable. The proposal is not expected to deplete energy or natural resources. Not applicable. No effect anticipated/not applicable. The proposal will not use or affect these areas. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 203 of 774 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts anticipated. Not applicable. Not applicable. No effect anticipated/not applicable. Not applicable. No effect anticipated/not applicable. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 204 of 774 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report forGrant County, WashingtonNaturalResourcesConservationService March 20, 2024 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 205 of 774 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 206 of 774 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 207 of 774 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................6 Soil Map..................................................................................................................9 Soil Map..............................................................................................................10 Legend................................................................................................................11 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................14 Grant County, Washington..............................................................................16 12—Aquents, ponded..................................................................................16 26—Burbank loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes..................................17 36—Ekrub fine sand, 0 to 25 percent slopes..............................................18 40—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...................................19 41—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes...................................20 42—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes.................................21 43—Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................22 44—Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes............................23 45—Ephrata-Malaga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes.................................24 46—Ephrata-Malaga complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes...............................25 47—Esquatzel silt loam...............................................................................27 68—Kittitas silt loam....................................................................................28 73—Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.............................29 74—Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes...........................30 75—Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes.............................31 76—Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes...........................32 77—Malaga stony sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes...............................33 78—Malaga very stony sandy loam, 0 to 35 percent slopes.......................34 79—Malaga-Ephrata complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes...............................35 80—Neppel fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................36 86—Outlook very fine sandy loam..............................................................37 88—Pits.......................................................................................................38 89—Prosser very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...........................38 91—Prosser very fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes.........................39 94—Prosser-Starbuck very fine sandy loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes........40 96—Quincy sand, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded......................................41 97—Quincy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes.............................................42 98—Quincy loamy fine sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes..................................43 99—Quincy loamy fine sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes................................44 113—Royal loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes..................................45 115—Royal very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................46 116—Royal very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes............................47 121—Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.........................48 122—Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.........................49 132—Scoon silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes...............................................50 133—Scoon silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes.............................................51 4 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 208 of 774 135—Scoon complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes.............................................52 136—Shano silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...............................................53 137—Shano silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes...............................................54 141—Starbuck very fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes.....................55 142—Starbuck stony silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes...............................56 145—Starbuck-Prosser complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes...........................57 151—Taunton loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes..............................58 152—Taunton fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes................................59 154—Taunton fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes..............................60 164—Timmerman loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes.................................61 165—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................62 166—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.....................63 167—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes...................64 168—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, thin solum, 0 to 2 percent slopes...65 172—Umapine silt loam..............................................................................66 176—Wanser-Quincy fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes.............................67 177—Warden silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.............................................68 178—Warden silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.............................................69 179—Warden silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes...........................................70 182—Wiehl fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes....................................71 184—Wiehl fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes................................72 186—Winchester sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes.............................................73 194—Water.................................................................................................74 References............................................................................................................75 Custom Soil Resource Report 5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 209 of 774 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 6 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 210 of 774 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 211 of 774 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 212 of 774 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 9 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 213 of 774 10 Custom Soil Resource ReportSoil Map 52160005219000522200052250005228000523100052340005216000521900052220005225000522800052310005234000311000 314000 317000 320000 323000 326000 329000 332000 335000 338000 341000 311000 314000 317000 320000 323000 326000 329000 332000 335000 338000 341000 47° 15' 1'' N 119° 29' 59'' W47° 15' 1'' N119° 4' 42'' W47° 3' 50'' N 119° 29' 59'' W47° 3' 50'' N 119° 4' 42'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 5000 10000 20000 30000Feet 0 2000 4000 8000 12000Meters Map Scale: 1:146,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 214 of 774 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Grant County, WashingtonSurvey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 28, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 1, 1999—Dec 31, 2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 215 of 774 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 12 Aquents, ponded 109.4 0.3% 26 Burbank loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 65.7 0.2% 36 Ekrub fine sand, 0 to 25 percent slopes 6.1 0.0% 40 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 7,596.8 22.7% 41 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 636.0 1.9% 42 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 95.5 0.3% 43 Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 430.6 1.3% 44 Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 89.9 0.3% 45 Ephrata-Malaga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 1,127.7 3.4% 46 Ephrata-Malaga complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 182.9 0.5% 47 Esquatzel silt loam 10.9 0.0% 68 Kittitas silt loam 13.5 0.0% 73 Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 4,072.7 12.2% 74 Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 32.8 0.1% 75 Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 941.4 2.8% 76 Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 297.1 0.9% 77 Malaga stony sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 6,650.4 19.9% 78 Malaga very stony sandy loam, 0 to 35 percent slopes 485.1 1.4% 79 Malaga-Ephrata complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 182.7 0.5% 80 Neppel fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 27.3 0.1% 86 Outlook very fine sandy loam 60.9 0.2% 88 Pits 116.7 0.3% 89 Prosser very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 26.6 0.1% 91 Prosser very fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 130.2 0.4% Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 216 of 774 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 94 Prosser-Starbuck very fine sandy loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes 187.4 0.6% 96 Quincy sand, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded 25.6 0.1% 97 Quincy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 850.6 2.5% 98 Quincy loamy fine sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes 10.7 0.0% 99 Quincy loamy fine sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes 2.5 0.0% 113 Royal loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes 194.8 0.6% 115 Royal very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 213.9 0.6% 116 Royal very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 100.4 0.3% 121 Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 37.9 0.1% 122 Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 57.5 0.2% 132 Scoon silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 1,715.1 5.1% 133 Scoon silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 12.4 0.0% 135 Scoon complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes 17.6 0.1% 136 Shano silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.3 0.0% 137 Shano silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.1 0.0% 141 Starbuck very fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 75.5 0.2% 142 Starbuck stony silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes 1.8 0.0% 145 Starbuck-Prosser complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes 132.1 0.4% 151 Taunton loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes 26.7 0.1% 152 Taunton fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 131.9 0.4% 154 Taunton fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 7.2 0.0% 164 Timmerman loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 160.9 0.5% 165 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 475.6 1.4% 166 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 30.4 0.1% Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 217 of 774 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 167 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 52.2 0.2% 168 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, thin solum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 7.7 0.0% 172 Umapine silt loam 89.0 0.3% 176 Wanser-Quincy fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes 125.4 0.4% 177 Warden silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 119.8 0.4% 178 Warden silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 202.9 0.6% 179 Warden silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 19.9 0.1% 182 Wiehl fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 58.3 0.2% 184 Wiehl fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 206.4 0.6% 186 Winchester sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes 191.8 0.6% 194 Water 4,526.1 13.5% Totals for Area of Interest 33,457.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 218 of 774 are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 219 of 774 Grant County, Washington 12—Aquents, ponded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hk Elevation: 50 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Aquents and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:14 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquents Setting Landform:Basin floors Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 14 inches: silty clay loam H2 - 14 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R007XY988WA - Wetland Complex Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Wanser Percent of map unit:8 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Kittitas Percent of map unit:6 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 220 of 774 Landform:Alluvial cones Hydric soil rating: Yes 26—Burbank loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29l9 Elevation: 300 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 220 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Burbank and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Burbank Setting Landform:Outwash terraces Parent material:Eolian sands over gravelly glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 4 to 23 inches: gravelly loamy fine sand H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 221 of 774 36—Ekrub fine sand, 0 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29ln Elevation: 890 to 2,260 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Ekrub and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ekrub Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: fine sand H2 - 3 to 12 inches: fine sand H3 - 12 to 18 inches: very gravelly fine sand H4 - 18 to 28 inches: cemented material H5 - 28 to 60 inches: stratified indurated to extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to very high (0.00 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:35 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 222 of 774 40—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29lt Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 223 of 774 41—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29lv Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 224 of 774 42—Ephrata fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29lw Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 225 of 774 43—Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29lx Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 22 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 226 of 774 44—Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29ly Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 23 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 227 of 774 45—Ephrata-Malaga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29lz Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:45 percent Malaga and similar soils:40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash Custom Soil Resource Report 24 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 228 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 46—Ephrata-Malaga complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29m0 Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Ephrata and similar soils:40 percent Malaga and similar soils:35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly sandy loam Custom Soil Resource Report 25 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 229 of 774 H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 26 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 230 of 774 47—Esquatzel silt loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29m1 Elevation: 300 to 2,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Esquatzel and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Esquatzel Setting Landform:Alluvial flats Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: silt loam H2 - 7 to 52 inches: silt loam H3 - 52 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 12.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2c Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY930WA - Loamy Bottom Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 27 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 231 of 774 68—Kittitas silt loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29ms Elevation: 500 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Kittitas and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kittitas Setting Landform:Flood plains Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: silt loam H3 - 20 to 52 inches: silt loam H4 - 52 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:Frequent Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R007XY970WA - Alkali Terrace Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 28 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 232 of 774 73—Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29mz Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 29 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 233 of 774 74—Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n0 Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces, escarpments Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 30 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 234 of 774 75—Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n1 Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces, escarpments Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 31 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 235 of 774 76—Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n2 Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces, escarpments Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 32 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 236 of 774 77—Malaga stony sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n3 Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: stony sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 33 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 237 of 774 78—Malaga very stony sandy loam, 0 to 35 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n4 Elevation: 500 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces, escarpments Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: very stony sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 34 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 238 of 774 79—Malaga-Ephrata complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n5 Elevation: 500 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Malaga and similar soils:40 percent Ephrata and similar soils:35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Malaga Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: very cobbly sandy loam H2 - 6 to 11 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 11 to 18 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H4 - 18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 28 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Description of Ephrata Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Gravelly glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Custom Soil Resource Report 35 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 239 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 23 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 80—Neppel fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29n7 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Neppel and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Neppel Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial outwash mixed with loess in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 7 to 27 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 27 to 31 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam Custom Soil Resource Report 36 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 240 of 774 H4 - 31 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 86—Outlook very fine sandy loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nf Elevation: 300 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Outlook and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Outlook Setting Landform:Flood plains Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Custom Soil Resource Report 37 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 241 of 774 Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY978WA - Sodic Flat Hydric soil rating: No 88—Pits Map Unit Composition Pits:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Pits Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No 89—Prosser very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nj Elevation: 300 to 2,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Prosser and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Prosser Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Parent material:Loess Custom Soil Resource Report 38 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 242 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 26 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 26 to 30 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 91—Prosser very fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nm Elevation: 300 to 2,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Prosser and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Prosser Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 26 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 26 to 30 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Custom Soil Resource Report 39 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 243 of 774 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 94—Prosser-Starbuck very fine sandy loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nq Elevation: 300 to 2,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Prosser and similar soils:45 percent Starbuck and similar soils:35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Prosser Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 26 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 26 to 30 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 40 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 244 of 774 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Description of Starbuck Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Parent material:Loess and residuum weathered from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 15 to 19 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:12 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No 96—Quincy sand, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29ns Elevation: 200 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Quincy and similar soils:100 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 41 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 245 of 774 Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Quincy Setting Landform:Dunes Parent material:Eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: sand H2 - 9 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:3 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 6.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No 97—Quincy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nt Elevation: 200 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Quincy and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Quincy Setting Landform:Dunes, terraces Parent material:Eolian sands Custom Soil Resource Report 42 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 246 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sand H2 - 9 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 6.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No 98—Quincy loamy fine sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nv Elevation: 200 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Quincy and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Quincy Setting Landform:Dunes, terraces Parent material:Eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 9 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Custom Soil Resource Report 43 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 247 of 774 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No 99—Quincy loamy fine sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29nw Elevation: 200 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Quincy and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Quincy Setting Landform:Dunes, terraces Parent material:Eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 9 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Custom Soil Resource Report 44 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 248 of 774 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No 113—Royal loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hb Elevation: 400 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Royal and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Royal Setting Landform:Terraces, hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Parent material:Sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 10 to 16 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 16 to 60 inches: stratified fine sand to very fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 45 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 249 of 774 115—Royal very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hd Elevation: 400 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Royal and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Royal Setting Landform:Terraces, hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Parent material:Sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 16 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 16 to 60 inches: stratified fine sand to very fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 46 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 250 of 774 116—Royal very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hf Elevation: 400 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Royal and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Royal Setting Landform:Terraces, hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Parent material:Sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 16 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 16 to 60 inches: stratified fine sand to very fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 47 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 251 of 774 121—Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hm Elevation: 400 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 190 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Sagehill and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sagehill Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess over lacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 48 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 252 of 774 122—Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29hn Elevation: 400 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 190 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Sagehill and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sagehill Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess over lacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 60 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 49 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 253 of 774 132—Scoon silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29j0 Elevation: 1,000 to 4,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Scoon and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Scoon Setting Landform:Terraces, alluvial fans Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 16 inches: gravelly silt loam H3 - 16 to 26 inches: cemented material H4 - 26 to 60 inches: stratified indurated to extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 50 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 254 of 774 133—Scoon silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29j1 Elevation: 1,000 to 4,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Scoon and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Scoon Setting Landform:Terraces, alluvial fans Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 16 inches: gravelly silt loam H3 - 16 to 26 inches: cemented material H4 - 26 to 60 inches: stratified indurated to extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 51 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 255 of 774 135—Scoon complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29j3 Elevation: 1,000 to 4,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Scoon and similar soils:50 percent Scoon and similar soils:35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Scoon Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 6 to 16 inches: gravelly very fine sandy loam H3 - 16 to 60 inches: cemented material Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Description of Scoon Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess Custom Soil Resource Report 52 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 256 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 6 to 8 inches: gravelly very fine sandy loam H3 - 8 to 60 inches: cemented material Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:6 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No 136—Shano silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29j4 Elevation: 500 to 2,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 125 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Shano and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Shano Setting Landform:Hillslopes Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: silt loam H3 - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 53 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 257 of 774 Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2c Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 137—Shano silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29j5 Elevation: 500 to 2,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 125 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Shano and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Shano Setting Landform:Hillslopes Parent material:Loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: silt loam H3 - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Custom Soil Resource Report 54 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 258 of 774 Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 141—Starbuck very fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29jb Elevation: 400 to 2,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Starbuck and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Starbuck Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Parent material:Loess and residuum weathered from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 15 inches: silt loam H3 - 15 to 19 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:12 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Custom Soil Resource Report 55 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 259 of 774 Hydric soil rating: No 142—Starbuck stony silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29jc Elevation: 400 to 2,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 136 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Starbuck and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Starbuck Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Parent material:Loess and residuum weathered from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony silt loam H2 - 8 to 15 inches: gravelly silt loam H3 - 15 to 19 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 56 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 260 of 774 145—Starbuck-Prosser complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29jg Elevation: 300 to 2,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Starbuck and similar soils:50 percent Prosser and similar soils:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Starbuck Setting Landform:Hillslopes, structural benches Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Parent material:Loess and residuum weathered from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: stony very fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 15 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H3 - 15 to 19 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R007XY120WA - Stony Hydric soil rating: No Description of Prosser Setting Landform:Hillslopes Parent material:Loess Custom Soil Resource Report 57 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 261 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: very fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 26 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 26 to 30 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 151—Taunton loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29jp Elevation: 200 to 2,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Taunton and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Taunton Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Alluvium and loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 8 to 19 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 27 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H4 - 27 to 60 inches: cemented material Custom Soil Resource Report 58 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 262 of 774 Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No 152—Taunton fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29jq Elevation: 200 to 2,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Taunton and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Taunton Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Alluvium and loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 27 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H4 - 27 to 37 inches: cemented material Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Custom Soil Resource Report 59 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 263 of 774 Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 154—Taunton fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29js Elevation: 200 to 2,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Taunton and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Taunton Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, terraces Parent material:Alluvium and loess Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 19 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 27 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H4 - 27 to 37 inches: cemented material H5 - 37 to 60 inches: stratified indurated to extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to duripan Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report 60 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 264 of 774 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 164—Timmerman loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29k4 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Timmerman and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Timmerman Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash and alluvium mixed with eolian material in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand H2 - 8 to 23 inches: coarse sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Custom Soil Resource Report 61 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 265 of 774 Hydric soil rating: No 165—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29k5 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Timmerman and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Timmerman Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash and alluvium mixed with eolian material in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 8 to 23 inches: coarse sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 62 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 266 of 774 166—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29k6 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Timmerman and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Timmerman Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash and alluvium mixed with eolian material in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 8 to 23 inches: coarse sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 63 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 267 of 774 167—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29k7 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Timmerman and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Timmerman Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash and alluvium mixed with eolian material in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 8 to 23 inches: coarse sandy loam H3 - 23 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 64 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 268 of 774 168—Timmerman coarse sandy loam, thin solum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29k8 Elevation: 400 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Timmerman and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Timmerman Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Sandy glacial outwash and alluvium mixed with eolian material in the upper part Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 8 to 13 inches: coarse sandy loam H3 - 13 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 65 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 269 of 774 172—Umapine silt loam Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kf Elevation: 250 to 3,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 110 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Umapine and similar soils:95 percent Minor components:2 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Umapine Setting Landform:Basin floors, alluvial flats Parent material:Silty alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam H2 - 9 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:20.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY970WA - Alkali Terrace Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kittitas Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Basin floors Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 66 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 270 of 774 176—Wanser-Quincy fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kk Elevation: 200 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Wanser and similar soils:55 percent Quincy and similar soils:25 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wanser Setting Landform:Basin floors, flood plains Parent material:Alluvium and eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: fine sand H2 - 3 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:10.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: R007XY988WA - Wetland Complex Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 67 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 271 of 774 Description of Quincy Setting Landform:Dunes, terraces Parent material:Eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sand H2 - 9 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 6.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Aquents, ponded Percent of map unit:15 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes 177—Warden silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kl Elevation: 600 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Warden and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 68 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 272 of 774 Description of Warden Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess over lacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 26 inches: silt loam H3 - 26 to 60 inches: stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2c Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 178—Warden silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29km Elevation: 600 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Warden and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Warden Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess over lacustrine deposits Custom Soil Resource Report 69 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 273 of 774 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 26 inches: silt loam H3 - 26 to 60 inches: stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 179—Warden silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kn Elevation: 600 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Warden and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Warden Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Loess over lacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 26 inches: silt loam H3 - 26 to 60 inches: stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 10 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 70 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 274 of 774 Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R007XY130WA - Loamy Hydric soil rating: No 182—Wiehl fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29ks Elevation: 400 to 6,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Wiehl and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiehl Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Eolian deposits over residuum weathered from sandstone and siltstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 18 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 18 to 25 inches: very fine sandy loam H4 - 25 to 35 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 71 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 275 of 774 Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 184—Wiehl fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kv Elevation: 400 to 6,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Wiehl and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiehl Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Eolian deposits over residuum weathered from sandstone and siltstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 18 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 18 to 25 inches: very fine sandy loam H4 - 25 to 35 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Custom Soil Resource Report 72 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 276 of 774 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R007XY143WA - Sandy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 186—Winchester sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 29kx Elevation: 350 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 4 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 110 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Winchester and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Winchester Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Alluvium and/or eolian sands Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: sand H2 - 8 to 60 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R007XY140WA - Sands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 73 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 277 of 774 194—Water Map Unit Composition Water:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 74 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 278 of 774 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 75 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 279 of 774 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 76 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 280 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 281 of 774 Wetland Map U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine March 20, 2024 0 4 82 mi 0 6.5 133.25 km 1:241,714 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 282 of 774 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Grant County, Washington Local oce Washington Fish And Wildlife Oce  (360) 753-9440  (360) 753-9405 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 283 of 774 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location: Mammals Birds Insects 1 2 NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus There is nal critical habitat for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488 Endangered NAME STATUS Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 284 of 774 Critical habitats Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species. Bald & Golden Eagles There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. BREEDING SEASON NAME STATUS Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing- incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard- conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information- migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2 3 NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 285 of 774 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 286 of 774 What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Oce if you have questions. Migratory birds The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. BREEDING SEASON Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing- incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/ documents/nationwide-standard- conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information- migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2 3 NAME American Avocet Recurvirostra americana This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 10 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 287 of 774 American White Pelican pelecanus erythrorhynchos This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6886 Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 31 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 California Gull Larus californicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9526 Breeds May 1 to Aug 15 Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa avipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408 Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 288 of 774 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8350 Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds elsewhere Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9433 Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 10 Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 289 of 774 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Avocet BCC - BCR American White Pelican BCC - BCR Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable California Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) Calliope Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Clark's Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Evening Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) Franklin's Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Lewis's Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Long-eared Owl BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Northern Harrier BCC - BCR Olive-sided Flycatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Pectoral Sandpiper BCC Rangewide (CON) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Sage Thrasher BCC - BCR Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 290 of 774 Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 291 of 774 What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no sh hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Wetland information is not available at this time This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 292 of 774 The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 293 of 774 Toxics Cleanup Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Cleanup Site Status Awaiting cleanup Cleanup started Monitoring cleanup progress Cleanup complete 3/20/2024 0 1.5 30.75 mi 0 2.5 51.25 km 1:144,448 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 294 of 774 GAILE Y 'S IS L A N D G O A T I S L A N D MARSHISLANDLAKEVIEWISLANDP E L I C A N H O R NP A R K E R H O R N L E W I S H O R N CRE S T I S L A N DHERONISLAND POTATO HILL RDMARKET ST ME LODYLNTUTTLERDCARS W ELLDR ROAD 1.8 NE RDK.7SEPAR KPLHOOP E R D R LAKELANDD RSCOTT RD RD 1.6HANSENRDELECTRA ST DOVE CT SMADI SONSTR O A D 6 .6 TOWHEE ST HAYDENDR DUNNSTYOUNG RDTEAL RD MURIEL LNRD 6.7 N EROAD D.9YAK I M A A V E BURR A V E DUNE LAKE RDWESTSHOREDRABBEY ROAD HAMILTON RDREES STLAKEWAYDRCOLER D VALLEY RDCRAIG BLVDPENINSULA DRALBERTWAYWI L DGO O S E R D V E R N A L AVE EAGLE DR BLAC K BIRDLPSAGE RDFAIRWAYDR BENJAMINWAYPARTRIDGEDR FI G S T TED YAO WAY HAWTHORNE DRGOODRICH RD THRUSH ST ROAD ICASTLEW O OD DR KI MBERLEELNSE SCENIC DRROADHJAMESAVES HELBY ST EASTLAKE DRMAT H E R S T LYNN RD NEE GELANDDRELG IN RDBALSAM STEASY STBAILEY AVE I RONWOODDRC O L O NIALAVEPELICANDRHAWK ST BLANCHETTE DRLARK AVE COMME RC E W AY STACY DRVIE W CRESTDRVIEWMONTDRROAD 6.9 LAURELHURSTDR LINDEN AVE DIVISIONSTLOFGREN DRA S T O RLPD O O L IT T L E DRGRAND DRAI R W A Y D R FAIRBANKSD R BEAUMONTDREDGEW ATE R L N A LDERWO ODDRCO CHRANRDJ A VELIN ST K A RLRD DUNE P L GLE NM O O R DRBLUE GOOSE ST KE VI N W AY C HE RR Y AVE JUNCO ST MARINADRLO R I N G D R STADERDMCCONIHE RD N A P ELSST LOOP DR ROAD 7.4 R D1.7DILLEY CT HOPE CT SR-17 BROADWAYAVEWREN ST DAVIS RD JOS H U A C TCOVEWESTDR DOROTHY STCIRCLEPL LEESTVINE ST SKYLINE DRTHIRD STREETPRIVATERDTRACTA HARB O R V I E W S T DAVIDST SHARON AVE CRA W F O R D L A N E BASELINE.1 RD KITTELSON RD ORCH A R D B A Y S T NorthFrontageRdSWAN LNVENICE CTROADE.2BONNEVILLE ST PI ONEERWAYH I L L AVE POLK CT DEBORAH ST P A T T O NBL VDD A L E Y DRBASELINE.6 TRUMAN DRRRCLQUINN DRCOLUMBIAAVECLOVER DRPHOENIX D R MIL L E R S T LAGUNADRRDI.6HANNAH CT IDAHORDDAHLIA DRKESTRELDR JAKES PLPAXSON DRSPARROW LNVAN D E N BERGLOOPMCLAUGHLIN RD NESOUTH FRONTAGE RD E TOMMY DRROADD.2R O Y A L P A L M D R RD 5.6 NE MEADOW VIEW DR YOST CIRVIKING RDHILL PLT ANGLEWOOD DR HOLM S T A ST RUSS E L L A V E EVERETT PLBEMISSTBUELL DRMO S E S S T FLOR E N C E A V E CRE STV IEW DRHUSKY DRRANDOLPHRDEVERGREENDRCE D A R S T CARLI L E LN TYLER CTLAKESHORE CTBE E C H S TROAD E .3 BALL CT B ST NELSON RDFIFTH AVEORE GON ST GIBBY RD TANAGERS TEIGHTH AVE INTERSTATE 90QUAIL DRJUNIPER DRTAFTST W E S T O V E RBLVDROAD 4 GARDENDRCRABAPPLE CTWANA P U M DR COUGA RDR G R A N D P L VUE ST BOBBI DRFOURTH STREET STANLEY DR SHAKER PLPERCHAVECANTERBURY LNVIRGINIA ST LEGEND LNCLINK AVE NORTH FRONTAGE RD S A G E B A YDROTTMAR RDRIDGERD ME A D O W L A R K L N DANIEL STMOSESLAKEAVET R A V IS D RMARY ST22ND AVEJASON CTRD J.4RD 5.8 R D J . 2 MONTE VISTA LN Monroe STKNO LLSVISTADRMILWAUKEE AVE BUR R E S S A V E THIRD AVEHU N T E R P L SANDD U N ES R D CR ESTDRROAD 3 BASIN STGAMBLE DR APPLECUP DR CH E S T N U T S T A R N O L D DR JENN IFER LN 32NDAVEA S H CROFTEDWARDSDRLARSON BLVDDA T E S T WHEELER RD TUR N A G I N C TGRANT STGRAPE DRNORTHW ESTLNROAD D.5HYLAND P L LAKEPORT LNROAD 6.5 LAKESHOREDRR O A D 2.4 LAKESIDEDRBRUNCH R D Longview StreetMONTANA STNEPPEL STMonarch STWILLIAMAVEPETE R S O N P L BELAIRDRSIXTH AVECENTRALDR BASELINE.2 RD SE MERIDIANAVE OKLAHOMA STMOON DREL D E R S T BL O C K S T D ST APPLE RD RAINBOWD RBOLLING ST ROAD 4.2 ELSIE RDRD 5.7 BIGGSD RMACK I N L N OFFUTDR CHUCKIE LN GRACE LN WINDROSEDRGRA N D VIE WDR ROSE AVEASHLEY WYSEVENTH AVEPIRATELN WILDCAT LN RD E.9C H A P ARRALDRDALE RDBARON PLS ARC H E R S T MORGAN RD STRATFORD RDWAPATO DRMICH A E L A V E CASCADEAVEFARRERWAY NINTH AVE ROSEMONT PLCHANUTE ST ROAD 3.3 RAY RDSUNBU R S TC T STATE AVE S CHI LLIN G D R ROADE.9BASELINE RD AL D E R S TEVELYNDR ROAD 7.5 NE MELBYWAY JUDITH STKINDER RD SANDPIPER CIR TAMA R A C K L N ROADK.1JOEY RDMCDOUGAL AVE H O L L Y S T GU M W O O D S T EL M S TOWEN RDPENN ST L OW R Y D R FOURTH AVEDICK RD FI R S T BAKER STNO RTHSHOREDRRIVIERA AVE HUMMINGBIRDCR YONEZAWA BLVDROAD F.5LOC U S T L N ROAD MMIZZOUCT MART RD WISER LNBING RDROAD KCOXST 26THAV E DAHL RD ERNSTPL RD 5.9 OASIS CIR ROAD 7.2 ROAD 7.9 GL A D Y S L N MAPLE DR WASHINGTON STDUNE LA KELOOPPARK DR ROAD FMARLO AVE WILD GOOSE LN ROADF.2 CRESTMONTDRPARKER DR BROADST BELL RDDOW AVE MALAGA ST19TH AVE T EN N E S SEEDR ATLA N T I C S T BRUCE ST FRANKLIN ST MAE VALLEY RD EARLRDSHORECRESTDRROAD 6 .7PERS H IN G RDSUNKISTDRMAR G A R E T S T LENAE LN MONROE STEVANS LNROA D 4.4 INTERLAKERD28th Ave NEMAIN STSPRUCESTTYNDALL R D ROAD 1.9 ROAD K.8ROAD7.5WARBLERST MELVALN ARIZONA20TH AVESUNNY DR BONANZA ST KONISHI RD BOW STSTONERIDGE RDBASELINE.3 CONCORD AVE GEM AVEPETTIGREW LN BERTRAM WAY ASPI BLVD ROAD 5 Rd G.6 NERd I.6 NEPACI F I C S T THOMPSON PL K.5ROAD 7.8 CATA L P A S T WINO N A S T CLARK RDWALLACEST MCBETH LN SUND ANCERDROBINSON RDCE NTURY ST24TH AVE NEORCHARD DRFERGUSON RDFAIRCHILDLP BOARDWALKAVEBADGERST SAGE DALE RD BLUEHER O N LN SANDALWOODPL BOBWHITE DR SPACE ST CROUSEST WILLOW STHILLCREST DR 1.1 LYBBERT D RROAD E.6SAMARITANRDMURRAY WAY SUPERIOR CT COOLIDGESTRAINIER DR COVEY LNSTAR DRSUN DRJOANN DRLINCOLN DRROAD 4.3 LANDON ST BRECKEN DR NEN DR WINESAP RD C R Y STALSPRINGSDRDENTON R D TERMINAL ST STEWART LNCHRIS DR B O ULDERCRESTRDSR-17 OF F - R A M P INDUSTRIAL ST MITCHELL A V E SR-17ON-RAMP ARROW STTI NKE R LOOPCRYSTALSPRINGSPLI-90OFF-RAMP ROAD LDOGWOODSTWESTLAKE RD JEAN LN ARLENE LN CHARLES PL VINCE DR FARMER DRROAD E.5 NEROAD10 ROAD L.9NEPPELRD ROAD E.5BRENTRDBEACON RD ROAD 3 . 7 MALAGA DRRAMM RDLUTA ST ROAD 9.7 CALVERT RDGROVE RD CITATION RDFIROUZI DRHEDMANCTASTRO LNCOLLEGEPARKWAY ANDREWS ST ROAD 7 KELLY PLT U R N K E Y R D I-90 O N -RAMP FORBES RD ROAD M.2LUPIN EDRMAIE R S RD KOPP LN NEWELL ST HERITAGE LNWENATCHEERDBRAD STREDMOND RD HARRIS RD CAMA S PLRDJ.6MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RDT URNER RD MUNICIPAL HANGAR RDC A S T L E DR BLUFF DRSTONE RD ROAD NADMIRAL RDROAD H.4ROAD H.6ROAD D.8ROAD H.8ROAD H.1ROAD EALMA RDROAD 4.7KORY LN S FRONTAGE RD NFRONTAGE RD ROAD 2 ROAD N.9ROAD DPANORAMA DR ROAD 1DIAMONDPOINTCIR Document Path: \\gis-server\gis\Masters\Portal Map Products\FutureLandUse_36X48.mxd 0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,6001,200 Feet LEGEND Streets Railroad Shoreline Lot Line Airport Moses Lake Planned Development District City Limits LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AREA GENERAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BUSINESS & OFFICE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES PARKS & OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PORT OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE | LAND USE ELEMENT | FIGURE LU-4 | FUTURE LAND USE Date: 10/29/2021 ´ THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE FOR VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE ACCURACY OF ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED WITH CITY STAFF. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 295 of 774 Shoreline Environmental Designation Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics Shoreline Environment Designation High Intensity High Intensity-Resource Water Oriented Parks & Public Facilities Shoreline Residential - 25ft Shoreline Residential-Resource - 25ft Shoreline Residential-Resource - 50ft Shoreline Residential-Resource - 100ft Shoreline Residential-Special Resource - 150ft Natural 3/20/2024, 4:02:28 PM 0 2 41 mi 0 3.5 71.75 km 1:144,448 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Earthstar Geographics | Esri, HERE, Garmin | Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 296 of 774 LONGVIEW PARK MUNICIPAL TRACTS PROPERTY NEPPEL LANDING PAUL LAUZIER ATHLETIC COMPLEX CASCADE PARK MCCOSH PARK LOWER PENINSULA PARK LARSON RECREATION CENTER LARSON PLAYFIELD COMPLEX Parks and Trails Map National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. ACTIVITY TRAILS MULTI-USE PATH BIKE LANE 4 FT SHOULDER SHARROW FUTURE UNDEVELOPED PARK LAND DEVELOPED PARK, NO RESTROOM DEVELOPED PARK WITH RESTROOM 3/20/2024, 4:23:54 PM 0 2 41 mi 0 3.5 71.75 km 1:144,448 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. | Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 297 of 774 Environmental Figures APPENDIX C Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 298 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 299 of 774 Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington(Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 1 of 852160005219000522200052250005228000523100052340005216000521900052220005225000522800052310005234000311000314000317000320000323000326000329000332000335000338000341000 311000 314000 317000 320000 323000 326000 329000 332000 335000 338000 341000 47° 15' 1'' N 119° 29' 59'' W47° 15' 1'' N119° 4' 42'' W47° 3' 50'' N 119° 29' 59'' W47° 3' 50'' N 119° 4' 42'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 5000 10000 20000 30000Feet 0 2000 4000 8000 12000Meters Map Scale: 1:146,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 300 of 774 MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance, if drained Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed Farmland of local importance Farmland of local importance, if irrigated Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington(Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 2 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 301 of 774 Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance, if drained Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed Farmland of local importance Farmland of local importance, if irrigated Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance, if drained Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington(Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 3 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 302 of 774 Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed Farmland of local importance Farmland of local importance, if irrigated Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Grant County, WashingtonSurvey Area Data: Version 15, Aug 23, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 1, 1999—Dec 31, 2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington(Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 4 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 303 of 774 Farmland Classification Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 12 Aquents, ponded Not prime farmland 109.4 0.3% 26 Burbank loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 65.7 0.2% 36 Ekrub fine sand, 0 to 25 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 6.1 0.0% 40 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 7,596.8 22.7% 41 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 636.0 1.9% 42 Ephrata fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 95.5 0.3% 43 Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 430.6 1.3% 44 Ephrata gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 89.9 0.3% 45 Ephrata-Malaga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1,127.7 3.4% 46 Ephrata-Malaga complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 182.9 0.5% 47 Esquatzel silt loam Prime farmland if irrigated 10.9 0.0% 68 Kittitas silt loam Not prime farmland 13.5 0.0% 73 Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 4,072.7 12.2% 74 Malaga gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 32.8 0.1% 75 Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 941.4 2.8% 76 Malaga cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 297.1 0.9% 77 Malaga stony sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 6,650.4 19.9% Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 5 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 304 of 774 Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 78 Malaga very stony sandy loam, 0 to 35 percent slopes Not prime farmland 485.1 1.4% 79 Malaga-Ephrata complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 182.7 0.5% 80 Neppel fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 27.3 0.1% 86 Outlook very fine sandy loam Farmland of statewide importance 60.9 0.2% 88 Pits Not prime farmland 116.7 0.3% 89 Prosser very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 26.6 0.1% 91 Prosser very fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 130.2 0.4% 94 Prosser-Starbuck very fine sandy loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 187.4 0.6% 96 Quincy sand, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Not prime farmland 25.6 0.1% 97 Quincy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 850.6 2.5% 98 Quincy loamy fine sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 10.7 0.0% 99 Quincy loamy fine sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 2.5 0.0% 113 Royal loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 194.8 0.6% 115 Royal very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 213.9 0.6% 116 Royal very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 100.4 0.3% 121 Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 37.9 0.1% 122 Sagehill very fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 57.5 0.2% 132 Scoon silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1,715.1 5.1% 133 Scoon silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 12.4 0.0% 135 Scoon complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes Not prime farmland 17.6 0.1% Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 6 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 305 of 774 Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 136 Shano silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 0.3 0.0% 137 Shano silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 0.1 0.0% 141 Starbuck very fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 75.5 0.2% 142 Starbuck stony silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.8 0.0% 145 Starbuck-Prosser complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 132.1 0.4% 151 Taunton loamy fine sand, 0 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 26.7 0.1% 152 Taunton fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 131.9 0.4% 154 Taunton fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 7.2 0.0% 164 Timmerman loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 160.9 0.5% 165 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 475.6 1.4% 166 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 30.4 0.1% 167 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 52.2 0.2% 168 Timmerman coarse sandy loam, thin solum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 7.7 0.0% 172 Umapine silt loam Not prime farmland 89.0 0.3% 176 Wanser-Quincy fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 125.4 0.4% 177 Warden silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 119.8 0.4% 178 Warden silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 202.9 0.6% 179 Warden silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 19.9 0.1% 182 Wiehl fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 58.3 0.2% Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 7 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 306 of 774 Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 184 Wiehl fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Farmland of unique importance 206.4 0.6% 186 Winchester sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 191.8 0.6% 194 Water Not prime farmland 4,526.1 13.5% Totals for Area of Interest 33,457.8 100.0% Description Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978. Rating Options Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower Farmland Classification—Grant County, Washington Moses Lake UGA Farmland Classification Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 5/6/2022Page 8 of 8 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 307 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 308 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 309 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 310 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 311 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 312 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 313 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 314 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 315 of 774 City of Moses Lake, WA Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine May 5, 2022 0 4 82 mi 0 6.5 133.25 km 1:240,746 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 316 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 317 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 318 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 319 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 320 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 321 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 322 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 323 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 324 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 325 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 326 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 327 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 328 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 329 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 330 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 331 of 774 Tributary Summary Reports APPENDIX D Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 332 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 333 of 774 CHAPTER 5:TRIBUTARY SUMMARY REPORTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The wastewater service area for Moses Lake includes only the area within the existing Urban Growth Area (UGA)boundary for the City of Moses Lake.The Moses Lake service area consists of two wastewater treatment facilities:Sand Dimes Wastewater Treatment Facility and Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility.All wastewater treated by the City of Moses Lake flows to either of these two treatment facilities.Each of these two Moses Lake wastewater service areas are divided into tributaries,and some tributaries are further divided into sub-tributaries for further analysis.Tributaries [01]through [41]are within the Sand Dimes Basin.Tributaries [42]through [53]are within the Larson Basin. Wastewater tributaries are mapped to analyze wastewater usage within each tributary,to aid in predicting future flows,and to identify specific points in the wastewater system that will need to be up-sized as service areas increase their wastewater output.Primarily,each lift station in the Moses Lake service area is at the discharge point of a tributary,and each tributary is outlined as the area of gravity flow to that lift station.Secondly,areas served by existing low-pressure effluent systems are outlined as a tributary,upstream from the point where the low-pressure effluent main discharges to a gravity system.Thirdly,undeveloped areas that will require a lift station,or other treatment or conveyance method,are outlined as tributaries;although,they may have no existing discharge to the municipal sewer system.Finally,some private systems that discharge to the municipal wastewater system are outlined as tributaries. Sub-tributaries are smaller areas within wastewater tributaries,that are created to help analyze and predict flows within a wastewater tributary.Sub-tributaries are created for all schools, many manufactured home/RV parks,significant industrial dischargers (SIDs),users with private pump stations,and other specific areas within a tributary that differ substantially from the remainder of the tributary. Summary reports are provided in this chapter for all wastewater tributaries.Each summary report includes the following information: General description of the wastewater infrastructure for the tributary. Acreage of the residential,commercial,industrial,and public areas within the wastewater tributary is based on municipal zoning maps. Number of existing residential units within the tributary,and the ultimate number of residential units that may be served within the tributary.For developed properties,ultimate residential units are based on the number of lots created within a development.For undeveloped properties,ultimate residential units are based on the maximum number of residential units allowed for that zone. Sub-tributaries are listed and described to aid in calculating flow characteristics for atypical properties. Tributaries that are immediately upstream are listed,with their contributing 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 22 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 334 of 774 flows, Calculated flows for 2014,based on Table 5.1.1 parameters. Adjusted flows for 2014 are revisions of the calculated flows for a tributary, balanced to correspond with measured flows.Data shown in bold type for adjusted flows generally indicates that the information was from measurements, and held constant in balancing the tributary. Predicted flows for 2021,estimated by distributing a proportionate share of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth for a tributary,based on its potential for growth in the next 6 years.The potential was determined on a case by case basis, with the percentage of undeveloped property considered,aa well as the tributary’s likelihood to develop. Ultimate flows are calculated with the assumption that existing uses will be unchanged,but that new development will be at maximum rates in accordance with Table 5.1.1.Ultimate flows do not include any allowances for existing uses that could be redeveloped with higher discharge rates. Peak daily flows are estimated for each tributary using peak factors of 2.5 for commercial and residential areas,and 1.5 for industrial areas,unless measured data provides better information. Capacities of wastewater mains and lift stations are listed in each summary for infrastructure that will be affected by the discharge from the wastewater tributary. Comments section at the conclusion of each summary will include improvements or suggestions for the tributary. Table 5.1.2 is provided to show design capacities of force mains at 6 fps,gravity mains at minimum slopes,and siphons at 3 fps. Pipe capacities are shown for existing pipes affected the upstream tributary. Capacities of force mains are based on a velocity of 6 fps.Capacities of gravity mains are based on Manning’s equation (see below),based on existing recorded elevations at the downstream and upstream manholes,and assuming the pipe is running full. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Where:Q =Flow in CFS A=Area of pipe in SF R=Hydraulic radius in feet,or D/4 for a pipe running full S=Slope of pipe in ft/ft n=0.013 (roughness coefficient) D=Diameter of inside pipe in feet Q=(1.486 A RA)^?S^O^/H WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 23 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 335 of 774 TABLE 5.1.1:Parameters for calculating existing flows,ultimate flows,and pipe capacities residential use per person 70 gallons per day residential unit 2.7 persons per household (0.1313 gpm). The Land Use Comprehensive Plan estimates 2.59 persons per household in the City limits, and 2.97 persons per household in the unincorporated UGA,based on the 2010 Census figures. 4 residential units per acre (0.525 gpm/acre)low-density residential zones,undeveloped medium-density residential,undeveloped 8 residential units per acre (1.05 gpm/acre) 15 residential units per acre (2 gpm/acre)high-density residential zones,undeveloped residential units are counted as the number of actual units installed,or by the number of platted lots if residential units are not installed residential zones,developed commercial/industrial zones,developed 0.5 gpm/acre,or the remainder of the existing measured flows after the residential use is deducted,or as deduced from water service records 0.5 gpm/acreundevelopedcommercialzones undeveloped industrial zones 0.5 gpm/10 acres permitted useIndustrialwastewaterusers designed at 6 fpsforcemains based on Manning’s equations,using minimum slopes and roughness coefficients in Ecology’s “Criteria for Sewage Works Design”,assuming pipes are running full gravity mains assuming a velocity of 3 fpssiphons 2.5 times ADF for commercial and residential users,and 1.5 times ADF for industrial users.For the wastewater treatment plants,the PDF is determined by the 2014 annual assessment of flows in the Appendices. Peak Daily Flow (PDF) WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 24 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 336 of 774 Table 5.1.2:Minimum Pipe Design Capacities force main (6 fps)siphons (3 fps)gravity mains flow (gpm)diam.flow flow (gpm)diam.(in.)diam.slope ft/ft (in.)(gpm) (in.) 47031328inch0.0040 341 8 235 10 inch4 0.0028 521 6 528 12 inch 7500.0022 8 940 15 inch 11220.0015 1468 18 inch 1632100.0012 12 2112 330415 16 3760 20 5874 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 25 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 337 of 774 5.2 TRIBUTARY SUMMARIES 5.2.1 Guardian Tributary [01] Guardian Tributary is a low-pressure effluent system,with all contributors using privately owned and operated,on-site pumps.Effluent from individual service connections discharge to the 4-inch municipal low-pressure force main in Road N,contributing to Carnation [02]at Manhole No.20-009. ZONING Guardian consists of an industrial zone with 313 acres. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS AmeriCold Corporation is a sub-tributary of Guardian Tributary,contributing an average discharge of 41,800 gpd:consisting of 39,400 gpd industrial wastewater from cooling processes,and 2400 gpd sanitary wastewater. No adjacent tributaries contribute to Guardian Tributary. FLOW ANALYSIS In 2014,only Americold and REC Firehouse discharge to the 4-inch PVC force main in Road N.Calculated flows in 2014 at Americold are based on Discharge Permit ST- 8124,allowing an MDF of 150 gpm for periods of 30 minutes,three times per day;and an ADF of 29 gpm.Adjusted flows for 2014 are deduced by the assessment of flows at Carnation [02].Wastewater flows cannot be measured by water usage records at AmeriCold because much of the water is evaporated during the cooling process. Predicted flows for 2021 are based on a prorated share of the 3 percent annual growth. Ultimate flows are based on existing permitted flows and maximum usage for the undeveloped properties.Peak daily flows are estimated at 1.5 times the average daily flows,due to the industrial nature of the tributary;however,larger flows are authorized for AmeriCold between 7 p.m.and 4 a.m. r*s WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 26 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 338 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm) TABLE 5.2.1A:Guardian contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 adj.2021 AmeriCold 29450291111 Guardian Fiberglass (inactive) 791580007 REC Firehouse 1 0 1 1 1 1 Undeveloped Industrial 109 0 0 0 2 55 TOTAL 1643130301221 2014 PDF:18 gpm (151.5 between 7 pm and 4 am) 2021 PDF:32 gpm (165 between 7 pm and 4 am) ultimate PDF:246 gpm (352.5 during the hours of 7 pm to 4 am) Table 5.2.IB:Downstream pipe capacities from Guardian pipe size Notesdownstreamslope(%)upstream pipe capacity (gpm) 4-inch low-pressure force main MH 20-009 forcemain4 235 MH 20-009 MH 20-007 8 607 EKA1.25 [03] MH 20-007 MH 20-001 12 0.57 1204 MH 20-001 MH 20-002 12 1.07 1651 MH 20-002 MH 20-003 12 1.00 1599 MH 20-003 MH 20-008 1.76 1122121 MH 20-008 MH 20-004 12 1.77 2126 MH 20-004 MH 20-005 12 61.94 2224 MH 20-005 MH 20-006 12 1.63 2044 MH 20-006 MH 17-001 12 2.18 2358 2 r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 27 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 339 of 774 1455120.83MH17-001 MH 17-002 MH 17-003 12 0.82 1449MH17-002 0.86 1484MH17-003 MH 17-004 12 MH 17-005 12 1.22 1763MH17-004 12 0.76 1391MH17-009MH17-005 0.65 1292 3MH17-006 12MH17-009 MH 17-007 12 0.72 1357MH17-006 1345120.71MH17-007 MH 17-008 0.68 4MH18-001 12 1315MH17-008 Carnation Wetwell 5187.93 13280MH18-001 MH 20-004 also receives discharge from REC private force main. Private force main discharges to MH 20-006 from south. Private gravity main enters MH 17-009 from north. Private gravity main discharges to MH 17-008 from north. D &L Foundry private gravity main discharges to MH 18-001 from north. Assumption on size and slope. Refer to Carnation [02]for capacities downstream of Carnation Lift Station. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 28 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 340 of 774 5.2.2 CARNATION TRIBUTARY [02] Carnation Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Carnation Lift Station at 12975 NE Wheeler Road.Carnation Lift Station discharges to the Wheeler Tributary [33],through an 8-inch Cl force main to Manhole 18-003.A parallel 8-inch PVC force main was installed in 1991 (C-237)to reduce the pressure on the 8-inch force main.The parallel force main starts on the north side of Wheeler Road,and extends west for about 2000 feet,but does not extend to either the Carnation Lift Station or to MH 18-003. ZONING Carnation Tributary consists of an industrial zone of 1557 acres and a public zone of 9.76 acres.The Carnation Tributary is currently estimated at 50 percent of its ultimate development. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Carnation Tributary receives contributory flows from Guardian [01]and EKA [03]. Carnation Tributary consists of several private,industrial force mains that discharge to the 12-inch gravity main in Wheeler Road,including REC [2C],International Paper [2B],Maiers Industrial Park,and D&L Foundry. FLOW ANALYSIS Permitted flows for wastewater discharge permits are used to calculate flows of 433 gpm for 2014.However,actual flows at Carnation Lift Station for 2014 were 222 gpm. Therefore,2014 adjusted flows for the tributary are balanced evenly,holding measured flows at EKA [03]at 120 gpm.Flow predictions for 2021 are based on Carnation’s prorated share of the City’s 3 percent annual growth.Ultimate flows are based on existing permitted flows and maximum usage for the undeveloped properties.Peak daily flows are estimated at 1.5 times the average daily flow because of the industrial nature of the tributary. Average Daily Flows (gpm) TABLE 5.2.2A:Carnation Contributory Flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. D &L Foundry,Inc.,12970 Wheeler Road,SWDP ST0008107 [2A] 53 0 14 5.6 8 14 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 29 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 341 of 774 25025101415InternationalPaper,13594 Wheeler Road,SWDP ST0008085 [2B] 14614658.4 84RECSolarGradeSilicon,3322 Road N,SWDP ST-8121 [2C] 250 0 16 23 4040MaiersIndustrialPark[2D]98 0 10 0 0 0 0 5public 57000 0 13undevelopedindustrial1141 1643012213130Guardian[01] 77812340178120144EKA[03] 174243330731140222TOTAL 2014 PDF:333 gpm 2021 PDF:461 gpm ultimate:2613 gpm Carnation Lift Station pumped an average of 539 gpm during 2014. Table 5.2.2B:Downstream pipe capacities from Carnation pipe size slope (%)Notesdownstreamupstreampipe capacity (gpm) force main 940 1MHW18-003 8CarnationWetwell 0.25 1447MHW18-004 15MHW18-003 0.35 1710MHW18-005 15MHW18-004 0.38 1785MHW18-006 15MHW18-005 15 0.12 1000MH13-027MHW18-006 1369 20.2215MH13-026MH13-027 15 0.19 1273MH13-013MH13-026 0.17 119515MH13-012MH13-013 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 30 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 342 of 774 MH 13-012 MH 13-011 15 0.25 1451 MH 13-011 MH 13-010 0.14 108615 MH 13-010 MH 13-009 15 0.27 1519 MH 13-009 MH 13-056 15 0.23 1404 MH 13-056 1796MH13-008 15 0.38 MH 13-008 MH 13-047 12 0.74 1375 MH 13-047 1428MH13-007 12 0.80 MH 13-007 MH 13-006 1452120.83 MH 13-006 1974MH13-005 12 1.52 MH 13-005 MH 13-004 1.40 189012 MH 13-004 MH 24-017 1316120.68 MH 24-017 1992 3MH24-016 12 1.55 MH 24-016 MH 24-15 2779123.02 MH 24-15 MH 24-014 12 2.89 2716 MH 24-014 MH 24-013 1090120.47 MH 24-013 MH 24-012 346100.12 MH 24-012 MH 24-006 1.09 102710 MH 24-006 MH 23-098 10 1.79 1315 MH 23-098 MH 23-099 12651.6610 MH 23-099 MH 23-100 10 4.36 2053 MH 23-100 MH 23-101 2201105.01 MH 23-101 MH 14-042 999101.03 MH 14-042 MH 14-043 6.65 13998 MH 14-043 MH 14-045 8 12735.52 MH 14-045 MH 14-096 12 1.82 2158 MH 14-096 MH 14-097 10 4.14 2001 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 31 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 343 of 774 MH 14-097 MH 14-098 10 25.74 4989 MH 14-098 12MH14-051 0.16 635 [34] Wheeler WetwellMH14-051 12 1.21 1759 Refer to Wheeler [33]for capacities downstream of Wheeler Lift Station. 1.Parallel 8-inch force main is installed for a portion of this segment to reduce friction losses. 2.Private flows enter from Moses Lake Industrial Park gravity main that has not been accepted by the City. 3.Private gravity main discharges to MH 24-011,contributing to MH 24-017 from south. COMMENTS The Carnation Tributary receives contributory flows from several industrial force mains and EKA Lift Station.Simultaneous discharges from multiple sources may cause some surging upstream of the Carnation Lift Station. The industrial nature and growth potential for the Carnation Tributary will need to be monitored closely as the area develops,to ensure upgrades are installed as necessary. Manhole 24-013 should be monitored periodically to determine whether pipe upgrades or revisions may be needed for flow capacity in the downstream pipes. Carnation tributary will benefit if a portion of Eka [03]is routed through Kittelson and to Sand Dimes,bypassing Carnation,as that tributary develops in the future. 1. 2. 3. 4. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 32 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 344 of 774 5.2.3 EKA TRIBUTARY [03] EKA Tributary is a gravity system that drains to EKA Lift Station at 2679 NE Road N.EKA Lift Station discharges to the Carnation [02]via a 6-inch PVC force main to Manhole No.20-007 at Wheeler Road and Road N. ZONING Eka Tributary is a 1200-acre industrial/agricultural zone,which could eventually be converted to Industrial. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS The EKA Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Akzo Nobel and Norco,Inc.are the only contributors to wastewater flows at the EKA Lift Station as of March 2015.Both of these industries are permitted to discharge to the City’s POTW in accordance with State Wastewater discharge permits issued by the Department of Ecology (ST0008078 and ST0008114).In accordance with those permits,Akzo is authorized to discharge 125 gpm and Norco is authorized to discharge 53 gpm,for a total of 178 gpm.Recorded flows at EKA Lift station in 2014 measured an average of 120 gpm.Therefore,the 2014 balanced flow was adjusted evenly between Norco and EKA to reflect the actual flows for 2014.2021 flows are predicted by adding EKA’s prorated share of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth to the 2014 adjusted flows.Peak daily flows are estimated at 1.5 times the average daily flow because of the industrial nature of the tributary. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.3A:EKA contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 202 adj.1 [3A]Akzo Nobel 6 84 96 1250125 [3B]Norco,Inc.53270364153 Undeveloped industrial 1201 0 0 0 6007 TOTAL 1234 0 178 778144120 2014 PDF:180 gpm r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 33 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 345 of 774 2021 PDF:216 gpm ultimate PDF:1167 gpm EKA Lift Station pumped an average of 212 gpm during 2014. Table 5.2.3B:Downstream pipe capacities from EKA. slope (%)Notesdownstreamupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) 6 force main EKA Wetwell MH 20-007 528 Refer to Table 5.2.1 (Guardian [01])for capacities downstream of MH 20-007. COMMENTS Eka Lift Station pumps may need to be up sized as new industrial growth develops in this tributary. The EKA Tributary has an area of 1234 acres,of which Norco and Akzo occupy only 33 acres.Downstream pipe and lift stations may need to be up-sized for continued development in EKA Tributary.Alternately,as EKA develops,a portion of the tributary could be rerouted through Kittelson [04]to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility;bypassing Carnation [02],Wheeler [33],Main [09],and Headworks (COF) [39].This would require a crossing under Interstate 90 and SR 17. 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 34 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 346 of 774 5.2.4 KITTELSON TRIBUTARY [04] The Kittelson Tributary is currently not served with municipal sewer.To serve the area,a lift station would be required,preferably in the lowest point of the tributary,such that gravity mains could serve the entire tributary.The force main could be connected from Kittelson Lift Station to gravity mains in Nelson [07],Clover [05],or Division [08];or directly to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility.This summary report bases its analysis on the assumption that Kittelson Tributary will discharge to Nelson [07].The City has no plans to install the Kittelson Lift Station or the associated force main—those improvements would be developer driven. However,Kittelson Lift Station could be eliminated if a gravity main is installed from Kittelson to South1-90 West Lift Station (future). ZONING Kittelson Tributary consists of 420 acres of general commercial,98 acres of low-density residential,and 4 acres of public. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Kittelson Tributary is an inactive tributary.No adjacent tributaries are planned to contribute through Kittelson Tributary when it is developed. FLOW ANALYSIS Predicted flows for 2021 by adding a proportionate share of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth. Ultimate flows Kittelson Tributary are estimated on parameters in Table 5.1.1. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.4A:Kittelson Contributory Flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. low-density residential 4998400001 general commercial 420 2100003.5 public 4 0 0 0 2.5 TOTAL 261522400005 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:12.5 gpm ultimate PDF:652 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 35 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 347 of 774 Table 5.2.4B:Downstream pipe capacities from Kittelson (assuming connection to Nelson [07]at MH 36-017). slope (%)downstream Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Kittelson Wetwell future force main MH 36-017 8 940 MH 36-017 MH 36-016 8 0.78 479 MH 36-016 MH 36-001 8 0.59 418 MH 36-001 MH 36-002 8 0.49 379 MH 36-002 MH 36-003 8 0.48 374 MH 36-003 MH 36-004 8 0.79 482 MH 36-004 MH 36-014 8 0.45 365 8 0.32MH36-014 MH 36-005 305 1 MH 36-005 MH 36-006 8 0.90 515 MH 36-006 MH 36-007 8 0.76 474 MH 36-008 8 1.01MH36-007 545 8 1.38MH36-008 MH 36-009 636 MH 36-010 10 0.25 487MH36-009 10 0.27MH36-010 MH 36-011 508 10MH26-001 0.32 558MH36-011 10 1.13MH26-001 MH 26-002 1044 0.248MH26-002 MH 26-149 266 10 0.48MH26-146 677MH26-149 10 0.53MH26-143 717MH26-146 10 0.54 2MH26-142 725MH26-143 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 36 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 348 of 774 downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gPm) MH 26-142 MH 26-141 10 0.43 644 MH 26-141 MH 26-140 10 0.33 566 MH 26-140 MH 26-139 10 0.23 475 MH 26-139 MH 26-138 10 0.25 491 MH 26-138 MH 26-137 10 0.29 525 MH 26-137 MH 26-136 10 0.36 592 MH 26-136 MH 26-135 516100.28 MH 26-135 MH 26-134 10 5080.27 MH 26-134 MH 26-133 10 0.23 472 MH 26-133 MH 26-132 10 0.23 472 MH 26-132 MH 26-131 10 5990.37 MH 26-131 MH 26-130 10 0.24 479 MH 26-130 MH 26-129 10 0.12 336 MH 26-129 MH 26-128 10 0.22 462 MH 26-128 MH 26-127 10 0.26 505 MH 26-127 MH 26-126 10 0.74 844 MH 26-126 MH 26-125 10 0.05 212 MH 26-125 MH 27-085 10 0.95 957 MH 27-085 MH 27-087 10 8000.66 MH 27-087 MH 27-090 10 8360.72 MH 27-090 MH 27-093 10 0.81 886 MH 27-093 MH 27-099 10 8510.75 MH 27-099 MH 27-100 10 0.54 725 MH 27-100 MH 27-101 10 0.43 648 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 37 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 349 of 774 downstream slope (%)r*\Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) MH 27-101 MH 27-102 10 0.36 588 MH 27-102 MH 27-108 10 0.27 509 MH 27-109 8 7.76 1511MH27-108 8 9.25 1649MH27-110MH27-109 MH 27-110 MH 27-157 8 3.76 1052 MH 27-168 8MH27-157 5.77 1303 MH 27-169 8 2.20 805MH27-168 MH 27-169 2.68 887MH27-171 8 12 0.30 876MH27-173MH27-171 12 0.19MH27-173 MH 27-174 689 12MH27-174 MH 27-175 0.28 852 12 0.34 936MH27-175 MH 27-176 12 0.21 734MH27-176 MH 27-177 12MH27-179 0.18 681MH27-177 MH 27-129 12 0.35 952MH27-179 MH 27-130 12 0.16 630MH27-129 12 0.22 749MH27-131MH27-130 12 0.28 847MH27-132MH27-131 MH 22-122 12 0.15 615MH27-132 Nelson Wetwell 12 1.31 1829MH22-122 Refer to Table 5.2.7B for capacities downstream of Nelson Lift Station, private sewer main discharges to MH 36-014 from the south, private sewer main discharges to MH 26-143 from the south.1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 38 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 350 of 774 COMMENTS 1.As Kittelson Tributary is developed,downstream tributaries should be analyzed to determine whether or not they have the capacity to receive the additional flows of up to 652 gpm. Kittelson Tributary could discharge directly to the Sand Dunes Wastewater Facility, bypassing Nelson [07],Division [08],Main [09],and Headworks (COF)[39].This would require a force main under Interstate 90 and SR-17.If South1-90 East [36]lift station and gravity sewer are developed,that lift station could be used to reduce the force main length required on the south side of1-90. Alternately,Nelson [07]may be the preferred downstream tributary for Kittelson’s discharge:to bypass Division [08],Main [09],and Headworks (COF)[39].However, bypassing the COF may justify a pretreatment chamber at the Kittelson Lift Station to separate undesirable solids from affecting the Potato Hill force main. Actual growth in Kittelson [03]will not occur until the lift station is installed.When the lift station is constructed,actual growth may be substantially greater than the 3 percent annual growth shown for 2021 predictions. A 6-inch force main may be a better fit,for this zone,assuming that ultimate build out will be less than maximum.At worse-case scenario,a 6-inch force main would have velocities of 7.5 fps with ultimate PDF.However,consideration should be given to whether or not a portion of EKA [03]will pass through Kittelson Lift Station. 2. 3. 4. 5. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 39 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 351 of 774 5.2.5 CLOVER TRIBUTARY [05] Clover Tributary consists of gravity sewer mains that drain to Clover Drive Lift Station at 1630 S.Pioneer Way,at the intersection of Clover Drive and State Route 17.Clover Drive Lift Station discharges to Nelson [07]via a 6-inch PVC force main that flows to MH 26-013 at the north end of Sharon Avenue. Three gravity mains drain to the Clover Drive Lift Station.In 2014,only the 8-inch gravity main from Colonial Avenue had any service connections.The 10-inch gravity main from Pilgrim Street and Clover Drive received its first service connection in 2015.The 12-inch gravity main from the east side of State Route 17 (Ken Buley)is not in service,terminating at MH 25-068.Additionally,the existing 10-inch gravity main from the south is connected to MH 26-002 in Nelson [07],which provides an emergency overflow for Clover Lift Station. ZONING Clover Tributary is predominantly general commercial,at about 45 percent ultimate development. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Clover Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Clover Tributary consists of 213 acres of general commercial,and is about 45 percent of ultimate development.Clover Drive Lift Station was reconstructed in 2014,so pump records were not valid for the new pumps.Pump records on April 6,2015 indicate an average flow of 22 gpm with peak flows of 54 gpm.These flows measurements from 2015 are used to adjust 2014 flow rates. 2021 flows are estimated by adding the 3 percent annual growth associated with Clover Tributary. Ultimate development is calculated as the existing adjusted flows for 2014,and 0.5 gpm/acre for the remaining undeveloped acreage.Peak daily flows are calculated at 2.5 times the average daily flows. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 40 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 352 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.5A:Clover Contributory Flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. developed commercial 22960482222 undeveloped commercial 0 0 5911701 Total 213 0 48 23 8122 2014 PDF:55 gpm 2021 PDF:58 gpm Ultimate PDF:268 gpm Records from 2015 indicate that the Clover Lift Station pumps an average of 471 gpm. Table 5.2.5B:Downstream pipe capacities from Clover Lift Station. downstream Notesslope(%)upstream pipe size pipe capacity (gpm) Clover Wetwell MH 26-013 8 force main 940 MH 26-013 MH 26-014 8 0.89 510 MH 26-014 MH 26-015 8 0.33 310 MH 26-015 MH 26-230 8 0.73 462 MH 26-230 MH 26-016 8 0.50 381 MH 26-016 MH 26-017 386 180.51 MH 26-017 MH 26-117 8 0.72 460 2 MH 26-117 MH 26-216 8 0.35 320 MH 26-216 MH 26-025 8 0.49 378 MH 26-025 MH 26-026 8 0.51 387 MH 26-026 MH 26-033 8 0.53 396 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 41 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 353 of 774 downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gPm) 8 0.34MH26-033 MH 26-176 317 MH 26-177 8 0.41 347MH26-176 MH 26-041 8 0.42 352MH26-177 MH 26-042 8 0.82 490MH26-041 8 1.70MH26-042 MH 26-043 708 8MH26-043 MH 26-045 2.27 816 MH 26-045 MH 26-046 8 3.66 1037 MH 26-046 MH 26-062 8 12.62 1926 8MH26-062 MH 26-063 15.56 2139 8MH26-063 MH 26-064 4.21 1113 8MH26-064 MH 27-142 3.43 1004 12MH27-142 MH 27-122 1.48 1946 Nelson Wetwell 12 1.31MH22-122 1829 Refer to Table 5.2.7B for capacities downstream of Nelson Lift Station. 1.Private main enters MH 26-017 from south. 2.Private main enters MH 26-117 from south COMMENTS When the Clover Lift Station discharges 471 gpm,some downstream manholes may experience some surging while the flows dissipate. Smaller pumps,with a smaller discharge rate may provide a reasonable solution to handle the ultimate PDF without surcharging the downstream manholes. 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 42 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 354 of 774 5.2.6 LOWLANDER TRIBUTARY [06] Lowlander Tributary is a private sewer system (see construction file C223)that is authorized per contract signed on June 26,2009 to discharge to the City’s sewer force main on Potato Hill Road at Goodrich/Baseline Road. Terms of that agreement: 51 residential units may connect to the private system,as outlined in the contract maps. All units are required to install a septic tank in line. All septic tanks are required to be pumped every four years,with Lowlander Wastewater,Co.providing verification to the City. All of the effluent is metered through the City-owned 3-inch mag meter at the vicinity of Goodrich Road and Potato Hill Road. All infrastructure,except for the meter,downstream of the City-owned isolation valve at Potato Hill Road connection,is owned and maintained by Lowlander Wastewater,Co. The Lowlander Wastewater,Co.is billed as a commercial wholesaler,on a monthly basis,with a surcharge typical for users outside the corporate limits. An extra-territorial agreement and development charges are required prior to each connection. Lowlander Wastewater,Co.Shall pay the electric service for the magmeter,and shall notify the City in the event of any power outage at the service meter location. No additional services are authorized to connect to the private system beyond the 51 units within the Lowlander Tributary. ZONING Lowlander is a low-density residential zone. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Lowlander has no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for 2014 are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters for residential usage. Adjusted flows for 2014 are determined by the measurements at the mag meter in 2014. The actual flows are substantially higher than calculated flows;therefore an assumption is made that the existing private sewer infrastructure has an infiltration of about 4 gpm. For 2021 predicted flows,additional connects are based on 3 percent per year,with the assumption that 4 gpm infiltration will continue at the current rate.Ultimate flows WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 43 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 355 of 774 assume full connection of 51 residential units allowed by contract,with the assumption that the infiltration will continue.Peak Daily Flows are calculated at 2.5 times residential calculations,plus 4 gpm for infiltration. Table 5.2.6A:Lowlander contributory flows resid.units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres 2014 calc. 2014 ultimate2021 adj. Residential 40 17/51 3 7 8 11 Total 40 51 3 7 8 11 2014 PDF:11.5 gpm 2021 PDF:14 gpm Ultimate PDF:21.5 gpm Table 5.2.6B:Pipe capacities downstream of Lowlander tee at Morgan Road and Potato Hill Road downstream slope pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (%)(gpm) Potato Hill force Main force main Sand Dunes 20 5874 1 1.Portions of the Potato Hill force main have parallel pipes. COMMENTS The private lift station must develop enough pressure to overcome any line pressures in the City’s force main in Potato Hill Road. Existing flows from 2014 are excessive for the number of residential uses connected to the system.Some reasons that the usage may be high:infiltration in the private sewer mains and service lines;backflow from old cesspool into private lift station;mag meter not calibrated correctly;check valves not working effectively. The existing gravity system and lift station were not inspected by the City.The private force main in Goodrich is not installed to city standards,consisting of 3-inch 200 IPS PVC SDR 21 pipe.In the event that the private system fails to meet the criteria listed in the contract,the City’s valve at Potato Hill Road may be closed to isolate the private system from discharging to the City’s sewer system. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 44 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 356 of 774 5.2.7 NELSON TRIBUTARY [07] The Nelson Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Nelson Lift Station at 1304 South Lakeway Drive,on the west end of Nelson Road.Nelson Lift Station pumps directly to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility through the Potato Hill force main.Valves installed on the Potato Hill force main allow wastewater to be redirected from Nelson Lift Station to Headworks (COF)[39]for holding,when the Potato Hill Force main needs to be out of service for repairs or maintenance. ZONING Nelson Tributary consists of low-density residential (470 acres),high-density residential (85 acres),general commercial (242 acres),schools,and public places.Undeveloped property within the Nelson Tributary is predominantly high density residential and general commercial. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Contributing tributaries include Clover [05]and Kittelson [04]. FLOW ANALYSIS 2014 calculated flows of 258 gpm are based on parameters in Table 5.1.1.Nelson Lift Station records measured an average daily flow of 171 gpm.Existing low-density residential units are based on the number of existing residential units.Moses Lake High School and its pool are estimated from water usage records during winter months.The pool discharges to the municipal sewer system.Church at 1515 Nelson Road is based on 2014 water usage records for the winter months. Adjusted flows for 2014 hold the measured flows,and prorate the remaining flows to balance the total flow for 2014. Predicted flows for 2021 are estimated by prorating the 3 percent annual growth associated with the Nelson Tributary across the areas that are prone to additional growth. Ultimate flows assume that 2014 adjusted flows remain the same,but assumes that undeveloped properties will be developed at maximum flow rates from Table 5.1.1 parameters.Peak flows are calculated at 2.5 times the average daily flows for commercial and residential flows. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 45 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 357 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.7A:Nelson contributory flows acres ultimate2014calc.2014 2021 adj. existing general commercial 0 68.5 48 48 48137 0 52Futuregeneralcommercial104001 2014 low-density residential 1031 94.5 94.5 94.5470135 849 0 112undevelopedlow-density residential 387 0 2 4.5 4.5MosesLakeHighSchool5804.5 4.5 1.5MosesLakeHighSchool01.5 1.5 1.5inc.m schoolPool 0 .5.5 .5Church,1515 Nelson 7.5 .5 8104823Clover[05]213 22 400 0 0 5 261522Kittelson[04] 2280 180 655258Total1899171 2014 PDF:427 gpm 2021 PDF:450 gpm Ultimate PDF:1762 gpm 2014 records indicate that Nelson Lift Station pumps averaged 576 gpm. Table 5.2.7B:Downstream pipe capacities from Nelson Lift Station. slope (%)Notesdownstreamupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) force main 20 5874 1NelsonWetwellSandDunes[70] Nelson Lift Station discharges to Potato Hill Force main,discharging to Sand Dunes WWTP [70].Lowlander [06]also discharges to Potato Hill Force Main. 1. COMMENTS Nelson lift station pumps should be up-sized as the peak daily flows increase beyond 576 gpm.1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 46 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 358 of 774 5.2.8 DIVISION TRIBUTARY [08] Division Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Division Lift Station at 802 S.Division Street.The Division Street Lift Station discharges to Main [09]at MH 23-239,550-feet north of Division Lift Station thru a 6-inch PVC force main. ZONING Division Tributary consists of low-density residential (442 acres),high-density residential (114 acres),medium-density residential (27 acres),general commercial (111 acres),public/parks (110 acres).Remainder of property to be developed within the Division Tributary is predominantly high/low density residential. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Division Tributary receives contributory flows from Lakeland [22].Kittelson [04]could also contribute to Division Tributary,if the gravity sewer main on Nelson Road is extended east from MH 25-066;however,Kittelson [04]will more likely discharge to Nelson [07],and is not included in future analyses for this tributary. FLOW ANALYSIS Garden Heights and Chief Moses schools are based on water usage records during winter months.These flows are assumed to be steady through ultimate development. Greens and Pioneer Way Developments are based on existing residential units,with ultimate development based on current layout.The estimated usage is adjusted for 2014 based on measured flows at Division Lift Station. Plat of South Campus is estimated for current development,and adjusted with measured lift station flows for 2014;but ultimate development assumes redevelopment at commercial rates in Table 5.1.1. Low-density residential is based on the number of existing residential units and number of vacant lots.Existing flows are adjusted for measured lift station flows. Medium-density residential is based on 88 existing residential units in 27 acres,with 1.5 acres undeveloped at 8 residential units per acre,for a total of 100 residential units at ultimate development.Existing units are adjusted based on measured lift station flows for 2014. High-density residential is based on the number of existing residential units,excluding The Greens,Pioneer Way Development,1405 Monroe Street,1501 Monroe Street,and WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 47 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 359 of 774 605 Nelson Road.Ultimate development is calculated as 15 residential units per acre. Commercial properties are estimated in accordance with parameters in Table 5.1.1,with estimated acreage for existing (45 acres)and undeveloped (8 acres). Parks and public places,other than schools,are estimated at 0.5 gpm/acre. 2021 flows are estimated by prorating the 3 percent annual growth associated with Division Tributary across the areas in accordance with their growth potential. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid.unitsTABLE5.2.8A:Division Contributory Flows acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 631/1380 156 182low-density residential 345 83 112 1688/100 12 16 16medium-density residential 27 254/1215 160high-density residential 11 548115 32 35generalcommercial,except South Campus 53 0 23 31 13 17 1726017parksandpublic 3 3GardenHeightsElementarySchool [08A] 12 0 3 3 6 3/62 2 8TheGreens[08B]1 1 0 1 1 1ChiefMosesMiddleSchool[08C]27 1 52/52 10PioneerWayDevelopment[08D]4 7 1010 290510PlatofSouthCampus[08E]57 7 4220341405MonroeStreet4 20 3 4 4241501MonroeStreet 1 1 10605NelsonRoad11 403854440101Lakeland[22]33 5211453/3234 350744210255Total 2014 PDF:638 gpm 2021 PDF:765 gpm Ultimate PDF:1302 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 48 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 360 of 774 Division Lift Station pumps averaged 631 gpm in 2014. Table 5.2.8B:Downstream pipe capacities from Division Lift Station. downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Division Wetwell MH 23-239 force main 12 2112 MH 23-239 MH 23-267 12 0.46 1086 MH 23-267 MH 23-269 18 0.26 2389 MH 23-269 MH 23-271 21 37740.28 MH 23-271 MH 23-272 21 6.59 18256 Main WetwellMH23-272 6228210.77 Refer to Table 5.2.9B for capacities downstream of Main Lift Station. COMMENTS i.Pumps are at design capacity. Velocities in the 6-inch force main between Division Lift Station and MH 23-239 averaged 7.16 fjps in 2014. Division Street Lift Station could be connected directly to the McCosh force main to reduce the flows to Main Lift Station. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 49 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 361 of 774 5.2.9 MAIN TRIBUTARY [09]r*\ Main Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Main Lift Station at 523 S.Beech Street. Main Lift Station discharges to Headworks (COF)[39]at 1303 W.Lakeside Drive thru a 3500 foot,16-inch diameter,DI forcemain,which force main also intercepts flows from Sage Bay [27]. ZONING Main Tributary consists of high-density residential (48 acres),medium-density residential (53 acres),commercial (175 acres),schools,parks and open spaces,and environmentally sensitive (2 acres). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Main Tributary receives contributory flows from Division [08],Northshore [28],and Wheeler [33], FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for 2014 at Midway and Frontier flows are based on water usage records for 2014.Calculated flows for residential and commercial flows are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters. Main and Sage Bay lift stations operate on VFDs,and accurate flow measurements are not available at these tributaries for 2014.Total flows for these two tributaries can be deduced by subtracting the measured contributions to Headworks (COF)[39]from the total flows at Headworks (COF)for 2014.However,measured flows to Sage Bay and Main in 2014 exceed the balance available;therefore a line is included for exfiltration,to balance the total flows at Headworks (COF). Predicted flows are estimated by sharing the 3 percent annual growth associated with Headworks (COF)across its contributories based on their potential for future growth. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.9A:Main contributory flows resid.unitsacres 2014 calc. ultimate20142021 adj. 3parksandpublicplaces 3 3 4550 420/420medium-density residential 52.5 55 55 55 55 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 50 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 362 of 774 high-density residential 48 720/720 9595 95 95 commercial 67 0 34 34 34 34 Midway Elementary School [09A]10 0 1111 Frontier Junior High School [09B]20 0 4 4 44 Division [08]1453/3234744 210 350 521255 Northshore [26]*969 1642/4741 7929824674 Wheeler [33]831/2116 24773697716495378 Holm [48]42 25/25 4 2444 Total 5704 5091/11256 1420 1075 32941115 *assumes Northshore [26]will be redirected to Sage Bay [27]before 2021,reducing the flows received at Main from Northshore [26]. 2014 PDF:2750 gpm 2021 PDF:3235 gpm Ultimate PDF:8235 gpm The following Table 5.2.9.A1 and data are provided for reference if force mains from Division Lift Station and Wheeler Lift Station are reconfigured to bypass Main Lift Station. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.9A1:Main contributory flows with Division [08]and Wheeler [33]bypass lines installed and Knolls Vista [28]redirected to Sage Bay [27] resid.unitsacres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. Total with Knolls Vista [28]& Division [08]bypass 3638/80224960 1420 765 27731075 Total with Knolls Vista [28], Division [08],&Wheeler [33] bypass 1263 2807/5906 1420 2961075270 Knolls Vista [28]&Division [08]bypass 2014 PDF:2750 gpm 2021 PDF:1912 gpm Ultimate PDF:6932 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 51 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 363 of 774 Knolls Vista [28],Division [08],&Wheeler [33]bypass 2014 PDF:2750 gpm 2021 PDF:675 gpm Ultimate PDF:740 gpm Main Lift Station has a rated capacity of 2100 gpm. Table 5.2.9B:Downstream pipe capacities from Main Lift Station. slope (%)downstream Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) 16 force main Main Wetwell Headworks (COF)3760 1 [27][39] McCosh Tee is located on the 16-inch force main between Main Lift Station and Headworks (COF)[39].Sage Bay [27]discharges to this 16-inch force main at the McCosh Tee. 1. COMMENTS Peak flows for Main Tributary exceed the capacity of Main Lift Station when one pump is out of service. Main Tributary is nearing ultimate development,with little room for new development. Peak flows at Main Lift Station could be reduced if Division Lift Station (631 gpm), Wheeler Lift Station (1132 gpm)could be programmed so that their flows will stagger at Main Lift Station. Alternately,Main Lift Station will have acceptable capacity for ultimate development if one or both of the force mains downstream of Division &Wheeler lift stations can be connected directly to the 16-inch McCosh force main,downstream of Main Lift Station. If Knolls Vista Lift Station is connected to Sage Bay Tributary,flows from Northshore [26]to Main Lift Station will be reduced. A flow meter should be installed when Main Lift Station is upgraded to provide accurate flow measurements. 1./—\ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 52 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 364 of 774 5.2.10 PENINSULA TRIBUTARY [10] The Peninsula Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Peninsula Lift Station at 817 S. Pennivy Street.Peninsula Lift Station discharges to Headworks (COF)[39]at 1303 W.Lakeside Drive thru a 2200 foot,10-inch diameter,PVC forcemain (1998,C-183).Within that 10-inch PVC force main are two short segments of 8-inch Cl pipe. ZONING Peninsula Tributary consists of high-density residential,low-density residential,general commercial,schools,light industrial,and public places.Peninsula Tributary has some in-fill available for additional commercial and residential growth. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS The Peninsula Lift Station is a central lift station that receives contributory flow from several tributaries that have a potential for additional growth.Peninsula Tributary receives contributory flows from Winona [11],Hallmark [12],Hermit [13],Westlake [17],Marina [47],and Crab Creek [38]. Sub-tributaries within Peninsula Tributary include Peninsula Estates [10A],Storms [10B],Marmitt [10C],Larson Playfield [10D],and Peninsula School [10E].r*\FLOW ANALYSIS Peninsula Estates [10A]is at full development with 211 residential units on 30 acres. Storms [10B]is estimated at 50 percent of ultimate development. Marmitt [10C]is a mixed use development that includes an RV park,a small church and commercial use.Flows are based on water usage records. Larson Playfield [10D]is a municipal park.Wastewater flows will increase during baseball events. Peninsula School [10E]is based on water usage records during the school year. Peninsula School has an independent well for irrigation. Low-density residential is estimated at 100 percent of ultimate development. Medium-density residential is estimated at 100 percent of ultimate development. High-density residential is estimated at 80 percent of ultimate development,but the WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 53 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 365 of 774 existing developed area of high-density zoning is estimated at 8 units per acre. Commercial/industrial is estimated at 75 percent of ultimate development. Calculated flows for 2014 are adjusted equally to balance the measure flow from Peninsula Lift Station in 2014. Predicted flows for 2021 are estimated by spreading Peninsula’s share of 3 percent annual growth across the contributories based on their potential for future growth. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid.unitsTable5.2.10A:Peninsula contributory flows acres ultimate201420212014 calc.adj. 1731095/1318 118residential348/380 143 120 70108/140 0/0 54 45 46commercial/industrial 211/211 28 23 23 23PeninsulaEstatesprivate sewer [10A] 30 0/0 65/12 3 2.0 2Stormsprivatesewer[10B] 0/0 4 4 4 4Marmittprivatesewer[10C]8 0/0 5 5 5 5LarsonPlayfield[10D]21 0/0 2.5 2.5 2.5PeninsulaSchoolprivate sewer [10E] 10 2.5 153/219 38242828WINONA[11]77 56/59 281315HALLMARK[12]50 15 66468/609 33 3222230HERMIT[13] 1461226/11094 0 65*BLUE HERON [18]2684 0 106216/238 59 25*WESTLAKE [17]252 40 2354/175 574MARINA[47]53 0/0 0.5 0.5 11121CRABCREEK[38] 20163764958/13923 3733889/3960 317Total WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 54 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 366 of 774 *2014 flows at Westlake include flows from Montana Lift Station.2015 flows at Westlake do not include Montana Lift Station because Blue Heron Lift Station will bypass Westlake,and those flows are then associated with Blue Heron [18]. 2014 PDF:792 gpm 2021 PDF:933 gpm Ultimate PDF:5092 gpm The Peninsula Lift Station pumps averaged 638 gpm during 2014,operating on VFDs,but they have a rated capacity of 1112 gpm at 105 TDH. Table 5.2.10B:Downstream pipe capacities from Peninsula Lift Station. downstream Notesslope(%)upstream pipe capacity pipe size (gpm) Peninsula Wetwell Headworks (COF)10 force main 1468 1 [39](940) The 10-inch force main include an 8-inch section of force main that has not been up- sized under the railroad crossing (capacity of the 8-inch force main shown in parenthesis). 1. COMMENTS The combined average pump rates for Winona LS,Hallmark LS,Hermit LS,Blue Heron LS,Westlake LS,and Marina LS are 266,530,846,500,298,131 gpm. Although unlikely to contribute to Peninsula simultaneously,the combined discharge would be 2,571 gpm.This unlikely flow event would be dispersed by the limiting capacities of the upstream pipes.If problems were caused by simultaneous discharges,the six upstream lift stations could be linked and controlled to discharge at times that would have less of an impact on the Peninsula Lift Station. Portions of the force main under the railroad and near the Peninsula Lift Station are 8-inch cast iron,and have not been replaced.At 6 fps in the 10-inch PVC force main,the velocity in the 8-inch sections of cast iron are 9.37 fps. The flows to the Peninsula Lift Station may be reduced by extending the force main from Blue Heron [18]and Westlake [17]to the downstream side of the force main between Peninsula lift station and Headworks (COF)[39],or directly to Potato Hill force main;in which case,ultimate development of Peninsula Tributary can be met at Peninsula Lift Station with a slight increase in pump capacity. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 55 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 367 of 774 5.2.11 WINONA TRIBUTARY [11] The Winona Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to the Winona Lift Station at 826 S. Winona Street.The Winona Lift Station discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 28-141 at the intersection of Winona Street and Peninsula Drive thru a 740-foot,6-inch diameter,PVC forcemain. ZONING Winona Tributary consists of a low-density residential zone at 70 percent of ultimate development. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Winona Tributary includes 50 acres of developed residential property and about 21 acres of undeveloped residential properties.In addition Winona Tributary includes a small church,Vem’s Meats,and small commercial businesses.The Winona Tributary receives no contributory flow from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Vem’s Meats is permitted to discharge 2 gpm under State Wastewater Discharge Permit No.ST-5214.Private school and Church is assumed to use 2 gpm or less.Calculated flows for 2014 were balanced evenly to account for the actual flows at Winona Lift Station in 2014. Because the potential for new development in Winona is very small,the predicted flows in 2021 are estimated to remain unchanged from 2014. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.11A:Winona contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. existing residential 50 153 20 23 23 23 21 66 0 0 0futureresidential 11 3 2 2022Vem’s Meats Pacific Latin American Church/school 3 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1commercial 153/219 28 38772428Total WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 56 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 368 of 774 2014 PDF:70 gpm 2021 PDF:70 gpm Ultimate PDF:95 gpm 2014 average pump rate:266 gpm Table 5.2.1IB:Downstream pipe capacities from Winona Lift Station. downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Winona Wetwell MH 28-141 force main [12][17] [13][18] 6 528 MH 28-141 MH 28-105 12 0.05 356 MH 28-105 MH 28-106 12 0.17 650 MH 28-106 MH 28-107 12 0.26 813 MH 28-107 MH 28-112 12 0.18 686 MH 28-112 MH 28-113 12 0.15 617 MH 28-113 MH 28-114 12 0.28 839 MH 28-114 MH 27-039 12 0.05 366 MH 27-039 MH 27-040 15 0.42 1879 MH 27-040 MH 27-143 15 0.21 1332 MH 27-143 MH 27-042 0.1715 1183 MH 27-042 MH 27-044 15 0.15 1105 MH 27-044 MH 27-054 15 0.09 860 MH 27-054 MH 27-056 15 0.22 1364 MH 27-056 MH 27-058 15 0.09 877 MH 27-058 MH 27-059 15 0.28 1537 MH 27-059 MH 27-061 18 [47]0.09 1440 MH 27-061 MH 27-060 18 0.17 1919 MH 27-060 MH 27-062A 18 0.15 1804 MH 27-062A MH 27-063 18 0.18 1974 MH 27-063 Peninsula Wetwell 18 0.98 4675 Refer to Table 5.2.10B for flow capacities downstream of Peninsula Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 57 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 369 of 774 COMMENTS Winona discharges to the main trunk for Peninsula tributary,and the pumps could be linked with Hermit,Hallmark,Westlake,Blue Heron,and Marina lift stations to stagger their run times to reduce the impact to the Peninsula trunk line. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 58 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 370 of 774 5.2.12 HALLMARK TRIBUTARY [12] The Hallmark Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Hallmark Lift Station at 2901 W. Marina Drive.Hallmark Lift Station discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 28-077 on Interlake Road,thru a 500 foot,6-inch steel force main. ZONING Hallmark Tributary consists of high-density residential,low-density residential,a Best Western Motel,and about 21 acres of undeveloped commercial property. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Hallmark Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Best Western was determined by water usage records in 2014.2014 residential flows were adjusted to balance the actual 2014 flows from Hallmark Lift Station.Because the potential for future growth is very minimal for Hallmark,the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth associated with Hallmark is negligible. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.12A:Hallmark contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.20212014 adj. existing residential 12568121211 future residential 3 0 120 0 Best Western Motel/restaurant 7 0 2 2 2 5 Commercial 30 0 1 1 1 15 Total 56/59 2850131515 2014 PDF:37.5 gpm 2021 PDF:37.5 gpm Ultimate PDF:70 gpm 2014 average pump rate:530 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 59 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 371 of 774 Table 5.2.12B:Downstream pipe capacities from Hallmark Lift Station. slope (%)downstream Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Hallmark Wetwell MH 28-077 6 force main 528 MH 28-078 8MH28-077 0.41 347 MH 28-078 MH 28-079 8 0.43 354 MH 28-079 MH 28-084 8 2.09 783 MH 28-084 MH 33-061 8 0.56 404 MH 33-061 MH 33-079 8 2.98 936 MH 33-079 MH 28-135 8 0.34 317 MH 28-135 MH 28-137 8 0.28 289 8MH28-137 MH 28-136 0.53 395 MH 28-136 MH 28-089 8 0.79 480 MH 28-089 MH 28-090 8 1.49 658 MH 28-090 MH 28-092 8 1.52 668 MH 28-092 MH 28-093 8 1.28 612 [13] MH 28-094 12 0.35MH28-093 951 MH 28-094 MH 28-141 12 0.32 898 Refer to Table 5.2.1IB for flow capacities downstream of MH 28-141.1. COMMENTS Best Western Motel operates a private pump station.PDF into Hallmark Lift Station is affected by the operation of the private pump station. Pumps at Hallmark Lift Station could be down-sized so that the capacity of the downstream pipes is not exceeded.Size of replacement pumps should account for the volume of wastewater discharged from private lift station at Best Western. 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 60 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 372 of 774 5.2.13 HERMIT TRIBUTARY [13]r*\ Hermit Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Hermit Lift Station at 4001 W.Lakeshore Drive.Hermit Lift Station discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 33-028 on Peninsula Drive,thru a 1726-foot,8-inch PVC force main. ZONING Hermit Tributary consists of 178 acres of low-density residential,6 acres of high-density residential,3 acres of general commercial with Sage Point Elementary School,and potential commercial growth in the vicinity of Interstate 90. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Hermit Tributary receives contributory flow from Tana [14].Lakeshore [13A]is a sub- tributary to Hermit,that is currently not served with municipal sewer services.Lakeshore will need to install a low-pressure sewer system or other alternate system to connect to municipal sewer because the gravity main in Lakeshore Drive cannot be extended due to ground elevations. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing residential developments are estimated by counting the existing lots. Undeveloped residential properties are in accordance with Table 5.1.1 parameters.Sage Point Elementary School calculations are based on existing water usage during 2014 during school months.Residential usage was reduced to balance the actual flows from Hermit Lift Station in 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 estimate that the undeveloped properties in this tributary will experience a proportionate share of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth.Ultimate flows assume full development in accordance with parameters listed in Table 5.1.1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 61 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 373 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm)/^s Table 5.2.13A:Hermit contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. 211 existing residential units 144 211/335 28 25 25 25 undeveloped low-density residential 34 136 0 0 181 undeveloped high-density residential 6 90 0 0 121 Lakeshore [13A],general commercial 3 00 0 0 2 Sage Point Elementary School [13B]11 0 2 2 22 31/48Tana[14]24 4 3 73 Total 222 468/609 33 32 6630 2014 PDF:75 gpm 2021 PDF:80 gpm Ultimate PDF:165 gpm 2014 average pump rate:846 gpm ^\ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 62 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 374 of 774 Table 5.2.13B:Downstream pipe capacities from Hermit Lift Station downstream slope Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity(%) (gPm) Hermit Wetwell MH 33-028 8 force main 940 MH 33-028 MH 33-029 12 24312.31 MH 33-029 MH 33-030 12 2.87 2706 MH 33-030 MH 33-031 1006120.40 MH 33-031 MH 33-032 12 0.32 899 MH 33-032 MH 33-144 12 0.78 1409 MH 33-144 MH 33-033 12 0.30 875 MH 33-033 MH 33-036 12 0.14 593 MH 33-036 MH 33-067 1239120.60 MH 33-067 MH 33-037 736120.21 MH 33-037 MH 33-066 1022120.41 MH 33-066 MH 33-039 12 0.01 159 MH 33-039 MH 33-040 12 0.44 1054 MH 33-040 MH 33-047 12 0.34 929 MH 33-047 MH 33-048 12 0.24 784 [17][18] MH 33-048 MH 28-093 12 0.08 444 [12] Refer to Table 5.2.12B for flow capacities downstream of MH 28-093. COMMENTS The Peninsula trunk receives plug flows from 6 different lift stations,which will cause surging at the upstream manholes with one or multiple lifts stations operating simultaneously.Some relief could be achieved in the trunk main by controlling their operating times,to avoid simultaneous plug flows. The capacity of the pumps at Hermit Lift Station are excessive. 1. 2. r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 63 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 375 of 774 5.2.14 TANA TRIBUTARY [14] Tana Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Tana Lift Station at 4537 West Peninsula Drive.Tana Lift Station discharges to Hermit Tributary at MH 05-003 on Lakeshore Drive,thru a 360-foot,4-inch PVC force main. ZONING Tana Tributary is low-density residential zone that is about 60 percent of its ultimate build-out.Tana discharges to Hermit [13]at MH 05-003. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Tana Tributary receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows were adjusted to match actual flows for Tana Lift Station in 2014. Predicted flows for 2021 assume a portion of the vacant lots will be developed. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.14A:Tana contributory flows acres 2014 calc.2014 ultimate2021 adj. 24 31/48 7low-density residential 4 43 24 31/48 4 74Total3 2014 PDF:8 gpm 2021 PDF:10 gpm Ultimate PDF:18 gpm Tana Lift Station pumps averaged 234 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 64 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 376 of 774 Table 5.2.14B:Downstream pipe capacities from Tana Lift Station. downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Tana Wetwell MH 05-003 force main 4 940 MH 05-003 MH 05-004 8 0.53 395 MH 05-004 MH 05-005 8 3340.38 MH 05-005 MH 05-006 8 0.51 386 MH 05-006 MH 05-007 8 0.05 124 MH 05-007 MH 33-023 8 1.67 699 MH 33-023 MH 33-024 8 3320.37 MH 33-024 MH 33-025 8 0.81 487 MH 33-025 MH 33-026 8 0.21 249 MH 33-026 Hermit Wetwell 62981.35 Refer to Table 5.2.13B for flow capacities downstream of Hermit Wetwell. COMMENTS Tana Tributary will not be increased in size due to its lakeshore boundary.1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 65 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 377 of 774 5.2.15 WESTLAKE SHORES TRIBUTARY [15] The Westlake Shores Tributary is a low-pressure effluent system,consisting of a low-pressure force-main that is maintained by the City,and individual on-site pumps and septic tanks for each service connection that are maintained by the property owners.The 4-inch PVC low-pressure force main discharges to Westlake [17]at MH 29-029 at the intersection of Laguna Drive and Sage Road. Each on-site service connection includes an in-line septic tank that is maintained by the property owner,to reduce the solids before pumping effluent into the City’s low-pressure force main. ZONING Westlake Shores Tributary is low-density residential zone and a general commercial zone. The general commercial zone adjacent to Interstate 90 is currently 90 percent undeveloped.The residential zone is at about 75 percent of its ultimate development. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Westlake Shores Tributary would receive contributory flows from Hansen [45],but Hansen is currently being developed with private on-site disposal systems. FLOW ANALYSIS Low-density residential is based on 81 of 120 developed lots. /-*\Commercial estimates are based on 1 acre of 43 developed. Adjustments for the 2014 residential flows were based on the Westlake Tributary [17] analysis,because no pumping records exist for the Westlake Shores Tributary. Predicted flows for 2021 assume that Hansen Tributary [45]will not connect to the municipal sewer system in the next 6 years,however,ultimate flows assume Hansen Tributary will connect to municipal sewer. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.15A:Westlake Shores contributory flows acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 1612981/120 11 8low-density residential 7.5 22430111commercial 0 0 270570Hansen[45] 65229120128.5 9TOTAL WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 66 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 378 of 774 2014 PDF:22gpm 2021 PDF:35gpm Ultimate PDF:163 gpm Table 5.2.15B:Pipe capacities in Westlake Shores downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Low-pressure effluent pipe Low-pressure effluent pipe force main 132 [45]3 Low-pressure effluent pipe force main [16]MH 29-029 4 235 Refer to Table 5.2.16B for flow capacities downstream of MH 29-029. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 67 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 379 of 774 5.2.16 LAGUNA TRIBUTARY [16] The Laguna Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Laguna Lift Station at 911 S.Laguna Drive.Laguna Lift Station discharges to Westlake [17 ]at MH 32-004 on Laguna Drive,thru a 1200-foot,4-inch PVC force main. ZONING Laguna Tributary consists of 57 low-density residential lots. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Laguna Tributary receives no contributory flow from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Laguna Tributary is developed into 57 residential lots,with 5 vacant lots in 2014. Calculated flows from Table 5.1.1 parameters correspond exactly with measured flows for Laguna Lift Station in 2014.Predicted flows assume the remainder of the vacant lots will be developed within the next six years. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.16A:Laguna contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. low-density residential 30 52/57 8877 30 52/57 88Total77 2014 PDF:17.5gpm 2021 PDF:20 gpm Ultimate PDF:20 gpm The Laguna Lift Station pumped an average of 226 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 68 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 380 of 774 Table 5.2.16B:Pipe capacities downstream of Laguna Lift Station. downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Laguna Wetwell force main MH 32-004 2354 MH 32-004 MH 32-003 0.29 86212 MH 32-003 714MH32-002 0.2012 MH 32-002 846MH32-034 12 0.28 791MH32-034 MH 32-001 12 0.25 MH 32-001 MH 29-029 12 0.23 772 [15]MH 29-029 MH 29-030 10 0.30 540 MH 29-030 0.44 649MH29-031 10 MH 29-031 674MH29-033 10 0.47 MH 29-033 Westlake Wetwell 674100.47 Refer to Table 5.2.17B for flow capacities downstream of Westlake Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 69 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 381 of 774 5.2.17 WESTLAKE TRIBUTARY [17] The Westlake Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Westlake Lift Station at 3415 W. Prichard Road.Westlake Lift Station discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 33-047 thru a 6500- foot,8-inch,PVC force main.A 12-inch PVC force main under 1-90 was installed in 2012 (C-242),with connection and valve configuration on the 8-inch force main downstream of the Westlake Lift Station—so that contributory flows from Montana Lift Station,tentatively to be abandoned and replaced with Blue Heron Lift Station in 2015,will bypass the Westlake Lift Station and discharge directly to Peninsula [10]through the 8-inch force main. ZONING Westlake Tributary is low-density residential zone,with some general commercial property near Interstate 90.Westlake Tributary includes Pier 4 [17A],which is a 180 space recreational vehicle park.Additionally,a 10-inch gravity main,crossing under Interstate 90,collects wastewater from the residential unit and two restroom facilities at Blue Heron Park. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Westlake Shores [15],Laguna [16],and Blue Heron [18]provide contributory flows to Westlake Tributary.Blue Heron [18]will bypass Westlake after Blue Heron Lift Station Project is completed in 2016. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing and future residential units are estimated based on existing developed lots. Pier 4 [17A]is estimated from water service records in 2014. General commercial property is estimated at 20 percent of ultimate development. Montana Lift Station continues to contribute flows to Westlake Tributary,and data from 2014 is included for 2014 flows,but it is not included in 2021 predictions or ultimate flows because the impending construction in 2015 of the Blue Heron Lift Station,which will bypass Westlake Lift Station when completed. Blue Heron Park [17B]is estimated at .5 gpm on 21 acres.The services include two restroom facilities in a day-use park,and one residence.Any further development of Blue Heron Park will be connected to the Blue Heron Lift Station. Adjustments were made for 2014 flows to correspond with the actual 2014 flows from Westlake Lift Station,holding Laguna and Montana at measured flows for 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 70 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 382 of 774 Predicted flows for 2021 assume a 3 percent annual growth rate in the undeveloped properties;however the predicted flow for 2021 is lower than 2014 assuming that Blue Heron Lift Station will be constructed in 2015 and bypass Westlake Lift Station,flowing directly to Peninsula [10]. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.17A:Westlake Contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. high-density residential 32/495 4 2.5 3 7 low-density residential 11/11 11.5 1 14 general commercial 0/0 351 1 1 Pier 4 [17A]0/0 2 21521.5 Blue Heron Park [17B]21 1/1 1 1.5 .5 Montana Lift Station 0NA NA 36 18 0 Laguna [16]852/5730 877 Westlake Shores [15]120/120 652299128.5 Total 216/238 25 1062525940 2014 PDF:100 gpm 2021 PDF:62.5 gpm (Blue Heron bypass) Ultimate PDF:265 gpm The Westlake Lift Station pumped an average of 298 gpm during 2014. Table 5.2.17B:Pipe capacities downstream of Westlake Lift Station. downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Westlake Wetwell MH 33-047 force main 8 940 [18] Refer to Table 5.2.13B for flow capacities downstream of MH 33-047. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 71 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 383 of 774 COMMENTS When the Blue Heron Lift Station is constructed and connected to the 8-inch force main downstream of Westlake Lift Station (scheduled for 2015),flow volumes at Westlake Lift Station will be reduced. When the combined flow from Westlake and Blue Heron exceeds 950 gpm in the 8-inch force main between Westlake Lift Station and Peninsula Trunk,a 12-inch force main should be considered,parallel to the 8-inch force main. Depending on downstream capacities at the time when the additional force main is required,consideration should be given to bypass the Peninsula Lift Station,discharging directly to the Headworks (COF)[39],Sand Dunes [70],or alternate treatment facility. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 72 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 384 of 774 5.2.18 BLUE HERON TRIBUTARY [18] Blue Heron Tributary is a gravity sewer system that will drain to Blue Heron Lift Station at 115 Westshore Drive in Blue Heron Park.Blue Heron Lift Station is currently in the design/construction phase,which when completed,will take the place of the Montana LiftStation(to be abandoned).The Blue Heron Lift Station will discharge to a 12-inch PVC force main,which ties into the 8-inch PVC force main on the downstream side of the Westlake Lift Station,discharging to MH 33-047 at Wanapum and Peninsula Drive,where Hermit [13]and Westlake [17]also contribute to Peninsula [10].The Blue Heron force main bypasses the Westlake Lift Station,reducing the total flow volumes to Westlake Lift Station. ZONING Blue Heron Tributary consists of residential,general commercial,and recreational uses on the north side of Interstate 90. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Sub-tributaries within Blue Heron Tributary include:Blue Heron Park [18A],Crittenden [18B],Silver Sands [18C],Montana [18D],and Suncrest RV Park [18E]. Blue Heron Park [18A]:A popular day park that includes boat launching facilities, fishing pier,activity trail,and future overnight camping/marina.The park includes one existing residential use,an existing concession stand,and two existing restroom facilities that connect via a 10-inch gravity sewer main that discharges to Westlake Lift Station, and do not contribute to the Blue Heron Tributary.Flows listed for Blue Heron Park are for future flows associated with overnight camping/marina facilities. Crittenden [18B]:Residential and commercial development property.Some proposed development includes:Westlake Village,a 17 acre lot for general commercial development,including convenience store and gas station,general or retail stores (3), restaurants (2),and 76-room hotel;Westlake Villas,a 50-acre residential gated community with 150 single family houses and 38 duplex units;and 133 acres of undeveloped residential property north of Westlake Drive,east of Hansen Road,and west of Montana Street. Silver Sands [18C]:An existing residential development with approximately 30 residential units that are connected to on-site wastewater treatment facilities.No plans currently exist for the owners to extend and connect to the municipal sewer.To serve this development,the owners would need to install a gravity sewer main in Frontage Road,east to Hansen Road,then north to an existing sewer main. Montana [18D]:An existing residential development with individual on-site wastewater WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 73 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 385 of 774 treatment facilities,that may not function efficiently.This residential area has 29 existing houses,and a potential for 102 houses,on 21 acres (4.86 houses per acre).Because of the low-income level of the Montana area,the City of Moses Lake has previously applied for block grants to provide municipal sewer services to the existing houses,but have not succeeded in obtaining funds.Currently,no plans are approved for installing the sewer mains in the Montana sub-tributary. Suncrest RV Park [18E]:A privately owned RV park with 113 trailer sites with individual sewer connections.The park includes an office,community kitchen,restroom facilities,and pool.The privately owned and maintained on-site sewer system consists of gravity sewer mains and service lines to serve the trailer sites,and other facilities, draining to an on-site lift station with two pumps rated to discharge 150 gpm (each)at 85 TDH (B-240).The on-site lift station discharges to the 2118-foot,4-inch PVC,municipal force main in Hansen Road,that discharges to MH 29-002 at Hansen Road and Westshore Drive.2021 flows assume no change to 2014 usage,but ultimate flows assume redevelopment may occur. Sun Terrace [40],Mae Valley [20],and Moses Pointe [21]contribute flows to the Blue Heron Tributary,but Mae Valley [20]only contributes through a few private sewer connections along Westshore Drive that discharge via private residential on-site pumps to the Westshore Drive force main. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for 2014 are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters.Because Blue Heron Lift Station is not constructed,calculated flows for 2014 were used from Montana Lift Station.Measured flows at Montana Lift station were 18 gpm,but this number is not reasonable,considering actual measured flows from Sun Terrace [40]and Moses Pointe [21]added up to 13,therefore exfiltration was included for the difference. Predicted flows for 2021 assume that Blue Heron Tributary will continue to see above normal growth compared to the remainder of Moses Lake,therefore a larger portion of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth is placed within the Blue Heron Tributary. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 74 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 386 of 774 Table 5.2.18A:Blue Heron contributory flows Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid.unitsacres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 13existingresidential100/100 13 134613 future residential 40/30 0 0 212 Blue Heron Park [18A]0 200/15050 0 0 Crittenden [18B]0/732 0 10020000 5SilverSands[18C]0/33 0 0 07 14Montana[18D]0/102 0 0 021 100/118SuncrestRVPark[18E]3 3113 63/530 7523SunTerrace[40]306 9 9 765MosesPointe[21]63/5827 9 2514484 456MaeValley[20]0/3472 0 08680 0 0exfiltration0NA NA -11 1461226/11094 65Total26843418 2014 values are for Montana Lift Station.Measured value of 18 gpm was obtained from Montana Lift Station records in 2014. 2014 PDF:70 gpm 2021 PDF:210 gpm Ultimate PDF:3653 gpm The Blue Heron Lift Station is designed for a capacity of 500 gpm,but can be up-sized with new pumps (3)to a capacity of 1800 gpm. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 75 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 387 of 774 Table 5.2.18B:Pipe capacities downstream of Blue Heron Lift Station. downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Blue Heron Wetwell MH 33-047 force main12 2112 1 1.12-inch force main from Blue Heron Lift Station tees into 8-inch force main between Westlake Lift Station and MH 33-047. Refer to Table 5.2.17B for flow capacities downstream of Westlake Lift Station. COMMENTS As the Blue Heron Lift Station approaches capacities exceeding 750 gpm,downstream gravity mains will need to be up sized.As the capacity exceeds 940 gpm,a parallel force main may be required between Westlake Lift Station and MH 33-047.Additionally, downstream upgrades to lift stations may be required;or alternate means to handle the additional flows. As the area on the west side of Moses Lake develops,the gravity main between Hansen Road and Blue Heron Lift Station will see surges from Suncrest RV (private),Sun Terrace Lift Station,Moses Pointe Lift Station,and Mae Valley Lift Station (future). 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 76 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 388 of 774 5.2.19 MOSES POINTE NORTH TRIBUTARY [19] Moses Pointe North Tributary is currently undeveloped except for a few residential homes that are connected to private on-site wastewater disposal systems.As this tributary is annexed and developed,lift stations and gravity sewer mains will need to be installed by the developers.The Moses Pointe North Tributary will discharge to MH 07-001in Westshore Drive.An existing municipal (not-in-service)6-inch PVC force main extends north from Manhole 07-001 in Westshore Drive. ZONING The Moses Pointe North Tributary,currently neither developed nor annexed into the City of Moses Lake,is analyzed as a rural low-density residential zone. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Moses Pointe North Tributary has no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Flow calculations for Moses Pointe North Tributary are based on 4 residential units per acre.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that no development will occur in the next 6 years. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.19A:Moses Pointe North contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. low-density residential 1242 4968 0 6520 0 Total 1242 4968 0 65200 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:1630 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 77 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 389 of 774 Table 5.2.19B:Pipe capacities downstream of future Moses Pointe North Lift Station. slope (%)downstream Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) force main 1528MosesPointeNorth Wetwell (future) MH 07-001 6 362MH07-002 8 0.45MH07-001 0.29 293MH07-003 8MH07-002 0.52 392MH07-004 8MH07-003 0.46 3668MH07-004 MH 07-005 0.91 517MH07-006 8MH07-005 0.53 713MH07-019 10MH07-006 1.50 120410MH07-018MH07-019 0.69 814MH07-039 10MH07-018 0.36 58910MH07-017MH07-039 5850.3510MH07-016MH07-017 0.34 57310MH07-015MH07-016 5050.2610MH07-014MH07-015 0.82 89110MH07-013MH07-014 1.42 117010MH07-012MH07-013 [21]4.73 2138MosesPointe Wetwell 10MH07-012 The 6-inch force main is installed in Westshore Drive,but not in service,north of MH 07-001.1. Refer to Table 5.2.2IB for flow capacities downstream of Moses Pointe Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 78 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 390 of 774 COMMENTS A 6-inch sewer force main is installed in Westshore drive,upstream of MH 07-001,for connection of future lift station. Ultimate development of Moses Pointe North Tributary will require upgrades to existing pipe and lift stations downstream. In 2014,Moses Pointe Lift Station pumped an average of 26 gpm.Moses Pointe,Inc.is required to upgrade the lift station pumps (280 gpm)to serve their development of 859 SERUs when their development reaches a milestone of 100 SERUs.On April 1,2015, 62 SERUs were in service. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 79 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 391 of 774 5.2.20 MAE VALLEY TRIBUTARY [20] Mae Valley Tributary consists of private on-site wastewater treatment facilities for each lot.As the area develops,and redevelops,developers will install municipal sewer mains and lift stations. Mae Valley Tributary should discharge to Blue Heron [18]through the existing 6-inch PVC force main from Moses Pointe to MH 30-014 at Fairway Drive and Westshore Drive. ZONING Mae Valley Tributary consists of a rural low-density residential zone. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Mae Valley Tributary receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Predicted flows for 2021 assume that this tributary will not be developed with municipal sewer in the next six years.Ultimate flows for Mae Valley Tributary assume low-density residential development.All calculations are configured with Mae Valley Lift Station discharging through the existing 6-inch force main in Westshore Drive.These calculations should be revisited in the event that a gravity main is completed to the grit chamber for Moses Pointe Development,and secondary flows from Moses Pointe Lift Station are pumped through the Mae Valley Lift Station. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.20A:Mae Valley contributory flows acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 868 3472 0 0 0 456residential 868 3472 0 0 0 456Total 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:1140 gpm /-*N WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 80 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 392 of 774 Table 5.2.20B:Pipe capacities downstream of future Mae Valley Lift Station pipe capacity Notesdownstreamslopeupstreampipesize (%)(gPm) [21]Mae Valley Wetwell (future) force main Westshore Drive Force Main 5286 Refer to Table 5.2.2IB for flow capacities downstream of Westshore Drive force main. COMMENTS A few residences along Westshore Drive,within Mae Valley Tributary are currently connected to the force main in Westshore Drive,but as the Mae Valley Tributary develops and gravity mains are installed in Westshore Drive,those services should be reconnected to the gravity main. As the west side of Moses Lake service area develops,merging flows from Blue Heron [18],Mae Valley [20],Sun Terrace [40],Moses Pointe [21],and Moses Pointe North [19] may compete for line capacity upstream of Blue Heron Lift Station. Mae Valley Lift Station should be installed near the intersection of Mae Valley Road and Westshore Drive,discharging to the 6-inch Moses Pointe force main in Westshore Drive. Additional lift stations or alternate facilities may be required to provide full service to the boundaries of this tributary. A gravity main may be installed from Blue Heron Lift Station to the Moses Pointe grit chamber,eliminating the necessity of a lift station in Mae Valley,but that sewer main would require trench depths exceeding 20 feet at some locations. Gravity mains should be increased in size near the Mae Valley Lift Station to provide capacity for full development. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 81 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 393 of 774 5.2.21 MOSES POINTE TRIBUTARY [21] Moses Pointe Tributary consists of a gravity sewer system that drains to Moses Pointe Lift Station at 6402 NE Road 4.Moses Pointe Lift Station discharges to Blue Heron [18]through a 6-inch PVC force main at manhole 30-014 at Hansen Road and Westshore Drive.Moses Pointe Development is connected to municipal sewer services in accordance with extra-territorial agreement (950712028). ZONING Moses Pointe Tributary consists of a planned-use development,in accordance with an extra-territorial agreement between Moses Pointe,Inc.and the City of Moses Lake.The extra-territorial agreement allows up to 859 equivalent residential units. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS The Moses Pointe Tributary has no sub-tributaries. Moses Pointe Tributary will receive contributory flows from Moses Pointe North [19] when it is developed. FLOW ANALYSIS Moses Pointe calculated flows in 2014 are based on 63 of 859 allowed equivalent residential units per extra-territorial agreement.2014 flows are adjusted to account for the actual lift station flows in 2014.Because of the resort nature of the Moses Pointe Tributary,the low flows may be due to low usage during winter months.Peak flows for Moses Pointe are adjusted to account for the seasonal fluctuation,using a peak factor of 2.5 and 2014 calculated flows.Predicted flows for 2021 assume a 3 percent annual growth for the Moses Pointe Tributary,but assume that Moses Pointe North will not be developed in the next six years. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.21A:Moses Pointe contributory flows acres 2014 2021 ultimate2014 calc.adj. 4968 6521242000MosesPointeNorth[19] 206 62/859 113925MosesPointe4 62/5827 76514489254Total WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 82 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 394 of 774 2014 PDF:lOgpm 2021 PDF:62.5 gpm Ultimate PDF:1912 gpm The Moses Pointe Lift Station pumped an average of 26 gpm during 2014. Table 5.2.21B:Pipe capacities downstream of Moses Pointe Lift Station Notesslope(%)downstreamupstream pipe capacity pipe size (gpm) [20]force main 528MosesPointe Wetwell 6MH30-015 [40] 8262.32MH29-001 8MH30-015 3300.37MH29-001 MH 29-002 8 15481.02MH29-002 MH 29-003 8 543MH29-057 8 1.00MH29-003 1043MH29-057 MH 29-008 8 3.7 3340.38MH29-008 MH 29-009 8 1.06 558MH29-009 MH 29-022 8 216310.12MH29-022 MH7 18 1631 20.12MH618MH7 1631 20.12MH6MH518 21631MH4180.12MH5 1631 20.12MH318MH4 1631 2180.12MH2MH3 1631 2180.12MH1MH2 1631 2BlueHeron Wetwell 18 0.12MH1 Flows from Suncrest RV Park [18E]discharge from 4-inch municipal force main to MH 29-002. From design,not built. Refer to Table 5.2.18B for flow capacities downstream of Blue Heron Lift Station. 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 83 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 395 of 774 COMMENTS Moses Pointe,Inc.is required to upgrade the lift station pumps to serve their development of 859 SERUs when their development reaches a milestone of 100 SERUs.On April 1, 2015,62 SERUs were in service. As Moses Pointe develops,the extra-territorial agreement requires the developer to up- size the pumps and to transfer a generator from the Mae Valley Booster Pump Station (water)to Moses Pointe Lift Station. The force main from Suncrest RV Park [18E]should be intercepted if the gravity main is installed to Hansen Road by the developer for Vista Village. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 84 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 396 of 774 5.2.22 LAKELAND TRIBUTARY [22] Lakeland Tributary is a gravity sewer system draining to Lakeland Lift Station at 1150 South Lakeland Drive.Lakeland Lift Station discharges to Division [08]thru a 4-inch PVC force main to MH 25-002 in Nelson Road. ZONING Lakeland Tributary has an area of 100 acres of low-density residential.In 2015,87 of those 100 acres are developed,leaving 13 acres remaining.The 87 developed acres account for 333 residential units.Ultimate build-out of this tributary is predicted to include a total of 383 residential units. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Lakeland Tributary receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-areas. FLOW ANALYSIS Lakeland Tributary will provide sewer service to about 385 residential units.Calculated flows for 2014 are adjusted to correspond with the measured flows for the Lakeland Lift Station in 2014.The remaining residential lots within Lakeland Tributary are within a fast-paced development,and is predicted to be completely built out by the year 2021.r*\ Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.22A:Lakeland contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. undeveloped low-density residential 13 0 75207 low-density residential 88 33333443333 Total 101 40385444033 2014 PDF:110 gpm 2021 PDF:127.5 gpm Ultimate:127.5 Lakeland Lift Station pumps averaged 152 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 85 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 397 of 774 Table 5.2.22B:Pipe capacities downstream of Lakeland Lift Station. downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gPm) Lakeland Wetwell MH 25-002 4 force main 235 MH 25-002 MH 25-005 8 0.26 275 MH 25-005 8MH25-001 0.55 401 MH 25-001 MH 26-182 8 0.19 237 MH 26-182 8MH26-065 0.56 406 MH 26-065 MH 26-066 8 0.61 424 MH 26-066 MH 26-069 8 0.41 349 8MH26-069 MH 26-220 0.37 330 8MH26-220 MH 26-070 0.49 379 8 0.36MH26-070 MH 26-072 325 MH 26-072 MH 26-073 8 0.47 370 8MH26-073 MH 26-074 1.20 593 MH 26-074 MH 26-093 8 0.68 447 MH 26-093 MH 26-218 8 0.96 531 MH 26-218 MH 26-075 8 0.57 408 8 0.07MH26-075 MH 26-077 143 8 1.18MH26-077 MH 26-181 589 8 1.56MH26-181 MH 26-078 678 8 0.16MH26-078 MH 26-079 217 8MH26-079 MH 23-168 1.10 567 MH 23-169 8 0.53 394MH23-168 8 3.76MH23-172 1051MH23-169 3.408 1000MH23-172 MH 23-175 8 1.26 608MH23-175 MH 23-178 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 86 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 398 of 774 pipe capacitydownstreamslope(%)Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) MH 23-178 MH 23-179 8 0.47 373 MH 23-179 MH 23-339 8 0.63 430 MH 23-339 MH 23-338-1 8 0.28 289 MH 23-338-1 MH 23-337 8 8.24 1557 MH 23-337 MH 23-188 8 8.14 1547 MH 23-188 MH 23-189 8 6.60 1393 MH 23-189 MH 23-193 8 4.69 1175 MH 23-193 MH 23-207 8 3.42 1003 MH 23-207 MH 23-208 12 1.80 2147 MH 23-208 MH 23-210 12 2.75 2652 MH 23-210 MH 23-211 12 0.12 553 MH 23-211 MH 23-212 12 0.55 1188 MH 23-212 MH 23-220 12 0.11 540 MH 23-220 MH 23-221 12 0.28 853 Division WetwellMH23-221 12 0.34 937 Refer to Table 5.2.08B for pipe capacities downstream of Division Street Lift Station. COMMENTS Lakeland Tributary is nearly complete and no additional up-sizing should be expected for this tributary. The Lakeland Lift Station was built in 1995 and all wastewater mains are PVC. Adjacent property east of Lakeland Tributary includes low-density residential developments outside the UGA,served with on-site wastewater disposal systems. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 87 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 399 of 774 5.2.23 CASCADE HEIGHTS TRIBUTARY [23] Cascade Heights Tributary is a partially annexed area on the south end of Cascade Valley consisting of agricultural and rural residential development.All sewer services are currently on- site wastewater disposal systems;no municipal sewer services are installed to this tributary.As developers install low-density residential complexes,they may be required to annex and install municipal sewer facilities. ZONING Cascade Heights Tributary consists of 468 acres of low-density residential,229 acres of medium-density residential,and 9 acres of general commercial. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Cascade Heights Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub- tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Cascade Heights is not connected to municipal sewer.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that this tributary will not be connected to municipal sewer in the next six years. Ultimate flows are based on full development at 4 residences per acre. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid.unitsTable5.2.23A:Cascade Heights contributory flows acres ultimate20212014 calc. 2014 adj. 3652780000695low-density residential 500090generalcommercial 3700278000704Total 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:925 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 88 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 400 of 774 Table 5.2.23B:Pipe capacities downstream of Cascade Heights Lift Station (future). Notesdownstreamslope(%)upstream pipe capacity pipe size (gpm) [24]Cascade Heights Wetwell (future) force main 940MH21-018 8 MH 21-018 MH 21-017 10 0.67 802 MH 21-017 MH 21-016 1206101.51 1067MH21-016 MH 21-015 10 1.18 MH 21-015 MH 21-023 10 0.38 604 MH 21-023 660MH21-022 10 0.45 MH 21-022 MH 21-012 38101015.02 [25]MH 21-012 MH 22-147 736120.21 MH 22-147 MH 22-146 3200.0412 MH 22-146 MH 22-154 2188121.87 MH 22-154 MH 22-153 12 8.88 4765 MH 22-153 MH 22-003 1402120.77 MH 22-003 MH 22-004 793120.25 MH 22-004 MH 22-005 851120.28 MH 22-005 MH 22-007 0.24 78612 MH 22-007 MH 22-009 12 0.18 683 MH 22-009 MH 22-010 12 0.58 1213 MH 22-010 MH 22-011 12 0.14 600 MH 22-011 Sage Bay Wetwell 12 2.52 2536 Refer to Table 5.2.27B for capacities downstream of Sage Bay Lift Station. r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 89 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 401 of 774 COMMENTS 1.About one-fourth of Cascade Heights Tributary is annexed,but undeveloped. Preliminary development plans were reviewed by the City,which propose municipal sewer to serve a portion of Cascade Heights.Those plans included a lift station and a lake crossing for the sewer force main to discharge to Sage Bay [27]at the gravity sewer main in Crestview Drive.During that preliminary development stage,the developer purchased a property between Crestview Drive and the lake,to provide a municipal easement for the proposed lake crossing prior to reselling the property.The development and easement never progressed,but the developer still owns the property along Crestview Drive. Cascade Heights Tributary consists of about four miles of lakefront,therefore multiple lift stations or alternate wastewater systems may be required for ultimate coverage in this tributary. As Cascade Heights Tributary,Upper Cascade Valley [25],and Lower Cascade Valley [24]develop,downstream gravity trunk mains in Edgewater Lane will be at capacity, causing surging at the manholes when the Cascade Heights,Upper Cascade Valley lift stations discharge. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 90 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 402 of 774 5.2.24 LOWER CASCADE VALLEY [24] Lower Cascade Valley is delineated from Upper Cascade Valley [25]by the limits of the gravity sewer mains proposed for Upper Cascade Valley.All existing sewer services for Lower Cascade Valley are currently connected to on-site wastewater disposal systems;no municipal sewer services are installed to Lower Cascade Valley.As developers install low-density residential complexes in this tributary,they will be required to annex and install municipal sewer facilities.Lower Cascade Valley will require multiple small lift stations or alternative low-pressure or vacuum systems, discharging to gravity mains in Upper Cascade Valley. ZONING The area consists of agricultural and mixed-density residential uses. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Lower Cascade Valley receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Lower Cascade Valley is not connected to municipal sewer.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that this tributary will not be connected to municipal sewer in the next six years. Ultimate flows are based on full development. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.24A:Lower Cascade Valley contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc. 20212014 adj. low-density residential 2194171668000 medium-density residential 645003600 public 5100000 Total 2304722028000 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:575 gpm COMMENTS 1 .Lower Cascade Valley consists of about 5 miles of lakefront.Multiple lift stations or alternate wastewater systems will be required for ultimate coverage of this tributary. All of the multiple lift stations or alternative pressure systems will discharge to Upper Cascade Valley gravity mains.2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 91 of 221 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 403 of 774 5.2.25 UPPER CASCADE VALLEY TRIBUTARY [25] Upper Cascade Valley Tributary is in Cascade Valley,delineated by its elevation,to be serviceable by gravity sewer mains that will drain to a future lift station in Cascade Park.All existing sewer services are currently connected to private on-site wastewater disposal systems;no municipal sewer services are installed to this tributary.As developers install low-density residential complexes,they will be required to annex and install municipal sewer facilities. ZONING Upper Cascade Valley Tributary consists primarily of low-density residential (693 acres), with some medium density residential (35 acres),and general commercial (58 acres). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Upper Cascade Valley will receive contributory flows from Lower Cascade Valley [24]. FLOW ANALYSIS Upper Cascade Valley is not connected to municipal sewer.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that this tributary will not be connected to municipal sewer in the next six years. Ultimate flows are based on full development in accordance with Table 5.1.1 parameters. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units Table 5.2.25A:Upper Cascade Valley contributory flows acres ultimate201420212014 calc.adj. 364low-density residential 693 0 0 02772 0 37medium-density residential 35 280 0 0 0 29generalcommercial58000 2304722028000LowerCascadeValley[24] 0 6601258508000Total 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:1650 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 92 of 221 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 404 of 774 Table 5.2.25B:Pipe capacities downstream of Upper Cascade Valley Lift Station (future). Notesslope(%)downstreamupstream pipe capacity pipe size (gpm) Upper Cascade Valley Wetwell (future) force main 1468MH16-025 10 1106MH16-025 MH 16-024 10 1.27 1156MH16-024 MH 16-023 10 1.38 MH 16-023 MH 16-022 1035101.11 MH 16-021 968MH16-022 10 0.97 MH 16-021 950MH16-020 10 0.93 MH 16-020 MH 16-019 950100.93 MH 16-019 MH 16-018 10 0.40 621 MH 16-018 MH 16-017 10 17733.25 MH 16-017 MH 16-016 10 3.38 1806 MH 16-016 MH 21-021 1621102.72 MH 21-021 MH 21-020 10 0.38 608 MH 21-020 MH 21-019 615100.39 [23]MH 21-019 MH 21-018 601100.37 Refer to Table 5.2.23B for capacities downstream of MH 21-018. COMMENTS As Cascade Heights [23],Lower Cascade Valley [24],and Upper Cascade Valley [25] develop,downstream gravity trunk mains will be at capacity,causing surging at the manholes. Valley Road Reconstruction Project (A-503)included two 16 inch sleeves under Valley Road at Cascade Park for future crossing. The 10-inch force main required at ultimate development from Upper Cascade Valley Lift Station will have a velocity of 6.74 ft/s during peak flows of 1650 gpm ,but may not be desirable until half of Cascade Valley is connected to municipal sewer,because the flows would be too slow for purging the line.Consideration should be given to installing a smaller force main to serve the Upper Cascade Valley Lift Station when first installed. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 93 of 221 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 405 of 774 5.2.26 NORTHSHORE TRIBUTARY [26] Northshore Tributary is a gravity system that drains to MH 15-151,which is the head of 1000- foot,8-inch steel siphon,under-crossing Moses Lake.The elevation of the siphon head at MH 15-151 is about 5 feet higher than the invert at MH 22-143,where Northshore Tributary discharges to Main [09].A 4-inch overflow to Sage Bay Lift Station exists at MH 15-159 at the west end of Northshore Drive,allowing overflows,if any,to discharge to Sage Bay Lift Station. ZONING Northshore Tributary has an area of 76 acres and consists of 208 existing residential units, two churches,a convenience store,and Knolls Vista Park.Very little property remains for additional development in this tributary. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Northshore Tributary receives contributory flows from OMNI [29],and Knolls Vista [28],and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Flows within Northshore Tributary are estimated by counting the existing residential units,and estimating the church,park,Knolls Vista School,and service station.Majority of flows through the Northshore Tributary are passed through from Knolls Vista [28]. Predicted flows for 2021 assume the Knolls Vista Lift Station will discharge through Sage Bay Tributary [27]by new force main in 2021. Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid.unitsTable5.2.26A:Northshore contributory flows acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. low-density residential 208 38 38763838 65/82 3/3 29OMNI[29]36 4129 1431/4530KNOLLSVISTA[28]811 231 0 0179 1642/4741 298 79Total96924674 2014 PDF:615 gpm 2021 PDF:185 gpm Ultimate PDF:198 gpm \ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 94 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 406 of 774 Table 5.2.26B:Pipe capacities downstream of MH 15-151 (Siphon Head) Notesdownstreamslope(%)pipe capacity (gpm)upstream pipe size MH 15-151 MH 22-143 siphon 18470 [48]MH 22-143 MH 22-040 8 0.44 283 MH 22-040 MH 22-156 12 3.31 2911 MH 22-156 MH 22-157 12 0.21 740 MH 22-157 MH 22-043 12 0.37 978 MH 22-043 MH 23-256 10 0.30 536 MH 23-256 MH 22-044 10 0.32 556 MH 22-044 MH 23-257 10 0.38 607 MH 23-257 MH 23-258 10 0.10 311 MH 23-258 MH 23-268 12 0.56 1193 MH 23-268 MH 23-270 15 0.48 2002 MH 23-270 MH 23-272 15 0.24 1423 MH 23-272 Main Wetwell [08][33]21 0.77 6228 Flow calculations for commercial steel pipe,70 degree clear fluid,and 5 feet of head provide an ideal flow of 563 gpm at 3.56 ft/s. Refer to Table 5.2.09B for capacities downstream of Main Lift Station. 1. COMMENTS Peak flows exceed the recommendations for the existing siphon. The 4-inch overflow line to Sage Bay Lift Station does not have the capacity to support the total flows from the Northshore Tributary in the event the siphon is blocked. Flows from the Knolls Vista Lift Station should be routed to Sage Bay Lift Force Main to eliminate capacity issues for the siphon.About 1750 LF of 6-inch force main is sufficient to handle the current lift station pumps rates of 533 gpm,but for ultimate flows of 1692 gpm from Knolls Vista Tributary,a 12-inch force main would be required. A gravity main can be installed from MH 15-150 to Sage Bay wetwell,to eliminate the Northshore siphon. 1. 2. 3. 4. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 95 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 407 of 774 5.2.27 SAGE BAY TRIBUTARY [27] Sage Bay Tributary is a gravity sewer system that drains to Sage Bay Lift Station at 513 West Edgewater Lane.Sage Bay Lift Station discharges to Headworks (COF)[39]through a 10-inch force main under Moses Lake,which merges with flows from Main Lift Station at the McCosh tee. ZONING The Sage Bay Tributary consists of mixed-density residential,general commercial,and public uses. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS The Sage Bay Tributary includes the following sub-tributaries:Fairgrounds [27A],Home Depot [27B],Upper Basin [27C],Village Park [27D],Park Orchard Elementary School [27E],and Gateway Estates [27F]. Fairgrounds [27A],is not connected,but has been authorized to connect to the sewer main in Paxson Drive. Home Depot [27B],is a general commercial area that is about 38 percent developed. Upper Basin [27C],is a residential area that is not connected to the municipal sewer. Conceptual layout plans are available for the trunk sewer mains to serve this sub-tributary. Village Park [27D],is manufactured home park that is connected to the municipal sewer. Park Orchard Elementary School [27E]supports 458 full-time students (2014)and is connected to the municipal sewer in Paxson Drive. Gateway Estates [27 F]is a mixed residential and general commercial zone with about 10 percent of the 580 acre area connected to municipal sewer.Much of the area is undeveloped,but includes some existing rural residential developments that are mostly connected to on-site wastewater systems.Prior to 2004,this area discharged to Gateway Lift Station at Harris Road and Ray Road,which pumped to the Larson WWTP.The Gateway Lift Station was abandoned when the 12-inch gravity main was installed from Harris Road and Ray Road,under State Route 17,discharging to the Sage Bay Tributary at MH 10-007 at Market Street and Mary Street (C-213). Cascade Heights Tributary [23],Lower Cascade Valley [24],and Upper Cascade Valley [25]will contribute to Sage Bay Tributary;but currently,the three contributory tributaries are not connected to municipal sewer services. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 96 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 408 of 774 FLOW ANALYSIS Because Main and Sage Bay lift stations operate on VFDs,accurate flow measurements are not available at these tributaries for 2014.Flows for these two tributaries can be deduced by subtracting the measured contributions to Headworks (COF)[39]from the total flows at Headworks (COF)for 2014,and proportioning the unmeasured balance between Sage Bay and Main lift stations.However,the unmeasured flows at Headworks (COF)that can be attributed to Sage Bay and Main Lift Stations are exceeded by the measured flows that contribute to Main and Sage Bay,leaving negative balances for the sub-tributaries within Main and Sage Bay.Therefore,summation at Headworks (COF) [39]includes a line item for exfiltration,and the calculated flows in 2014 for Sage Bay and Main tributaries are not adjusted. Fairgrounds flow estimated at 60,000 gallons in an 18-hour day during fair week,for an estimated 55 gpm average flow during the peak week. Predicted flows for 2021 assume the fairgrounds will be connected to municipal sewer; assumes that Knolls Vista Lift Station will be connected to Sage Bay Lift Station before 2021;and assumes that Upper Basin [27C],and the three Cascade Valley tributaries [23][24][25]will not be connected within the next 6 years.Also,the following developments have been preliminarily approved:Barrington Point 3,4,&5;Polo Ridge II; Morgan Multi-family;and Stone Hollow.These six residential developments could combine for an ADF of 48 gpm,and are included in predicted flows for 2021. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—-2015 page 97 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 409 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5221A:Sage Bay contributory flows resid.unitsacres 2014 calc.2014 2021 ultimate adj. existing residential 248 793 104 104 104 104 proposed residential 214 684 0 90048 Fairgrounds [27A]01780 0 55 55 Home Depot [27B]12/32 0 16114 Upper Basin [27C]0/1548 0 1703440 0 Village Park [27D]100/100 13 1313.8 13 13 Park Orchard Elementary School [27E] 9.5 0 2 2 2 2 223/2230 2902943Gateway[27F]580 29 0/3200CascadeHeightsTributary[23]:705 0 0 0 355 0/5800UpperCascadeValley[25]:1296 0 0 0 650 1642/4741 0 0 256 756969Northshore[26] 2758*/14725 24993734149 149 525A.Total *includes Northshore This summation is carried through to Headworks (COF)[39] B.Total with Knolls Vista bypass,but without Northshore 343 1822 269 1743C.Total without Knolls Vista or Northshore 2014 PDF:372.5 gpm 2021 PDF:(A=1312 gpm)(B=857)(C=672) Ultimate PDF:(A=6247 gpm)(B=4555)(C=4357) The Sage Bay Lift Station pumps are calibrated (1992)to pump 693 gpm at 65 TDH. "S WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 98 of 221 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 410 of 774 Table 5.2.27B:Pipe capacities downstream of Sage Bay Lift Station. Notesdownstreamslopeupstreampipesizepipe capacity(%) (gpm) Sage Bay Wetwell McCosh Tee force main 1468 110 Flows from Sage Bay Lift Station merge with flows from Main [09]at the McCosh tee. 1. Refer to Table 5.2.09B for capacities downstream of Main Lift Station. COMMENTS Pumps at Sage Bay Lift Station are estimated to reach their capacity in five years,and should be scheduled for up-sizing. Contributory tributaries in Cascade Valley [23][24][25]will triple the total flow to Sage Bay Lift Station when they are ultimately developed. All trunk mains in Sage Bay Tributary and downstream of Sage Bay Tributary will need to be up-sized as upstream growth occurs. Flows from the Knolls Vista Lift Station could be routed to the Sage Bay force main to reduce capacity issues for Sage Bay Lift Station.Knolls Vista pumps averaged 533 gpm in 2014. The Northshore siphon should not be diverted to Sage Bay Lift Station until its capacity is increased to provide for the additional loading. A flow meter should be installed when Sage Bay Lift Station is upgraded,to provide accurate flow measurements. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 99 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 411 of 774 5.2.28 KNOLLS VISTA TRIBUTARY [28] Knolls Vista Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Knolls Vista Lift Station at 429 W. Reisner Road.Knolls Vista Lift Station discharges to Northshore [26]at MH 15-119,at the intersection of Reisner Road and Ridge Road,thru a 420-foot,8-inch PVC force main. ZONING Knolls Vista Elementary School [28A]consists of 6 acres zoned public. Central Drive [28B]consists of 105 acres of general commercial,and 38 acres of parks and open space. Longview [28C]consists of 37 acres of medium density residential and 21 acres of existing commercial property,including a grocery store,liquor store,convenience store, motel,bowling alley,casino,and lounge. Stratford North [28D]consists of 358 acres of mixed residential use with some light industrial and commercial uses. Longview Elementary School [28 E]consists of 7 acres zoned public. Desert Oasis Manufactured Home Park [28F]28 acres of high-density residential. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS The following sub-tributaries drain (or will drain)to the Knolls Vista Tributary:Knolls Vista Elementary School [28A],Central Drive [28B],Longview [28C],Stratford North [28D],Longview Elementary School [28 E],and Desert Oasis Manufactured Home Park [28 F].Knolls Vista Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries. Knolls Vista Elementary School [28A]serves 325 students with 26 teachers (2014). Central Drive [28B]is a developing commercial area with about 58 of 125 acres developed.This sub-tributary includes Vista Community Playfield,a municipal baseball park. Longview [28C]consists of existing residential properties,with about 140 of 170 lots developed and connected to municipal sewer,21 acres of commercial property about two- thirds developed,and a proposed 5-acre park. Stratford North [28D]is not currently connected to municipal sewer.Most of this area could be served with gravity sewer,if extended north on Stratford Road;but the far WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 100 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 412 of 774 reaches of the tributary may need additional lift stations or alternate low-pressure effluent systems for connections to gravity mains.The tributary is mostly medium-density residential and general commercial,but includes several existing high-density manufactured home parks. Longview Elementary School [28 E]is not connected to municipal sewer.A gravity main would need to be extended north to Maple Drive,then west to the school on Apple Drive. Desert Oasis Manufactured Home Park [28 F]is currently connected to the gravity main in Kinder Road.The park includes 100 existing manufactured home sites with room for expansion to include 25 additional homes. Knolls Vista Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Flows for Knolls Vista Elementary School [28A]and Longview Elementary School [28E] are based on water usage records for winter months in 2014,and are not adjusted. Central Drive [28B]calculations are based on 0.5 gpm/acre for the park and commercial developments. Longview [28C]residential flows are calculated at 140 of 170 lots connected to municipal sewer in 2014.Calculated flows for Longview commercial are based on 21 acres at 0.5 gpm/acre. Stratford North [28D]flows are based on medium-density residential development at 8residentialunitsperacre.Predicted flows for 2021 assume no connections within the next six years. Calculated flows Desert Oasis Manufactured Home Park [28F]are based on the number of existing residential units for the development. Calculated flows for 2014 are adjusted to balance the actual measured flows pumped at Knolls Vista Lift Station during 2014. Predicted flows for 2021 are estimated by adding a proportionate share of the estimated 3 percent annual growth. Ultimate flows are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 101 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 413 of 774 Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.28A:Knolls Vista contributory flows resid.unitsacres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj.est. public 6 0 3 2 2 2 620/672 63 64 88low-density residential 168 81 medium-density residential 3 16/24 2 2 2 3 89high-density residential 555/675 56 574573 Knolls Vista Elementary School [28A]6 0 4 4 4 4 632312502922CentralDrive[28B] 22140/170 18 14 14Longview[28C]:residential 38 6 6 11Longview[28C]:General Commercial 8210 0 0 30Longview[28C]:Longview Park 5 0 3760/2864 0 0 0StratfordNorth[28D]358 2 2 2LongviewElementarySchool[28 E]10 0 2 8 8 14100/125DesertOasisManufacturedHome Park [28F] 26 11 179 6771431/4530 231 182811Total 2014 PDF:448 gpm 2021 PDF:455 gpm Ultimate PDF:1692 gpm Knolls Vista Lift Station pumped an average of 533 gpm in 2014. Table 5.2.28:Pipe capacities downstream of Harris/Stratford Road intersection (future) Notesslopedownstreamupstreampipe capacity pipe (%)size (gpm) 1MH2(future in Stratford Road) 8 0.40 341MH1(future at Harris/Stratford Road) WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 102 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 414 of 774 Notespipeslopedownstreamupstreampipe capacity(%)size (gPm) 521100.28MH2(future in Stratford Road) MH 15-182 1077MH15-193 12 0.45MH15-182 9280.34MH15-192 12MH15-193 746120.22MH15-191MH15-192 9500.35MH15-191 MH 15-190 12 1097MH15-190 MH 15-189 12 0.47 11760.54MH15-189 MH 15-174 12 1144MH15-096 0.51MH15-174 12 1078MH15-096 MH 15-097 12 0.45 803MH15-097 MH 15-098 12 0.25 0.62 1260MH15-098 MH 15-099 12 337MH15-099 MH 15-100 12 0.04 1484MH15-100 MH 15-101 12 0.86 MH 15-101 MH 15-102 0.32 89912 MH 15-102 MH 15-103 0.41 102012 MH 15-103 MH 15-104 973120.37 1906MH15-104 MH 15-095 12 1.42 MH 15-095 Knolls Vista wet well 583121.16 Knolls Vista wet well MH 15-119 8 force main 940 MH 15-119 MH 15-120 8 0.16 215 MH 15-120 MH 15-121 8 3560.43 MH 15-121 MH 15-122 8 3610.44 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 103 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 415 of 774 downstream slope Notesupstreampipe size pipe capacity<%) (gpm) MH 15-122 MH 15-123 0.268 274 MH 15-123 MH 15-129 8 0.43 357 MH 15-129 1.60MH15-149 [29]8 686 MH 15-149 MH 15-150 10 0.32 553 MH 15-150 MH 15-151 (Head to Northshore siphon) 1.0010 983 Pipe size extending north on Stratford Road will be analyzed during design to accommodate future flow requirements.Sizes shown assume minimum slopes.1. Refer to Table 5.2.26B for capacities downstream of MH 15-151. COMMENTS Growth for Stratford North [28D]will hinge on the extension of sewer in Stratford Road. When that extension occurs,the Knolls Vista Lift Station should be up-sized. Flows from the Knolls Vista Lift Station should be routed to the force main downstream of Sage Bay Lift Station,to eliminate capacity issues for the siphon and reduce the flow through Main [09].About 1750 LF of 6-inch force main is sufficient to handle the current lift station pump rates of 533 gpm,but for ultimate flows of 1692 gpm from Knolls Vista Tributary,a 12-inch force main would be preferred. Also refer to comments in Northshore [26]regarding elimination of the Northshore siphon. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 104 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 416 of 774 5.2.29 OMNI TRIBUTARY [29] Omni Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Omni Lift Station at 533 N.Stratford Road. Omni lift station discharges to MH 15-999 on the west side of Stratford Road,to Northshore [26], through a 525-foot,4-inch PVC force main (a 4-inch AC pipe remains in sleeve at Stratford Road crossing). ZONING Omni Tributary consists of 82 acres of general commercial.The tributary includes shopping centers,variety stores,and restaurants on Stratford Road,south of State Route 17.About 20 percent of Omni Tributary is undeveloped. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Omni Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for 2014 are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters assuming 80 percent development for the tributary.Adjusted flows for 2014 are based on measured flows at Omni Lift Station for 2014.Ultimate flows are based on full development of 0.5 gpm/acre.Predicted flows for 2021 are based on a proportionate share of the City’s 3 percent annual growth. Table 5.2.29A:Omni contributory flows Average Daily Flows (gpm) resid. units acres ultimate20212014 calc. 2014 adj. general commercial 4165/82 3/3 29 3629 2014 PDF:73 gpm 2021 PDF:90 gpm Ultimate PDF:103 gpm Omni Lift Station pumps averaged 188 gpm in 2014. r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 105 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 417 of 774 Table 5.2.29B:Pipe capacities downstream of Omni Lift Station downstream slope (%)pipe capacity (gpm) Notesupstreampipesize Omni Wet well force main MH 15-999 4 235 MH 15-999 MH 15-143 8 0.40 341 MH 15-143 MH 15-144 10 0.25 495 MH 15-144 MH 15-145 10 0.16 397 10 0.31MH15-146 551MH15-145 10 0.29 530MH15-147MH15-146 0.2710MH15-147 MH 15-148 513 MH 15-148 MH 15-149 10 0.24 482 Refer to Table 5.2.28B for capacities downstream of MH 15-149. COMMENTS A bypass is installed at the force main near the abandoned Kmart Lift Station,that could be used to divert most of the flows at MH 14-115 or MH 14-116. Several of the commercial users within Omni Tributary have private on-site lift stations that will cause diverse flows. An in-line valve is buried,in the “on”position,on the 4-inch force main,on the east side of Stratford Road,where the PVC Pipe changes to AC pipe. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 106 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 418 of 774 5.2.30 MARINA TRIBUTARY [30] Marina Tributary is a gravity sewer system,draining to Marina Lift Station at 1350 W.Marina Drive.Marina Lift Station discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 22-125 on Sunset Drive,thru a 144-foot,4-inch DI force main. ZONING Marina Tributary consists of a low-density residential zone that serves about 54 residential units (2014)with an ultimate development of 114 units,predominantly single-family construction.Much of the vacant land within Marina Tributary,consisting of some wetland areas,has recently been reclassified as public and is not buildable. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Marina Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries,and has no sub-tributaries. Marina Shores is a gated community within the Marina Tributary,but all residential units within Marina Shores are connected to the municipal sewer installed within municipal easements. FLOW ANALYSIS Flow calculations for Marina Tributary are based on the number of existing residential units.Adjusted flows for 2014 are based on actual flows at Marina Lift Station.The adjusted flows indicate that each residential unit in Marina Tributary has an average daily use of 108 gallons.This low number can be accounted for by assuming single person residences in the older area,and that Marina Shores may have several residents that are retired and live in other residences for a portion of the year.Predicted flows for 2021 are based on Marina’s share of the 3 percent annual growth. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.30A:Marina contributory flows resid. units acres 2014 calc. ultimate20142021 adj. residential 54/11453 15745 Total 53 54/114 15457 2014 PDF:8 gpm 2021 PDF:12.5 gpm Ultimate PDF:37.5 gpm r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 107 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 419 of 774 The Marina Drive Lift Station pumped an average of 131 gpm in 2014. Table 5.2.30B:Pipe capacities downstream of Marina Lift Station slope (%)pipe capacity (gpm) Notesdownstreamupstreampipesize force main 235MarinawetwellMH22-125 4 0.35 319MH22-125 MH 22-126 8 30480.32MH22-127MH22-126 8 0.39 339MH22-127 MH 22-131 0.26 276MH27-006 8MH22-131 0.25 49010MH27-010MH27-006 488100.25MH27-010 MH 27-012 838120.27MH27-012 MH 27-013 656120.17MH27-014MH27-013 760120.23MH27-018MH27-014 168120.01MH27-019MH27-018 616120.15MH27-021MH27-019 802120.25MH27-022MH27-021 834120.27MH27-059MH27-022 Refer to Table 5.2.1IB for flow capacities downstream of MH 27-059. COMMENTS Holm [31],undeveloped,adjacent to Marina on the north,could develop as a sub-tributary to Marina Tributary,which would require a railroad under-crossing.Otherwise,Holm is considered a future contributory to Main [09]. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 108 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 420 of 774 5.2.31 HOLM TRIBUTARY [31] Holm Tributary is currently served by private on-site wastewater disposal systems,except for York [31A]sub-tributary.To connect Holm Tributary to municipal sewer will require a lift station or alternate pressure system,which could discharge to Main [09]at MH 22-014 in Marina Drive. ZONING Holm Tributary consists of general commercial/industrial zone.However,York [31A]is a residential use. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Holm Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries. York [31A]is a sub-tributary,consisting of a 2.13 acre mobile-home park that was constructed in 1978.York [31A]is a private sewer system,and provides service to about 25 residential units,predominantly mobile homes,at 1123 West Marina Drive.York [31A]is a gravity system,draining to a private on-site lift station,that discharges to MH 22-013 in Main [09]thru an 810-foot,4-inch diameter,force main within private easements and alley right-of-way between Third Avenue and Marina Drive.Insufficient information is known about the discharge rate of the private lift station. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing flows for York [31A]are based on the number of existing residential units in service.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that no additional services will be connected in the next six years.Ultimate flows for Holm Tributary are estimated at 0.5 gpm/acre at fill development. Table 5.2.48A:Holm contributory flows Average Daily Flows (gpm)resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.20212014 adj. York [31A]42254 4 4 commercial/industrial 204000 0 0 Total 42 2425444 2014 PDF:10 gpm 2021 PDF:10 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 109 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 421 of 774 Ultimate PDF:60 gpm Table 5.2.3IB:Pipe capacities downstream of MH 22-014 downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Holm wet well (future) MH 22-014 4 force main 235 MH 22-014 MH 22-015 8 0.42 349 MH 22-015 MH 22-016 8 0.20 244 MH 22-016 MH 22-017 8 0.36 326 MH 22-017 MH 22-018 8 0.19 236 MH 22-018 MH 22-034 8 0.35 322 MH 22-034 MH 22-035 8 0.22 253 MH 22-035 MH 22-036 8 0.28 287 MH 22-036 8 0.26MH22-037 278 MH 22-037 10MH22-038 0.26 276 MH 22-038 MH 22-039 10 0.23 258 MH 22-039 MH 22-040 10 0.25 [26]234 Refer to Table 5.2.26B for flow capacities downstream of MH 22-040. COMMENTS An existing railroad separates Holm Tributary from Marina [30].It is foreseeable that a railroad under-crossing could be installed,or that the railroad will be rerouted;and Holm Tributary could be merged to Marina [30]via gravity sewer,but leaving York [31A]as a sub-tributary to Main [09]. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 110 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 422 of 774 5.2.32 COF TRIBUTARY [32] COF Tributary is a gravity system that drains to COF Lift Station at 1303 W.Lakeside Drive, which discharges to Headworks (COF)[39]through a 25-foot,6-inch diameter,DI force main. ZONING COF Tributary has an area of 8.28 acres split between residential and public.The tributary provides sewer service for 15 residential units on Lakeside Drive and for the offices and shop at the Central Operations Facility. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS COF Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Measured flows from the COF Lift Station correspond with calculated flows for 2014,so no adjustment was required.Predicted flows for 2021 are expected to see little additional growth because the tributary is at ultimate development. Table 5.2.32A:COF contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. Low-density residential,public offices 9 15 2.5 2.5 3 3 Total 9 2.5 3 3152.5 2014 PDF:6.25 gpm 2021 PDF:7.5 gpm Ultimate PDF:7.5 gpm COF Lift Station pumps are rated at 66 gpm. Table 5.2.32:Pipe capacities downstream of COF Lift Station downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) COF wet well Headworks (COF)6 force main 528 Refer to Table 5.2.2IB for flows downstream of MH 30-015 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 111 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 423 of 774 5.2.33 WHEELER TRIBUTARY [33] Wheeler Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Wheeler Lift Station at 616 E.Wheeler Road. Wheeler Lift Station discharges to Main [09]through a 6-inch steel force main at MH 23-240 in West Fifth Avenue. ZONING Wheeler Tributary has an area of 1167 acres,consisting of Industrial (533),Commercial (226),Low-density residential (211),high-density residential (102),medium-density residential (46),environmentally sensitive (25),and public (25 ). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Sub-tributaries within Wheeler Tributary include Broadway Business Park [33A],Lad [33B],Cenex [33C],Samaritan [33D],and Lakeview [33E].Broadway Business Park [33A]is connected to the municipal sewer system thru an existing private low-pressure system that discharges to MH 14-071 on Block Street.Lad [33B]and Cenex [33C]will need to install a pressure system to connect to the municipal sewer system because gravity is extended as far as feasible in East Broadway Avenue.Samaritan [33D]includes the Moses Lake Clinic facilities on Hill Avenue and the Samaritan Health Center.Lakeview [33E]includes the Lakeview Terrace Elementary School on 780 S.Clover Drive.Both Samaritan and Lakeview are connected to the municipal sewer system. Farmer [34]and Carnation [02]contribute to Wheeler Tributary. FLOW ANALYSIS Broadway Business Park [33A]flows are based on 9 of 28 acres developed at 0.5 gpm/acre. Lad [33B]and Cenex [33C]are not connected to municipal sewer,but are included in 2021 and ultimate calculations at 0.5 gpm/acre and 3 percent growth annually. Samaritan [33D]and Lakeview School [33E]are based on water usage records for winter months in 2014 and are not adjusted.For Samaritan [33D]2021 flows assume a 3 percent increase per year,with ultimate flows being doubled from 2014. Undeveloped residential,commercial,and industrial properties are estimated to experience 3 percent growth annually at rates in accordance with Table 5.1.1 parameters. Existing high-density and medium density properties were estimated at 4.5 residences per acre of developed property,and existing low-density residential developments were WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 112 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 424 of 774 estimated at 4 residential units per acre. Adjusted flows for 2014 held contributory tributaries constant,based on their pumping records,and balanced the remaining flows evenly to equal the flows measured at Wheeler Lift Station for 2014. Predicted flows for 2021 are based on a proportionate share of the City’s estimated 3 percent annual growth. Peak flows for Samaritan and the industrial properties are estimated at 1.5 times average daily flows rather than 2.5 times average daily flows. resid.units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acresTable5.2.33A:Wheeler contributory flows ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. Industrial 160/414 1650803845 Commercial 120/211 5001057 low-density residential 66/211 264/844 93351721 medium density residential 46/46 207/207 48 23 23 23 high-density residential 80/102 360/990 65 31 36 114 environmentally sensitive 0/25 0 0 0 0 0 public 0/12 0 1 611 Broadway Business Park[33A]9/28 0 14523 Lad [33B]0/32 0 0 0 161 Cenex [33C]0/59 0 0 0 2 30 Samaritan [33D]15/15 0 7035 35 37 Lakeview[33E]13/13 0 2 2 2 2 Carnation [02]3114 0 433 1742222307 Farmer [34]436 0/75 2 152210 Total 3697 831/2116 716 378 495 2477 2014 PDF:872 gpm 2021 PDF:1155 Ultimate PDF:4285 gpm Wheeler Lift Station pumps averaged 1132 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 113 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 425 of 774 Table 5.2.33B:Pipe capacities downstream of Wheeler Lift Station downstream pipe size slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstream (gpm) Wheeler wet well MH 23-240 6 force main 528 MH 23-240 MH 23-241 12 0.29 855 MH 23-241 MH 23-242 15 0.84 2653 MH 23-242 15 0.56MH23-277 2172 MH 23-277 MH 23-243 18 0.23 2244 MH 23-243 MH 23-244 18 0.32 2654 MH 23-244 MH 23-245 18 1.33 5444 18MH23-245 MH 23-266 0.38 2919 MH 23-266 MH 23-267 18 0.41 3008 MH 23-267 MH 23-269 18 0.26 2389 MH 23-269 MH 23-271 21 0.28 3774 MH 23-272 21MH23-271 6.59 18256 [08] [26] Main wet wellMH23-272 21 0.77 6228 Refer to Table 5.2.09B for capacities downstream of Main Lift Station. COMMENTS Predicted peak flows for 2021 exceed the capacity of Wheeler Lift Station with one pump out of service. The 6-inch force main experiences velocities of 12 fps when the pumps are in operation, and should be up-sized to a 10-inch force main,or a parallel line should be installed. As the Main Lift Station (downstream)approaches capacity,consideration should be given to installing a bypass force main for the Wheeler and Division Lift Stations,to relieve the volume passing through Main Lift Station.This bypass would require about 3500 LF of pipe,and could tie into the 16-inch force main at McCosh Park,downstream of Main Lift Station. 1. 2. 3. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 114 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 426 of 774 5.2.34 FARMER TRIBUTARY [34] The Farmer Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Farmer Lift Sation at 10770 NE Farmer Drive.Farmer Drive Lift Station discharges to Wheeler [33]through a 6-inch PVC force main at MH 14-074 in West Third Avenue.Currently,Farmer Tributary services the City of Moses Lake Operations Complex at 11789 Road 4 NE,with very few additional service connections. ZONING Farmer Tributary consists of 275 acres industrial,90 acres parks &open space,66 acres public,and 5 acres high-density residential. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Farmer Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries.Adjacent property north of Farmer Tributary is primarily residential property outside the City’s Urban Growth Area. Municipal Operations Complex [34A]includes the municipal public works complex (16 acre),the municipal airport and supporting businesses (60 acres),and adjacent undeveloped municipal property (84 acres). The remainder of Farmer Tributary consists of undeveloped industrial property,with some older commercial/industrial properties connected to on-site wastewater disposal systems. FLOW ANALYSIS Flows in the Farmer Tributary are based on existing flows at Farmer Lift Station in 2014. No adjustment was necessary for balancing these small flows.Predicted flows for 2021 assume a proportionate share of the City’s 3 percent annual growth associated with the undeveloped properties and existing Municipal Operations Complex.Ultimate flows for the tributary assume full development and connection to sewer based on Table 5.1.1 parameters,except for the Municipal Operations Complex,assumed to double its existing flows.Peak daily flows are estimated at 2.5 times average daily flow for commercial and residential properties,and 1.5 times average daily flows for industrial properties. Table 5.2.34A:Farmer Contributory Flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc. 20212014 adj. Municipal Operations Complex 157 0 2 2 2 5 high-density residential 10575001 industrial 274 0 0 13707 TOTAL 436 152752210 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 115 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 427 of 774 2014 PDF:5 gpm 2021 PDF:18 gpm Ultimate PDF:243 gpm Farmer Lift Station pumps averaged 326 gpm in 2014. Table 5.2.34B:Pipe capacities downstream of Farmer Lift Station slope (%)downstream pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) 6 force main Farmer wet well MH 14-074 528 10 0.28MH14-074 MH 14-073 516 10 0.43MH14-073 MH 14-072 645 10MH14-072 MH 14-070 0.28 523 10MH14-070 MH 14-069 0.27 514 MH 14-068 10 0.48 684MH14-069 10 0.06MH14-068 MH 14-067 243 10 0.28 516MH14-041MH14-067 10 704 [02]0.51MH14-051MH14-041 Wheeler wet well 12 1.21 1759MH14-051 Refer to Table 5.2.33B for capacities downstream of Wheeler Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 116 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 428 of 774 5.2.35 SOUTH 1-90 WEST TRIBUTARY [35] The South1-90 West Tributary is currently not served with municipal sewer;however the municipal force main from the COF to the Sand Dunes WWTP runs up Potato Hill Road on the east boundary of the tributary.Currently the area is developed as low-density residential with on- site disposal systems. ZONING South 1-90 West Tributary consists of low-density residential zoning. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS South 1-90 West Tributary is not connected to municipal sewer and receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS South1-90 West is not connected to municipal sewer.Predicted flows for 2021 assume no development will occur in the next six years.Ultimate flows are based on full development as low-density resdential. Table 5.2.35A:South 1-90 West contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate20212014 calc.2014 adj. Low-Density Residential 3506662664000 Total 3506662664000 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:875 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 117 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 429 of 774 Table 5.2.35B:Pipe capacities downstream of South1-90 West Lift Station (future) downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) South1-90 West wet well (future) Potato Hill force Main 8 force main 940 Potato Hill force Main Sand Dunes 20 force main 5874 1 1.Portions of the Potato Hill force main have parallel pipes. COMMENTS To serve the area with municipal sewer service,lift stations would be installed, discharging to the City’s sewer force main in Potato Hill Road. The City has no plans for developing wastewater infrastructure in this tributary,and all wastewater infrastructure would be developer driven. Development of municipal sewer in this tributary may be extremely long range because existing residences are served with on-site septic systems,and the low-density nature of the area will not force connection to municipal sewer outside the City limits. Because the area borders the lake,multiple small lift station or alternate systems may be required to supplement full development of municipal sewer in this tributary. Lowlander [06]private 4-inch sewer force main passes through this tributary,in Goodrich Road;but no additional connections are authorized to the private,metered,force main beyond the Lowlander service area. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. N WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 118 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 430 of 774 5.2.36 SOUTH 1-90 EAST TRIBUTARY [36] South1-90 East Tributary is currently not served with municipal sewer;however the municipal force main from the COF to the Sand Dunes WWTP runs along the west boundary of the tributary,in Potato Hill Road to Baseline Road,then east on Baseline Road to Road K. ZONING Currently the area is agricultural or low-density residential. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS South 1-90 East Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Predicted flows for 2021 assume that South 1-90 East Tributary will not be developed in the next six years.Ultimate flows are estimated as low-density residential at full development. Average Daily Flows (gpm)Table 5.2.36A:South 1-90 East contributory flows resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. low-density residential 62311864744000 623Total11864744000 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:1557 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 119 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 431 of 774 Table 5.2.36B:Pipe capacities downstream of South 1-90 East Lift Station (future)/-*\ downstream pipe size slope (%)Notesupstreampipe capacity (gpm) South 1-90 West wet well (future) Potato Hill force Main force main 211212 1 Potato Hill force Main Sand Dunes 20 force main 5874 1 1.Portions of the Potato Hill force main have parallel pipes. COMMENTS To serve the area,a lift station should be installed on Baseline Rd,about 2500 feet west of Road K.The depth should provide full gravity service to this tributary. South 1-90 East lift station could be up-sized to accept contributory flows from Kittelson [04]and Eka [03],bypassing Nelson Lift Station:if the South 1-90 gravity main is installed large enough and deep enough to serve those tributaries (under-crossings required at 1-90 and SR 17). 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 120 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 432 of 774 5.2.37 HANSEN TRIBUTARY [37] Hansen Tributary is not served with municipal sewer.On-site wastewater treatment facilities,as approved through Grant County Health,are authorized for the existing development in Hansen Tributary.To serve the area with municipal sewer,the developer would either need to install a lift station and force main,or extend the Westlake Shores [15]low-pressure effluent system from cleanout 32-038 at the west end of Sage Road. ZONING Hansen Tributary is zoned for General Commercial (35 acres)and Industrial (22 acres). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Hansen Tributary receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries,and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Predicted flows for 2021 assume that Hansen Tributary will not connect to municipal sewer within six years.Ultimate flows assume 0.5 gpm/acre for full development as commercial/industrial. Table 5.2.37A:Hansen contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres 2021 ultimate2014 calc.2014 adj. Commercial/industrial 57 0 0 0 270 TOTAL 57 0 0 0 270 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:67.5 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 121 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 433 of 774 Table 5.2.37B:Pipe capacities downstream of Hansen downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Low-pressure effluent pipe force main Low-pressure effluent pipe 3 132 Low-pressure effluent pipe force main MH 29-029 4 235 Refer to Table 5.2.16B for flow capacities downstream of MH 29-029. COMMENTS In time,developers in the Hansen Tributary should connect to the Westlake Shores low-pressure sewer main by extending a 3-inch PVC low-pressure force main in South Frontage Road to the west UGA boundary.If this event occurs,Hansen Tributary should be merged as a sub-tributary of Westlake Shores [15]. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 122 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 434 of 774 5.2.38 CRAB CREEK TRIBUTARY [38]r*S Crab Creek Tributary is a low-pressure effluent system,consisting of a low-pressure force-main (Cl87,1998)in Western Avenue that is maintained by the City;and privately owned on-site pumps and septic tanks for each service connection.Currently,only a single service is connected to this system.Although Milwaukee Avenue does not have a sewer main,a tee at the intersection of Milwaukee Avenue and Western Avenue is available for a tie-in for future extension of the low-pressure main.The 2-inch PVC low-pressure effluent main in Western Avenue,increases to 3 inches at the tee,and discharges to Peninsula [10]at MH 22-186 in Milwaukee Avenue. ZONING Crab Creek Tributary consists of 21 acres of general commercial/industrial. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Crab Creek Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Flows for 2014 are based on water usage records for 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 are based on a 3 percent annual growth associated with this tributary.Ultimate flows are predicted to be 11 gpm ADF based on 0.5 gpm/acre for commercial/industrial zones. Table 5.2.38A:Crab Creek contributory flows Average Daily Flows (gpm)resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. Commercial/Industrial 112100.5 0.5 1 Total 112100.5 0.5 1 2014 PDF:2 gpm 2021 PDF:4 gpm Ultimate PDF:28 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 123 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 435 of 774 Table 5.2.38B:Pipe capacities downstream of MH 27-186N downstream slope (%)pipe capacity (gpm) Notesupstreampipe size 2-inch low-pressure force main force main 3-inch low- pressure force main 2 58 3-inch low-pressure force main force main 3MH22-186 132 8 0.45MH22-186 MH 22-139 363 MH 22-114 8 0.47 372MH22-139 MH 22-178 8 3.70 1043MH22-114 8 3.70 1043MH22-178 MH 22-177 8 3.67MH22-196 1038MH22-177 10MH22-002 0.28 519MH22-196 10 22.78 4693MH22-002 MH 27-003 10 0.38 606MH27-003 MH 27-064 Peninsula wet well 18 83893.17MH27-064 Refer to Table 5.2.10B for flow capacities downstream of Peninsula Lift Station. COMMENTS Existing warehouses in this tributary are not expected to connect to the municipal sewer in the next six years. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 124 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 436 of 774 5.2.39 HEADWORKS (COF)[39] Headworks (COF)is a collection and treatment hub,only—receiving contributory flows from upstream tributaries,but no service connections within the tributary.Headworks (COF) discharges to a 5-mile long force main en-route to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant [41]. Located at the COF on 1303 W.Lakeside Drive,Headworks (COF)includes a pretreatment basin, raw waste pumps,solids pumps,control center,and a million-gallon overflow basin.Headworks (COF)facility removes some solids and sediments prior to pumping to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Headworks (COF)receives flow from the following tributaries:Main [09],Peninsula [10], COF [32],and Sage Bay [27]. FLOW ANALYSIS Flow calculations for Headworks (COF)are determined from the measured flows to the Sand Dunes [41],less the measured flows from Nelson [07]and Lowlanders [06]. Because the total remainder of flows contributing to Headworks (COF)exceeds the deduced flow,an assumption is made that exfiltration occurs upstream of Headworks (COF). Peak flows at Headworks (COF)are estimated at 1.5 times the average daily flow.This peaking factor is estimated from records at Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment plant,that has a 2014 record of 1.12.Because the Nelson Lift station also influences the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment flows,the peaking factor for Headworks (COF)[32]was rounded up to 1.5. Table 5.2.39A: Headworks (COF) contributory flows resid.units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate20212014 calc.2014 adj. MAIN [09]5704 5091/11256 1420 1115 32941100 PENINSULA [10]1282 2479/13923 2016376373317 COF [32]15/15 3932.5 2.5 SAGE BAY [27]3734 1116/14725 2499149149525 exfiltration NA NA 0 -313.5 -313.5 -313.5 Total 10729 8701/39919 1628.8 7419.519471255 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 125 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 437 of 774 2014 PDF:1882 gpm 2021 PDF:2297 gpm Ultimate PDF:11152 gpm Three 125 HP raw waste pumps at Headworks (COF)are each rated to pump 1900 gpm at 135TDH;additional capacity is provided by the Eastlake Booster Pump Station,an in-line pumping station on the Potato Hill force main,that can pump 3000 gpm (also controlled by the raw waste level at the Headworks (COF)). Table 5.2.39B:Pipe capacities downstream of Headworks (COF) downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) Potato Hill Force Main Sand Dunes force main 20 5874 1 [07][35] [36][06] Portions of the Potato Hill Force Main have parallel pipes.1. COMMENTS 1.The contributories flowing to Headworks (COF)Tributary have a large potential for future growth.As the Carnation,Wheeler,Cascade Valley,Mae Valley,and Moses Pointe tributaries develop and connect to the municipal wastewater system,and as the UGA boundary is expanded on the west side of Moses Lake,the capacity of Headwaters will be surpassed.The following solutions will need to be considered if the capacity of Headworks (COF)is exceeded: Headworks (COF)capacity will need to be increased. Tributaries contributing flows to Headworks (COF)will need to pump directly to the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility,bypassing Headworks (COF). A third wastewater treatment facility will need to be constructed,and some tributaries contributing to Headworks (COF)will need to be rerouted to the new facility. No additional connections will be authorized if they would contribute to Headworks (COF). A. B. C. D. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 126 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 438 of 774 5.2.40 SUN TERRACE TRIBUTARY [40] The Sun Terrace Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Sun Terrace Lift Station at 503 N. Towhee Street.Sun Terrace Lift Station discharges to Blue Heron [18]through a 6-inch PVC force main at MH 30-017 in Fairway Drive. ZONING Sun Terrace Tributary consists of low-density residential (170 acres),Parks and Open Space (135 acres),and Environmentally Sensitive (1 acre). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Sun Terrace Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries,and has no sub- tributaries.Adjacent properties north and west of Sun Terrace Tributary are primarily agriculture and low-density residential property outside the City’s Urban Growth Area. FLOW ANALYSIS Sun Terrace Tributary will provide sewer service to about 530 residential units and the country club.In 2014,63 residential units were connected.Sun Terrace Comprehensive Analysis Report provide by AHO Development indicates a peak hourly flow of 538 gpm at full build-out for the tributary.The golf course consist of 120 acres,but the flows are attributed only to the clubhouse facilities. Actual flows for Sun Terrace in 2014 indicated 13 gpm average,for 0.2 gpm/RU.This number is high,and an assumption is made that 4.0 gpm infiltrates the gravity system. Average Daily Flows (gpm) Table 5.2.40A:Sun Terrace contributory flow resid. units acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. Low-density residential 6663/530 99 17175 Parks &open Space 51350002 infiltration 4 4NA44NA Total 75306530131323 2014 PDF:32 gpm 2021 PDF:58 gpm Ultimate PDF:188 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 127 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 439 of 774 Table 5.2.40B:Pipe capacities downstream of Sun Terrace Lift Station downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Sun Terrace wet well MH 30-017 6 force main 528 MH 30-017 MH 30-016 8 0.54 396 MH 30-016 MH 30-015 8 0.34 317 [20] [21] Refer to Table 5.2.21B for flow capacities downstream of MH 30-015 COMMENTS Sun Terrace Comprehensive Analysis Report provides an analysis for additional services outside of the UGA. The Sun Terrace Lift Station and pipes are in an area of extensive groundwater and may be prone to infiltration. 1. 2. r*\ r*\WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 128 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 440 of 774 5.2.41 SAND DUNES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT [41] Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant is a collection and treatment hub,only—receiving contributory flows from upstream tributaries,but no service connections within the tributary. Located at 1801 K Road SE,Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant includes a headworks, sedimentation chamber,clarifier,long-term holding basins,solids pumps,laboratory,control center,and a rapid infiltration basins. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Sand Dunes receives flow from the following tributaries:Headworks (COF)[39],Nelson [07],and Lowlander [06].Additionally,as South 1-90 West [35]and South 1-90 East [36] develop,those tributaries will discharge directly to Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant. FLOW ANALYSIS 2014 calculated flows are listed for each contributing tributary.The adjusted flows for each tributary are based on actual measured flows for each of those lift stations,except for Headworks (COF),which is adjusted for 2014:to balance the remainder of the measured flow at the Sand Dunes for 2014. Based on 2014 records at Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment plant,the peaking factor is 1.12. Table 5.2.41A:Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant contributory flows resid.units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. Headworks (COF)[39]10729 8701/39919 1628 741919471255 NELSON [07]68118991031/1418 258 180171 SOUTH 1-90 WEST [35]0/2664 350666000 SOUTH 1-90 EAST [36]1186 0/4744 0 0 6230 LOWLANDER [06]40 17/51 8 1137 Total 10729 8701/39919 2208 1817 90841433 2014 PDF:1,605 gpm 2021 PDF:2,035 gpm Ultimate PDF:10,174 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 129 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 441 of 774 5.2.42 CONOCO TRIBUTARY [42] Conoco Tributary is a private sewer system,that discharges via a 4-inch pressure sewer pipe to the municipal 6-inch low-pressure force main at MH 08-001. ZONING Conoco Tributary consists of a single lot with a service station and mini-mart at 5053 Airway Drive,at the intersection of State Route 17. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Conoco Tributary receives no flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing flows are based on metered usage from 2014.No additional flows are predicted for this tributary. resid. units Table 5.2.42A:Conoco contributory flows Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres 2014 calc.2014 ultimate2021 adj. general commercial 3 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 3 1.001.5 0.5 0.5Total 2014 PDF:1 gpm 2021 PDF:1 gpm Ultimate PDF:2 gpm Table 5.2.42B:Pipe capacities downstream of Conoco connection to 4-inch force main. slope (%)pipe capacity Notesdownstreamupstreampipesize (gpm) force main Conoco connection to MH 08-001 MH 08-001 4 235 force main 6 528 [51]MH 08-001 (valves/tee) MH L05-065 [48] Refer to Table 5.2.5IB for pipe capacities downstream of MH L05-065. COMMENTS Private pumps will affect the PDF to the City main. As the gravity sewer main is installed to serve Upper Basin Homes [27C],some or all of Cochran [51],Harvest Manor [48],and Conoco [42]may connect to that gravity sewer main,and become sub-tributaries to Sage Bay [27]. 1. 2. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 130 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 442 of 774 5.2.43 LARSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT [43] Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant is a collection and treatment hub,only—receiving contributory flows from upstream tributaries,but no service connections within the tributary. Located at 6691 Randolph Road NE,Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant includes a headworks, sedimentation chamber,clarifier,long-term holding basins,solids pumps,laboratory,controlcenter,and a rapid infiltration basins. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Larson receives flow from the following tributaries:Larson-A Tributary [49]and LarsonNo.1 Tributary [50]. FLOW ANALYSIS Flows for Larson WWTP are measured by a flow meter as they enter the treatment facility. Table 5.2.43A:Larson WWTP contributory flows resid.units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres 2014 2021 ultimate2014 calc.adj. Larson-A [49]4907 1423 266 188 284157 Larson No.1 [50]2848 488/623 2181007260 Total 1911/25347755 366 260 502217 1.17 =Peaking factor from 2014 Annual Assessment of flow for Larson Wastewater TreatmentPlant 2014 PDF:254 gpm 2021 PDF:306 gpm Ultimate PDF:588 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015page131of216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 443 of 774 5.2.44 CASTLE TRIBUTARY Castle Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Castle Lift Station at 554 Castle Drive.Castle Lift Station discharges through an 8-inch AC force main to Larson A [49]at MH L32-077, adjacent to 541 Fairchild Loop. ZONING Castle Tributary consists of 19 acres of medium-density residential.The tributary is at ultimate development,with 38 residential units. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Desertview [52],which is currently undeveloped,is the only tributary that will contribute to Castle Tributary.Castle Tributary has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for Castle Tributary are based on the number of existing residential units, which is at ultimate development.Adjusted flows for 2014 are based on the pump records at Castle Lift Station in 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that Desertview [52]will not be developed in the next six years.Ultimate flows assume full build out of Desertview. Table 5.2.44A:Castle contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. medium-density residential 19 38 5 4 44 300 0 0 0Desertview[52]134 51 153 338 4 45 55Total 2014 PDF:10 gpm 2021 PDF:10 gpm Ultimate PDF:138 pm Castle Lift Station discharged and average of 117 gpm in 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 132 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 444 of 774 Table 5.2.44B:Pipe capacities downstream of Castle wet well pipe capacity (gpm) Notesslope(%)downstreamupstream pipe size Castle wet well force main 940MHL32-077 8 MH L32-077 MH L32-075 0.95 5288 MH L32-075 MH L32-074 8 0.67 443 178MHL32-074 MH L32-072 8 0.11 MH L32-072 MH L32-070 8 0.05 120 MH L32-070 MH L32-067 8 0.30 296 MH L32-067 MH L32-066 8 0.57 410 MH L32-066 MH L32-065 8 0.25 271 MH L32-065 MH L32-064 30980.33 MH L32-064 MH L32-063 34780.41 MH L32-063 MH L32-052 8 3450.40 MH L32-052 MH L32-040 8 0.43 356 MH L32-040 MH L32-042 8 0.25 269 MH L32-042 MH L32-043 26880.24 MH L32-043 MH L32-044 8 0.38 333 MH L32-044 MH L32-045 8 0.29 290 MH L32-045 MH L33-044 8 2.21 806 MH L33-044 MH L33-041 8 1.01 544 MH L33-041 MH L33-040 8 0.40 343 MH L33-040 MH L33-039 15 1.60 1953 MH L33-039 MH L33-037 15 0.08 833 MH L33-037 MH L33-033 15 0.23 1389 1 MH L33-033 MH L33-029 0.4415 1917 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 133 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 445 of 774 pipe sizedownstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstream (gpm) MH L33-029 MH L33-014 15 0.49 2029 MH L33-014 MHL33-081 15 0.96 2837 MH L33-081 MH L33-008 18 0.40 2974 [46] MH L33-008 MH L33-007 18 0.15 1826 MH L33-007 MH L33-102 18 0.15 1836 18MHL33-102 MH L33-103 0.24 2308 18 0.17 1963MHL33-103 MH L33-104 MH L33-105 18 0.24 2318MHL33-104 MH L33-006 18 0.14 1752MHL33-105 MH L33-003 18 0.22 2233MHL33-006 18 0.15 1812MHL33-004MHL33-003 MH L33-005 18 0.34 2762MHL33-004 MH L34-010 18 0.20 2090MHL33-005 18 0.19 2030MHL34-002MHL34-010 18 0.12 1632 2MHL34-001MHL34-002 18 0.08 1330MHL34-017MHL34-001 18 0.29 2559MHL34-015MHL34-017 1632 2180.12LarsonWWTPMHL34-015 Wye installed in-line between MH L33-037 and L33-033,receives flow from MH L33-1. 036 Minimum slopes were used due to insufficient information.2. COMMENTS 1.Manhole should be installed on Wye between MH L33-037 and L33-033. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 134 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 446 of 774 5.2.45 CARSWELL TRIBUTARY [45] The Carswell Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Carswell Lift Station at 170 Carswell Drive.Carswell Lift Station discharges through an 8-inch AC force main to the Larson No.1 Tributary [50]at MH L05-075 located in the backyard of 214 Beale Avenue NE. ZONING Carswell Tributary consists of 58 acres of medium-density residential.The tributary is at ultimate development with 172 residential units. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Cochran [51],Carswell South [47],Harvest Manor [48],and Conoco [42]contribute to Carswell Tributary,but Carswell South [47]is currently undeveloped. Carswell Tributary has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Carswell Tributary is at ultimate development,and calculated flows are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters.Contributory flows from Cochran [51],Harvest Manor [48],and Conoco [42]are estimated by metered water usage during 2014.Adjusted flows for 2014 are balanced across the board evenly,to correspond with the actual flows from 2014 pumping records at Carswell Lift Station.Estimated flows for 2021 are based on calculated flows for 2014,with a 3 percent annual increase for the undeveloped Cochran Tributary.Ultimate flows for Cochran [51]and Carswell South [47]assume full development,whereas the remainder of Carswell and its sub-tributaries are at full development,and predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate flows are assumed to match 2014 adjusted flows. Table 5.2.45A:Carswell contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. medium-density residential 58 172/172 20232020 [51]Cochran 26 6/134 1.5 1.5 2 23 [47]Carswell South 37 0 190 0 0 [48]Harvest Manor 38 193/200 273627 27 [42]Conoco 3 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 Total 162 371/506 62 904949.5 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 135 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 447 of 774 2014 PDF:123 gpm 2021 PDF:129 gpm Ultimate PDF:225 gpm Carswell Drive Lift Station pumped an average of 265 gpm during 2014. #4Table5.2.£5B:Pipe capacities downstream of Carswell wet well downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Carswell wet well force mainMHL05-075 8 940 MH L05-075 MH L05-076 8 0.40 341 MH L05-076 MH L04-051 8 0.32 307 MH L04-051 MH L04-050 8 0.38 335 MH L04-050 0.53MHL04-049 10 394 MH L04-049 MH L04-048 10 0.40 344 MH L04-048 MH L04-047 10 0.47 372 MH L04-047 MH L04-046 10 0.37 331 0.34MHL04-046 MH L04-045 10 317 MH L04-045 MH L04-073 10 0.35 583 MH L04-073 0.72MHL04-074 10 834 MH L04-074 0.90 932MHL04-149 10 MH L04-149 MH L04-140 10 0.30 541 0.38MHL04-140 MH L04-139 10 608 MH L04-139 MH L04-138 10 0.33 561 MH L04-138 MH L04-142 10 0.32 557 0.24 478MHL04-142 MH L04-077 10 0.46MHL04-077 MH L04-143 10 669 MH L04-144 10 1.47 1192MHL04-143 0.27MHL04-145 10 515MHL04-144 0.32MHL04-146 10 553MHL04-145 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 136 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 448 of 774 pipe capacity Notesdownstreamslope(%)upstream pipe size (gpm) MH L04-146 MH L04-147 10 6070.38 MH L04-147 MH L04-080 10 0.56 405 MH L04-080 MH L04-081 10 1.06 1011 MH L04-081 MH L04-082 10 10201.08 MH L04-082 MH L04-083 10 0.28 519 MH L04-083 MH L33-074 10 0.26 500 MH L33-074 MH L33-073 10 0.39 613 MH L33-073 [50A]MH L33-106 10 0.14 367 MH L33-106 MH L33-072 10 0.33 564 MH L33-072 MH L33-071 10 0.25 491 MH L33-071 MH L33-070 10 0.34 572 MH L33-070 MH L33-069 10 0.32 555 MH L33-069 MH L33-068 10 0.24 481 MH L33-068 MH L33-067 10 0.35 581 MH L33-067 MH L34-009 10 0.27 510 MH L34-009 MH L34-008 10 0.29 528 MH L34-008 MH L34-007 10 0.34 572 MH L34-007 MH L34-006 10 0.31 546 MH L34-006 MH L34-005 10 0.24 481 MH L34-005 MH L34-004 10 0.58 748 MH L34-004 Larson No.1 Wetwell 10 0.30 535 Refer to Table 5.2.50B for pipe capacities downstream of Larson No.1 Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 137 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 449 of 774 5.2.46 PATTON TRIBUTARY [46] Patton Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Patton Lift Station at 3003 NE Patton Boulevard.Patton Lift Station discharges through an 12-inch gravity main to Larson A Tributary [49]at MH L04-095 on the northeast side of Patton Boulevard. ZONING Patton Tributary consists of 55 acres of medium-density residential,predominantly duplex units.Patton has reached its ultimate development of 200 units (1 vacant lot). CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Patton Tributary receives no flow from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for 2014 are based on Table 5.1.1 parameters for 200 existing residential units.Adjusted flows for 2014 are based on actual lift station records.Predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate flows assume no changes. Table 5.2.46A:Patton contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. medium-density residential 55 200 27 28 28 28 55 200 27 28 28 28Total 2014 PDF:70 gpm 2021 PDF:70 gpm Ultimate PDF:70 gpm Patton Lift Station pumped an average 303 gpm (2014). WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 138 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 450 of 774 Table 5.2.46B:Pipe capacities downstream of Patton weto/ell pipe capacity Notesdownstreamslope(%)upstream pipe size (gpm) force main 235PattonwetwellMHL04-095 4 583MHL04-094 0.13MHL04-095 12 MH L04-094 MH L04-093 0.33 92512 680MHL04-093 MH L04-148 12 0.18 MH L04-092 0.18 687MHL04-148 12 1248MHL04-091 0.61MHL04-092 12 687MHL04-091 MH L04-090 12 0.18 MH L04-090 MH L04-089 0.50 112812 MH L04-089 MH L04-088 12 0.07 422 MH L04-088 MH L04-087 12 0.22 754 767MHL04-087 MH L04-095 12 0.23 MH L04-095 MH L33-094 12 0.20 721 MH L33-094 MH L33-093 789120.24 MH L33-093 MH L33-092 12 0.43 1054 MH L33-092 MH L33-097 12 0.22 755 MH L33-097 MH L33-096 0.23 77212 MH L33-096 MH L33-091 13460.7112 MH L33-091 MH L33-090 0.21 73112 MH L33-090 MH L33-089 0.24 77912 MH L33-089 MH L33-088 12 1.19 697 MH L33-088 MH L33-087 0.26 82012 MH L33-087 MH L33-086 0.19 70012 MH L33-086 MH L33-085 740120.21 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 139 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 451 of 774 downstream slope (%)pipe capacity (gPm) Notesupstreampipesize MH L33-085 MH L33-084 12 0.20 717 MH L33-084 12MHL33-083 0.23 759 MH L33-083 MH L33-082 12 0.25 801 12 0.35 951MHL33-082 MH L33-081 Refer to Table 5.2.44B for pipe capacities downstream of MH L33-081. COMMENTS Patton Tributary is fully developed with less than half of the number of residential units allowed for medium-density residential zones. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 140 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 452 of 774 5.2.47 CARSWELL SOUTH TRIBUTARY [47] Carswell South Tributary is undeveloped.When Carswell South Tributary is developed,it is probable that a gravity system will be installed,draining to a lift station,that will discharge thru a pressure sewer pipe to MH L04-071 in Daley Avenue.The existing manhole,MH L04-071 on Daley Avenue,has a depth of 4 feet to the invert,such that the gravity main would not be feasible as an extension of Carswell Tributary [45]. ZONING Carswell South Tributary consists of 37 acres of undeveloped general commercial area south of the Carswell Tributary [45],north of SRI 7 and west of Patton Boulevard CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Carswell South Tributary is inactive and will not receive flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Currently,Carswell South Tributary is undeveloped.Predicted flows for 2021 assume that this area will not be developed in the next six years.Ultimate flows are based on full development as a general commercial zone at 0.5 gpm/acre. Table 5.2.47A:Carswell South contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. commercial 0 1937000 TOTAL 0 0 193700 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:48 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 141 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 453 of 774 Table 5.2.47B:Pipe capacities downstream of MH L04-071 downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Carswell South wet well (future) force main MH L04-071 4 235 MH L04-071 MH L04-066 8 0.25 271 MH L04-066 MH L04-067 8 0.49 380 MH L04-067 MH L05-066 0.408 344 MH L05-066 0.23MHL05-065 8 262 [51][48][42] Refer to Table 5.2.5IB for pipe capacities downstream of MH L05-065. COMMENTS MH 09-018 on the opposite (east)side of Patton Boulevard,in Owen Road has about 7 feet of cover on the pipe.It may be prudent to perform a pre-survey prior to installation of a lift station or alternate sewer system:to verify that it is not feasible to extend the gravity main across Patton Boulevard to service this Tributary. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 142 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 454 of 774 5.2.48 HARVEST MANOR TRIBUTARY [48] Harvest Manor Tributary is a private gravity sewer system,that drains to a private on-site lift station,that discharges thru a private 4-inch force main to the municipal 6-inch low-pressure force main at MH 08-001. ZONING Harvest Manor Tributary is a high-density residential development consisting of a manufactured home park. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Harvest Manor receives no contributory flows and includes no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Harvest Manor Tributary consists of 200 residential manufactured homes.Calculated flows are based on metered water usage records in January,February,March,November, and December (2014:984,170 cubic feet/145 days =35.26 gpm).Because the Carswell Tributary [45]records for 2014 do not balance with these higher flows,an assumption is made that 25 percent of the metered water delivered to Harvest Manor does not make it to the sewer system.This could be associated with outdoor uses from washing cars, irrigation,leaking water service lines,leaking on-site gravity sewer service lines,or a combination of water losses.Predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate flows assume the adjusted flows for 2014 are correct. Table 5.2.48A:Harvest Manor contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate20212014 calc. 2014 adj. high-density residential 38 36 272002727 Total 38 200 36 27 27 27 2014 PDF:68 gpm 2021 PDF:68 gpm Ultimate PDF:68 gpm Table 5.2.48B:Pipe capacities downstream of Harvest Manor connection to 4-inch force main. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 143 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 455 of 774 downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gPm) force main Harvest Manor connection to MH 08-MH 08-001 4 235 001 force main MH L05-065 6 [51]MH 08-001 (valves/tee) 528 [42] Refer to Table 5.2.5IB for pipe capacities downstream of MH L05-065. COMMENTS As the gravity sewer main is installed to serve Upper Basin Homes [27C],some or all of Cochran [51],Harvest Manor [48],and Conoco [42]may connect to that gravity sewer main,and become sub-tributaries to Sage Bay [27]. 1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 144 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 456 of 774 5.2.49 LARSON-A TRIBUTARY [49] Larson-A Tributary is a gravity system that drains directly to the Larson Wastewater treatment plant.Larson A Tributary does not discharge to the Larson Lift Station No.1. ZONING Larson-A Tributary consists of 3573 acres zoned Port,which includes the Grant County International Airport;614 acres of general commercial/industrial property;285 acres of public property including Big Bend Community College [49B],Job Corps Facility on 24th Ave NE [49C],North Elementary School[49A],and Larson Heights Elementary School [49E];56 acres of low-density residential;198 acres of medium-density residential;and 30 acres of high-density residential. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Castle [44]and Patton [46]contribute to Larson-A Tributary. The following sub-tributaries are within Larson-A Tributary:Port [49A],Big Bend Community College [49B],Job Corps [49C],North Elementary School [49D],and Larson Heights Elementary School [49E]. FLOW ANALYSIS Port [49A]:The Port consist of the Moses Lake International Airport. Big Bend Community College [49B]:Calculated flows for 2014 are based on enrollment of 2163 students during Winter quarter of 2014,calculated at 16 gallons per day per student.Adjusted flows for 2014 are based on water usage records for non-irrigation services.Predicted flows for 2021 are estimated at 3 percent annual increase.Ultimateflowsareestimatedtodoublethestudentpopulationof2014. Job Corps [49C]:Calculated flows in 2014 for the Columbia Basin Job Corps Facility on 24th Ave NE are based on water usage records for 2014.Predicted flows and ultimate flows are assumed to remain the same. North Elementary School [49D]:Calculated flows for North Elementary School at 1200 W.Craig Street are based on water usage records for 2014.Estimated flows for 2021 and for ultimate development are rounded to 2.0 gpm.330 students were enrolled in 2012 with 17 students per teacher. Larson Heights Elementary School [49E]:Calculated flows for Larson Heights Elementary WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 145 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 457 of 774 School at 700 Lindberg Ln.are based on water usage records for 2014.Estimated flows for 2021 and for ultimate development are rounded to 2.0 gpm.430 students were enrolled in 2012 with 25 students per teacher. Table 5.2.49A:Larson-A contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc. 2014 2021 adj. existing residential 215 844 7611175 77 undeveloped residential 10 41 0 0 2 6 existing commercial/industrial 182 0 18 12.3 13 13 undeveloped commercial/industrial 496 0 0 34027 Port [49A]3573 0 .8 2 2.8 Big Bend Community College [49B]172 0 24 29 6231 Columbia Basin Job Corps,6739 24th Avenue NE [49C] 18 0 32.5 22.5 18NorthElementarySchool[49D]0 2 21.3 1.3 Larson Heights Elementary School [49E]15 0 2 21.0 1.0 CASTLE [44]153 338 55555 55 200 28 28PATTON[46]27 28 4907 266 188 284Total1423157 2014 PDF:392 gpm 2021 PDF:470 gpm Ultimate PDF:710 gpm Larson A Tributary is a gravity system that drains directly to Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant. Refer to Table 5.2.44B and 5.2.46B for trunk lines through Larson A Tributary. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 146 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 458 of 774 5.2.50 LARSON NO.1 TRIBUTARY [50] Larson No.1 Tributary is a gravity system that drains to Lift Station No.1 at the Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility.The Tributary has two main gravity trunk lines that drain to Lift Station No.1,referred to as Larson B and Larson C. ZONING Larson No.1 Tributary consists of 2700 acres.Larson B trunk line receives flow from developed residential areas of the Larson Housing community,but future flows will include flows from the abundant undeveloped commercial/industrial property.Larson C trunk line receives flow from industrial properties,which is about three-fourths undeveloped.Both trunk lines have a potential for continued industrial growth,being in the vicinity of the Port District.However,the Port maintains a treatment facility for industrial wastes,which reduces the industrial discharge to the municipal sewer system. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Larson No.1 Tributary receives contributory flows from Boeing [53]and Carswell [45]. Sub-tributaries of Larson No.1 are summarized below,comprising of the entire tributary. Columbia Basin Job Corps Private Sewer [50A]is a private sewer system (C-196,2002) that discharges through an 8-inch private gravity main to municipal MH L33-106,which manhole also receives wastewater from the municipal 10-inch concrete gravity sewer main from Larson B [50B]residential trunk line. Larson B [50B]:520 acres of general commercial/industrial/port,34 acres of public property,and 40 acres of medium density residential property. Larson C [50C]:1590 acres of commercial/industrial zone. Moses Lake Industries [50D]is a private sewer system (B-200,1985)that discharges through a private 6-inch PVC force main to the municipal sewer system at MH L27-008, which manhole also accepts wastewater from Boeing [53],and Takata [50E]. Takata [50E]:A private sewer system (B-245,1992)that discharges through a private 6- inch SDR 17 HDPE pipe,within the right-of-way of Randolph Road and Tyndall Road,to MH L27-008,which manhole also accepts wastewater discharges from Moses Lake Industries [50D],and Boeing [53]. SGL Automotive Carbon Fiber LLC [50F]:SGL is an industrial user per NPDES permit WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 147 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 459 of 774 No.ST-0501273,but all industrial wastewater is processed through the Port of Moses Lake treatment plant,not through the Larson Wastewater Treatment plan.However,the sanitary sewer discharges to the City of Moses Lake sewer system. AstaReal Technologies,Inc.[50G]:Astareal is a significant industrial user per NPDES permit No.ST0045535,but industrial discharge flows are treated by the Port of Moses Lake Wastewater Treatment plant,not the Larson Wastewater Treatment facility. However,the sanitary sewer discharges to The City of Moses Lake sewer system. Air Tanker Base [50H]:Air Tanker Base at 8868 Turner Road is a significant Industrial user per NPDES permit ST0008081,but all discharges are treated by the Port of Moses Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant,not the Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility. Terex/Genie [501]:Terex is a significant industrial user per NPDES permit No. ST0045529,but industrial discharge flows are treated by the Port of Moses Lake Wastewater Treatment plant,not the Larson Wastewater Treatment facility.However,the sanitary sewer discharges to The City of Moses Lake sewer system. FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated flows for Columbia Basin Job Corps Private Sewer [50A]are based on water usage during winter months in 2014.No adjustment was made for 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate flows assume no increase. Calculated flows for Larson B [50B]residential property are based on 117 residential units per Table 5.1.1 parameters.Adjusted flows for 2014 are estimated at a reduced residential rate of 100 gpd per residence,to balance the tributary to measured flows from Larson No. 1 Lift Station in 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate assume no additional development. Calculated flows for commercial/industrial/port properties for Larson B [50B]and Larson C [50C]are based on typical existing industrial flows in the tributary of about .5 gpm for 10 acres.This lower number assumes that a larger portion of industrial waste will be treated by the Port of Moses Lake Treatment facility,and not the Larson Wastewater Treatment Plant.Predicted flows for 2021are prorated to balance the tributary to a 3 percent annual growth for the Larson Basin.Ultimate flows assume full development of the tributary at a rate of 0.5 gpm/10 acre. Calculated flows for Moses Lake Industries [50D]are measured by an in-line sewer meter, for billing purposes.No adjustment was made due to the measured discharge.Predicted flows for 2021 assume little increase,and ultimate flows assume full use of 9 gpm in accordance with their Wastewater Discharge permit. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 148 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 460 of 774 Flows for Takata [50E]are based on water usage records from 2014.Predicted flows for 2021 and ultimate flows assume little additional usage.Based on 353 full-time employees at 10 gallons per employee per day,the calculated flow would be only 2.5 gpm (4.32 gpm metered in 2014). Calculated flows for SGL [50F]based on 126 full-time employees,at 10 gallons per employee per day,with all industrial flows being discharged to the Port of Moses Lake wastewater facility in accordance with Ecology permit ST-0501273.Predicted flows for SGL in 2021 assume the number of employees will double in six years.No additional flows are added for ultimate development. Astareal [50G]discharges to the Port of Moses Lake wastewater facility in accordance with Ecology permit ST0045535,but discharges sanitary waste to the municipal sewer system.Calculated flows assume less than 55 full-time employees at 10 gallons per employee per day (.5 gpm).No additional flows are predicted for 2021 or for ultimate development. Air Tanker Base [50H]discharges all wastewater to the Port of Moses Lake facilities in accordance with Ecology permit ST0008081,but discharges minimal sanitary waste to the municipal sewer system.Calculated flows assume less than .25 gpm.No adjustment was made to calculated flows for 2014 or for ultimate development. Terex/Genie [501]discharges to the Port of Moses Lake wastewater facility in accordancewithEcologypermitST0045529,but discharges sanitary waste to the municipal sewersystem.Calculated flows assume less than 10 gallons/employee per day,and 1400 full-time employees.No additional flows are predicted for 2021 or for ultimate development. Exfiltration is included in this tributary because the measured flows from sub-tributaries and estimated residential discharge exceed the measured quantities pumped at Larson No. 1 Lift Station.Because all of the concrete sewer mains have been lined,exfiltration will be attributed to sewer service lines. Peak flows are estimated at 1.5 times ADF because of the industrial influence for thistributary. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 149 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 461 of 774 Table 5.2.50A:Larson No.1 contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. Columbia Basin Job Corps [50A] Forbes Road shops 018 .25 .25 1 1 Larson B:residential [50B]117 1640 5 5 5 10/520 0LarsonB: commercial/industrial/port [50B] 0.5 0.25 5 26 Larson B:public/park [50B]34 0 0.5 0.25 1 1 0 0 0.25 4 80LarsonC: commercial/industrial/port [50C] 1590 Moses Lake Industrial [50D]:ST-47 0 4.25 4.25 94.25 5375 Takata [50E]206 0 4.5 5 54.5 2 2SGL[50F]121 0 1 1 0.25 0.25 0.25AirTankerBase[5OH]18.5 0 0.25 9 0 0.5 0.5 .5 .5Astareal[50G] 10 10 10 10Terex/Genie [501]32 0 40Boeing[53]0 0 072 371/506 62 49.5 90Carswell[45]162 49 0 -15.5 -15.5NA-15.5ExfiltrationNA 488/623 99.75 218.2571.5284860Total 2014 PDF:90 gpm 2021 PDF:108 gpm Ultimate PDF:305 gpm Lift Station No.1 pumped an average of 284 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 150 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 462 of 774 Table 5.2.50B:Pipe capacities downstream of Lift Station No.1 downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Lift Station No.1 wet MH L34-014 12 0.22 750 1 well MH L34-014 MH L34-015 1631 1180.12 MH L34-015 Larson WWTP 18 0.12 1631 1 1.Minimum slope shown due to insufficient information on the pipes. COMMENTS Upstream lift stations,if discharging simultaneously,may exceed the capacity of Larson Lift Station No.1.1. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015page151of216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 463 of 774 5.2.51 COCHRAN TRIBUTARY [51]'\ The Cochran Tributary is a private low-pressure sewer system that discharges to the municipal force main at MH 08-001.Six apartments discharge to a 4-inch PVC force main,crossing under Airway Drive,to the 6-inch municipal main in MH 08-001,where it merges with pressure sewer flows from Harvest Manor [48]and Conoco [42]. Per an extra-territorial agreement,Lots 1-6 of the Cochran plateau may discharge up to 1800 gallons per day (1.25 gpm)to the municipal sewer system. ZONING Cochran Tributary consists of 11 acres of low-density residential,6 acres of high-density residential,and 9 acres of general commercial. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Cochran Tributary does not receive contributory flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub-tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing flows for Cochran Tributary are based on permitted discharge of 1800 gallons per day for 6 residential units,in accordance with an extra-territorial agreement.Predicted flows for 2021 are based on Cochran’s share of the estimated 3 percent annual growth for the City.Ultimate flows assume full development. resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)Table 5.2.51A:Cochran contributory flows acres ultimate201420212014 calc.adj. 6 6/90 1.5 1.5 2.0 12high-density residential low-density residential 11 0/44 0 0 60 9 0 0 0 5generalcommercial0 6/13426 1.5 1.5 2 23Total 2014 PDF:4.0 gpm 2021 PDF:5 gpm Ultimate PDF:57.5 gpm WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 152 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 464 of 774 Table 5.2.5IB:Pipe capacities downstream of Cochran connection to 4-inch force main. pipe capacitydownstreamslope(%)Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Cochran connection on Airway Drive MH 08-001 force main 2354 MH 08-001 (valves/tee) [48]MH L05-065 6 force main 528 [42] MH L05-065 MH L05-064 [47]8 0.42 350 MH L05-064 MH L05-063 8 0.54 399 MH L05-063 MH L05-062 8 0.01 61 MH L05-062 Carswell wet well 8 2.53 862 Refer to Table 5.2.45B for pipe capacities downstream of Carswell Lift Station. COMMENTS 1.As the gravity sewer main is installed to serve Upper Basin Homes [27C],some or all of Cochran [51],Harvest Manor [48],and Conoco [42]may connect to that gravity sewer main,and become sub-tributaries to Sage Bay [27]. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 153 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 465 of 774 5.2.52 DESERTVIEW TRIBUTARY [52] The Desertview Tributary is an undeveloped tributary with conceptual plans to construct 300 residential view lots,in three tiers,between SR 17 and Moses Lake.An existing 4-inch municipal force main is installed through a 36-inch steel sleeve under SR 17,along with the water main (B328B).The force main is constructed within municipal easements between SR 17 and Castle Drive,where it connects to MH L23-082 (future contribution to Castle [44]).Further improvements are required before this tributary completes the sewer installation,including a lift station,gravity mains to serve the future residential units,and the additional force main required to connect the future lift station to the existing force main that terminates on the southwest side of SR 17. ZONING Desertview consists primarily of 114 acres of low-density residential property,in addition to 21 acres of commercial/industrial property. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Desertview is an inactive tributary with no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Flow predictions are based on 300 residential units at full development and the commercial/industrial areas in accordance with Table 5.1.1 parameters. Average Daily Flows (gpm)resid. units Table 5.2.52A:Desertview contributory flows acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 40011430000low-density residential 0 5100generalcommercial00 6000011industrial 135 300 0 0 0 51Total 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:0 gpm Ultimate PDF:121.5 gpm Castle Drive Lift Station has a calibrated capacity of 137 gpm (average between two pumps). WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 154 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 466 of 774 Table 5.2.52B:Pipe capacities upstream of Castle wet well downstream slope (%)Notesupstreampipesizepipe capacity (gpm) 4-inch force main MH L32-082 4 force main 235 MH L32-082 MHL32-081 8 0.60 420 MH L32-081 MH L32-080 8 0.38 333 MH L32-080 MH L32-078 8 0.41 348 MH L32-078 Castle wet well 8 0.94 527 Refer to Table 5.2.44B for pipe capacities downstream of Castle Lift Station. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 155 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 467 of 774 5.2.53 BOEING TRIBUTARY [53] Boeing Tributary is a private gravity system that drains to Boeing Lift Station at 9003 N.Tyndall Road,a municipal lift station.Boeing Lift Station discharges through an 8-inch force main to Larson No.1 [50]at MH L27-007. ZONING Boeing is an industrial zone. CONTRIBUTORY FLOWS Boeing Tributary receives no contributory flows from adjacent tributaries and has no sub- tributaries. FLOW ANALYSIS Existing flows are based on 2014 lift station records,which shows that the lift station is almost not used.Predicted flows for 2021 assume continued low usage.Ultimate flows assume a typical flow in the Port district of 0.5 gpm/10 acres at full development. Table 5.2.53A:Boeing contributory flows resid. units Average Daily Flows (gpm)acres ultimate2014 calc.2014 2021 adj. 47200.0 0 0.5Industrial 72 0 0.0 0 0.5 4Total 2014 PDF:0 gpm 2021 PDF:1 gpm Ultimate PDF:6 gpm Boeing Lift Station pumped an average of 165 gpm during 2014. WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 156 of 215 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 468 of 774 Table 5.2.53B:Pipe capacities downstream of Boeing wet well downstream slope (%)pipe capacity Notesupstreampipesize (gpm) Boeing wet well force main MH L27-008 8 940 MH L27-008 [50D]MH L27-028 8 4360.65 [50E] MH L27-028 MH L27-009 10 0.61 422 MH L27-009 MH L27-012 10 0.60 421 MH L27-012 MH L27-014 10 0.89 513 MH L27-014 MH L27-015 10 0.18 232 MH L27-015 MH L27-016 10 0.55 401 MH L27-016 MH L27-017 10 0.10 175 MH L27-017 MH L27-020 10 0.57 409 MH L27-020 MH L27-021 10 0.64 434 MH L27-021 MH L27-024 10 0.58 412 MH L27-024 MH L27-026 12 0.39 337 MH L27-026 MH L27-036 [50H]12 0.18 671 MH L27-036 MH L27-027 12 0.16 633 MH L27-027 MH L34-012 12 0.28 838 MH L34-012 MH L34-013 12 0.25 799 MH L34-013 Larson No.1 wet well 12 0.98 [50B]1582 Refer to Table 5.2.50B for pipe capacities downstream of Larson No.1 Lift Station. COMMENTS 1.Boeing facility had minimal use during 2014 (pumps operated twice). WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—2015 page 157 of 216 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 469 of 774 Annual Replacement Costs APPENDIX E Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 470 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 471 of 774 City of Moses Lake Annual Replacement Budgets Gravity Pipeline Budgets -- Assuming Open Cut Unknown 1,685 0.24%17 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 5,544$ 4 93 0.01%1 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 305$ 6 4,867 0.70%49 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 16,009$ 8 533,022 76.68%5330 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 1,753,377$ 10 69,593 10.01%696 150$ 5$ 75$ 230$ 23$ 58$ 41$ 352$ 244,896$ 12 62,738 9.03%627 160$ 5$ 75$ 240$ 24$ 60$ 43$ 367$ 230,374$ 15 11,218 1.61%112 170$ 10$ 75$ 255$ 26$ 64$ 46$ 390$ 43,768$ 18 9,664 1.39%97 185$ 15$ 75$ 275$ 28$ 69$ 50$ 421$ 40,661$ 21 2,247 0.32%22 195$ 35$ 75$ 305$ 31$ 76$ 55$ 467$ 10,484$ Total 695,127 100.00% 6,951 Total 2,345,000$ 131.7 Miles *assumed 1% replacement per year Gravity Pipeline Budgets -- Assuming CIPP Unknown 1,685 0.24%17 50$ 3$ 4$ 57$ 6$ 17$ 11$ 91$ 1,526$ 4 93 0.01%1 50$ 3$ 4$ 57$ 6$ 17$ 11$ 91$ 85$ 6 4,867 0.70%49 50$ 3$ 4$ 57$ 6$ 17$ 11$ 91$ 4,405$ 8 533,022 76.68%5330 50$ 3$ 4$ 57$ 6$ 17$ 11$ 91$ 482,461$ 10 69,593 10.01%696 55$ 3$ 4$ 62$ 6$ 18$ 12$ 99$ 68,559$ 12 62,738 9.03%627 65$ 5$ 4$ 74$ 7$ 22$ 15$ 118$ 73,851$ 15 11,218 1.61%112 80$ 7$ 4$ 91$ 9$ 27$ 18$ 145$ 16,257$ 18 9,664 1.39%97 100$ 12$ 4$ 116$ 12$ 35$ 23$ 185$ 17,870$ 21 2,247 0.32%22 130$ 20$ 4$ 154$ 15$ 46$ 31$ 246$ 5,521$ Total 695,127 100.00% 6,951 Total 671,000$ 131.7 Miles *assumed 1% replacement per year 1,508,000$ * assumes 50% CIPP, 50% open cut replace Mobilization (10% of Unit Cost) Contingency (30% of Unit Cost) Engineering (20% of Unit Cost) Total Unit Cost Annual Replacement Cost ($) AVERAGE PIPELINE COSTS Total Unit Cost Annual Replacement Cost ($) Diameter (in)Total Pipe Length by Diameter (ft)% of Total Feet replaced per year Pipeline Unit Cost Bypass Unit Cost Service Reinstatement Unit Cost Subtotal Bypass Unit Cost Surface Restoration (full lane) Unit Cost Unit Cost Subtotal Mobilization (10% of Unit Cost) Contingency (25% of Unit Cost) Engineering (18% of Unit Cost)Diameter (in)Total Pipe Length by Diameter (ft)% of Total Feet replaced per year Pipeline Unit Cost Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 472 of 774 Pressure Pipeline Budgets -- Assuming Open Cut Unit Costs for CIPP Replace Unknown 2 0.00%0 37$ 5$ 75$ 117$ 12$ 35$ 23$ 187$ 4$ 4 34,389 4.95%344 37$ 5$ 75$ 117$ 12$ 35$ 23$ 187$ 64,173$ 6 40,853 5.88%409 49$ 5$ 75$ 129$ 13$ 39$ 26$ 206$ 84,216$ 8 20,177 2.90%202 61$ 5$ 75$ 141$ 14$ 42$ 28$ 226$ 45,536$ 10 2,937 0.42%29 73$ 5$ 75$ 153$ 15$ 46$ 31$ 245$ 7,202$ 12 3,047 0.44%30 85$ 5$ 75$ 165$ 17$ 50$ 33$ 265$ 8,068$ 16 3,887 0.56%39 134$ 10$ 75$ 219$ 22$ 66$ 44$ 351$ 13,641$ 18 966 0.14%10 160$ 15$ 75$ 250$ 25$ 75$ 50$ 400$ 3,865$ 20+38,084 5.48%381 180$ 35$ 75$ 290$ 29$ 87$ 58$ 464$ 176,709$ Total 144,343 100.00% 1,443 Total 403,000$ 27.3 Miles *assumed 1% replacement per year Manholes 2713 *from updated GIS from City 50 yrs Manholes replaced per year 54 Cost per Manhole 5,000$ *Assumes half rehab, half replacement Annual Manhole Replacement Subtotal 271,000$ Item Lifespan Cost/Year Mobilization 10%27,100$ Gravity Pipelines 100 Years 1,508,000$ Contingency 30%81,300$ Pressure Pipelines 100 Years 403,000$ Engineering 20%54,200$ Manholes 50 Years 434,000$ Annual Manhole Replacement Cost 434,000$ Total (rounded)2,345,000$ Number of Manholes in the System Assumed Lifespan of Manholes Annual Replacement Cost ($) Surface Restoration (full lane) Unit Cost Unit Cost Subtotal Mobilization (10% of Unit Cost) Contingency (30% of Unit Cost) Engineering (20% of Unit Cost) Total Unit CostDiameter (in)Total Pipe Length by Diameter (ft)% of Total Feet replaced per year Pipeline Unit Cost Bypass Unit Cost Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 473 of 774 City of Moses Lake Annual Replacement Budgets Pipeline Budgets -- Assuming Open Cut for Non-PVC or PCC material Unknown 0 0.00%0 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ -$ 4 0 0.00%0 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ -$ 6 4,252 6.28%213 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 69,932$ 8 41,874 61.85%2094 135$ 5$ 75$ 215$ 22$ 54$ 39$ 329$ 688,720$ 10 9,214 13.61%461 150$ 5$ 75$ 230$ 23$ 58$ 41$ 352$ 162,117$ 12 5,744 8.48%287 160$ 5$ 75$ 240$ 24$ 60$ 43$ 367$ 105,460$ 15 3,295 4.87%165 170$ 10$ 75$ 255$ 26$ 64$ 46$ 390$ 64,286$ 18 1,072 1.58%54 185$ 15$ 75$ 275$ 28$ 69$ 50$ 421$ 22,547$ 21 2,247 3.32%112 195$ 35$ 75$ 305$ 31$ 76$ 55$ 467$ 52,422$ Total 67,697 100.00% 3,385 Total 1,165,000$ 12.8 Miles *assumed 5% replacement per year - replace all in 20 years 1,165,000$ *assumes 100% open cut replace Pressure Pipeline Budgets -- Assuming Open Cut Unknown 2 0.00%0 37$ 5$ 75$ 117$ 12$ 35$ 23$ 187$ 4$ 4 34,389 50.80%344 37$ 5$ 75$ 117$ 12$ 35$ 23$ 187$ 64,173$ 6 40,853 60.35%409 49$ 5$ 75$ 129$ 13$ 39$ 26$ 206$ 84,216$ 8 20,177 29.80%202 61$ 5$ 75$ 141$ 14$ 42$ 28$ 226$ 45,536$ 10 2,937 4.34%29 73$ 5$ 75$ 153$ 15$ 46$ 31$ 245$ 7,202$ 12 3,047 4.50%30 85$ 5$ 75$ 165$ 17$ 50$ 33$ 265$ 8,068$ 16 3,887 5.74%39 134$ 10$ 75$ 219$ 22$ 66$ 44$ 351$ 13,641$ 18 966 1.43%10 160$ 15$ 75$ 250$ 25$ 75$ 50$ 400$ 3,865$ 20+38,084 56.26%381 180$ 35$ 75$ 290$ 29$ 87$ 58$ 464$ 176,709$ Total 144,343 100.00% 1,443 Total 403,000$ 27.3 Miles *assumed 1% replacement per year Mobilization (10% of Unit Cost) Contingency (30% of Unit Cost) Engineering (20% of Unit Cost) Total Unit Cost Annual Replacement Cost ($) Annual Replacement Cost ($) AVERAGE PIPELINE COSTS Diameter (in)Total Pipe Length by Diameter (ft)% of Total Feet replaced per year Pipeline Unit Cost Bypass Unit Cost Surface Restoration (full lane) Unit Cost Unit Cost Subtotal Surface Restoration (full lane) Unit Cost Unit Cost Subtotal Mobilization (10% of Unit Cost) Contingency (25% of Unit Cost) Engineering (18% of Unit Cost) Total Unit CostDiameter (in)Total Pipe Length by Diameter (ft)% of Total Feet replaced per year Pipeline Unit Cost Bypass Unit Cost Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 474 of 774 Manholes Number of Manholes in the System 2713 *from updated GIS from City Assumed Lifespan of Manholes 50 yrs Manholes replaced per year 54 Cost per Manhole 5,000$ *Assumes half rehab, half replacement Annual Manhole Replacement Subtotal 271,000$ Item Lifespan Cost/Year Mobilization 10%27,100$ Gravity Pipelines 100 Years 1,165,000$ Contingency 30%81,300$ Pressure Pipelines 100 Years 403,000$ Engineering 20%54,200$ Manholes 50 Years 434,000$ Annual Manhole Replacement Cost 434,000$ Total (rounded) 2,002,000$ Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 475 of 774 City List of Planned Improvements APPENDIX F Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 476 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 477 of 774 Planned Wastewater System Improvements • Northshore Lift Station to replace the temporary Northshore Lift Station and the Sage Bay Lift Station (Completed in 2023). • Parallel force main lake crossing at Parker Horn (After New Northshore Lift Station) • Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station (Submersible Pumps & Above Ground controls) • Extend Wheeler Lift Station Force Main to 6th and Beech • Extend Division Lift station Force Main to 6th and Beech (Completed in 2022). • Upgrade Division lift station to submersible pumps. • Upgrade Carswell, Carnation, Patton, Castle, Larson Lift Stations with above ground controls. • Install force main from Westlake to Sand Dunes • Parallel force main lake crossing from COF across Pelican Horn • Replace 25,000 LF 20-inch AC force main • Add DAVIT fall arrest holes to all lift station wet wells. • Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer. • Urban Infill Development of manholes, gravity sewer / force mains. • Westshore and Hanson Road Odor Control • Construct infrastructure from the Wheeler industrial corridor directly to the Dunes WWTP (Bypass the COF) to serve future industrial development in the Wheeler Corridor. • Sand Dunes WWTP Expansion • Bio Solids Management Dunes, Larson WWTP • Water Reuse Facility • COF wastewater pump upgrades • Lift Stations that need backup generators: Lift Station 1 (aka Larson LS) and Patton LS • Peninsula gravity sewer replacement (between MH 27-003 and MH 27-064) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 478 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 479 of 774 Wastewater Model Development Tech Memo APPENDIX G Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 480 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 481 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 1 Technical Memorandum TO: Richard Law, P.E. FROM: James Bledsoe, P.E. DATE: February 17, 2021 SUBJECT: Moses Lake Wastewater Model Development INTRODUCTION As part of the Moses Lake 2020 Municipal Hydraulic Modeling Services effort, the City contracted with Keller Associates to prepare a computer model for the existing wastewater collection system. Developing a calibrated model of the collection system provides the City of Moses Lake (City) with the necessary tools to evaluate the existing system, identify deficiencies, evaluate improvement alternatives, and assess the impacts associated with future growth and development. This technical memorandum summarizes the development of the wastewater hydraulic model which includes the planning criteria, loading analysis, model creation process, lift station evaluations, and model calibration. It also documents an existing system evaluation which includes a 24-hour maximum day model run to assess peak hour velocities in forcemains, depth of peak hour flow compared to diameter, and evaluation of pump station firm capacities. Average daily conditions were also evaluated to assess whether desired scour velocities were achieved on a regular basis. EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM The City’s collection system consists of approximately 129 miles of collection gravity pipelines, 24 miles of pressure pipelines, 2,640 manholes, and 31 active lift stations. The gravity pipelines range from 21 inches to 4 inches in diameter, and feed into lift stations that convey flow to one of the two City wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) -- the Dunes WWTP and Larson WWTP. The pressure pipelines range from 2 to 20 inches in diameter. A map of the existing system can be found in Figure 1, and is color coded by the pipelines that feed the individual lift stations. Figure 2 depict the gravity pipelines in the system by diameter. 2/16/2021 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 482 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 2 FIGURE 1 – EXISTING SYSTEM SEWER BASINS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 483 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 3 FIGURE 2 – EXISTING SYSTEM, PIPELINE SIZE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 484 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 4 Lift Stations The City’s collection system currently is served by 31 lift stations of varying capacity. Primarily, the lift stations have duplex pumping arrangements, except for the Main and C.O.F. Raw Waste lift stations, which are triplex pump system. Pump station pumping capacities are reported by their firm capacity, or pumping capacity with the largest pump offline. Table 1 summarizes the firm capacities of each of the lift stations. TABLE 1 – REPORTED CAPACITY OF LIFT STATIONS Lift Station Pump Reported Firm Capacity (gpm) VFD? Blue Heron Unknown No Boeing 150 No C.O.F. Lift Station 33 No C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) 3800 Yes Carnation 200 Yes* Carswell 100 Yes* Castle 50 No Clover 400 No Division 270 Yes* Eka 180 No Farmer 350 No Hallmark 100 No Hermit 580 No Laguna 190 No Lakeland 70 No Larson No.1 300 No Main 2100 Yes Marina 180 No Moses Pointe 60 No Nelson 250 No Omni 205 No Patton 250 No Peninsula 556 No Sage Bay 693 Yes Sun Terrace 225 No Tana 234 No Westlake 388 No Wheeler 960 Yes* Winona 125 No *VFD operated similar to soft start Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 485 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 5 In addition to the lift stations included in Table 1, a temporary lift station, referred to as the Northshore lift station (located along Northshore Road) was in operation at the time this planning effort was completed. This lift station has both a pump and a siphon which conveys water to the Sage Bay Lift Station wet well. This lift station pumps out of a standard manhole, and the City has allowed the pipelines upstream of this lift station to surcharge and act as storage for the lift station. The system also has an inline booster station along the pressure main from the COF Raw Waste Lift Station to the Dunes WWTP plant. This booster pump speed is controlled by a VFD and ramps up and down based off the level in the COF Raw Waste Lift Station wetwell. The booster has a 100% running setpoint at 3,000 gpm. FLOW ANALYSIS One of the main benefits of having a wastewater model is to be able to simulate “worst case” scenarios and evaluate how the system responds. For the City’s wastewater system, Keller Associates reviewed historical flow data to identify the maximum day and peak hour conditions for the system. Influent flows into both the Dunes and Larson Wastewater Treatment Plants were analyzed to estimate maximum day flows. Influent flows from 2015 through 2019 were provided by the City. The results of the analysis for the Dunes and Larson influent flows are found in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. TABLE 2 – DUNES WWTP INFLUENT FLOW ANALYSIS Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Year Average Design Annual Average 2.09 2.13 2.21 2.12 2.11 2.13 2.13 Average Summer2 2.20 2.24 2.30 2.20 2.23 2.23 2.23 Average Winter1 1.97 2.01 2.12 2.04 1.99 2.02 2.02 Maximum Day 2.57 2.53 2.94 2.55 2.57 2.63 2.94 Maximum Day (2- day average 2.36 2.42 2.68 2.54 2.39 2.48 2.68 Yearly Total (MG3)762 778 805 774 771 - - Dunes WWTP Influent Flow (MGD3) 1) Average winter day includes December - February 2) Average summer day includes June - July 3) MGD = million gallons per day; MG = million gallons Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 486 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 6 TABLE 3 – LARSON WWTP INFLUENT FLOW ANALYSIS Maximum day values for the two plants were reviewed with City staff to check that the data included in the analysis was representative of actual conditions. The Dunes maximum day of 2.94 MGD occurred during a snow-melt event, but otherwise there is no reason to discredit this point as bad data. As such, a maximum day value of 2.94 MGD was chosen for the Dunes plant. The Larson plant’s maximum day value of 0.585 MGD, however, was shown by City staff to occur on a day when flow readings were taken later than normal. This means that the flow recorded included more than a 24-hour interval. For this period, a 2-day moving average was felt to be more representative. The 2-day maximum period for 2015 was 0.448 MGD which was very close to the one-day max day value of 0.469 MGD observed in 2017. The value of 0.469 was chosen to represent the existing max day for the Larson WWTP. An annual average day demand of 2.13 MGD was established for the Dunes WWTP, and an annual average day demand of 0.314 MGD was chosen for the Larson WWTP. INFLUENT FLOWS COMPARED TO DAILY PRECIPITATION In wastewater collection systems, rainfall events can have an impact on sewer flows. Rainwater or snow melt can flow directly into manholes or through direct stormwater connections to the sewer (inflow) or seep into the ground and enter the wastewater collection system (infiltration). As such, the influent flow data for each of the plants was compared to precipitation events that occurred. A high correlation between rainfall events and an increase in sewer flows is indicative on a system with high infiltration and inflow (I/I). Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Year Average Design Annual Average 0.316 0.312 0.318 0.308 0.316 0.314 0.314 Average Summer2 0.312 0.306 0.319 0.320 0.325 0.316 0.316 Average Winter1 0.309 0.310 0.317 0.291 0.309 0.307 0.307 Maximum Day4 0.585 4 0.404 0.469 0.408 0.390 0.451 0.469 Maximum Day (2- day average)0.448 0.377 0.403 0.374 0.374 0.395 0.448 Yearly Total (MG3)115 114 116 113 115 -- Larson WWTP Influent Flow (MGD3) 1) Average winter day includes December - February. 2) Average summer day includes June - July 4) Max Day flow for 2015 was not representative due to time of day when value was recorded, and that Max Day (2-day average) was more representative. 3) MGD = million gallons per day; MG = million gallons Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 487 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 7 FIGURE 3 – DUNES DAILY INFLUENT FLOW VS. PRECIPITATION FIGURE 4 – LARSON DAILY INFLUENT FLOW VS. PRECIPITATION As shown, the influent flow generally only experiences a small increase as a result of precipitation events. This is a reflection of a relatively tight system, without significant direct stormwater connection. The low correlation between increased precipitation and increased flows could also be a reflection of lower groundwater levels (i.e. below the level of the pipelines). Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 488 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 8 WINTER INFLUENT FLOWS VS WINTER WATER CONSUMPTION The winter influent flows at each of the treatment plants were also compared to the user consumption recorded by water meters. The purpose of this was to generally assess the amount of groundwater infiltration into the system before using the wintertime water consumption data to provide the initial base loadings of the collection system. Wintertime water consumption data does not include irrigation usage and is typically more representative of wastewater flows. For a system with significant infiltration, sewer flows can be much higher than water meter data. For a tight system, the wastewater may be closer to 85-90% of the water entering a typical home/business. Keller Associates’ initial comparison of this data show a disparity of closer to 35%, which is atypical for a collection system. However, after a more careful accounting of commercial and industrial users that consumed or treated a portion of their water, or had a wastewater meter that tracked loading to the system, we were able to realize a much tighter correlation (i.e. within 13%) as shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 – WINTER WATER CONSUMPTION VS. WASTEWATER FLOWS A 13% difference between water consumption and wastewater flows is typical for collection systems with little infiltration. As such, the analysis moved forward with initial wintertime water usage data loading of the wastewater system with individual water meter data, reduced by 13%. Other Planning Criteria As part of the additional services task, other planning criteria were developed to analyze the existing system at max day. These criteria are explained in the existing system evaluation section of this report. MODEL DEVELOPMENT Modeled Pipelines The collection system model includes the 10-inch diameter and larger gravity pipelines (approximately 29.3 miles), 12.7 miles of pressure pipelines, and the lift stations directly connected to these pipelines. The model also included approximately 10.6 miles of 8-inch diameter pipelines selected with input from the City to capture some of the larger existing and future service areas and locations where pipeline extensions were likely. The final pipelines and lift stations included in the model are depicted in Figure 5. Period Larson Plant (MG) Dunes Plant (MG) Total Influent Flow (MG) User Consumption (MG) Dec-18 9.19 61.29 70.48 97.27 Jan-19 9.46 61.71 71.17 108.38 Feb-19 8.75 56.42 65.17 98.14 Total 27.4 179.4 207 303.80 0 66 207 237.80 13.0% Water Consumed and not discharged Adjusted Totals Percent Difference Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 489 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 9 FIGURE 5 – MODELED COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES AND LIFT STATIONS Keller Associates utilized attribute data from the City’s GIS to develop model geometry and populate model data, including manhole elevations and pipeline inverts and diameters. GIS data that was missing or contained discrepancies was brought to the City staff’s attention who worked to update the data. Once the data gaps were filled, Keller utilized the GIS exchange tool to bring the model into InfoSWMM (Suite 14.7), a water modeling software by Innovyze. The model software was used to further check for discrepancies such as inverse pipe slopes, offset pipes, and disconnected links. These discrepancies were also rectified with input from the City staff. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 490 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 10 Pump curves and record drawings for each lift station were provided by the City and used to populate the pump station elevations and data in the model. Based on the results of pump test performed, some pump curves were altered to match observed field conditions (see calibration section of this report). Controls for the lift stations were provided by the City’s wastewater department. Keller used a Manning’s pipe roughness value of 0.012 for friction calculations in the gravity pipes, and a Hazen-Williams coefficient of 70 to 140 in the forcemains. The C value for the pipe was adjusted during calibration to better simulate reported headloss. Load allocations Wastewater flows, or loads, were assigned to the model to reflect field conditions. Initial loads were assigned based on average winter water consumption from consumers’ metered billing data. For Moses Lake, average winter consumption data from December 2018 to February 2019 was calculated for each individual user. The City’s billing data was then linked to a meter shapefile in the GIS. Then modeling tools were used to assign average winter loads from the meter shapefile to manholes within the model. Because only major trunklines and selected 8-inch pipelines were modeled, larger areas, such as subdivisions, that drained into a single manhole were identified via a GIS polygon. Using model tools, these areas had their loads placed on the appropriate downstream manhole. For meters located adjacent to modeled pipelines, loads were assigned to the manhole nearest to them. For a visual reference, see Figure 6 below, which depicts meters as purple triangles, the subdivision polygon which captures the meters, and the manhole to which their loads were assigned. FIGURE 6 – LOADING METHODOLOGY VISUALIZATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 491 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 11 After winter-time water meter data was assigned to the model, the loads in the system were universally factored down by 13% to account for the average “consumptive” portion of water usage as discussed previously. Additionally, it was noted that some industrial and commercial users have metered wastewater flows. For these users, the metered wastewater flow was used instead of the average water consumed. Many of these users had consistent discharge to the collection system from month to month. However, in the case of industrial users whose wastewater loads varied seasonally, June metered wastewater data was implemented to better match calibration efforts (and seasonal peak flow conditions). LIFT STATION PUMP EVALUATION As part of the modeling effort, Keller Associates also evaluated the pumping capacity of each lift station. The daily pump runtime data was analyzed for each of the lift stations within the system. The goal of this effort was to identify potential issues within each of the lift stations and to check whether each station was operating on its pump curve. If a pump is operating off its curve, it may indicate blockages, impeller wear, damage to the pump, or other factors that make the lift stations run less efficiently. The pump run times (from 5/16/2019 to 5/13/2020) for each of the City’s 31 lift stations were provided in excel format by the City. Dates, daily run times, and daily start times were included. Additionally, the City provided record drawings of each of the lift stations. Using this information, the volumes between the pump on and off setpoints were estimated. An inflow rate into the wet-well was estimated, by multiplying the daily starts by the volume between the on and off setpoints of the pumps, divided by the hours the pumps are not running. A volume pumped for the day was calculated using the number of starts multiplied by the volume between the on and off setpoints, with the inflow volume added. The total volume pumped was then divided by the daily pump run time to estimate the flowrate of the pump. The average pumping rates were then compared to the pump curve. There were cases where the data provided was suspect or did not provide long enough daily runtimes to make results reliable. For these lift stations, Keller Associates and City staff performed field flow tests at the lift stations to estimate the pumping rates. Pressure readings were also taken by City staff for the static (not running) and running conditions of the pump, to approximate the head output of the pump. The pump capacities estimated by the pump runtime analysis and the pump field pump tests were then compared to the individual reported capacities of the pumps. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 5. The italicized lift stations reflect lift stations that are included in the model. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 492 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 12 TABLE 5 – REPORTED PUMP CAPACITY VS. OBSERVED PUMP CAPACITY As shown, most of the lift stations are withing 25% of their reported capacities, with many operating below their reported capacities. However, there are a few that exceed this number. One major discrepancy is at the Larson lift station, which is operating at 500 gpm above its reported capacity. City staff informed Keller than this increase in the capacity was due to head changes that resulted from improvements made at the discharge in the Larson WWTP. However, based on the pump curve for this lift station provided by the City and the updated record drawings, Keller would only anticipate a maximum operating flow of around 500 gpm, not 800 gpm. Additional field investigation may be warranted to resolve this discrepancy. A second discrepancy is with the Marina lift station, which appears to be operating far below its reported capacity. A discrepancy this large may indicate blockages in the force main or worn pumps. Generally, a lot of the lift stations appear to be operating below their reported capacities. This indicates that there may be wear on the impellers at the pumps, which reduce pumping capacity and energy efficiency. Periodic completion of pump tests can assist the City in identifying problems and prioritizing preventative maintenance activities. Based on the flowrate and pressure readings of the pump runtime analysis and the field pump tests, a field operating point was established for the model. Pump curves in the model were modified to reflect the current operating point. In most cases, this involved adjusting the existing pump curve and shifting it down to meet the operating point. As an example, Figure 7 depicts the original Farmer lift station pump curve (bolded black line) and the modification to match the field observed operating point (blue dot with red line). Lift Station Individual Pump Reported Capacity (gpm) Pump Capacity from Analysis (gpm)Difference Method Blue Heron Unknown 337 N/A Pump Runtime Analysis Boeing 150 188 25%Field Pump Test C.O.F. Lift Station 33 21 -37%Pump Runtime Analysis C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS)1900 1641 -14%Pump Runtime Analysis Carnation 200 225 13%Pump Runtime Analysis Carswell 100 135 35%Pump Runtime Analysis Castle 50 51 2%Field Pump Test Clover 400 464 16%Field Pump Test Division 270 238 -12%Pump Runtime Analysis Eka 180 167 -7%Pump Runtime Analysis Farmer 350 285 -19%Pump Runtime Analysis Hallmark 100 124 24%Pump Runtime Analysis Hermit 580 591 2%Field Pump Test Laguna 190 197 4%Field Pump Test Lakeland 70 59 -16%Pump Runtime Analysis Larson No.1 300 804 168%Field Pump Test Main 1050 1097 4%Field Pump Test Marina 180 30 -83%Field Pump Test Moses Pointe 60 33 -45%Pump Runtime Analysis Nelson 250 294 18%Pump Runtime Analysis Omni 205 156 -24%Field Pump Test Patton 250 198 -21%Pump Runtime Analysis Peninsula 556 475 -15%Pump Runtime Analysis Sage Bay 693 743 7%Field Pump Test Sun Terrace 225 171 -24%Field Pump Test Tana 234 237 1%Field Pump Test Westlake 388 313 -19%Field Pump Test Wheeler 960 960 0%Pump Runtime Analysis Winona 125 75 -40%Pump Runtime Analysis Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 493 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 13 FIGURE 7 – FARMER LIFT STATION MODIFIED PUMP CURVE CALIBRATION Flow monitoring Eight flow monitors were installed in the collection system to better assess the distribution of flow within the collection system. The monitors were strategically placed to capture various regions of the system. Flow monitoring data was collected from 6/11/2020 to 6/25/2020 at each of the sites. During testing, site 6 (upstream of the Larson WWTP) showed suspect data. As such, this site was retested from 7/13/2020 to 7/27/2020. Refer to Figure 8 for the flow monitoring locations in the City. Of these periods, the day with the highest peak was chosen as a reference calibration day. Using the flows at the reference day (July 21st for Larson plant, and June 12 - 13th for basins feeding the Dunes Plant), an hourly diurnal curve was created for each of their corresponding upstream drainage areas, or basins. This hourly diurnal curve was applied to the loads at the respective manholes upstream of each flow monitoring location to recreate the flow patterns observed in the field. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 494 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 14 FIGURE 8 – FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 495 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 15 After applying the diurnal patterns, the flows produced by the model at each of flow monitoring locations were compared to the flows captured by the flow monitoring. If the model outputs did not match the field results, a factor was applied to all the loading within the sewer basin to match the field results, with emphasis on capturing the peak hour flow conditions observed in the field. The calibration adjustment applied to each of the sewer basins’ loading is shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 - CALIBRATION FACTORS APPLIED TO FLOW METER BASINS Basin Number Basin Name Factor Applied 1 Nelson 0.75 2 Division 1 3 Wheeler 1.60 4 Knolls Vista Bypass 1.08 5 Sage Bay 1.66 6 Larson 0.7 7 Peninsula 1.43 8 NE of Northshore 1 Figures 9 and 10 show an example of the comparison between the model and flow monitoring data before and after the factors were applied, respectively. FIGURE 9 – PENINSULA LOCATION 7, FLOW MONITORING, RECORDED DATA (GREEN) VS. MODEL OUTPUT (BLUE) —PRE-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 496 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 16 FIGURE 10 - PENINSULA LOCATION 7, FLOW MONITORING, RECORDED DATA (GREEN) VS. MODEL OUTPUT (BLUE) – POST-CALIBRATION All calibrated curves can be found in Attachment 1. It should be noted that the area directly upstream of the Main Lift Station, not including the lift station basins that flow into the Main Lift Station, did not have a calibration factor applied to it, as there was no flow monitoring that occurred directly upstream of the Main Lift Station. However, flows from these areas were captured in the total system flows observed at the downstream wastewater treatment plant, and flows at the wastewater treatment plant also matched closely with reported SCADA flow conditions. Lift Station and Forcemain Calibration While developing the model, it was noted that even with modified pump curves to match field conditions, there were still lift stations that were not matching field conditions for pressure head. Adjustments in the pressure main pipe roughness were made to better simulate field conditions. Relatively close results were realized for most pressure mains with typical C values of 100 to 140. In some cases, however, reducing the C value to 100 was insufficient to reduce the flow to reflect observed field conditions. In these cases, the C value was further dropped to a value of 70, which could be an indication that either some of the field data is suspect or that valve / pipe obstructions may exist in the line. Additional investigations into the forcemains with C values below 100 are recommended. There were cases where the reduction of the C factor was insufficient to achieve the lower flows observed in the field; and for these locations, the pump curves were further modified to better reflect observed flow conditions. Table 7 displays the lift stations modeled, if their pump curve was originally changed to match the runtime analysis/pump test, the C factor applied to the forcemains, and whether or not the curve was further modified to match flows. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 497 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 17 TABLE 7 – LIFT STATION PUMP CURVE AND FORCEMAIN ROUGHNESS ADJUSTMENTS Modeled Lift Station Modified Pump Curve? Forcemain C Factor Further Modified Pump Curve? Blue Heron yes 70 yes C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) no 100 no Carnation yes 100 no Clover yes 140 no Division yes 70 yes Farmer yes 140 no Laguna no 140 no Lakeland yes 100 yes Larson No.1 yes 140 no Main yes 70 no Moses Pointe yes 70 yes Nelson yes 100 yes Northshore (temp. Sage Bay) no 100 no Peninsula yes 70 yes Sage Bay yes 100 no Westlake no 140 no Wheeler yes 130 no Winona yes 70 yes Model vs. Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Flows After calibrating the individual basins and lift stations, the daily flows at the WWTPs in the model were compared to influent flows recorded by City SCADA on the reference calibration day. Table 8 depicts the model and recorded flows for each WWTP on their respective calibration reference day. As shown, the final model produced flows that matched the field data within 2%, which grants additional confidence to the calibrated model. TABLE 8 – MODEL VS. SCADA OUTPUT FOR CALIBRATION DAY WWTP Calibration Day SCADA data output (MGD) Model output (MGD) Difference Larson WWTP July 21st, 2020 0.274 0.273 0.3% Dunes WWTP June 13th, 2020 2.255 2.295 1.8% Modeled Lift Station Flows vs. Estimated Lift Station Flows As a final check of calibration, Keller Associates checked the estimated average daily flows into the pump stations versus model flows. Using the pump runtime data, average daily flows into the lift stations were estimated. These numbers were compared to the average inflow in the model, which is shown in Table 9. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 498 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 18 TABLE 9 - ESTIMATED DAILY INFLOW INTO LIFT STATION VS MODEL INFLOW Lift Station Runtime Estimated Average Daily Flow (gpm) Model Average Inflow (gpm) Difference (gpm) BlueHeron 69 60 9 COF-Raw 1,316 1413 -97 Carnation 75 122 -47 Clover 2 3 -1 Division 121 179 -58 Farmer 1 4 -4 Laguna 2 6 -4 Lakeland 15 35 -21 Larson 2 97 -96 Main N/A 622 N/A Moses Point 3 13 -10 Nelson 90 139 -49 Peninsula 178 385 -207 SageBay 273 422 -149 Westlake 22 87 -65 Wheeler 270 342 -72 Winona 8 24 -16 In the table, the red numbers indicate data pump runtime that was considered bad data, and thus is unreliable. While examining this comparison, the SCADA data appears to underestimate actual flows at the majority of the lift stations. Because the final flows at the WWTPs match the model, and because these values are universally low, this calibration check was considered informative, but not used to make model adjustments. Additional refinement of the City’s SCADA system is recommended to better assess the accuracy of the reported data. EXISTING MODEL EVALUTATION After calibrating the model to the reference days, an existing max day model was created. The max day model contains all the same pump, pipe, and manhole information as the calibrated model, but the loads were increased by a factor as shown in Table 10. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 499 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 19 TABLE 10 – CALIBRATED DAY TO MAX DAY FACTORS WWTP Calibration Day (MGD) Max Day (MGD) Factor Used Larson WWTP 0.273 0.47 1.72 Dunes WWTP 2.295 2.94 1.28 Keller Associates also created an average day scenario. Factors were applied to the calibrated day loading to get to average day. Table 11 depicts the average days and factors applied. TABLE 11 – CALIBRATED DAY TO AVERAGE DAY FACTORS WWTP Calibration Day (MGD) Average Day (MGD) Factor Used Larson WWTP 0.273 0.314 1.15 Dunes WWTP 2.295 2.13 0.93 With a calibrated, average day, and max day model, the City of Moses Lake is able to more accurately evaluate existing conditions of the collection system. EVALUATION CRITERIA Keller Associates used the following planning criteria to evaluate the existing collection system: 1. Depth over Diameter (d/D): For gravity pipelines within the system, a good indicator of pipeline capacity is the maximum flow depth as it relates to the pipeline, or depth over diameter (d/D). For interceptor pipelines, if the d/D of a pipeline exceeds 0.85 during peak hour flow conditions, a pipe upsize project should be considered. 2. Surcharging: Surcharging refers to when the water level in a manhole rises above the top invert of the ingoing or outgoing pipe. If surcharging is occurring, it is usually indicative of insufficient pipe capacity downstream. As a rule of thumb, no surcharging should be occurring in gravity sewer pipelines. 3. Lift station firm capacity: Firm capacity refers to a lift station’s pumping capacity with its largest pump offline. The lift station firm capacity should be capable of handling peak hour flows into the lift station. This ensures that the lift station has redundancy and can handle peak flows in the event of a pump failure. In duplex systems, a station is exceeding its firm capacity if both pumps must run to convey flows into the lift station. The same applies to a triplex lift station if all three of its pumps are required to run. 4. Minimum (scouring) velocities: For average conditions, daily peak velocities of 1.5 to 2 feet per second (fps) are desired in pipelines to prevent solids from building up in the pipeline. 5. Maximum velocities in forcemains: In forcemains, it is important to keep velocities less than 10 fps. Exceeding this velocity means that headlosses can become very large, reducing the efficiency and capacity of the pump station. Additionally, high velocities can cause water hammering when valves open or close, which can cause damage to infrastructure. A high forcemain velocity is generally indicative of an undersized forcemain or an oversized pump. For longer forcemains, maximum velocities of 5 to 7 fps may be preferred to minimize headloss and long-term pumping costs. Existing Max Day Evaluation – d/D The d/D was examined for the max day model. With the max day model and the 24-hour diurnal curve, the model can estimate the peak hour flow conditions which is the driving design criteria for collection system pipelines. Figure 11 depicts pipelines colored by their respective d/D during peak hour flows. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 500 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 20 FIGURE 11, EXISTING PEAK HOUR CAPACITIES, D/D While there are a few pipeline within the Peninsula and Division sub-basins that are in the 0.5 to 0.75 d/D range, the primary area that is seeing a large d/D is the new pipeline upstream of the Northshore lift station. However, the surcharging that is occurring in this area is not a result of undersized pipeline, but a result of pump station controls which allow water to back up into the pipeline before turning on. City staff indicate that this is temporary condition that will be resolved with planned pump station improvements. As such, it does not appear that the City suffers from any major capacity deficiencies in their gravity collection system. As the system develops, the City should continue to watch the pipelines with d/D greater than 0.5 and complete pipe capacity improvements as the peak hour flows approach a d/D condition of 0.85. Surcharging The surcharging in the manholes are also examined for the max day. Because no surcharging is the typical standard, Figure 12 displays the amount of time the junction’s surcharge during max day. Similar to d/D, no problems are visible save for the pipeline upstream of the Northshore lift station, which the City is allowing to surcharge as a way of providing additional wetwell storage. It should be noted that the red dots adjacent to the lift station in Figure 12 are only model nodes that the model forcemains need to run, and do not represent physical manholes or deficiencies. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 501 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 21 FIGURE 12: EXISTING PEAK HOUR SURCHARGED MANHOLES Lift Station Firm Capacity As noted previously, duplex lift stations that have both pumps running during peak flows are operating above their firm capacity. In the model, those lift stations with insufficient pumping capacity, requiring all of their pumps to convey peak flows include: - Carnation - Division - Lakeland - Main - Nelson - Peninsula - Sage Bay - Westlake Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 502 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 22 It is recommended that the City confirm pump capacity concerns by monitoring pump run times and alerting the operator any time that every pump is required to run to convey flow. Additional investigation is also warranted to monitor pumping capacities and explore alternatives to increase the lift stations pumping capacities to meet existing and future demands. Peak Hour Velocities in Forcemains Maximum velocities were examined in each of the forcemains. The maximum velocity experienced is summarized in Table 12. TABLE 12 – PEAK HOUR VELOCITIES IN FORCEMAINS Modeled Lift Station Maximum Velocity in Forcemain (fps) Blue Heron 1.65 C.O.F. Raw Waste (Large LS) 2.94 Carnation 1.99 Clover 6.02 Division 3.23 Farmer 3.65 Laguna 4.97 Lakeland 2.01 Larson No.1 7.59 Main 2.38 Moses Pointe 0.7 Nelson 3.13 Northshore (temp. Sage Bay) 17.41 Peninsula 5.23 Sage Bay 3.41 Westlake 4.04 Wheeler 7.27 Winona 1.48 As shown, the only forcemain to experience velocities of higher than 10 fps is the Northshore forcemain. It should be noted that this lift station also has a siphon which conveys a portion of the flow to the Sage Bay wetwell and was not modeled. Additionally, the lift station is a temporary solution until improvements occur to the Sage Bay lift station or a second lift station is built to convey flows across the river. Also, it appears that the velocities in Blue Heron and Moses Pointe lift stations may be too low to regularly achieve scouring velocities. City operators may wish to periodically allow the lift station to surcharge and run both pumps concurrently to create better scouring conditions. Minimum Velocities in gravity pipes Finally, the minimum velocities during average day conditions were analyzed. In the average day model, pipelines which experienced less than a 1.5 fps velocity during their respective high flows were identified. The pipelines which do not meet the criteria of greater than 1.5 fps velocity for scouring are shown in Figure 13. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 503 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | MOSES LAKE WASTEWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 220027-000 23 As shown, approximately 18.8 miles of pipelines modeled do not meet the minimum velocity criteria. These pipelines are more at risk for buildup of solids as they may not have high enough velocities to scour the pipe. For pipelines that do not meet this criteria, more frequent cleaning and maintenance can mitigate the issues caused by buildup. In general, the slower velocities require more regular cleaning. FIGURE 13: FLOW VELOCITIES, AVERAGE DAY CONDITION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 504 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 505 of 774 February 2021 MOSES LAKE WASTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 1 MODEL CALIBRATION CURVES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 506 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 507 of 774 WASTEWATER MODEL FLOW MONITORING, CALIBRATION CURVES: During calibration efforts, eight flow meters were installed in the collection system for periods of 2 weeks. Of these periods, the day with the highest peak was chosen as a reference calibration day. The following describes which days of flow monitoring were used to compare the model output. This analysis was performed in 2020. o Site 1: Saturday, June 13th o Site 2: Saturday, June 13th o Site 3: This flow monitor was downstream of a lift station, and slugs through the line were the primary flow coming down the line. As such, the data recorded was inconsistent. As such, the average of 3 days was taken, June 16th, a Tuesday that showed the highest peak hour flow, and June 20th and 21st, which represented the weekend with the highest flow. o Site 4: Saturday, June 13th o Site 5: Saturday, June 13th o Site 6: Tuesday, July 21st. During the first round of flow monitoring, the flow monitor did not obtain quality data through the line. As such, a second week of testing was completed. The 21st was chosen, as it experienced the highest peak. The diurnal curve of the weekdays was compared to the weekends, and it was shown to be relatively consistent between the two. o Site 7: Saturday, June 13th o Site 8: Friday, June 13th. The weekends at this flow monitoring site did not experience as high of flows as the weekdays. The following figures depict the flow monitoring results (green curve) in comparison to the output of the model prior to and after application of calibration factors (blue curve). Additionally, if a calibration factor was applied, the calibration factor is shown between the pre- and post-calibration curves. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 508 of 774 SITE 1: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE CALIBRATION FACTOR: 0.75 SITE 1: POST-CALIBRATION CURVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 509 of 774 SITE 2: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE NO CALIBRATION FACTOR USED Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 510 of 774 SITE 3: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE NOTE: The red line depicts consolodated field monitoring data, the grey curve represents model output. CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.6 SITE 3: POST-CALIBRATION CURVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 511 of 774 SITE 4: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.0833 SITE 4: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 512 of 774 SITE 5: PRE-CALIBRATION, PRE-INDUSTRIAL USERS UPDATE SITE 5: PRE-CALIBRATION, POST-INDUSTRIAL USERS UPDATE CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.666 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 513 of 774 SITE 5 POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 514 of 774 SITE 6: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 0.7 SITE 6: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 515 of 774 SITE 7: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.43 SITE 7: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 516 of 774 SITE 8: PRE-CALIBRATION No Calibration Factor Applied Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 517 of 774 Calibrated Model Curves APPENDIX H Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 518 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 519 of 774 WASTEWATER MODEL FLOW MONITORING, CALIBRATION CURVES: During calibration efforts, eight flow meters were installed in the collection system for periods of 2 weeks. Of these periods, the day with the highest peak was chosen as a reference calibration day. The following describes which days of flow monitoring were used to compare the model output. This analysis was performed in 2020. o Site 1: Saturday, June 13th o Site 2: Saturday, June 13th o Site 3: This flow monitor was downstream of a lift station, and slugs through the line were the primary flow coming down the line. As such, the data recorded was inconsistent. As such, the average of 3 days was taken, June 16th, a Tuesday that showed the highest peak hour flow, and June 20th and 21st, which represented the weekend with the highest flow. o Site 4: Saturday, June 13th o Site 5: Saturday, June 13th o Site 6: Tuesday, July 21st. During the first round of flow monitoring, the flow monitor did not obtain quality data through the line. As such, a second week of testing was completed. The 21st was chosen, as it experienced the highest peak. The diurnal curve of the weekdays was compared to the weekends, and it was shown to be relatively consistent between the two. o Site 7: Saturday, June 13th o Site 8: Friday, June 13th. The weekends at this flow monitoring site did not experience as high of flows as the weekdays. The following figures depict the flow monitoring results (green curve) in comparison to the output of the model prior to and after application of calibration factors (blue curve). Additionally, if a calibration factor was applied, the calibration factor is shown between the pre- and post-calibration curves. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 520 of 774 SITE 1: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE CALIBRATION FACTOR: 0.75 SITE 1: POST-CALIBRATION CURVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 521 of 774 SITE 2: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE NO CALIBRATION FACTOR USED Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 522 of 774 SITE 3: PRE-CALIBRATION CURVE NOTE: The red line depicts consolodated field monitoring data, the grey curve represents model output. CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.6 SITE 3: POST-CALIBRATION CURVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 523 of 774 SITE 4: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.0833 SITE 4: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 524 of 774 SITE 5: PRE-CALIBRATION, PRE-INDUSTRIAL USERS UPDATE SITE 5: PRE-CALIBRATION, POST-INDUSTRIAL USERS UPDATE CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.666 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 525 of 774 SITE 5 POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 526 of 774 SITE 6: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 0.7 SITE 6: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 527 of 774 SITE 7: PRE-CALIBRATION CALIBRATION FACTOR: 1.43 SITE 7: POST-CALIBRATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 528 of 774 SITE 8: PRE-CALIBRATION No Calibration Factor Applied Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 529 of 774 Cascade Valley Sewer Tech Memo APPENDIX I Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 530 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 531 of 774 Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 1 Technical Memorandum TO: Moses Lake – Mark Beaulieu, P.E. FROM: Keller Associates, Inc. – Stillman Norton, P.E. DATE: July 14, 2023 SUBJECT: Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements 1. BACKGROUND The City of Moses Lake (“City”) has contracted with Keller Associates, Inc. (“Keller”) to provide sewer and water planning and design services for the Cascade Valley area. This technical memorandum will focus on the sewer options being considered for this project. The City would like to add sewer service to the Cascade Valley area, beginning with the area within city limits. Extending service to this area will include sewer mains, manholes, a force main, and a sewer lift station. The initial services discussed in this technical memorandum will include the evaluation of possible lift station locations with a location of discharge as well as a proposed sewer main layout. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The City’s primary focus and objective for this project is to evaluate alternatives focused towards providing both water and sewer service first to the city limit portion of the Cascade Valley. 3. STUDY AREA The “service area” for potential sewer service includes the entire peninsula area often referred to as Cascade Valley, and the initial service boundary includes the portion of Cascade Valley located within city limits. Along the approximate center, the Cascade Valley is separated into a north and south half by a change in elevation running east-west. Due to this elevation change Cascade Valley was divided into two separate sewer basins referred to as North Cascade Valley and South Cascade Valley, see Figure 3.1. Future land use for the south portion is designated as medium density residential within the current city limits portion of Cascade Valley, and low density residential makes up the rest of the South Cascade Valley sewer basin. For North Cascade Valley there are approximately 135 acres of medium density residential, 45 acres of high density residential, 40 acres of commercial land, and the rest is low density residential. Both low density residential and medium density residential fall under the Residential 2 (R-2) category defined within the Moses Lake municipal code. This information was all provided from future land use maps and GIS figures provided by the City of Moses Lake, see Figure 3.2. 49012STILLMAN A N DREW N O RTONREGISTE R E DP R O FESSIONAL E N G INEERSTATE O F WASHIN G T ON7/14/2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 532 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 2 FIGURE 3.1 – CASCADE VALLEY SERVICE AREA Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 533 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 3 FIGURE 3.2 – CASCADE VALLEY LAND USE 4. PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND Supplying sewer services to the Cascade Valley area is broken down into three separate phases. ➢ Phase 1: Service existing homes within City Limits ➢ Phase 2: Service the remainder of the South Cascade Valley area ➢ Phase 3: Service the entire Cascade Valley Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 534 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 4 Demand calculations were performed for each phase with initial and buildout conditions in mind. To approximate the amount of wastewater produced by residents within city limits of the Cascade Valley, the number of existing homes was counted using arcGIS software. The amount of water in gpm (gallons per minute) is calculated by taking the product of the number of homes, the average person per home (2.8 people according to U.S. Government Census 2017-2021), and the maximum gallons per day per capita demand (70 gpcd as indicated by the city). An assumed peaking factor of 1.5 was used to determine demand during the peak hour. A similar process was applied to calculate the conditions at buildout. Using Moses Lake’s municipal code (Title 18 Zoning | Moses Lake Municipal Code) and land use map (see Figure 3.2 above), the maximum number of possible connections at buildout was estimated. All the future land use for Cascade Valley that could receive sewer mains falls under low density residential and medium density residential. Moses Lake Municipal code states these land use areas must have a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. With this information, GIS was used to find the total area utilized by each phase. Each area was multiplied by 0.7 to account for undevelopable land that will be used by roads, utilities, etc. This refined area is then divided by 7,000 square feet to find the maximum number of lots possible in each phase. The number of lots is multiplied by the average person per home (2.8), the demand (70 gpcd), and converted to gpm to provide a conservative estimate for demand at potential buildout conditions. See Table 4.1 below for a complete summary of this demand analysis. TABLE 4.1 – SEWER CALCULATIONS Condition Potential Connections Acreage Max Day Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Moses Lake City Limits – Existing Only 88 250 12 18 South Cascade Valley Basin – Existing Only 305 720 42 62 Cascade Valley Service Area – Existing Only 955 2,200 130 195 Moses Lake City Limits – Full Buildout 1,032 250 141 211 South Cascade Valley Basin – Full Buildout 3,136 720 427 640 Cascade Valley Service Area – Full Buildout 8,320 2,200 1,132 1,700 4.2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING CRITERIA The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has established design standards for municipal wastewater infrastructure which must be met. Below is a summary of major Ecology requirements outlined in the Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book). ➢ Lift Stations o Lift station shall be designed to remain fully operational during the 100-year flood/wave action. o Must have adequate accessibility and safety and ventilation for maintenance personnel and visitors. o Must have redundancy enabling the facilities to continue to operate when a pump/motor is down. o Alarm systems, preferably with transmission to 24-hour response center. o Capability for emergency power supply. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 535 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 5 o Emergency storage for stations that rely on portable generators during power outages. ➢ Force Mains o Velocity of at least two (2) feet per second is required at the design pumping rate. Velocity should not exceed eight (8) feet per second. o Air relief valve is required at high points in the force main. o Adequate cover is required to prevent freezing or damage. ➢ Gravity Sewer o Minimum pipe size for gravity sewer is eight (8) inches in diameter. ▪ Six (6) inch diameter may be approved if certain criteria are met. o Wastewater pipelines must be installed with enough ground cover to prevent freezing and protect facilities from surface loading (generally no less than 3 feet deep). o Gravity pipelines must be designed to have sufficient slope and velocity to “self-clean” or transport constituent solids (no less than 2.0 feet per second). o Must maintain horizontal and vertical separation from potable water pipelines (5 feet minimum horizontally; 18 inches minimum vertically). ➢ Manholes o Manholes must be installed at the end of each line, changes in grade, pipe size, alignment change, and in all intersections. ▪ Manholes shall be installed at distances not greater than 400 feet (pipe <15 inches in diameter). ▪ Manholes shall be installed at distances not greater than 500 feet (pipe 18 to 30 inches in diameter). o Cleanouts may be used only for special conditions and may not be substituted for manholes or installed at the ends of laterals greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. o Manholes shall be a minimum of 48 inches in diameter. ➢ Trunkline Depth and Location: The maximum depth for new trunk lines should be no more than 20 to 25 feet. Very localized locations may exceed this depth up to 30 feet. Trunklines should be routed along road corridors where practical. 5. SEWER LIFT STATION SITE EVALUATION 5.1. LIFT STATION SITING Identifying an appropriate location for the South Cascade Valley sewer basin lift station was conducted by considering the following: • Find a location that would allow all of the South Cascade Valley sewer basin to gravity flow and still meet the planning criteria identified in Section 4. • Consider locating it within the crop circle area located on the east side within city limits due to the property owner’s likelihood of working well with the City. • Locate it near the east coast of the peninsula to allow for a more direct bore pathway for the future proposed force main. The highest elevation observed within South Cascade Valley basin is roughly 1,090 feet in the northwest corner with land generally sloping eastward down to an elevation of roughly 1,055 feet. Due to this Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 536 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 6 condition, the lift station would be more ideally located on the east side of the peninsula. This lift station would then need to pump wastewater either to the north and through the existing Sage Bay / Northshore sewer basins or a force main could be bored underneath Moses Lake to the east to connect to the Peninsula sewer basin. The City has indicated that they would prefer to connect this force main to the Peninsula sewer basin to avoid the domino effect of capacity upgrades that would result if they were to connect through the Sage Bay / Northshore sewer basin. Utilizing the above criteria and analysis, the optimal location for the South Cascade Valley basin lift station would be at the southwest corner of the crop circle as shown in Figure 5.1. FIGURE 5.1 – SOUTH CASCADE VALLEY LIFT STATION SITING 5.2. FORCE MAIN ROUTING Two primary options for routing the new force main were discussed with the City. These included either routing a subsurface line to the north and tying into the Sage Bay / Northshore sewer basin or boring underneath the lake to the east and tying into the Peninsula sewer basin. To avoid the domino effect of capacity upgrades that would be required by routing to the north, the City preferred boring to the east. To further analyze drilling underneath the lake, GeoEngineers was contracted by Keller Associates to conduct a horizontal directional drilling (HDD) analysis for up to two possible routes. See Appendix A for a full copy of this analysis. The two primary routes that were analyzed shown in Figure 5.2 were as follows: • Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1: A single HDD alignment approximately 3,550 feet in length oriented southeast-northwest (entry-exit) across Moses Lake as shown in Figure 5.3. • Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and Conceptual HDD #3: Two HDD alignments with a common entry workspace on a partially undeveloped peninsula would shorten the length of the lake crossing. Conceptual HDD #2 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 2,850 feet Proposed South Cascade Valley Lift Station Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 537 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 7 in length as shown in Figure 5.4. Conceptual HDD #3 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 1,150 feet in length as shown in Figure 5.5. The pipelines considered in this analysis ranged between 6-inch to 12-inch (nominal) diameter and consisted of either high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or fusible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) materials. FIGURE 5.2 – HDD ANALYSIS VICINITY MAP FIGURE 5.3 – HDD #1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PROFILE Route Option 1 Route Option 2 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 538 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 8 FIGURE 5.4 – HDD #2 CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PROFILE FIGURE 5.5 – HDD #3 CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PROFILE GeoEngineers concluded that surface and subsurface conditions that are known at this time present an elevated risk for inadvertent returns impacting the waters of Moses Lake if construction of Route Option 1 were attempted. GeoEngineers goes on to report that Route Option 2 provides cost effective mitigation of the risk of inadvertent returns by positioning the HDD entry and exit points farther from the water’s edge such that the HDD profiles should reach subsurface materials that are generally more resistant to inadvertent returns before the HDD profiles pass beneath the lake. Furthermore, if the City were to consider additional HDD alignments, GeoEngineers recommends that consideration be heavily weighed upon positioning HDD entry and exit points at least 100 feet from existing waterways. If and once pipeline alignment has been secured GeoEngineers recommends that subsurface explorations be completed at the site to better understand the subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. Obtaining this information and completing a comprehensive HDD design should help contractors provide more competitive bids, be more prepared for the site conditions during construction, Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 539 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 9 and will reduce the risk of a failed installation and/or change of conditions claim. See Table 5.1 for an overview of GeoEngineers’ cost analysis of the two routes. GeoEngineers’ final recommendation was that Route 2 should be the preferred alternative. TABLE 5.1 – HDD COST ANALYSIS Crossing Option Estimated duration. 6-inch to 8-inch installation Estimated Cost for 6-inch to 8-inch installation Estimated duration 10-inch to 12-inch installation Estimated Cost for 10-inch to 12-inch installation Route 1 HDD #1 33 days $1.3M 44 days $1.5M Route 2 HDD #2/HDD #3 46 days $1.5M 59 days $1.9M 6. PRELIMINARY GRAVITY SEWER MAIN LAYOUT AND SIZING 6.1. GRAVITY SEWER MAIN LAYOUT The preliminary gravity sewer main layout was split into three separate phases as discussed previously. The initial goal and priority of the preliminary layout was to service the area within city limits. There are currently 88 homes that would be serviced by phase 1 improvements. Phase 1 improvements are shown in red on Figure 6.1 and will include sewer main pipelines, a force main, and a lift station on the east side of the peninsula. Phase 2 improvements would include extending sewer mains and services beyond city limits to additional areas within the South Cascade Valley basin. The furthest main sewer line from the lift station measures about 1.5 miles and appears to be capable of gravity flow due to the natural grade of the land. These pipes are shown in green in Figure 6.1 below. Phase 3 improvements would include extending sewer mains and services to areas within the North Cascade Valley basin as well as a lift station and force main that would convey flows to the South Cascade Valley sewer basin. Generally, the North Cascade Valley basin acts very similar to the previously detailed South Cascade Valley basin. The highest elevation in the North Cascade Valley basin is in the northwest corner (~1,100 ft) and the lowest elevation falls in the southeast (~1,055). North Cascade Valley service pipes are delineated in orange in Figure 6.1. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 540 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 10 FIGURE 6.1 – PRELIMINARY SEWER LAYOUT Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 541 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 11 6.2. GRAVITY SEWER MAINLINE SIZING To adequately serve all phases and areas of Cascade Valley, sewer mains proposed for Phase 1 were sized to meet peak hour buildout conditions to serve the entire Cascade Valley (North and South basins). As displayed previously in Table 4.1, the sewer system can expect to see up to 1,700 gpm. This analysis resulted in requiring 21-inch for the primary trunkline where the future North Cascade Valley sewer basin forcemain would tie in, and 8-inch pipelines for all other gravity sewer mains within Phase 1 as shown in Figure 6.2. FIGURE 6.2 – SOUTH CASCADE VALLEY LIFT STATION SITING 7. PROBABLE COST A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for Phase 1 improvements including the addition of sewer mains and services to the existing homes within city limits of the Cascade Valley. These costs are summarized in Figure 7.1 below. The cost of these improvements including construction, contingency, taxes, engineering, environmental, federal funding related costs, and other ancillary costs is $18,898,000. The City could consider downsizing the 21-inch trunkline initially to save cost for Phase 1 provided that future improvements are made to upsize any trunklines conveying flows from the North Cascade Valley sewer basin. Additionally, there could be some cost savings by installing a smaller force main across the lake until such time that additional capacity is needed. Savings would be roughly $500,000 to $600,000. Proposed South Cascade Valley Lift Station 21” 21” 8” 8” 21” 8” 8” 8” 21” 8” 8” Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 542 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | Cascade Valley Sewer Improvements Moses Lake | KA 222036-002 12 FIGURE 7.1 – PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 8. RECOMMENDATIONS The City has the responsibility to maintain the existing sewer system while providing system improvements to accommodate future growth within a limited budget. Through the HDD analysis, Keller Associates recommends implementing Route Option 2 for routing the force main and implementing phase 1 development to service existing homes within city limits. This will address the City’s primary objective of providing sewer service to existing homes located within the city limit portion of Cascade Valley. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 543 of 774 HDD Feasibility and Routing Evaluation By GeoEngineers APPENDIX A Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 544 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 545 of 774 HDD Feasibility and Routing Evaluation Cascade Valley Force Main Project Moses Lake HDD Moses Lake, Washington for Keller Associates, Inc. April 28, 2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 546 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 547 of 774 HDD Feasibility and Routing Evaluation Cascade Valley Force Main Project Moses Lake HDD Moses Lake, Washington for Keller Associates, Inc. April 28, 2023 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 3, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 503.624.9274 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 548 of 774 HDD Feasibility and Routing Evaluation Cascade Valley Force Main Project Moses Lake HDD Moses Lake, Washington File No. 03036-012-00 April 28, 2023 Prepared for: Keller Associates, Inc. 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington 99403 Attention: Stillman Norton, PE (Project Manager) GeoEngineers, Inc. 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 3, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 503.624.9274 Jerad A. Hoffman, PE(Oregon) Project Engineer Mark A. Miller, PE Principal JAH:MAM:kjb Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 549 of 774 April 28April 28, 2023 | Page i File No. 03036-012-00 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. General ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1. Project Management .................................................................................................................................. 1 2.2. HDD Construction Feasibility ...................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 2 3.1. Surface Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1.1. Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1 ........................................................................................... 2 3.1.2. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 ........................................................................................... 2 3.1.3. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #3 ........................................................................................... 3 3.2. Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 3 3.2.1. Geological Mapping ......................................................................................................................... 3 3.2.2. Well Log Review ............................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 HDD DESIGN ELEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 4 4.1. Route Option 1 – HDD #1 Design Elements ............................................................................................. 4 4.1.1. HDD Geometry ................................................................................................................................. 4 4.1.2. Entry Point and Workspace ............................................................................................................. 4 4.1.3. HDD #1 Exit Point, Exit Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace .................. 5 4.2. Route Option 2 – HDD #2 Design Elements ............................................................................................. 5 4.2.1. HDD #2 HDD Geometry................................................................................................................... 5 4.2.2. HDD #2 Entry Point and Workspace .............................................................................................. 5 4.2.3. HDD #2 Exit Point, Exit Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace .................. 5 4.3. Route Option 2 – HDD #3 Design Elements ............................................................................................. 6 4.3.1. HDD #3 HDD Geometry................................................................................................................... 6 4.3.2. HDD #3 Entry Point, Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace ...................... 6 4.3.3. HDD #3 Exit Point and Exit Workspace .......................................................................................... 6 5.0 PIPE SPECIFICATION AND PULLBACK ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 6 6.0 HDD CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 8 6.1. General ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 6.2. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 6.3. Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders .................................................................................................................... 8 6.4. Hole Instability ............................................................................................................................................. 8 6.5. Poor Cuttings Removal ............................................................................................................................... 9 6.6. Inadvertent Returns and Formational Fluid Loss ..................................................................................... 9 6.6.1. Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1 ........................................................................................... 9 6.6.2. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and HDD #3 .................................................................. 10 7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................................... 10 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 11 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 550 of 774 April 28April 28, 2023 | Page ii File No. 03036-012-00 9.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 11 10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Geology and Well Log Location Map Figure 3. Conceptual Plan and Profile – Conceptual HDD #1 Figure 4. Conceptual Plan and Profile – Conceptual HDD #2 Figure 5. Conceptual Plan and Profile – Conceptual HDD #3 APPENDICES Appendix A. Well Logs Appendix B. HDD Best Practices Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 551 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page ES-1 File No. 25678-001-00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of GeoEngineers, Inc.’s (GeoEngineers’) horizontal directional drill (HDD) feasibility evaluation for the proposed sanitary sewer force main crossing beneath Moses Lake in the city of Moses Lake Washington. The location of the site is shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We developed conceptual HDD crossings for two routing options to install the proposed Cascade Valley Force Main across Moses Lake. The two routing options are summarized as: ■ Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1: A single HDD alignment approximately 3,550 feet in length oriented southeast-northwest (entry to exit) across Moses Lake as shown in Figure 3. ■ Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and Conceptual HDD #3: Two HDD alignments with a common entry workspace on a partially undeveloped peninsula would shorten the length of the lake crossing. Conceptual HDD #2 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 2,850 feet in length as shown in Figure 4. Conceptual HDD #3 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 1,150 feet in length as shown in Figure 5. We currently understand that pipe size and specifications have not been determined for the Cascade Valley Force Main project. Based on our conversations with the project team, we considered the feasibility of installing pipelines ranging between 6-inch and 12-inch (nominal) diameter and consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or fusible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) materials. Section 5.0 of this report provides minimum pipe wall thickness recommendations for each crossing and the range of diameters considered. Based on our review of the published geology and well log records from the area, the subsurface conditions along the proposed HDD alignments may consist of about 40 feet to 60 feet of gravelly soils we anticipate may require mitigation for formational drilling fluid loss, inadvertent returns, and/or drill hole stability. We anticipate these risks could be successfully mitigated through design and construction practices. Site specific geotechnical borings would be needed to conduct sieve analyses and more accurately quantify the risks associated with the gravels. The majority of the conceptual HDD profiles were designed at elevations where stiff cohesive soils or basalt bedrock was noted in the well logs and geologic mapping. We anticipate the stiff cohesive soils and basalt bedrock would provide a low risk of formational drilling fluid loss, inadvertent returns, and/or drill hole stability, and that steel casing could be used to mitigate referenced hazards in the gravelly soils during construction if necessary. Because the Conceptual HDD #1 entry point is located within 60 feet of Moses Lake, it is our opinion that the surface conditions and anticipated subsurface conditions present a high risk for inadvertent drilling fluid returns impacting the waters of Moses Lake if construction of Conceptual HDD #1 where attempted. It is further our opinion that Route Option 2 (Conceptual HDDs #2 and HDD #3) provides a cost-effective mitigation of the risk of inadvertent drilling fluid returns by positioning the HDD entry and exit points farther from the water’s edge such that the HDD profiles should reach subsurface materials that are generally resistant to inadvertent returns before the HDD profiles pass beneath the lake. Should the project team consider additional HDD alignments, we recommend that consideration be heavily weighted to positioning HDD entry and exit points at least 100 feet from existing waterways. The Executive Summary should be used only in context of the full report for which it is intended. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 552 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 1 File No. 03036-012-00 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. General GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) has developed this report at the request of Keller Associates and in general accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services dated December 20, 2022, with Keller Associates. This report summarizes our Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) feasibility evaluation of a proposed sanitary sewer force main crossing beneath Moses Lake in the city of Moses Lake Washington. The location of the project is shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The general layout of the site is shown in the Geology and Well Log Location Map (Figure 2). We developed HDD crossings for two conceptual routing options to install the proposed Cascade Valley Force Main across Moses Lake. The two routing options are summarized as: ■ Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1: A single HDD alignment approximately 3,550 feet in length oriented southeast-northwest (entry to exit) across Moses Lake as shown in Figure 3. The conceptual HDD would begin in a vacant residential lot near the intersection of W Marina Drive and S Gibby Road and end in an undeveloped lot north of road H 4 NE. ■ Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and Conceptual HDD #3: This routing option would utilize an existing partially undeveloped peninsula extending southwestward into the lake along W Marina Drive to construct a less direct route with two shorter HDD installations. Conceptual HDD #2 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 2,850 feet in length oriented southeast-northwest (entry to exit) across Moses Lake from the peninsula to the undeveloped lot referenced for Route Option 1 and as shown in Figure 4. Conceptual HDD #3 would consist of an HDD alignment approximately 1,150 feet in length and oriented north-south (entry to exit) from the peninsula to W Marina Drive as shown in Figure 5. We currently understand that the pipe diameter and specifications have not been determined for the Cascade Valley Force Main project. Based on our conversation with the project team, we considered the feasibility of installing pipelines ranging between 6-inch and 12-inch (nominal) diameter and consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or fusible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) materials. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The following scope of work was undertaken by GeoEngineers for the proposed Moses Lake HDD. 2.1. Project Management 1. Provided general project management throughout the feasibility study, including internal coordination and project invoicing. 2. Phone and email correspondence with the project team to discuss findings during the feasibility study. 2.2. HDD Construction Feasibility 1. Prepared conceptual plan and profile HDD drawings for three (3) proposed Moses Lake crossings. The conceptual HDD drawings include ground surface profiles based on publicly available topographic data, anticipated geologic conditions, conceptual HDD geometry, and proposed workspaces for construction. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 553 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 2 File No. 03036-012-00 2. Reviewed project information provided by the project team, completed a desktop study for available geological and geotechnical data for the project area relevant to HDD construction, and reviewed other publicly available information that may benefit and/or impact the project. 3. Prepared and submitted a draft HDD feasibility and construction risk assessment report summarizing the results of our desktop study and engineering review and our conclusions and recommendations for installing the new force main by HDD construction, including a vicinity and geology map. 4. Prepared and submitted this final HDD feasibility and construction risk assessment report incorporating comments provided by the project team. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1. Surface Conditions Our understanding of site surface conditions is based on our review of available aerial imagery on Google Earth software. 3.1.1. Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1 The Conceptual HDD #1 alignment is oriented southeast to northwest (entry to exit) crossing beneath Moses Lake as shown in the Geology and Well Log Map (Figure 2) and the Conceptual HDD #1 Plan and Profile (Figure 3). The alignment generally consists of a short on-land section near entry, an approximately 3,200-foot-long water crossing beneath Moses Lake, and finally an approximately 250-foot-long section on land approaching the exit point. The conceptual entry point is located in a vacant lot at 1600 W Marina Drive at an approximate elevation of 1,055 feet North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88). The conceptual entry point is located approximately 60 feet from the edge of Moses Lake and 85 feet from the shoulder of W Marina Drive. The ground surface in the lot slopes downward from W Marina Drive to Moses Lake at an approximate 15 percent slope. The conceptual exit point is situated on gently sloping undeveloped land adjacent to an agricultural field. Slope gradients around the conceptual exit point range between approximately 2 percent and 5 percent. The conceptual exit point is situated at approximate elevation 1,050 NAVD 88. As shown on Figure 3B the carrier pipe stringing and fabrication workspace extends approximately 2,800 feet northwest across a relatively flat agricultural field. 3.1.2. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 The Conceptual HDD #2 alignment is oriented southeast to northwest (entry to exit) crossing beneath Moses Lake as shown in the Geology and Well Log Map (Figure 2) and the Conceptual HDD #2 Plan and Profile (Figure 4). The alignment generally consists of a 470-foot-long on-land section near entry, an approximately 2,030-foot-long water crossing beneath Moses Lake, and finally an approximately 350-foot- long section on land approaching the exit point. The Conceptual HDD #2 entry point is situated on a relatively flat peninsula located about 1,400 feet north by northeast from the HDD #1 entry point, as shown in Figure 2 at an elevation of approximately 1,047 feet Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 554 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 3 File No. 03036-012-00 NAVD 88. Surface conditions around the entry workspace are characterized by grass and other low-growing vegetation/shrubs. The nearest paved street is located approximately 600 feet northeast of the conceptual entry point. The Conceptual HDD #2 exit point is situated at approximate elevation 1,050 feet NAVD 88. Surface conditions around the Conceptual HDD #2 exit point and along the pipe stringing and fabrication workspace are like those described above for Conceptual HDD #1. However, the orientation of the alignment results in a pipe stinging and fabrication workspace approximately 2,445 feet in length for HDD #2. 3.1.3. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #3 The Conceptual HDD #3 alignment is generally oriented north to south (entry to exit) crossing beneath a small embayment of Moses Lake as shown in the Geology and Well Log Map (Figure 2) and the Conceptual HDD #3 Plan and Profile (Figure 5). The alignment generally consists of a 360-foot-long on-land section near entry, an approximately 490-foot-long water crossing beneath Moses Lake, and finally an approximately 300-foot-long section on land approaching the exit point. The Conceptual HDD #3 entry point is located about 100 feet east of the Conceptual HDD #2 entry point at an approximate elevation of 1,400 feet NAVD 88. As such, surface conditions are like those described for the HDD #2 entry point. The Conceptual HDD #3 exit point is located in the southbound lane of W Marina Drive at an elevation of approximately 1,062 feet NAVD 88. Surface conditions within the exit workspace are characterized by the relatively flat paved surfaces of the street and surrounding residential housing. The Conceptual HDD #3 pipe stringing and fabrication workspace was situated on relatively flat undeveloped land extending approximately 1,095 feet north of the entry workspace to reduce traffic impacts during construction. 3.2. Subsurface Conditions 3.2.1. Geological Mapping Geologic mapping we reviewed (Grolier and Bingham 1971) indicates that both routing options are underlain by Pleistocene-aged fluvial gravel. The fluvial gravel is described by the authors as ranging from boulder gravel to fine sand consisting of rounded basalt fragments. A geologic cross section included in the mapping crosses near the conceptual alignments on the northwest side of Moses Lake. This cross section suggests that the fluvial gravels are approximately 60 feet in thickness near the Conceptual HDD #1 and Conceptual HDD #2 exit points. The geologic cross section indicates the fluvial gravel is underlain by approximately 60 feet of early Pleistocene-aged lacustrine clay, silt and fine sand associated with the Ringold Formation. The cross section further indicates the Ringold Formation is underlain by Miocene- to Pliocene-aged basalts of the Columbia River Group. The basalt of the Columbia River Group potentially includes several different members at the site. However, all are typically described as flood basalts which can be expected to be massive or columnar in structure. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 555 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 4 File No. 03036-012-00 3.2.2. Well Log Review We researched well logs obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 2023) and chose select well logs to review along or near the conceptual pipeline alignments. The locations of the well logs (with well-specific identifiers) we reviewed are shown in Figure 2. Copies of the well logs are included in Appendix A. Our review of the selected well logs suggests the subsurface conditions along the conceptual pipeline routes typically consist gravel overlying clay and then basalt bedrock. More specifically, gravel thickness reported in well logs near the northwest end of the conceptual alignments ranged between approximately 40 feet and 55 feet, whereas gravels reported in well logs near the southwest end of the conceptual alignments was approximately 25 feet. The thickness of cohesive (clay) soils encountered in the well logs were similarly thicker to the northwest of the alignments and thinner at the southwest, ranging between about 50 feet and 10 feet in thickness, respectively. Depth to basalt bedrock ranged between approximately 50 feet to 100 feet at the northwest end of the alignments and about 40 feet to 45 feet at the southwest end. In general, the data presented in the twelve well logs were consistent with the geologic mapping we reviewed. For discussion purposes, we have included estimated geologic cross sections on the profile views of the Conceptual HDD Figures 3 through 5. However, the subsurface data presented in these profiles should not be interpreted as a substitute for a site-specific geotechnical exploration program. 4.0 HDD DESIGN ELEMENTS The following sections discuss the design elements and considerations for the three conceptual HDD installations. The conceptual HDD geometry is presented in Figure 3 through Figure 5. 4.1. Route Option 1 – HDD #1 Design Elements 4.1.1. HDD Geometry The Conceptual HDD #1 is 3,550 feet long as measured along the HDD centerline, with a pipe length of approximately 3,572 feet as measured along the drill profile. The design radius of curvature for the entry and exit vertical curves is 1,000 feet. The design entry and exit angles are 16 degrees and 12 degrees, respectively. The relatively steep entry angle was selected to provide an effective entry angle of approximately 8 to 10 degrees relative to the sloped ground surface within the entry workspace. 4.1.2. Entry Point and Workspace The proposed entry point is situated on the southeast side of the crossing approximately 60 feet from the waters of Moses Lake. Because we anticipate the risk of inadvertent returns will be very high within at least 100 feet of the HDD entry and exit points, we designated the southeast side of the crossing as the entry point such that steel casing could be installed to reduce the risk of the inadvertent returns impacting the lake near the entry point. The conceptual entry point is located approximately 85 feet from the edge of W Marina Drive to allow minimum length to position the drill rig at entry. The temporary entry workspace measures 230-feet-long by 120-feet-wide and occupies three vacant lots. Because the workspace slopes relatively steeply towards the lake, we anticipate that considerable grading Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 556 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 5 File No. 03036-012-00 would be required to level the drill rig, drilling fluid recycling system, and otherwise create stable working areas for crews and ancillary equipment. 4.1.3. HDD #1 Exit Point, Exit Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace The conceptual exit point is located approximately 250 feet from the waters of Moses Lake within undeveloped land adjacent to an agricultural field. The exit workspace measures 250-feet-long by 150-feet-wide. The conceptual exit point is located 100 feet from the edge of the workspace, such that the workspace encompasses portions of the alignment where we expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be high. We anticipate that little clearing and grading will be required to prepare the workspace prior to mobilization of equipment to the site. The 60-foot-wide product pipe stringing and fabrication workspace extends approximately 2,800 feet across an open agricultural field. As such, we anticipate that two carrier pipe pull sections would need to be fabricated prior to pullback, resulting in one tie-in fusion weld during pullback. 4.2. Route Option 2 – HDD #2 Design Elements 4.2.1. HDD #2 HDD Geometry The Conceptual HDD #2 is 2,850 feet long as measured along the HDD centerline, with a pipe length of approximately 2,865 feet as measured along the drill profile. The design radius of curvature for the entry and exit vertical curves is 1,000 feet and the design entry and exit angles are both 12 degrees. 4.2.2. HDD #2 Entry Point and Workspace The proposed entry point is situated on the southeast side of the crossing approximately 470 feet from the waters of Moses Lake. We selected the southeast side of the crossing for entry because more space for pipe stringing and fabrication is present on the northwest side of the crossing. The temporary entry workspace measures 200-feet-long by 150-feet-wide. The entry point is positioned 75 feet from the edge of the workspace, such that the workspace encompasses areas where we expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be very high. The workspace could be extended during detailed design if the hydraulic fracture and inadvertent returns analysis indicates a significant risk of inadvertent returns farther from the entry point. 4.2.3. HDD #2 Exit Point, Exit Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace The conceptual exit point is located approximately 350 feet from the waters of Moses Lake within undeveloped land adjacent to an agricultural field. The exit workspace measures 250-feet-long by 150-feet-wide. The conceptual exit point is located 100 feet from the edge of the workspace, such that the workspace encompasses portions of the alignment where we expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be high. We anticipate that little clearing and grading will be required to prepare the workspace prior to mobilization of equipment to the site. The 60-foot-wide product pipe stringing and fabrication workspace extends 2,445 feet across an open agricultural field. As such, we anticipate that two carrier pipe pull sections will need to be fabricated prior to pullback, resulting in one tie-in fusion weld during pullback. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 557 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 6 File No. 03036-012-00 4.3. Route Option 2 – HDD #3 Design Elements 4.3.1. HDD #3 HDD Geometry The Conceptual HDD #3 is 1,150 feet long as measured along the HDD centerline, with a pipe length of approximately 1,162 feet as measured along the drill profile. The design radius of curvature for the entry and exit vertical curves is 800 feet and the design entry and exit angles are both 12 degrees. A 15-degree horizontal curve with an 800-foot design radius of curvature is located in the bottom tangent of the HDD profile to align the HDD exit tangent with W Marina Drive. 4.3.2. HDD #3 Entry Point, Workspace and Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace The proposed entry point is situated on the north side of the crossing approximately 360 feet from the waters of Moses Lake. We selected the north side of the crossing for entry such that the entry point will be 15 feet lower in elevation than exit, thereby promoting drilling fluid returns to the low elevation side of the crossing, reducing downhole annular pressures, and lowering the risk of inadvertent returns. The north side of the crossing also provides more available workspace for drilling activities than the south side. The temporary entry workspace measures 200-feet-long by 150-feet-wide. The entry point is positioned 75 feet from the edge of the workspace, such that the workspace encompasses areas where we expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be very high. The workspace could be extended in design if the hydraulic fracture and inadvertent returns analysis indicates a significant risk of inadvertent returns farther from the entry point. The 60-foot-wide product pipe stringing and fabrication workspace extends 1,175 feet across undeveloped land northward from the entry workspace. As such, we anticipate that a single carrier pipe pull section could be fabricated prior to pullback. The pipe stringing and fabrication workspace was located on the entry side of the crossing to lessen traffic impacts during construction. However, the HDD contractor would need to move the drill rig to the exit workspace on W Marina Drive to complete pullback. 4.3.3. HDD #3 Exit Point and Exit Workspace The conceptual exit point is located approximately 300 feet from the waters of Moses Lake in the southbound lane of W Marina Drive. The exit workspace is intended to occupy one-half of W Marina Drive and measures 200 feet in length. The conceptual exit point is located 100 feet from the edge of the workspace, such that the workspace encompasses portions of the alignment where we expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be high. We anticipate that traffic control and flaggers would be required during work hours to support a lane closure, and that two lanes of traffic could likely be restored in the evenings. 5.0 PIPE SPECIFICATION AND PULLBACK ANALYSIS Based on the anticipated subsurface conditions, our analysis assumes the proposed HDD profiles will be drilled primarily in competent basalt bedrock under the water portion of the crossings. We anticipate that the installed pipeline(s) will be filled with liquid for the duration of the force main’s service life. Therefore, hydrostatic pressures should be approximately equal inside and outside of the pipe, resulting in conditions that will likely prevent long-term ovality or collapse of the HDPE or PVC pipelines. Therefore, it is our opinion that pullback forces will likely control the wall thickness of a HDPE or PVC pipeline installed by HDD methods. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 558 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 7 File No. 03036-012-00 We estimated the installation loads based on the conceptual HDD geometry and the methods developed by the Pipeline Research Committee International (PRCI) of the American Gas Association (PRCI 2015). We completed multiple analyses for each crossing based on 6-inch to 12-inch HDPE and fusible PVC pipe in a range of available wall thicknesses. Depending on the diameter and material specification of the pipeline selected, our analyses indicate that required pullback forces could range between approximately 15,000 pounds (for the shorter HDD #3) to approximately 75,000 pounds (for the longer HDD #1). These anticipated pull forces are considerably less than the rated pull force of HDD drill rigs we anticipate a contractor would propose to complete these crossings. We compared our estimated pull forces to safe pull forces for each crossing based on 6-inch to 12-inch HDPE and fusible PVC pipe in a range of available wall thicknesses based upon different drilling fluid weights in the hole during pullback. Our analyses assumed that the pipelines are filled with water during pullback to control buoyancy, which is a common practice for HDPE and PVC pipeline installations. Table 1 (HDPE) and Table 2 (PVC) below present our preliminary estimate of the minimum pipe specification required for each crossing. TABLE 1. PRELIMINARY MINIMUM RECOMMENDED HDPE PIPE SPECIFICATIONS Crossing Minimum Estimated 4710 HDPE Pipe Specification 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch HDD-1 N/A N/A 10.75” O.D. X 1.536” w.t. DR 7.0 IPS* 12.75” O.D. X 1.821” w.t. DR 7.0 IPS* HDD-2 N/A 8.625” O.D. X 1.232” w.t. DR 7.0 IPS* 10.75” O.D. X 1.536” w.t. DR 7.0 IPS 12.75” O.D. X 1.417” w.t. DR 9.0 IPS HDD-3 6.625” O.D.a X 0.946” w.t.b DR c 7.0 IPS d 8.625” O.D. X 0.639” w.t. DR 13.5 IPS 10.75” O.D. X 0.632” w.t. DR 17 IPS 12.75” O.D. X 0.750” w.t. DR 17.0 IPS TABLE 2. PRELIMINARY MINIMUM RECOMMENDED PVC PIPE SPECIFICATIONS Crossing Minimum Estimated Fusible PVC Pipe Specification 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch HDD-1 N/A 8.625” O.D. X 0.51” w.t. DR 17 IPS* 10.75” O.D. X 0.63” w.t. DR 17 IPS 12.75” O.D. X 0.75” w.t. DR 17 IPS HDD-2 6.625” O.D X 0.39” w.t. DR 17 IPS * 8.625” O.D. X 0.51” w.t. DR 17 IPS 10.75” O.D. X 0.63” w.t. DR 17 IPS 12.75” O.D. X 0.61” w.t. DR 21 IPS HDD-3 6.625” O.D X 0.26” w.t. DR 26 IPS 8.625” O.D. X 0.33” w.t. DR 26 IPS 10.75” O.D. X 0.41” w.t. DR 26 IPS 12.75” O.D. X 0.49” w.t. DR 26 IPS Notes: * Pullback force may exceed strength of pipe depending on weight of drilling fluid in hole during pullback. a O.D. – outside diameter b w.t. – wall thickness c DR – Dimension Ratio d IPS – Iron Pipe Size Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 559 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 8 File No. 03036-012-00 6.0 HDD CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1. General The HDD contractor’s means and methods during construction are critical to the successful completion of an HDD. The contractor should follow HDD best practices during construction, including those recommended by GeoEngineers in Appendix B. The HDD best practices in Appendix B are not site-specific best practices, rather they are applicable to HDD construction in general. The following sections summarize site-specific conditions to be considered during construction. Because site specific conditions are similar for each of the three HDD options, considerations generally apply to each of the conceptual HDD installations, except as noted. 6.2. Utilities A site-specific survey identifying existing utilities has not been conducted along the conceptual alignments. If the HDD method of construction is selected, we recommend the project team complete a site-specific survey that includes the location and depth of all existing utilities prior to final HDD design. 6.3. Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders Based on our review of geologic mapping and well logs, the conceptual HDD profiles would encounter gravels within 40 feet to 60 feet of the ground surface. Geologic mapping specifically discusses the potential for cobbles and boulders in this geologic unit as well. There are several risks associated with gravels, cobbles and boulders, including hole instability and subsequent ground subsidence, ineffective cuttings removal, formational fluid loss and subsequent inadvertent returns, and pilot hole steering difficulties. Hole instability and/or ineffective cuttings removal could result in damage to the pull section or failure of the HDD installation entirely. Hole instability could also result in ground surface subsidence that could potentially damage developed areas of the roadways or the adjacent residential development. We designed the conceptual entry and exit tangents to extend through the gravel layers so that temporary casing (one form of mitigation discussed below) could be installed if needed to stabilize the hole during construction. 6.4. Hole Instability Hole instability is the primary risk commonly associated with gravelly soils, and soils that contain cobbles and boulders. Hole instability primarily occurs from the inability of the drilling fluid to stabilize the drilled/reamed hole but may also occur by tooling striking larger clasts and loosening them from the formation matrix, which in turn allows them to fall into the hole. Hole instability can result in damage to the carrier pipe pull section, failure of the HDD installation, or subsidence of the ground surface and/or existing utilities. It is our opinion that there is at least a moderate unmitigated risk of hole collapse resulting in damage to or failure of a carrier pipe HDD installation. This risk could be more accurately quantified by conducting site-specific geotechnical borings and laboratory testing to classify gravels documented in the well logs and geologic mapping. Mitigation for the risk of hole instability could include the installation of a steel casing that extends through the gravels if hole instability is encountered during construction. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 560 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 9 File No. 03036-012-00 6.5. Poor Cuttings Removal Cuttings removal in gravelly soils with cobbles and boulders is typically more challenging than other subsurface materials such as sand and silt because the relatively heavy gravel or larger sized cuttings fall out of suspension and accumulate in the hole. If cuttings are not effectively removed from the hole during HDD operations, the hole can become blocked and downhole annular drilling fluid pressures will increase thereby increasing the risk of inadvertent returns. If cuttings removal is insufficient, pullback forces could also be excessively high during pullback of the carrier pipe pull section and the pull section could become lodged in the hole or damaged. We consider ineffective cuttings removal to also present a moderate unmitigated and low mitigated risk to the successful installation of the carrier pipe pull section. Cuttings removal difficulties can typically be mitigated to an extent through a well designed and implemented drilling fluid program conducted by a qualified drilling fluid engineer as well as appropriate tooling selection by the HDD contractor. In gravelly soils, steel casing may be installed along the HDD profile to mitigate this risk as discussed in the previous section. 6.6. Inadvertent Returns and Formational Fluid Loss Inadvertent returns of drilling fluid (typically called inadvertent returns or a “frac-out”) can occur through two processes: hydraulic fracture of soils surrounding the bore hole or by formational fluid loss. Hydraulic fracture typically occurs when the drill path passes through relatively weak cohesive soils or loose granular soils with low shear strength. Very loose to loose sands and silty sands, and soft to medium stiff silts and clays typically have a high hydraulic fracture potential. Medium dense to very dense sands and gravels, and very stiff to hard silts and clays typically have a low to moderate hydraulic fracture potential. Formational fluid loss occurs when drilling fluid flows into preexisting fractures, voids and/or pore spaces in the surrounding soil or rock. Sand and gravel soil layers and highly fractured rock are typically more susceptible to formational fluid loss than cohesive soils like clay and silt. Formational fluid loss is a common occurrence when drilling through gravelly soils, particularly if the gravels are uncemented or do not contain a significant silt or clay matrix. Formational fluid loss can lead to inadvertent returns that can adversely affect the ground surface, water bodies, structures or utilities along or near an HDD alignment. Based on our experience observing HDD operations in Quaternary-aged and Pleistocene-aged gravels, formational fluid loss in gravels is common. Formational fluid loss can typically be mitigated to an extent through a well designed and implemented drilling fluid program conducted by a qualified drilling fluid engineer. However, drilling fluid admixtures are limited in their ability to slow formational fluid loss. In gravelly soils, steel casing may be installed along the HDD profile to mitigate this risk as discussed in the previous sections. Predicting the extent to which formational fluid loss may occur is difficult prior to construction, particularly when gravelly soils are present. 6.6.1. Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1 Space limitations on the entry side of the Conceptual HDD #1 require the entry point to be positioned within 60 feet from the water’s edge of Moses Lake. While steel casing could be installed to mitigate the risk of inadvertent drilling fluid returns impacting the lake, casing installation methods in gravelly subsurface conditions often require drilling fluid to be pumped downhole. As such, we consider there to be a very high Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 561 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 10 File No. 03036-012-00 risk of an inadvertent returns impacting the lake during casing installation. If a casing were successfully installed, we still consider there to be a moderate risk of inadvertent returns occurring at the end of the casing if the casing is not keyed and seated into competent subsurface materials. 6.6.2. Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and HDD #3 To mitigate the risk of inadvertent returns impacting the waters of Moses Lake, we designed Conceptual HDD #2 and HDD #3 to set back the HDD entry and exit points several hundred feet from the lake. Consequently, we anticipate the HDD #2 and HDD #3 profiles can be drilled to depths where stiff clay or basalt bedrock are encountered and we would expect the risk of inadvertent returns to be low prior to the HDD reaching the waterway. Additionally, the overall length of the HDD alignments beneath the waters of Moses Lake can be reduced by approximately 680 feet by completing Route Option 2 versus Route Option 1. 7.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE We requested that Brotherton Pipeline, Inc. (BPL) of Gold Hill, Oregon advise the project team on preliminary construction costs for the two HDD installation route options as presented in Figures 3 through Figure 5. Brotherton advised us that the close proximity of the entry point to Moses Lake and the high risk of inadvertent returns associated with Route Option 1 – HDD #1 would likely preclude Brotherton from agreeing to complete the crossing; however, Brotherton agreed to provide a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for discussion purposes. Below, Table 3 presents rough order of magnitude estimates for the Route Option 1 (HDD #1) and Route Option 2 (HDD #2 and HDD #3) crossing options. Please note that carrier pipe installations larger than 8-inches will require an additional reaming pass to enlarge the diameter of the drill hole. TABLE 3. ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HDD ESTIMATES Crossing Option Estimated duration 6-inch to 8-inch installation 1 Estimated Cost for 6-inch to 8-inch installation 1 Estimated duration 10-inch to 12-inch installation 1 Estimated Cost for 10-inch to 12-inch installation 1 Route Option 1 HDD #12 33 days $1.3M 44 days $1.5M Route Option 2 HDD #2/HDD #3 46 days $1.5M 59 days $1.9M Note: 1 Contractor estimate does not include workspace preparation, pipe fabrication, or pipe handling during pullback. Other limitations apply. 2 Contractor advised risk of inadvertent returns would preclude Brotherton from contracting the Route Option 1 – HDD #1 crossing. As shown in Table 3, the higher-risk Route Option 1 is estimated to cost between $200k and $400k less (depending on the diameter of the carrier pipe installed). However, this estimate does not include grading and site prep that would be required to provide a level workspace for the drill rig and does not consider the negative impacts to schedule and budget that would be caused if inadvertent returns impacted the waters of Moses Lake. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 562 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 11 File No. 03036-012-00 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our evaluation presented in this report, it is our opinion that surface and subsurface conditions that are known at this time present a high risk for inadvertent returns impacting the waters of Moses Lake if construction of Route Option 1 – Conceptual HDD #1 where attempted. It is further our opinion that Route Option 2 – Conceptual HDD #2 and HDD #3 provides cost effective mitigation of the risk of inadvertent returns by positioning the HDD entry and exit points farther from the water’s edge such that the HDD profiles should reach subsurface materials that are generally more resistant to inadvertent returns before the HDD profiles pass beneath the lake. Should the project team consider additional HDD alignments, we recommend that consideration be heavily weighted to positioning HDD entry and exit points at least 100 feet from existing waterways. We recommend that subsurface explorations be completed at the site to better understand the subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions after an acceptable pipeline alignment has been secured. Obtaining this information and completing a comprehensive HDD design should help contractors provide more competitive bids, be more prepared for the site conditions during construction, and will reduce the risk of a failed installation and/or change of conditions claim. 9.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Keller Associates and their authorized agents and other approved members of the design team involved with this project. The report is not intended for use by others and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. To increase the likelihood of a successful installation, the conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the HDD contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in detailed design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment, and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express, written, or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix C, titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use,” for additional information pertaining to use of this report. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 563 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page 12 File No. 03036-012-00 10.0 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM). 2020. Standard Guide for Use of Maxi-Horizontal Directional Drilling for Placement of Polyethylene Pipe or Conduit Under Obstacles, Including River Crossings. Designation: F1962 – 20. Bourgoyne, A.T., et al. 1991. “Applied Drilling Engineering,” Society of Petroleum Engineers. Grolier, M.J. and Bingham, J.W., 1971, Geologic map and sections of parts of Grant, Adams, and Franklin Counties, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-589, 1:62,500 Handbook of PVC Pipe: Design and Construction, Fifth Edition, Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association, Dallas, Texas, December 2012. North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) “Horizontal Directional Drilling Good Practices Guidelines, 4th Edition,” 2017. Pipeline Research Committee International (PRCI) of the American Gas Association “Installation of Pipelines by Horizontal Directional Drilling, An Engineering Design Guide.” September 23, 2015. Staheli, K., R.D. Bennett, H.W. O’Donnell, and T.J. Hurley. 1998. Installation of Pipelines beneath levees using horizontal directional drilling,” Technical Report CPAR-GL-98-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Staheli K., C. Price and L. Wetter. 2010. “Effectiveness of Hydrofracture Prediction for HDD Design” Proceedings of 2010 No-Dig Conference, Chicago, Illinois, May 2-7, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2023. Well Construction and Licensing Search Web Map. State of Washington, https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap /WellConstructionMapSearch.aspx Accessed February 10, 2023. Xia, Hongwei. 2009. Investigation of maximum mud pressure within sand and clay during horizontal directional drilling. Ph.D. Dissertation. Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada. January 2009. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 564 of 774 FIGURES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 565 of 774 Wild Goose Ln NE Sco tt Rd NECASCADE VALLEY El ginRd NEValley Rd NE90 W Loop D r NC r e s t v ie w Dr N D a le RdN PaxsonDrW V a l l e y Rd N Stratford Rd 171 Cascade Park MOSES LAKE SDivision StW Peninsula DrW Lakeside Dr W 3rd AveS EastlakeDrWCascade AveS BeaumontDrS A S t W MarinaDr90 90 Japanese Peace Garden HD D 1 HD D 2 HDD 3Cascade Valley Force Main Routing and HDD Vicinity Map Figure 1 City of Moses LakeCascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Moses Lake, Washington Moses Lake 26 0 2,000 Feet P:\3\3036012\GIS\3036012_Project\3036012_Project.aprx\303601200_F01_VicinityMap Date Exported: 02/15/23 by ccabreraSource(s): • ESRI Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figurefor any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers.The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty orrepresentation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data containedtherein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which isretained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 566 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 567 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 568 of 774 ConceptualHDD Exit Point N. 655452.05059 E. 1936286.07900Lat. N47.12458383Long. W119.31142001 ConceptualHDD Entry Point N. 652582.38676 E. 1938375.94252Lat. N47.11663008Long. W119.30320070 85' 250'100'150' 120' 230' 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 -3+000+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+0021+0024+0027+0030+0033+0036+0039+00 12°16° 82' 300 Cascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #1Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Plan and Profile Figure 3A Profile Plan:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 3A.dwg\TAB:Figure 3A modified on Feb 01, 2023 - 2:35pm BLANEBTLJAHNHorizontal Feet 0 50 Vertical Feet 0 Vertical Exaggeration = X6 Note(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities.2. Subsurface conditions shown in the profile view are based on GeoEngineers' interpretation of Ecology well logs near the conceptual alignment and shouldbe considered a preliminary estimate. Please refer to the HDD feasibility evaluation associated with this figure for more detailed information and limitations.Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. ·Ground surface DEM downloaded from http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/. ·Moses Lake Bathymetry digitized from an existing historic map dated 1962 by Sylvester and Oglesby report using ArcGIS.(https://www.mlird.org/lake/FINAL_031622_ML_2020_TP_Model_memo.pdf) Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment - 3,550' Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Profile Conceptual HDD Exit Point Conceptual HDD Entry Point 1,000 FT R.1,000 FT R. Ground Surface (1/3 Arc Second Dem) Approximate Mudline Conceptual HDD #2 Conceptual HDD #3 Moses Lake W M a r i n a D r i v eS Gibby RoadS Vine StreetW B e m i s S t r e e t Parcel Tracts (Typ) Conceptual HDDExit Workspace Conceptual HDDEntry WorkspaceMatch Line (See Figure 3B)Conceptual Temporary Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace (See Figure 3B For Layout Details) H 4 N E PVC1 PVT1PVC2 PVT2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS LEGEND: Soil Unit Contact Gravels Basalt Sand, Silt and residual soils Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 569 of 774 ConceptualHDD Exit Point N. 655452.05059E. 1936286.07900Lat. N47.12458383 Long. W119.31142001 250'100'150' Figure 3B:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 3A.dwg\TAB:Figure 3B modified on Jan 31, 2023 - 12:49pm BLANEBTLJAH300N Feet 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Cascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #1Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Stringing Workspace Conceptual 8" HorizontalDirectional Drill Alignment - 3,550' Conceptual HDD #2 Moses Lake Parcel Tracts (Typ) Note(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities. Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at theuser's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warrantyor representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is acopy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Conceptual HDD Stringing Alignment - 2,900' (Dimensioned from Exit Point) Conceptual Temporary PipeStringing and Fabrication Workspace(60' x 2,810') Conceptual HDDExit Workspace Match Line (See Figure 3A)H 4 N E 2.4 Road NEKes t r a l R o a d N E3.2 Road NERo a d H N E Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 570 of 774 250' 100'150' 200' 150' 75' ConceptualHDD Entry Point N. 654000.19243E. 1938667.12855Lat. N47.12050483 Long. W119.30194480 ConceptualHDD Exit PointN. 655377.15295 E. 1936171.83704 Lat. N47.12438322Long. W119.31188341 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 -6+00-3+000+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+0021+0024+0027+0030+0033+0036+00 12°12° 62' 300 Cascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #2Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Plan and Profile Figure 4A Plan:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 4A.dwg\TAB:Figure 4A modified on Feb 01, 2023 - 1:55pm BLANEBTLJAHN Horizontal Feet 0 50 Vertical Feet 0 Vertical Exaggeration = X6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment - 2,850' Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Profile Conceptual HDD Exit Point Conceptual HDD Entry Point 1,000 FT R.1,000 FT R. Ground Surface (1/3 Arc Second Dem) Approximate Mudline Conceptual HDD #1 Conceptual HDD #3Moses Lake W Marina DriveProfile PVC1 PVT1PVC2 PVT2H 4 N E Conceptual HDDExit Workspace Conceptual HDDEntry Workspace Parcel Tracts(Typ)Match Line (See Figure 4B)Conceptual Temporary Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace (See Figure 4B For Layout Details) Note(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities.2. Subsurface conditions shown in the profile view are based on GeoEngineers' interpretation of Ecology well logs near the conceptual alignment and shouldbe considered a preliminary estimate. Please refer to the HDD feasibility evaluation associated with this figure for more detailed information and limitations.Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. ·Ground surface DEM downloaded from http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/. ·Moses Lake Bathymetry digitized from an existing historic map dated 1962 by Sylvester and Oglesby report using ArcGIS.(https://www.mlird.org/lake/FINAL_031622_ML_2020_TP_Model_memo.pdf) Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS LEGEND: Soil Unit Contact Gravels Basalt Sand, Silt and residual soils Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 571 of 774 250' 100'150' ConceptualHDD Exit Point N. 655377.15295 E. 1936171.83704Lat. N47.12438322Long. W119.31188341 Figure 4B:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 4A.dwg\TAB:Figure 4B modified on Jan 31, 2023 - 12:46pm BLANEBTLJAH300 N Feet 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Cascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #2Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Stringing WorkspaceNote(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities. Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at theuser's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warrantyor representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is acopy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Parcel Tracts (Typ) Conceptual HDD Stringing Alignment - 2,570' (Dimensioned from Exit Point) Conceptual Temporary PipeStringing and Fabrication Workspace(60' x 2,445') Conceptual HDDExit Workspace Conceptual HDD #1 Moses LakeMatch Line (See Figure 4A)H 4 N E 2.4 Ro a d N E V a l l e y R oad NERo a d H NE Conceptual 8" HorizontalDirectional Drill Alignment - 2,850' Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 572 of 774 ConceptualHDD Exit Point N. 652838.30279 E. 1938569.79814Lat. N47.11732360Long. W119.30240656 100' 50' 75' Conceptual HDD Entry PointN. 653963.67665E. 1938760.18326 Lat. N47.12040085 Long. W119.30157329 200' 150' 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 -1+000+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+00 12° 12° 56' 100 Figure 5A Plan:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 5A.dwg\TAB:Figure 5A modified on Feb 10, 2023 - 6:59am BLANEBTLJAHNHorizontal Feet 0 50 Vertical Feet 0 Vertical Exaggeration = X2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment - 1,150' Conceptual 8" Horizontal Directional Drill Profile Conceptual HDD Exit Point Conceptual HDD Entry Point 800 FT R. 800 FT R. Ground Surface (1/3 Arc Second Dem) Conceptual HDD #2 Moses Lake W Marina D r i v e Profile PHC1PHT1 PVC1 PVT1PVC2 PVT2 PHC1PHT1 Vine StreetCascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #3Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Plan and ProfileMatch Line (See Figure 5B)Conceptual Temporary Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace(See Figure 5B For Layout Details) 15.0° @ 800 FT R. Note(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities.2. Subsurface conditions shown in the profile view are based on GeoEngineers' interpretation of Ecology well logs near the conceptual alignment and shouldbe considered a preliminary estimate. Please refer to the HDD feasibility evaluation associated with this figure for more detailed information and limitations.Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. ·Ground surface DEM downloaded from http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/. ·Moses Lake Bathymetry digitized from an existing historic map dated 1962 by Sylvester and Oglesby report using ArcGIS.(https://www.mlird.org/lake/FINAL_031622_ML_2020_TP_Model_memo.pdf) Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS LEGEND: Soil Unit Contact Gravels Basalt Sand, Silt and residual soils Conceptual HDD Entry WorkspaceConceptual Temporary Exit Workspace(To Be 200' Along and WithinThe Southbound Lane of W Marina Drive and The ROW) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 573 of 774 50'75'Conceptual HDD Entry PointN. 653963.67665E. 1938760.18326 Lat. N47.12040085Long. W119.30157329200'150'Figure 5B:P:\3\3036012\CAD\00\HDD\Moses Lake\DWG\Moses Lake Figure 5A.dwg\TAB:Figure 5B modified on Feb 10, 2023 - 7:03am BLANEBTLJAH100 N Feet 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Cascade Valley Force Main - Routing and HDD Feasibility Study Conceptual HDD #3Moses Lake, Washington City of Moses Lake Conceptual Stringing WorkspaceNote(s): 1. GeoEngineers, Inc. has not verified the field location of the existing utilities. Source(s): ·Aerial from Google Earth Pro, dated 08/06/20. Coordinate System: Washington State Plane, South Zone, NAD83, US Foot Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at theuser's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warrantyor representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is acopy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Conceptual HDD #2 Moses Lake Parcel Tracts (Typ) Conceptual Temporary Pipe Stringing and Fabrication Workspace (50' x 1,095') Conceptual 8" HorizontalDirectional Drill Alignment - 1,150' M a t c h L i n e ( S e e F i g u r e 5 A ) Conceptual HDD Stringing Alignment - 1,175' (Dimensioned from Entry Point) 400 ft R. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 574 of 774 APPENDICES Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 575 of 774 APPENDIX A Well Logs Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 576 of 774 Well Report Id: 165369 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 577 of 774 Well Report Id: 166492 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 578 of 774 Well Report Id: 1704778 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 579 of 774 Well Report Id: 175192 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 580 of 774 Well Report Id: 293486 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 581 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 582 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 583 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 584 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 585 of 774 Well Report Id: 308831 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 586 of 774 Well Report Id: 375943 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 587 of 774 Well Report Id: 384885 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 588 of 774 Well Report Id: 416743 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 589 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 590 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 591 of 774 Well Report Id: 417000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 592 of 774 Well Report Id: 426581 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 593 of 774 Well Report Id: 475616 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 594 of 774 APPENDIX B HDD Best Practices Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 595 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-1 File No. 03036-012-00 APPENDIX B HDD BEST PRACTICES General The chosen HDD contractor should follow industry standard HDD construction best practices. The purpose of this appendix is to provide HDD construction best practices that are recommended by GeoEngineers and are in addition to industry standard HDD construction best practices. The following best practices do not constitute all HDD construction best practices that are the standard of practice in the HDD industry. Pilot Hole Considerations Under the generally accepted industry standard, the design radius in feet for the entry and exit vertical curves is typically 100 times the product pipe diameter in inches (for example, 12-inch-nominal-diameter pipe x 1,000 = 1,200-foot design radius). Depending on owner specifications, the proposed operating conditions, pipe specification, subsurface conditions, and geometric considerations, the design radii for the horizontal and vertical curves may vary from normal industry design standards. The minimum allowable three-joint radius over any consecutive three-joint drill pipe section (for Range 2 drill pipe) is established to reduce the risk of overstressing the product pipe during installation. The HDD contractor’s means and methods during construction are critical to the successful completion of the HDD. Specifically, while completing the pilot hole, only small deviations from the design for horizontal and vertical curvature should be allowed so that installation forces and operational stresses similar to those estimated by the calculations can be maintained. The HDD subcontractor should complete the pilot hole as closely as possible to the designed HDD alignment and profile while still maintaining three-joint vertical and horizontal radii equal to or greater than the minimum allowable radius specified on the HDD Design Drawing. We recommend that the three-joint radius be calculated for each three-joint section (for Range 2 Drill Pipe, approximately 90 feet) completed during pilot hole operations. If 15- or 20-foot-long drill pipe joints are used, the pilot hole radius should be calculated every six or four joints, respectively. We recommend that the contractor drill the pilot hole within the specified horizontal and vertical tolerances. We also recommend that, upon completion of the pilot hole, GeoEngineers have the opportunity to review the pilot hole survey data prior to the start of reaming operations. We recommend that a secondary survey system (TruTracker, ParaTrack or equivalent) be used where possible. If a secondary surface survey coil is used for the secondary survey system, we recommend that the wire grids be placed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The placement of the coils is typically limited to areas where ground surface conditions, permit requirements and landowner permissions allow. The HDD contractor should be responsible for producing and submitting an as-built drawing of the pilot hole survey data that includes the HDD entry and exit point coordinates within 2 weeks of the completion of the pilot hole. The HDD contractor’s as-built drawing should be reviewed by GeoEngineers prior to storing the data in the project file. During pilot hole operations, hydraulic fracture of the formation and drilling fluid surface releases may occur as a result of high annular pressures in the hole. Causes of high annular pressures include insufficient Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 596 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-2 File No. 03036-012-00 removal of cuttings, hole collapse and excessive penetration rates. The annular pressures should be closely monitored during the pilot hole process to help identify when the potential for drilling fluid surface releases may be increased. Annular pressures can be monitored through the use of a downhole annular pressure tool as part of the bottom hole assembly and then compared with the anticipated drilling fluid pressures. Reaming/Swabbing Considerations During reaming operations, the HDD contractor will likely ream the hole by conducting one or more successive ream passes to enlarge the hole to a minimum final hole diameter that is typically 12 inches larger than the product pipe for diameters equal to or greater than 24 inches or 1.5 times the product pipe for diameters less than 24 inches. While conducting a pull ream pass (from exit to entry), a drilling fluid recycling system and high-pressure drilling fluid pump may be positioned on the exit side of the crossing to facilitate the pumping and recycling of the drilling fluid at exit. Conversely, the drilling fluid recycling system could remain at the entry side of the crossing and drilling fluid returns could be collected with vacuum tankers and hauled to the entry side of the crossing. In some instances, the contactor may elect to conduct forward reaming passes to promote drilling fluid returns to the entry side of the crossing while enlarging the pilot hole. The process involves keeping the drill rig on the entry side of the crossing and advancing the reamer from entry (away from the drill rig) towards the exit side of the crossing. If the contractor elects to conduct forward reaming passes, we recommend utilizing a large excavator or bulldozer positioned on the exit side of the HDD alignment to apply most of the pull force required to advance the reamer toward the exit point. Additionally, we recommend that the HDD contractor maintain a continuous string of drill pipe in the hole at all times during reaming and swabbing operations. This will reduce the risk of the reamer not following the hole and could eliminate the need to conduct operations to recover lost tooling in the event that the drill pipe string breaks. During the reaming operations, the rate of penetration and drilling fluid flow rates should be evaluated to reduce potential problems with inadequate removal of cuttings, hydraulic fracturing and drilling fluid surface releases. Generally accepted best practices within the HDD industry recommend an annular solids percentage of 30 percent or less, which requires pumping drilling fluid at a flow rate such that the volume of drilling fluid pumped is more than three times the volume of soil cuttings being generated for each joint reamed. The annular solids percentage can be adjusted by varying either penetration or pumping rates. If cuttings begin to build up in the hole because of high annular solids content, high drill string torque, stuck tooling or hydraulic fracture and drilling fluid surface release are more likely. When the reaming process is completed, and prior to pullback operations, we recommend conducting at least one swab pass to (1) check the stability of the hole; (2) help remove any excess cuttings remaining in the hole; (3) provide fresh drilling fluid immediately prior to pullback; and (4) help confirm that the hole is in a condition to receive the product pipe. The pullback process typically begins after completing one or more acceptable swab passes. Pullback Considerations Our analysis of the installation loads assumes that the pilot hole is completed within the specified tolerances and that cuttings are removed from the hole prior to attempting pullback. Improper conditioning of the hole prior to pullback could result in higher installation forces. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 597 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-3 File No. 03036-012-00 The HDD contractor should install a deadman anchor of sufficient capacity to withstand the anticipated pull loads; these aspects are generally left to the HDD contractor’s discretion as approved by the owner. We also recommend that during pullback, the minimum allowable product pipe over bend radius be assessed to reduce the risk of damaging the product pipe during installation. For product pipes less than 24 inches in diameter, it is uncommon for the contractor to use buoyancy control (typically water) during pullback. However, If the diameter of the product pipe is greater than 24 inches, the HDD contractor should consider using buoyancy control in the product pipe during pullback to reduce the positive buoyancy. In some instances, if buoyancy control measures are not utilized during the pullback process, the product pipe(s) may float in the drilling fluid and exert pressure against the top of the hole, increasing the risk for the following problems: ■ Increased skin friction between the product pipe(s) and formation could lead to an increase in the drill rig pull load. The product pipe(s) and/or the protective coatings could be damaged if excessive pull force is applied to them. ■ The leading edge of the pull head could dislodge a cobble or rock fragment, in formations where such subsurface materials are present, binding the product pipe(s) and making it impossible to move it in either direction. ■ The external coatings could be damaged by sharp and/or protruding material and highly abrasive material (like coarse sands), if such subsurface materials are present. During pullback, the pull section(s) is/are typically supported with a combination of roller stands and/or product pipe handling equipment (cranes, side booms and/or excavators) to direct the product pipe(s) into the hole at the correct angle to help prevent excessive bending of the product pipe(s), to reduce tension during pullback and to help protect the product pipe(s) from being damaged. The contractor should provide a detailed lift plan to safely support the product pipe along the stringing workspace and through the overbend during pullback operations. Use of Casing in HDD Operations During the HDD construction process large and/or small-diameter casings can be included as part of the HDD contractor’s drill plan to help mitigate the following: hole instabilities; drilling fluid loss; drilling fluid surface release; and surface subsidence. Furthermore, small-diameter casing can provide support for downhole tooling in soft and loose soils to prevent erosion of the surrounding formations and can act as a reaction mass for allowing a greater transfer of axial loads through the downhole drill pipe string to the drill bit. Large-diameter casing can also provide support for downhole tooling in soft and loose soils. Large-diameter Casing Large-diameter casing (generally greater than 24 inches and large enough to allow passage of downhole tooling equal to the final hole diameter) is typically installed via a pneumatic hammer in 15- to 40-foot sections prior to commencing advancement of the pilot hole. These sections are welded together during installation. After the large diameter casing is installed to the desired depth, the contractor will clean out the casing with a dry auger or a reamer while pumping drilling fluid downhole. A centralizer casing will then be installed into the larger diameter casing. The centralizer casing supports the drill pipe near the center of the large-diameter casing, as opposed to the bottom. The centralizer casing is removed from the large-diameter casing once the pilot hole is completed so that reaming operations can commence. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 598 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-4 File No. 03036-012-00 Depending on the amount of casing installed and the soil conditions this can be a lengthy process. The casing can also be installed by excavating an inclined trench along the proposed HDD drill path, installing the casing in the trench and then backfilling around the casing when shallow excavations are required. The large-diameter casing is limited to the entry and exit tangents of the drill profile where the greatest benefit from the casing is in providing hole stability through the tangent sections during the entire HDD process. Upon completion of pullback, the casing is typically extracted via a pneumatic hammer or by the drill rig if the skin friction between the casing and the surrounding soils can be overcome. Occasionally, large-diameter casing cannot be extracted and requires modifying and removal at the ground surface. Small-diameter Casing Small-diameter casing (generally 12 to 16 inches in diameter) is typically pushed and/or rotated over the drill pipe string by the drill rig in 15- to 40-foot sections. These sections are typically welded together during installation; however, small-diameter threaded casing can be procured. As sections are added, the casing will continue to be advanced to a depth necessary to maintain hole stability or reduce the risk of hydraulic fracture and drilling fluid surface release. It should be noted that drilling fluid is often pumped down the casing during installation to help lubricate the outside of the casing and facilitate installing the casing to the desired depth; however, this can cause inadvertent drilling fluid returns during the installation process. Once the small diameter casing is installed the contractor typically cleans out the casing using the pilot hole jetting assembly. The small-diameter casing is easier to maneuver within an HDD workspace than large-diameter casing and can be installed on most HDD construction sites without the use of specialized equipment. Also, small-diameter casing can be installed along curved portions of the HDD profile using the drill pipe string as a guide, when required, unlike large-diameter casing. The small-diameter casing is typically extracted before or during the hole opening process by the drill rig and/or supplementary equipment on site. Utilities We recommend that the HDD contractor physically locate (pothole) utilities that are within 15 feet of the HDD entry and exit points, drill rig anchors, or crossed by the proposed HDD alignment prior to initiating pilot hole operations to verify the location and depth of each utility and confirm that HDD operations will not conflict with the utilities. Drilling Fluid Containment Pits and Temporary Excavations Drilling fluid containment pits will be required at the drill entry and exit work areas. Depending on the practices of the HDD contractor, drilling fluid containment pit excavations are typically constructed adjacent to the centerline near the entry and exit point locations and are approximately 10 feet long by 10 feet wide and up to 8 feet deep. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the HDD contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be shored or sloped in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 1926 Subpart P, Appendix B – Sloping and Benching. For planning purposes, soils in the vicinity of the excavation areas are often assumed to be classified as Type C. Temporary excavations in Type C soil should be inclined no Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 599 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-5 File No. 03036-012-00 steeper than 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical). These allowable cut slope inclinations are applicable to excavations above the groundwater table only. Steeper temporary slope inclinations may be allowed if soil conditions are determined to be suitable by the field geotechnical engineer. For open cuts, we recommend that: ■ No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or supplies should be allowed within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled to reduce the length of time the cuts are left open. ■ Erosion control measures should be implemented as appropriate to limit runoff from the site. ■ Surface water should be diverted away from the excavations. Drilling Fluid Considerations The HDD contractor’s ability to maintain proper drilling fluid properties with appropriate penetration and drilling fluid flow rates will be important factors to consider during drilling, because hole conditions and the risk of drilling fluid surface releases will be directly affected by these operations. The contractor’s means and methods will be instrumental in maintaining a clean pilot and reamed hole and in maintaining drilling fluid returns to the entry and exit points throughout the drilling process so that the risk of hydraulic fracture and drilling fluid surface releases is not increased during drilling. Maintaining appropriate drilling fluid properties during HDD operations will be vital for effective cuttings removal and maintaining hole stability during all aspects of HDD operations. We recommend that the HDD contractor employ the use of a qualified third-party drilling fluid engineer/technician to develop a drilling fluid program and assist with maintaining appropriate drilling fluid properties during HDD operations. Cuttings Removal and Annular Solids Based on our experience, cuttings removal in clays is typically more challenging than in other non-cohesive soils. In some cases, relatively dry clays or high plasticity clays may swell and block the drill hole. Alternatively, the clay cuttings may “ball up” forming large diameter particles that fall out of suspension and are more difficult to remove than smaller clay particles that remain in suspension. Cuttings removal can also be difficult when drilling through gravel because the relatively heavy gravels tend to fall out of suspension and accumulate within the hole. Therefore, the potential for the hole to become plugged with cuttings is elevated along proposed HDD crossings where the drill path is within clay and gravel. In the event that the hole becomes plugged, and drilling fluid circulation ceases, downhole annular pressures can increase dramatically. This increase in downhole annular pressure can significantly increase the risk of hydraulic fracture and drilling fluid surface release. If cuttings are not effectively removed from the hole during HDD operations, rotary torque on the drill pipe string/downhole tooling could be become excessively high causing tooling to become lodged downhole, pullback forces could become excessively high during pipe pullback of the product pipe, the pipe could become lodged in the hole, or the pipe could become damaged. The failure to effectively remove cuttings from the hole could potentially result in failure of the HDD installation. Therefore, we recommend that the HDD contractor attempt to maintain drilling fluid returns at all times and use appropriate means and methods (appropriate penetration rates, drilling fluid management, and mechanical methods) to Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 600 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page B-6 File No. 03036-012-00 adequately remove cuttings from the hole during the HDD process so long as formational drilling fluid loss does not prevent doing so. If drilling fluid returns begin to diminish or are lost, the HDD subcontractor could implement the following; tripping out the downhole tooling and swabbing the hole until drilling fluid returns are reestablished before proceeding forward; utilizing Loss Circulation Materials (LCM’s) (if approved for use on the project); or make other adjustments necessary to restore drilling fluid returns. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 601 of 774 APPENDIX C Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 602 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page C-1 File No. 03036-012-00 APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) includes the following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for Keller Associates and the design team for the Project specifically identified in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services dated December 20, 2022, with Keller Associates and generally accepted HDD design practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors This report has been prepared for the Cascade Valley Force Main Project, located in Moses Lake, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE/The Best People on Earth, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 603 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page C-2 File No. 03036-012-00 For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Environmental Concerns are Not Covered Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that are anticipated at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on publicly available geologic information. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final We have developed the following recommendations based on publicly available geologic information. Therefore, the recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized by completing explorations at the site and observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not complete subsurface explorations at the site and perform construction observation. We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 604 of 774 April 28, 2023 | Page C-3 File No. 03036-012-00 with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project- specific knowledge and resources. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete report, including these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties. Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 605 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 606 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 607 of 774 City WWTP Permits APPENDIX J Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 608 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 609 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 610 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 611 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 612 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 613 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 614 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 615 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 616 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 617 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 618 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 619 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 620 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 621 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 622 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 623 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 624 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 625 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 626 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 627 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 628 of 774 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 629 of 774 Page 1 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Issuance Date: February 28, 2022 Effective Date: April 1, 2022 Expiration Date: March 31, 2027 State Waste Discharge Permit Number ST0008024 State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Eastern Regional Office 4601 N. Monroe Street Spokane, Washington 99205-1265 In compliance with the provisions of the State of Washington Water Pollution Control Law Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington, as amended, City of Moses Lake (Larson WWTP) P.O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, Washington 98837 is authorized to discharge wastewater in accordance with the special and general conditions which follow. Plant Location: 6691 Randolph Road, NE, Moses Lake, WA 98837 Discharge Location: NW ¼ of Sec. 34, T. 20 N., R 28 E., W.M. SIC Code: 4952 Sewerage Systems Treatment Type: Extended air activated sludge (Biolac) with ultraviolet light disinfection and infiltration basins Latitude: 47.187205200826 Longitude: -119.290984100519 Adriane P. Borgias Water Quality Section Manager Eastern Regional Office Washington State Department of Ecology Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 630 of 774 Page 2 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Table of Contents Special Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6 S1. Discharge limits ............................................................................................................ 6 S1.A. Effluent limits ............................................................................................................ 6 S1.B. Best management practices/pollution prevention .................................................. 6 S2. Monitoring requirements ............................................................................................. 7 S2.A. Wastewater monitoring ............................................................................................ 7 S2.B. Groundwater monitoring .......................................................................................... 9 S2.C. Sampling and analytical procedures ....................................................................... 10 S2.D. Flow measurement and continuous monitoring devices ....................................... 10 S2.E. Laboratory accreditation ........................................................................................ 11 S2.F. Request for reduction in monitoring ...................................................................... 11 S3. Reporting and recording requirements ....................................................................... 11 S3.A. Discharge monitoring reports ................................................................................. 11 S3.B. Permit Submittals and Schedules ........................................................................... 13 S3.C. Records retention ................................................................................................... 14 S3.D. Recording of results ................................................................................................ 14 S3.E. Additional monitoring by the Permittee................................................................. 14 S3.F. Reporting permit violations .................................................................................... 14 S3.G. Other reporting ....................................................................................................... 16 S3.H. Maintaining a copy of this permit ........................................................................... 17 S4. Facility loading ........................................................................................................... 17 S4.A. Design criteria ......................................................................................................... 17 S4.B. Plans for maintaining adequate capacity ............................................................... 17 S4.C. Duty to mitigate ...................................................................................................... 18 S4.D. Notification of new or altered sources ................................................................... 18 S4.E. Wasteload assessment ........................................................................................... 19 S5. Operation and maintenance ....................................................................................... 19 S5.A. Certified operator ................................................................................................... 19 S5.B. O & M program ....................................................................................................... 20 S5.C. Short-term reduction .............................................................................................. 20 S5.D. Electrical power failure ........................................................................................... 21 S5.E. Prevent connection of inflow ................................................................................. 21 S5.F. Bypass procedures .................................................................................................. 21 S5.G. Operations and maintenance manual .................................................................... 23 S6. Pretreatment.............................................................................................................. 24 S6.A. General requirements ............................................................................................. 24 S6.B. Duty to enforce discharge prohibitions .................................................................. 24 S6.C. Wastewater discharge permit required ................................................................. 26 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 631 of 774 Page 3 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S6.D. Identification and reporting of existing, new, and proposed industrial users ....... 26 S6.E. Submittal of list of industrial users ......................................................................... 27 S7. Application for permit renewal or modification for facility changes ............................. 27 General Conditions .............................................................................................................. 28 G1. Signatory requirements ............................................................................................ 28 G2. Right of entry ........................................................................................................... 28 G3. Permit actions .......................................................................................................... 29 G4. Reporting a cause for modification ........................................................................... 29 G5. Plan review required ................................................................................................ 29 G6. Compliance with other laws and statutes ................................................................. 29 G7. Transfer of this permit .............................................................................................. 29 G8. Payment of fees ....................................................................................................... 30 G9. Penalties for violating permit conditions .................................................................. 30 G10. Duty to provide information ..................................................................................... 30 G11. Duty to comply ......................................................................................................... 30 G12. Service agreement review ........................................................................................ 31 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... 32 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Permit Report Submittals ............................................................................. 4 Table 2: Effluent Limits: Outfall 001 ............................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Wastewater Influent Monitoring Schedule ...................................................................... 7 Table 4: Final Wastewater Effluent Monitoring Schedule .............................................................. 8 Table 5: Groundwater Monitoring Schedule .................................................................................. 9 Table 6: Design Criteria for Moses Lake Larson WWTP ................................................................ 17 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 632 of 774 Page 4 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Summary of Permit Report Submittals Refer to the Special and General Conditions of this permit for additional submittal requirements. Table 1: Summary of Permit Report Submittals Permit Section Submittal Frequency First Submittal Date S3.A.11.a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) 1/month May 15, 2022 S3.A.11.b Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) 4/year May 15, 2022 S3.A.11.c Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) 1/year September 15, 2022 S3.F.c Reporting Permit Violations Within Five Days - Written Report As necessary - S4.B Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity As necessary - S4.D Notification of New or Altered Sources As necessary - S4.E Wasteload Assessment 1/year March 15, 2023 S5.A.1 Operator Certification Renewal Card 1/year May 15, 2022 S5.C Short-term reduction As necessary S5.F Reporting Bypasses As necessary - S5.G.a.2 Operations and Maintenance Manual Changes or Updates As necessary - S6.E Industrial Users List 1/permit cycle June 30, 2025 S7. Application for Permit Renewal 1/permit cycle March 31, 2026 G1. Notice of Change in Authorization As necessary - G4. Permit Application for Substantive Changes to the Discharge 180 days prior to discharge - G5. Engineering Report for Construction or Modification Activities 180 days prior to start of construction - G7. Notice of Permit Transfer As necessary - G10. Duty to Provide Information As necessary - Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 633 of 774 Page 5 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Permit Section Submittal Frequency First Submittal Date G12. Submit Proposed New or Changes to Service Agreements As necessary - Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 634 of 774 Page 6 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Special Conditions S1. Discharge limits S1.A. Effluent limits All discharges and activities authorized by this permit must comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any of the following pollutants more frequently than, or at a concentration in excess of, that authorized by this permit violates the terms and conditions of this permit. Wastewater flows and loadings must not exceed the Design Criteria specified in Section S4. Beginning on the effective date, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated domestic wastewater to infiltration ponds at the permitted location subject to the following limits: Table 2: Effluent Limits: Outfall 001 Latitude: 47.187488 - Longitude: -119.292069 Parameter Average Monthly a Average Weekly b Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 10 milligrams/liter (mg/L) 15 mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen 6 mg/L as N --- Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 600 mg/L --- Total coliform 50 CFU/100 ml a Average monthly effluent limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month. To calculate the discharge value to compare to the limit, you add the value of each daily dischararge measured during a calendar month and divide this sum by the total number of daily discharges measured. b Average weekly discharge limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that week. S1.B. Best management practices/pollution prevention The Permittee must comply with the following Best Management Practices to prevent pollution to waters of the State: 1. Do not discharge in excess of the hydraulic capacity of the evaporation/infiltration ponds, drainfields so that the pond overflows. 2. Do not discharge priority pollutants, dangerous wastes, or toxics in toxic amounts. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 635 of 774 Page 7 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S2. Monitoring requirements S2.A. Wastewater monitoring The Permittee must monitor in accordance with the following schedule and the requirements specified in Appendix A. Table 3: Wastewater Influent Monitoring Schedule Wastewater Influent means the raw sewage flow from the collection system into the treatment facility. Sample the wastewater entering the headworks of the treatment plant excluding any side-stream returns from inside the plant. Parameter Units Minimum Sampling Frequency Sample Type Flow Gallons per day (gpd) Continuous a Metered pH Standard Units (s.u.) Continuous a Metered Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) mg/L 1/week 24-Hour Composite b BOD5 lbs/day c 1/week Calculated Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L as N 1/week 24-Hour Composite b TKN lbs/day c 1/week Calculated Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 1/week 24-Hour Composite b a Continuous means uninterrupted except for brief lengths of time for calibration, power failure, or unanticipated equipment repair or maintenance. The time interval for the associated data logger must be no greater than 30 minutes. The Permittee must sample hourly when continuous monitoring is not possible. b 24-Hour Composite means a series of individual samples collected over a 24-hour period into a single container, and analyzed as one sample. c lbs/day = Concentration (mg/L) x Flow (in MGD) x 8.34÷1,000,000 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 636 of 774 Page 8 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Table 4: Final Wastewater Effluent Monitoring Schedule Final Wastewater Effluent means wastewater, which is exiting, or has exited, the last treatment process or operation. Typically, this is after or at the exit from the chlorine contact chamber or other disinfection process. The Permittee may take effluent samples for the BOD5 analysis before or after the disinfection process. If taken after, dechlorinate and reseed the sample. The sampling point for the effluent wastewater will be from the treatment works at the end of pipe prior to discharging to the infiltration basins. Parameter Units Minimum Sampling Frequency Sample Type pH s.u. Continuous a Metered BOD5 mg/L 1/week 24-Hour Composite c BOD5 lbs/day d 1/week Calculated Total Coliform #/100 mL 1/week Grab b TKN mg/L as N 1/week 24-Hour Composite c TKN lbs/day d 1/week Calculated Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen mg/L as N 1/week 24-Hour Composite c TDS mg/L 1/week 24-Hour Composite c Total Phosphorus µg/L 1/week Grab b Arsenic µg/L 1/year e 24-Hour Composite c Copper, Total µg/L 1/year e 24-Hour Composite c Iron, Total µg/L 1/year e 24-Hour Composite c Manganese, Total µg/L 1/year e 24-Hour Composite c Zinc, Total µg/L 1/year e 24-Hour Composite c Chloride mg/L 1/year e Grab b a Continuous means uninterrupted except for brief lengths of time for calibration, power failure, or unanticipated equipment repair or maintenance. The time interval for the associated data logger must be no greater than 30 minutes. The Permittee must sample hourly when continuous monitoring is not possible. b Grab means an individual sample collected over a 15 minute, or less, period. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 637 of 774 Page 9 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 c 24-Hour Composite means a series of individual samples collected over a 24-hour period into a single container, and analyzed as one sample. d lbs/day = Concentration (mg/L) x Flow (in MGD) x 8.34 ÷ 1,000,000 e 1/year means take samples in August and report data by September 15 each year. S2.B. Groundwater monitoring The Permittee must monitor groundwater in accordance with the following schedule and the requirements specified in Appendix A. Table 5: Groundwater Monitoring Schedule Monitor groundwater at monitoring wells MW2, MW3 and MW4 Parameter Units & Speciation Sampling Frequency Sample Type Measured Depth to Groundwater Feet (nearest 0.01 ft) 4/year a Field Measurement Iron (Total) mg/L 4/year a Grab b Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/L 4/year a Grab b pH s.u. 4/year a Grab b Total Coliform #/100 mL 4/year a Grab b TDS mg/L 4/year a Grab b Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen mg/L as N 4/year a Grab b Phosphorus mg/L 1/year c Grab b Arsenic µg/L 1/year Grab b Copper, Total µg/L 1/year c Grab b Manganese, Total µg/L 1/year c Grab b Zinc, Total µg/L 1/year c Grab b Chloride mg/L 1/year c Grab b a 4/year means sample four times per year in the specified months of February, May, August, and September. Report data by the 15th of the month following sampling. b Grab means an individual sample collected over a 15 minute, or less, period. c 1/year means take samples in August and report data by September 15 each year. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 638 of 774 Page 10 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S2.C. Sampling and analytical procedures Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this permit must represent the volume and nature of the monitored parameters, including representative sampling of any unusual discharge or discharge condition, including bypasses, upsets and maintenance-related conditions affecting effluent quality. Groundwater sampling must conform to the latest protocols in the Implementation Guidance for the Ground Water Quality Standards, (Ecology 1996). Sampling and analytical methods used to meet the water and wastewater monitoring requirements specified in this permit must conform to the latest revision of the following rules and documents unless otherwise specified in this permit or approved in writing by Ecology.  Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40 CFR Part 136  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA) The Permittee must conduct and report all soil analysis in accordance with the Western States Laboratory Plant, Soil and Water Analysis Manual, Soil, Plant and Water Reference Methods for The Western Region, 4th Edition, 2013, available online at https://www.naptprogram.org/files/napt/publications/method- papers/western-states-methods-manual-2013.pdf. The Permittee must also participate in a proficiency testing program such as the North American Proficiency Testing Program (NAPT) available online at https://www.naptprogram.org/. S2.D. Flow measurement and continuous monitoring devices The Permittee must: 1. Select and use appropriate flow measurement and continuous monitoring devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices. 2. Install, calibrate, and maintain these devices to ensure the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted industry standard, the manufacturer’s recommendation, and approved O&M manual procedures for the device and the waste stream. 3. Calibrate continuous monitoring instruments weekly unless it can demonstrate a longer period is sufficient based on monitoring records. The Permittee: a. May calibrate apparatus for continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen by air calibration. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 639 of 774 Page 11 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 b. Must calibrate continuous pH measurement instruments using a grab sample analyzed in the lab with a pH meter calibrated with standard buffers and analyzed within 15 minutes of sampling. c. Must calibrate continuous chlorine measurement instruments using a grab sample analyzed in the laboratory within 15 minutes of sampling. 4. Use field measurement devices as directed by the manufacturer and do not use reagents beyond their expiration dates. 5. Establish a calibration frequency for each device or instrument in the O&M manual that conforms to the frequency recommended by the manufacturer. 6. Calibrate flow monitoring devices at a minimum frequency of at least one calibration per year. 7. Maintain calibration records for at least three years. S2.E. Laboratory accreditation The Permittee must ensure that all monitoring data required by Ecology for permit specified parameters is prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. Flow, temperature, settleable solids, conductivity, pH, and internal process control parameters are exempt from this requirement. The Permittee must obtain accreditation for conductivity and pH if it must receive accreditation or registration for other parameters. S2.F. Request for reduction in monitoring The Permittee may request a reduction of the sampling frequency after 12 months of monitoring. Ecology will review each request and at its discretion grant the request when it reissues the permit or by a permit modification. The Permittee must: 1. Provide a written request. 2. Clearly state the parameters for which it is requesting reduced monitoring. 3. Clearly state the justification for the reduction. S3. Reporting and recording requirements The Permittee must monitor and report in accordance with the following conditions. Falsification of information submitted to Ecology is a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. S3.A. Discharge monitoring reports The first monitoring period begins on the effective date of the permit (unless otherwise specified). Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 640 of 774 Page 12 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 The Permittee must: 1. Summarize, report, and submit monitoring data obtained during each monitoring period on the electronic discharge monitoring report (DMR) form provided by Ecology within the Water Quality Permitting Portal. Include data for each of the parameters tabulated in Special Condition S2 and as required by the form. Report a value for each day sampling occurred (unless specifically exempted in the permit) and for the summary values (when applicable) included on the electronic form. To find out more information and to sign up for the Water Quality Permitting Portal go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- assistance/Water-quality-permits-guidance/WQWebPortal-guidance. 2. Enter the “No Discharge” reporting code for an entire DMR, for a specific monitoring point, or for a specific parameter as appropriate, if the Permittee did not discharge wastewater or a specific pollutant during a given monitoring period. 3. Report single analytical values below detection as “less than the detection level (DL)” by entering < followed by the numeric value of the detection level (e.g. < 2.0) on the DMR. If the method used did not meet the minimum DL and quantitation level (QL) identified in the permit, report the actual QL and DL in the comments or in the location provided. 4. Not report zero for bacteria monitoring. Report as required by the laboratory method. 5. Calculate and report an arithmetic average value for each day for bacteria if multiple samples were taken in one day. 6. Calculate the geometric mean values for bacteria (unless otherwise specified in the permit) using: a. The reported numeric value for all bacteria samples measured above the detection value except when it took multiple samples in one day. If the Permittee takes multiple samples in one day it must use the arithmetic average for the day in the geometric mean calculation. b. The detection value for those samples measured below detection. 7. Report the test method used for analysis in the comments if the laboratory used an alternative method not specified in the permit and as allowed in Appendix A. 8. Calculate average values and calculated total values (unless otherwise specified in the permit) using: Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 641 of 774 Page 13 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 a. The reported numeric value for all parameters measured between the agency-required detection value and the agency-required quantitation value. b. One-half the detection value (for values reported below detection) if the lab detected the parameter in another sample from the same monitoring point for the reporting period. c. Zero (for values reported below detection) if the lab did not detect the parameter in another sample for the reporting period. 9. Report single-sample grouped parameters (for example: priority pollutants, PAHs, pulp and paper chlorophenolics, TTOs) on the WQWebDMR form and include: sample date, concentration detected, detection limit (DL) (as necessary), and laboratory quantitation level (QL) (as necessary). 10. Ensure that DMRs are electronically submitted no later than the dates specified below, unless otherwise specified in this permit. 11. Submit DMRs for parameters with the monitoring frequencies specified in S2 (monthly, quarterly, annual, etc.) at the reporting schedule identified below. The Permittee must: a. Submit monthly DMRs by the 15th day of the following month. b. Submit 4/year DMRs by the 15th day of the month following the monitoring period, with samples taken in February, April, July, and November. Data due March 15, May 15, August 15, and December 15. c. Submit 1/year DMRs by September 15 each year, with samples taken in August. S3.B. Permit Submittals and Schedules The Permittee must use the Water Quality Permitting Portal – Permit Submittals application (unless otherwise specified in the permit) to submit all other written permit-required reports by the date specified in the permit. When another permit condition requires submittal of a paper (hard-copy) report, the Permittee must ensure that it is postmarked or received by Ecology no later than the dates specified by this permit. Send these paper reports to Ecology at: Water Quality Program Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office 4601 N. Monroe Street Spokane, Washington 99205-1265 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 642 of 774 Page 14 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S3.C. Records retention The Permittee must retain records of all monitoring information for a minimum of three years. Such information must include all calibration and maintenance records and all original recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. The Permittee must extend this period of retention during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the Permittee or when requested by Ecology. The Permittee must retain all records pertaining to the monitoring of sludge for a minimum of five years. S3.D. Recording of results For each measurement or sample taken, the Permittee must record the following information: 1. The date, exact place and time of sampling. 2. The individual who performed the sampling or measurement. 3. The dates the analyses were performed. 4. The individual who performed the analyses. 5. The analytical techniques or methods used. 6. The results of all analyses. S3.E. Additional monitoring by the Permittee If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by Special Condition S2 of this permit, then the Permittee must include the results of such monitoring in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Permittee's DMR unless otherwise specified by Special Condition S2. S3.F. Reporting permit violations The Permittee must take the following actions when it violates or is unable to comply with any permit condition: 1. Immediately take action to stop, contain, and cleanup unauthorized discharges or otherwise stop the noncompliance and correct the problem. 2. If applicable, immediately repeat sampling and analysis. Submit the results of any repeat sampling to Ecology within 30 days of sampling. a. Immediate reporting The Permittee must immediately report to Ecology and the Local Health jurisdiction (at the numbers listed below), all:  Failures of the disinfection system. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 643 of 774 Page 15 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022  Collection system overflows.  Plant bypasses resulting in a discharge.  Any other failures of the sewage system (pipe breaks, etc.).  Overflows or leaks of transmission or irrigation pipelines that discharge to a waterbody used as a source of drinking or irrigation water. Ecology Eastern Regional Office (509) 329-3400 Grant County Health District (509) 766-7960 (business hours) (509) 398-2083 (after hours) Additionally, for any sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) that discharges to a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), the Permittee must notify the appropriate MS4 owner or operator. b. Twenty-four-hour reporting The Permittee must report the following occurrences of noncompliance by telephone, to Ecology at the telephone numbers listed above, within 24 hours from the time the Permittee becomes aware of any of the following circumstances: 1. Any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment, unless previously reported under immediate reporting requirements. 2. Any unanticipated bypass that causes an exceedance of an effluent limit in the permit (See Part S5.F., “Bypass Procedures”). 3. Any upset that causes an exceedance of an effluent limit in the permit. Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limits because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 4. Any violation of a maximum daily or instantaneous maximum discharge limit for any of the pollutants in Section S1.A of this permit. 5. Any overflow prior to the treatment works, whether or not such overflow endangers health or the environment or exceeds any effluent limit in the permit. 6. When a monitoring well parameter exceeds an enforcement limit in 2 consecutive sampling events. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 644 of 774 Page 16 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 c. Report within five days The Permittee must also submit a written report within five days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of any reportable event under subparts a or b, above. The report must contain: 1. A description of the noncompliance and its cause. 2. Maps, drawings, aerial photographs, or pictures to show the location and cause(s) of the non-compliance. 3. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times. 4. The estimated time the Permittee expects the noncompliance to continue if not yet corrected. 5. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. 6. If the noncompliance involves an overflow prior to the treatment works, an estimate of the quantity (in gallons) of untreated overflow. d. Waiver of written reports Ecology may waive the written report required in subpart c, above, on a case-by-case basis upon request if the Permittee has submitted a timely oral report. e. All other permit violation reporting The Permittee must report all permit violations, which do not require immediate or within 24 hours reporting, when it submits monitoring reports for S3.A ("Reporting"). The reports must contain the information listed in subpart c, above. Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the Permittee from responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply. S3.G. Other reporting a. Spills of Oil or Hazardous Materials The Permittee must report a spill of oil or hazardous materials in accordance with the requirements of RCW 90.56.280 and chapter 173-303-145. Instructions are available on the Ecology Spill Reporting Website at https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Get-involved/Report-an-environmental- issue/Report-a-spill. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 645 of 774 Page 17 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 b. Failure to submit relevant or correct facts Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application, or in any report to Ecology, it must submit such facts or information promptly. S3.H. Maintaining a copy of this permit The Permittee must keep a copy of this permit at the facility and make it available upon request to Ecology inspectors. S4. Facility loading S4.A. Design criteria The flows or waste loads for the permitted facility must not exceed the following design criteria: Table 6: Design Criteria for Moses Lake Larson WWTP Parameter Design Criteria Monthly Average Flow 750,000 gpd Peak Instantaneous Design Flow 1,200,000 gpd BOD5 Influent Loading for Maximum Month 1,970 lbs/day TSS Influent Loading for Maximum Month 2,523 lbs/day TKN Influent Loading for Maximum Month 296 lbs/day NH3 Influent Loading for Maximum Month 188 lbs/day S4.B. Plans for maintaining adequate capacity a. Conditions triggering plan submittal The Permittee must submit a plan and a schedule for continuing to maintain capacity to Ecology when: 1. The actual flow or waste load reaches 85 percent of any one of the design criteria in S4.A for three consecutive months. 2. The projected plant flow or loading would reach design capacity within five years. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 646 of 774 Page 18 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 b. Plan and schedule content The plan and schedule must identify the actions necessary to maintain adequate capacity for the expected population growth and to meet the limits and requirements of the permit. The Permittee must consider the following topics and actions in its plan. 1. Analysis of the present design and proposed process modifications. 2. Reduction or elimination of excessive infiltration and inflow of uncontaminated ground and surface water into the sewer system. 3. Limits on future sewer extensions or connections or additional waste loads. 4. Modification or expansion of facilities. 5. Reduction of industrial or commercial flows or waste loads. Engineering documents associated with the plan must meet the requirements of WAC 173-240-060, "Engineering Report," and be approved by Ecology prior to any construction. S4.C. Duty to mitigate The Permittee must take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. S4.D. Notification of new or altered sources 1. The Permittee must submit written notice to Ecology whenever any new discharge or a substantial change in volume or character of an existing discharge into the wastewater treatment plant is proposed which: a. Would interfere with the operation of, or exceed the design capacity of, any portion of the wastewater treatment plant. b. Is not part of an approved general sewer plan or approved plans and specifications. c. Is subject to pretreatment standards under 40 CFR Part 403 and Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act. 2. This notice must include an evaluation of the wastewater treatment plant’s ability to adequately transport and treat the added flow and/or waste load, the quality and volume of effluent to be discharged to the treatment plant, and the anticipated impact on the Permittee’s effluent [40 CFR 122.42(b)]. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 647 of 774 Page 19 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S4.E. Wasteload assessment The Permittee must conduct an annual assessment of its influent flow and waste load and submit a report to Ecology by March 15, 2023, and annually thereafter. The report must contain: 1. A description of compliance or noncompliance with the permit effluent limits. 2. A comparison between the existing and design: a. Monthly average dry weather and wet weather flows. b. Peak flows. c. BOD5 loading. 3. The percent change in the above parameters since the previous report (except for the first report). 4. The present and design population or population equivalent. 5. The projected population growth rate. 6. The estimated date upon which the Permittee expects the wastewater treatment plant to reach design capacity, according to the most restrictive of the parameters above. Ecology may modify the interval for review and reporting if it determines that a different frequency is sufficient. S5. Operation and maintenance The Permittee must, at all times, properly operate and maintain all facilities or systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances), which are installed to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes keeping a daily operation logbook (paper or electronic), adequate laboratory controls, and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision of the permit requires the Permittee to operate backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. S5.A. Certified operator An operator certified for at least a Class III plant by the State of Washington must be in responsible charge of the day-to-day operation of the wastewater treatment plant. An operator certified for at least a Class II plant must be in charge during all regularly scheduled shifts. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 648 of 774 Page 20 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 The Permittee must: 1. Submit an operator certification renewal card for the current operator in responsible charge by uploading an electronic copy to the Ecology WQWebPortal by May 15 each year. 2. Immediately notify Ecology when the facility does not have a properly certified operator in responsible charge or if the current properly certified operator in responsible charge loses their certification. 3. Notify Ecology within 30 days when the operator in responsible charge at the facility changes. a. Provide the new operators’ name, certification number and certification level. b. Provide a current copy of the contract if a contract operator is used. S5.B. O & M program The Permittee must: 1. Institute an adequate operation and maintenance program for the entire sewage system. 2. Keep maintenance records on all major electrical and mechanical components of the treatment plant, as well as the sewage system and pumping stations. Such records must clearly specify the frequency and type of maintenance recommended by the manufacturer and must show the frequency and type of maintenance performed. 3. Make maintenance records available for inspection at all times. S5.C. Short-term reduction The Permittee must schedule any facility maintenance, which might require interruption of wastewater treatment and degrade effluent quality, during non- critical water quality periods and carry this maintenance out according to the approved O&M manual or as otherwise approved by Ecology. If a Permittee contemplates a reduction in the level of treatment that would cause a violation of permit discharge limits on a short-term basis for any reason, and such reduction cannot be avoided, the Permittee must: 1. Give written notification to Ecology, if possible, 30-days prior to such activities. 2. Detail the reasons for, length of time of, and the potential effects of the reduced level of treatment. This notification does not relieve the Permittee of its obligations under this permit. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 649 of 774 Page 21 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S5.D. Electrical power failure The Permittee must ensure that adequate safeguards prevent the discharge of untreated wastes or wastes not treated in accordance with the requirements of this permit during electrical power failure at the treatment plant and/or sewage lift stations. Adequate safeguards include, but are not limited to alternate power sources, standby generator(s), or retention of inadequately treated wastes. The Permittee must maintain Reliability Class II (EPA 430-99-74-001) at the wastewater treatment plant, which requires primary sedimentation and disinfection. S5.E. Prevent connection of inflow The Permittee must strictly enforce its sewer ordinances and not allow the connection of inflow (roof drains, foundation drains, etc.) to the sanitary sewer system. S5.F. Bypass procedures This permit prohibits a bypass, which is the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. Ecology may take enforcement action against a Permittee for a bypass unless one of the following circumstances (1, 2, or 3) applies. 1. Bypass for essential maintenance without the potential to cause violation of permit limits or conditions. This permit authorizes a bypass if it allows for essential maintenance and does not have the potential to cause violations of limits or other conditions of this permit, or adversely impact public health as determined by Ecology prior to the bypass. The Permittee must submit prior notice, if possible, at least ten days before the date of the bypass. 2. Bypass which is unavoidable, unanticipated, and results in noncompliance of this permit. This permit authorizes such a bypass only if: a. Bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. “Severe property damage” means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. b. No feasible alternatives to the bypass exist, such as:  The use of auxiliary treatment facilities.  Retention of untreated wastes. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 650 of 774 Page 22 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022  Maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime, but not if the Permittee should have installed adequate backup equipment in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass.  Transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility. c. Ecology is properly notified of the bypass as required in Special Condition S3.F of this permit. 3. If bypass is anticipated and has the potential to result in noncompliance of this permit. a. The Permittee must notify Ecology at least 30 days before the planned date of bypass. The notice must contain:  A description of the bypass and its cause.  An analysis of all known alternatives which would eliminate, reduce, or mitigate the need for bypassing.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives including comparative resource damage assessment.  The minimum and maximum duration of bypass under each alternative.  A recommendation as to the preferred alternative for conducting the bypass.  The projected date of bypass initiation.  A statement of compliance with SEPA.  A request for modification of water quality standards as provided for in WAC 173-201A-410, if an exceedance of any water quality standard is anticipated.  Details of the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. b. For probable construction bypasses, the Permittee must notify Ecology of the need to bypass as early in the planning process as possible. The Permittee must consider the analysis required above during the project planning and design process. The project-specific engineering report or facilities plan as well as the plans and specifications must include details of probable construction bypasses to the extent practical. In cases where the Permittee determines the probable need to bypass early, the Permittee must continue to analyze conditions up to and including the construction period in an effort to minimize or eliminate the bypass. c. Ecology will consider the following prior to issuing an administrative order for this type of bypass:  If the bypass is necessary to perform construction or maintenance- related activities essential to meet the requirements of this permit. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 651 of 774 Page 23 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022  If feasible alternatives to bypass exist, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, stopping production, maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time, or transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility.  If the Permittee planned and scheduled the bypass to minimize adverse effects on the public and the environment. After consideration of the above and the adverse effects of the proposed bypass and any other relevant factors, Ecology will approve or deny the request. Ecology will give the public an opportunity to comment on bypass incidents of significant duration, to the extent feasible. Ecology will approve a request to bypass by issuing an administrative order under RCW 90.48.120. S5.G. Operations and maintenance manual a. O&M manual submittal and requirements The Permittee must: 1. Review the O&M at least annually. 2. Submit substantial changes or updates to the O&M Manual to Ecology for review and approval whenever it incorporates them into the manual. 3. Keep the approved O&M Manual at the permitted facility. 4. Follow the instructions and procedures of this manual. b. O&M manual components In addition to the requirements of WAC 173-240-080(1) through (5), the O&M Manual must be consistent with the guidance in Table G1-3 in the Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book), 2008. The O&M manual must include: 1. Emergency procedures for plant shutdown and cleanup in event of wastewater system upset or failure, or collection/irrigation system leak. 2. Irrigation system operational controls and procedures. 3. Wastewater system maintenance procedures that contribute to the generation of wastewater. 4. Reporting protocols for submitting reports to Ecology to comply with the reporting requirements in the discharge permit. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 652 of 774 Page 24 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 5. Any directions to maintenance staff when cleaning, or maintaining other equipment or performing other tasks which are necessary to protect the operation of the wastewater system (for example, defining maximum allowable discharge rate for draining a tank, blocking all floor drains before beginning the overhaul of a stationary engine). 6. Treatment plant process control monitoring schedule. 7. Wastewater sampling protocols and procedures for compliance with the sampling and reporting requirements in the wastewater discharge permit. 8. Minimum staffing adequate to operate and maintain the treatment processes and carry out compliance monitoring required by the permit. 9. Protocols and procedures for groundwater monitoring network, vadose zone, and soil sampling and testing. 10. Protocols and procedures for double-lined evaporation pond leak system, sampling and testing. 11. Specify other items on case-by-case basis such as O&M for collection systems pump stations, lagoon liners, etc. S6. Pretreatment S6.A. General requirements The Permittee must work with Ecology to ensure that all commercial and industrial users of the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) comply with the pretreatment regulations in 40 CFR Part 403 and any additional regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) may promulgate under Section 307(b) (pretreatment) and 308 (reporting) of the Federal Clean Water Act. S6.B. Duty to enforce discharge prohibitions 1. Under federal regulations (40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b)), the Permittee must not authorize or knowingly allow the discharge of any pollutants into its POTW which may be reasonably expected to cause pass through or interference, or which otherwise violate general or specific discharge prohibitions contained in 40 CFR Part 403.5 or WAC 173-216-060. 2. The Permittee must not authorize or knowingly allow the introduction of any of the following into their treatment works: a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW (including, but not limited to waste streams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21). Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 653 of 774 Page 25 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0, or greater than 11.0 standard units, unless the works are specifically designed to accommodate such discharges. c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts that could cause obstruction to the flow in sewers or otherwise interfere with the operation of the POTW. d. Any pollutant, including oxygen-demanding pollutants, (BOD5, etc.) released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause interference with the POTW. e. Petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through. f. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity which may cause acute worker health and safety problems. g. Heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference but in no case heat in such quantities such that the temperature at the POTW headworks exceeds 40 degrees Centigrade (104 degrees Fahrenheit) unless Ecology, upon request of the Permittee, approves, in writing, alternate temperature limits. h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the Permittee. i. Wastewaters prohibited to be discharged to the POTW by the Dangerous Waste Regulations (chapter 173-303 WAC), unless authorized under the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (WAC 173-303-071). 3. The Permittee must also not allow the following discharges to the POTW unless approved in writing by Ecology: a. Noncontact cooling water in significant volumes. b. Stormwater and other direct inflow sources. c. Wastewaters significantly affecting system hydraulic loading, which do not require treatment, or would not be afforded a significant degree of treatment by the system. 4. The Permittee must notify Ecology if any industrial user violates the prohibitions listed in this section (S6.B), and initiate enforcement action to promptly curtail any such discharge. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 654 of 774 Page 26 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S6.C. Wastewater discharge permit required The Permittee must: 1. Establish a process for authorizing non-domestic wastewater discharges that ensures all SIUs in all tributary areas meet the applicable state waste discharge permit (SWDP) requirements in accordance with chapter 90.48 RCW and chapter 173-216 WAC. 2. Immediately notify Ecology of any proposed discharge of wastewater from a source, which may be a significant industrial user (SIU) [see fact sheet definitions or refer to 40 CFR 403.3(v)(i)(ii)]. 3. Require all SIUs to obtain a SWDP from Ecology prior to accepting their non- domestic wastewater, or require proof that Ecology has determined they do not require a permit. 4. Require the documentation as described in S6.C.3 at the earliest practicable date as a condition of continuing to accept non-domestic wastewater discharges from a previously undiscovered, currently discharging and unpermitted SIU. 5. Require sources of non-domestic wastewater, which do not qualify as SIUs but merit a degree of oversight, to apply for a SWDP and provide it a copy of the application and any Ecology responses. 6. Keep all records documenting that its users have met the requirements of S6.C. S6.D. Identification and reporting of existing, new, and proposed industrial users 1. The Permittee must take continuous, routine measures to identify all existing, new, and proposed SIUs and potential significant industrial users (PSIUs) discharging or proposing to discharge to the Permittee's sewer system (see Appendix C of the fact sheet for definitions). 2. Within 30 days of becoming aware of an unpermitted existing, new, or proposed industrial user who may be a significant industrial user (SIU), the Permittee must notify such user by registered mail that, if classified as an SIU, they must apply to Ecology and obtain a State Waste Discharge Permit. The Permittee must send a copy of this notification letter to Ecology within this same 30-day period. 3. The Permittee must also notify all Potential SIUs (PSIUs), as they are identified, that if their classification should change to an SIU, they must apply for a Moses Lake Municipal Wastewater Discharge Permit or for an Ecology State Waste Discharge permit within 30 days of such change. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 655 of 774 Page 27 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 S6.E. Submittal of list of industrial users The Permittee must submit to Ecology a list summarizing all existing and proposed SIUs and PSIUs by June 30, 2023. S7. Application for permit renewal or modification for facility changes The Permittee must submit an application for renewal of this permit by March 31, 2026. Mail the original, signed application to the Water Quality Permit Coordinator, Eastern Regional Office, Department of Ecology, 4601 N. Monroe Street, Spokane, Washington 99205. Send an electronic copy of the application (preferably as a PDF) by email to the Permit Coordinator at stra461@ecy.wa.gov. Scan any attachments to the application and submit them with the application. The Permittee must also submit a new application or addendum at least 180 days prior to commencement of discharges, resulting from the activities listed below, which may result in permit violations. These activities include any facility expansions, production increases, or other planned changes, such as process modifications, in the permitted facility. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 656 of 774 Page 28 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 General Conditions G1. Signatory requirements All applications, reports, or information submitted to Ecology must be signed as follows: 1. All permit applications must be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. 2. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by Ecology must be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: a. The authorization is made in writing by the person described above and is submitted to Ecology at the time of authorization, and b. The authorization specifies either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position. 3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph G1.2. above is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization must be submitted to Ecology prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. 4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section must make the following certification: "I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." G2. Right of entry Representatives of Ecology have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. Reasonable times include normal business hours; hours during which production, treatment, or discharge occurs; or times when Ecology suspects a violation requiring immediate inspection. Representatives of Ecology must be allowed to have access to, and copy at reasonable cost, any records required to be kept under terms and conditions of the permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or method required in the permit; and to sample the discharge, waste treatment processes, or internal waste streams. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 657 of 774 Page 29 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 G3. Permit actions This permit is subject to modification, suspension, or termination, in whole or in part by Ecology for any of the following causes: 1. Violation of any permit term or condition; 2. Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose all relevant facts; 3. A material change in quantity or type of waste disposal; 4. A material change in the condition of the waters of the state; or 5. Nonpayment of fees assessed pursuant to RCW 90.48.465. Ecology may also modify this permit, including the schedule of compliance or other conditions, if it determines good and valid cause exists, including promulgation or revisions of regulations or new information. G4. Reporting a cause for modification The Permittee must submit a new application at least 180 days before it wants to discharge more of any pollutant, a new pollutant, or more flow than allowed under this permit. The Permittee should use the State Waste Discharge permit application, and submit required plans at the same time. Required plans include an Engineering Report, Plans and Specifications, and an Operations and Maintenance manual, (see Chapter 173-240 WAC). Ecology may waive these plan requirements for small changes, so contact Ecology if they do not appear necessary. The Permittee must obtain the written concurrence of the receiving POTW on the application before submitting it to Ecology. The Permittee must continue to comply with the existing permit until it is modified or reissued. Submitting a notice of dangerous waste discharge (to comply with Pretreatment or Dangerous Waste rules) triggers this requirement as well. G5. Plan review required Prior to constructing or modifying any wastewater control facilities, an engineering report and detailed plans and specifications must be submitted to Ecology for approval in accordance with Chapter 173-240 WAC. Engineering reports, plans, and specifications should be submitted at least 180 days prior to the planned start of construction. Facilities must be constructed and operated in accordance with the approved plans. G6. Compliance with other laws and statutes Nothing in this permit excuses the Permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G7. Transfer of this permit This permit is automatically transferred to a new owner or operator if: Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 658 of 774 Page 30 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 1. A written agreement between the old and new owner or operator containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability is submitted to Ecology; 2. A copy of the permit is provided to the new owner and; 3. Ecology does not notify the Permittee of the need to modify the permit. Unless this permit is automatically transferred according to Section 1. above, this permit may be transferred only if it is modified to identify the new Permittee and to incorporate such other requirements as determined necessary by Ecology. G8. Payment of fees The Permittee must submit payment of fees associated with this permit as assessed by Ecology. Ecology may revoke this permit if the permit fees established under Chapter 173-224 WAC are not paid. G9. Penalties for violating permit conditions Any person who is found guilty of willfully violating the terms and conditions of this permit is guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Each day upon which a willful violation occurs may be deemed a separate and additional violation. Any person who violates the terms and conditions of a waste discharge permit incurs, in addition to any other penalty as provided by law, a civil penalty in the amount of up to ten thousand dollars for every such violation. Each and every such violation is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day's continuance is considered a separate and distinct violation. G10. Duty to provide information The Permittee must submit to Ecology, within a reasonable time, all information which Ecology may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. The Permittee must also submit to Ecology upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit. G11. Duty to comply The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of chapter 90.48 RCW and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 659 of 774 Page 31 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 G12. Service agreement review The Permittee must submit to Ecology any proposed service agreements and proposed revisions or updates to existing agreements for the operation of any wastewater treatment facility covered by this permit. The review is to ensure consistency with chapters 90.46 and 90.48 RCW as required by RCW 70.150.040(9). In the event that Ecology does not comment within a 30 day period, the Permittee may assume consistency and proceed with the service agreement or the revised/updated service agreement. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 660 of 774 Page 32 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Appendix A List of Pollutants with Analytical Methods, Detection Limits and Quantitation Levels The Permittee must use the specified analytical methods, detection limits (DLs) and quantitation levels (QLs) in the following table for permit and application required monitoring unless:  Another permit condition specifies other methods, detection levels, or quantitation levels.  The method used produces measurable results in the sample and EPA has listed it as an EPA-approved method in 40 CFR Part 136. If the Permittee uses an alternative method, not specified in the permit and as allowed above, it must report the test method, DL, and QL on the discharge monitoring report or in the required report. If the Permittee is unable to obtain the required DL and QL in its effluent due to matrix effects, the Permittee must submit a matrix-specific detection limit (MDL) and a quantitation limit (QL) to Ecology with appropriate laboratory documentation. When the permit requires the Permittee to measure the base neutral compounds in the list of priority pollutants, it must measure all of the base neutral pollutants listed in the table below. The list includes EPA required base neutral priority pollutants and several additional polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The Water Quality Program added several PAHs to the list of base neutrals below from Ecology’s Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBT) List. It only added those PBT parameters of interest to Appendix A that did not increase the overall cost of analysis unreasonably. Ecology added this appendix to the permit in order to reduce the number of analytical “non- detects” in permit-required monitoring and to measure effluent concentrations near or below criteria values where possible at a reasonable cost. The lists below include conventional pollutants (as defined in CWA section 502(6) and 40 CFR Part 122.), toxic or priority pollutants as defined in CWA section 307(a)(1) and listed in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix D, 40 CFR Part 401.15 and 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A), and nonconventionals. 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix D (Table V) also identifies toxic pollutants and hazardous substances which are required to be reported by dischargers if expected to be present. This permit appendix A list does not include those parameters. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 661 of 774 Page 33 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Conventional Pollutants Pollutant CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Biochemical Oxygen Demand SM5210-B 2 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Soluble SM5210-B 3 2 mg/L Fecal Coliform SM 9221E,9222 N/A Specified in method sample aliquot dependent Oil and Grease (HEM) (Hexane Extractable Material) 1664 A or B 1,400 5,000 pH SM4500-H+ B N/A N/A Total Suspended Solids SM2540-D 5 mg/L Nonconventional Pollutants Pollutant CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Alkalinity, Total SM2320-B 5 mg/L as CaCO3 Aluminum, Total 7429-90-5 200.8 2.0 10 Ammonia, Total (as N) SM4500-NH3-B and C/D/E/G/H 20 Barium Total 7440-39-3 200.8 0.5 2.0 BTEX (benzene +toluene + ethylbenzene + m,o,p xylenes) EPA SW 846 8021/8260 1 2 Boron, Total 7440-42-8 200.8 2.0 10.0 Chemical Oxygen Demand SM5220-D 10 mg/L Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 662 of 774 Page 34 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Pollutant CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Chloride SM4500-Cl B/C/D/E and SM4110 B Sample and limit dependent Chlorine, Total Residual SM4500 Cl G 50.0 Cobalt, Total 7440-48-4 200.8 0.05 0.25 Color SM2120 B/C/E 10 color units Dissolved oxygen SM4500-OC/OG 0.2 mg/L E.coli SM 9221B, 9221F, 9223B N/A Specified in method - sample aliquot dependent Enterococci SM 9230B, 9230C, 9230D N/A Specified in method - sample aliquot dependent Flow Calibrated device Fluoride 16984-48-8 SM4500-F E 25 100 Hardness, Total SM2340B 200 as CaCO3 Iron, Total 7439-89-6 200.7 12.5 50 Magnesium, Total 7439-95-4 200.7 10 50 Manganese, Total 7439-96-5 200.8 0.1 0.5 Molybdenum, Total 7439-98-7 200.8 0.1 0.5 Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen (as N) SM4500-NO3- E/F/H 100 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (as N) SM4500-NorgB/C and SM4500NH3- B/C/D/EF/G/H 300 NWTPH Dx 4 Ecology NWTPH Dx 250 250 NWTPH Gx 5 Ecology NWTPH Gx 250 250 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 663 of 774 Page 35 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Pollutant CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Phosphorus, Total (as P) SM 4500 PB followed by SM4500-PE/PF 3 10 Salinity SM2520-B 3 practical salinity units or scale (PSU or PSS) Settleable Solids SM2540 -F Sample and limit dependent Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (as P) SM4500-P E/F/G 3 10 Sulfate (as mg/L SO4) SM4110-B 0.2 mg/L Sulfide (as mg/L S) SM4500- S2F/D/E/G 0.2 mg/L Sulfite (as mg/L SO3) SM4500-SO3B 2 mg/L Temperature (max. 7-day avg.) Analog recorder or Use micro- recording devices known as thermistors 0.2º C Tin, Total 7440-31-5 200.8 0.3 1.5 Titanium, Total 7440-32-6 200.8 0.5 2.5 Total Coliform SM 9221B, 9222B, 9223B N/A Specified in method - sample aliquot dependent Total Organic Carbon SM5310-B/C/D 1 mg/L Total dissolved solids SM2540 C 20 mg/L Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 664 of 774 Page 36 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants Metals, Cyanide & Total Phenols Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Antimony, Total 114 7440-36-0 200.8 0.3 1.0 Arsenic, Total 115 7440-38-2 200.8 0.1 0.5 Beryllium, Total 117 7440-41-7 200.8 0.1 0.5 Cadmium, Total 118 7440-43-9 200.8 0.05 0.25 Chromium (hex) dissolved 119 18540-29-9 SM3500-Cr C 0.3 1.2 Chromium, Total 119 7440-47-3 200.8 0.2 1.0 Copper, Total 120 7440-50-8 200.8 0.4 2.0 Lead, Total 122 7439-92-1 200.8 0.1 0.5 Mercury, Total 123 7439-97-6 1631E 0.0002 0.0005 Nickel, Total 124 7440-02-0 200.8 0.1 0.5 Selenium, Total 125 7782-49-2 200.8 1.0 1.0 Silver, Total 126 7440-22-4 200.8 0.04 0.2 Thallium, Total 127 7440-28-0 200.8 0.09 0.36 Zinc, Total 128 7440-66-6 200.8 0.5 2.5 Cyanide, Total 121 57-12-5 335.4 5 10 Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable 121 SM4500-CN I 5 10 Cyanide, Free Amenable to Chlorination 121 SM4500-CN G 5 10 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 665 of 774 Page 37 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified (Available Cyanide) Phenols, Total 65 EPA 420.1 50 Acid Compounds Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified 2-Chlorophenol 24 95-57-8 625.1 3.3 9.9 2,4- Dichlorophenol 31 120-83-2 625.1 2.7 8.1 2,4- Dimethylphenol 34 105-67-9 625.1 2.7 8.1 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (2-methyl-4,6,- dinitrophenol) 60 534-52-1 625.1/1625B 24 72 2,4 dinitrophenol 59 51-28-5 625.1 42 126 2-Nitrophenol 57 88-75-5 625.1 3.6 10.8 4-Nitrophenol 58 100-02-7 625.1 2.4 7.2 Parachlorometa cresol (4-chloro-3- methylphenol) 22 59-50-7 625.1 3.0 9.0 Pentachlorophenol 64 87-86-5 625.1 3.6 10.8 Phenol 65 108-95-2 625.1 1.5 4.5 2,4,6- Trichlorophenol 21 88-06-2 625.1 2.7 8.1 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 666 of 774 Page 38 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Volatile Compounds Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommen ded Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Acrolein 2 107-02-8 624.1 5 10 Acrylonitrile 3 107-13-1 624.1 1.0 2.0 Benzene 4 71-43-2 624.1 4.4 13.2 Bromoform 47 75-25-2 624.1 4.7 14.1 Carbon tetrachloride 6 56-23-5 624.1/601 or SM6230B 2.8 8.4 Chlorobenzene 7 108-90-7 624.1 6.0 18.0 Chloroethane 16 75-00-3 624/601 1.0 2.0 2- Chloroethylvinyl Ether 19 110-75-8 624.1 1.0 2.0 Chloroform 23 67-66-3 624.1 or SM6210B 1.6 4.8 Dibromochlorom ethane (chlordibromomet hane) 51 124-48-1 624.1 3.1 9.3 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 25 95-50-1 624.1 1.9 7.6 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 26 541-73-1 624.1 1.9 7.6 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 27 106-46-7 624.1 4.4 17.6 Dichlorobromom ethane 48 75-27-4 624.1 2.2 6.6 1,1- Dichloroethane 13 75-34-3 624.1 4.7 14.1 1,2- Dichloroethane 10 107-06-2 624.1 2.8 8.4 1,1- Dichloroethylene 29 75-35-4 624.1 2.8 8.4 1,2- Dichloropropane 32 78-87-5 624.1 6.0 18.0 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 667 of 774 Page 39 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommen ded Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified 1,3- dichloropropene (mixed isomers) (1,2- dichloropropylen e)6 33 542-75-6 624.1 5.0 15.0 Ethylbenzene 38 100-41-4 624.1 7.2 21.6 Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) 46 74-83-9 624/601 5.0 10.0 Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) 45 74-87-3 624.1 1.0 2.0 Methylene chloride 44 75-09-2 624.1 2.8 8.4 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethan e 15 79-34-5 624.1 6.9 20.7 Tetrachloroethyle ne 85 127-18-4 624.1 4.1 12.3 Toluene 86 108-88-3 624.1 6.0 18.0 1,2-Trans- Dichloroethylene (Ethylene dichloride) 30 156-60-5 624.1 1.6 4.8 1,1,1- Trichloroethane 11 71-55-6 624.1 3.8 11.4 1,1,2- Trichloroethane 14 79-00-5 624.1 5.0 15.0 Trichloroethylene 87 79-01-6 624.1 1.9 5.7 Vinyl chloride 88 75-01-4 624/SM6200 B 1.0 2.0 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 668 of 774 Page 40 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Base/Neutral Compounds (Compounds in Bold are Ecology PBTS) Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommend ed Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Acenaphthene 1 83-32-9 625.1 1.9 5.7 Acenaphthylene 77 208-96-8 625.1 3.5 10.5 Anthracene 78 120-12-7 625.1 1.9 5.7 Benzidine 5 92-87-5 625.1 44 132 Benzyl butyl phthalate 67 85-68-7 625.1 2.5 7.5 Benzo(a)anthrac ene 72 56-55-3 625.1 7.8 23.4 Benzo(b)fluorant hene (3,4- benzofluoranthen e) 7 74 205-99-2 610/625.1 4.8 14.4 Benzo(j)fluorant hene 7 205-82-3 625 0.5 1.0 Benzo(k)fluorant hene (11,12- benzofluoranthen e) 7 75 207-08-9 610/625.1 2.5 7.5 Benzo(r,s,t)pent aphene 189-55-9 625 1.3 5.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 73 50-32-8 610/625.1 2.5 7.5 Benzo(ghi)Peryle ne 79 191-24-2 610/625.1 4.1 12.3 Bis(2- chloroethoxy)met hane 43 111-91-1 625.1 5.3 15.9 Bis(2- chloroethyl)ether 18 111-44-4 611/625.1 5.7 17.1 Bis(2-chloro-1- methylethyl)Ether (Bis(2- chloroisopropyl)e ther)10 42 108-60-1 625.1 5.7 17.1 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 669 of 774 Page 41 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommend ed Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthal ate 66 117-81-7 625.1 2.5 7.5 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 41 101-55-3 625.1 1.9 5.7 2- Chloronaphthale ne 20 91-58-7 625.1 1.9 5.7 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 40 7005-72-3 625.1 4.2 12.6 Chrysene 76 218-01-9 610/625.1 2.5 7.5 Dibenzo (a,h)acridine 226-36-8 610M/625M 2.5 10.0 Dibenzo (a,j)acridine 224-42-0 610M/625M 2.5 10.0 Dibenzo(a- h)anthracene (1,2,5,6- dibenzanthracen e) 82 53-70-3 625.1 2.5 7.5 Dibenzo(a,e)pyr ene 192-65-4 610M/625M 2.5 10.0 Dibenzo(a,h)pyr ene 189-64-0 625M 2.5 10.0 3,3- Dichlorobenzidin e 28 91-94-1 605/625.1 16.5 49.5 Diethyl phthalate 70 84-66-2 625.1 1.9 5.7 Dimethyl phthalate 71 131-11-3 625.1 1.6 4.8 Di-n-butyl phthalate 68 84-74-2 625.1 2.5 7.5 2,4-dinitrotoluene 35 121-14-2 609/625.1 5.7 17.1 2,6-dinitrotoluene 36 606-20-2 609/625.1 1.9 5.7 Di-n-octyl phthalate 69 117-84-0 625.1 2.5 7.5 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 670 of 774 Page 42 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommend ed Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified 1,2- Diphenylhydrazin e (as Azobenzene) 37 122-66-7 1625B 5.0 20 Fluoranthene 39 206-44-0 625.1 2.2 6.6 Fluorene 80 86-73-7 625.1 1.9 5.7 Hexachlorobenze ne 9 118-74-1 612/625.1 1.9 5.7 Hexachlorobutadi ene 52 87-68-3 625.1 0.9 2.7 Hexachlorocyclo pentadiene 53 77-47-4 1625B/625 2.0 4.0 Hexachloroethan e 12 67-72-1 625.1 1.6 4.8 Indeno(1,2,3- cd)Pyrene 83 193-39-5 610/625.1 3.7 11.1 Isophorone 54 78-59-1 625.1 2.2 6.6 3-Methyl cholanthrene 56-49-5 625 2.0 8.0 Naphthalene 55 91-20-3 625.1 1.6 4.8 Nitrobenzene 56 98-95-3 625.1 1.9 5.7 N- Nitrosodimethyla mine 61 62-75-9 607/625 2.0 4.0 N-Nitrosodi-n- propylamine 63 621-64-7 607/625 0.5 1.0 N- Nitrosodiphenyla mine 62 86-30-6 625 1.0 2.0 Perylene 198-55-0 625 1.9 7.6 Phenanthrene 81 85-01-8 625.1 5.4 16.2 Pyrene 84 129-00-0 625.1 1.9 5.7 1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 8 120-82-1 625.1 1.9 5.7 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 671 of 774 Page 43 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Dioxin Priority Pollutant PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified 2,3,7,8-Tetra- Chlorodibenzo- P-Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) 129 1746-01-6 1613B 1.3 pg/L 5 pg/L Pesticides/PCBS Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified Aldrin 89 309-00-2 608.3 4.0 ng/L 12 ng/L alpha-BHC 102 319-84-6 608.3 3.0 ng/L 9.0 ng/L beta-BHC 103 319-85-7 608.3 6.0 ng/L 18 ng/L gamma-BHC (Lindane) 104 58-89-9 608.3 4.0 ng/L 12 ng/L delta-BHC 105 319-86-8 608.3 9.0 ng/L 27 ng/L Chlordane 8 91 57-74-9 608.3 14 ng/L 42 ng/L 4,4’-DDT 92 50-29-3 608.3 12 ng/L 36 ng/L 4,4’-DDE 93 72-55-9 608.3 4.0 ng/L 12 ng/L 4,4’ DDD 94 72-54-8 608.3 11ng/L 33 ng/L Dieldrin 90 60-57-1 608.3 2.0 ng/L 6.0 ng/L alpha- Endosulfan 95 959-98-8 608.3 14 ng/L 42 ng/L beta-Endosulfan 96 33213-65-9 608.3 4.0 ng/L 12 ng/L Endosulfan Sulfate 97 1031-07-8 608.3 66 ng/L 198 ng/L Endrin 98 72-20-8 608.3 6.0 ng/L 18 ng/L Endrin Aldehyde 99 7421-93-4 608.3 23 ng/L 70 ng/L Heptachlor 100 76-44-8 608.3 3.0 ng/L 9.0 ng/L Heptachlor Epoxide 101 1024-57-3 608.3 83 ng/L 249 ng/L Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 672 of 774 Page 44 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Priority Pollutants PP # CAS Number (if available) Recommended Analytical Protocol Detection (DL)1 µg/L Unless specified Quantitation Level (QL) 2 µg/L Unless specified PCB-1242 9 106 53469-21-9 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1254 107 11097-69-1 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1221 108 11104-28-2 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1232 109 11141-16-5 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1248 110 12672-29-6 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1260 111 11096-82-5 608.3 0.065 0.195 PCB-1016 9 112 12674-11-2 608.3 0.065 0.195 Toxaphene 113 8001-35-2 608.3 240 ng/L 720 ng/L Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 673 of 774 Page 45 of 45 Permit Number ST0008024 Effective 04/01/2022 Analytical Methods 1. Detection level (DL) – or detection limit means the minimum concentration of an analyte (substance) that can be measured and reported with a 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero as determined by the procedure given in 40 CFR part 136, Appendix B. 2. Quantitation Level (QL) – also known as Minimum Level of Quantitation (ML) – The lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte. It is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard, assuming that the lab has used all method-specified sample weights, volumes, and cleanup procedures. The QL is calculated by multiplying the MDL by 3.18 and rounding the result to the number nearest to (1, 2, or 5) x 10n, where n is an integer. (64 FR 30417). Also Given As: The smallest detectable concentration of analyte greater than the Detection Limit (DL) where the accuracy (precision & bias) achieves the objectives of the intended purpose. (Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in Clean Water Act Programs Submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency December 2007). 3. Soluble Biochemical Oxygen Demand – method note: First, filter the sample through a Millipore Nylon filter (or equivalent) - pore size of 0.45-0.50 um (prep all filters by filtering 250 ml of laboratory grade deionized water through the filter and discard). Then, analyze sample as per method 5210-B. 4. Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel Extended Range OR NWTPH Dx – Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/97602.pdf. 5. Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Gasoline Extended Range OR NWTPH Gx – Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/97602.pdf. 6. 1, 3-dichloroproylene (mixed isomers) – You may report this parameter as two separate parameters: cis-1, 3-dichlorpropropene (10061-01-5) and trans-1, 3-dichloropropene (10061-02-6). 7. Total Benzofluoranthenes – Because Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(j)fluoranthene and Benzo(k)fluoranthene co-elute you may report these three isomers as total benzofluoranthenes. 8. Chlordane – You may report alpha-chlordane (5103-71-9) and gamma-chlordane (5103- 74-2) in place of chlordane (57-74-9). If you report alpha and gamma-chlordane, the DL/PQLs that apply are 14/42 ng/L. 9. PCB 1016 & PCB 1242 – You may report these two PCB compounds as one parameter called PCB 1016/1242. 10. Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether – This compound was previously listed as Bis(2- Chloroisopropyl) Ether (39638-32-9) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 674 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 675 of 774 CIP Information APPENDIX K Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 676 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 677 of 774 Project Identifier:P1 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) In ProgressTotal Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Design Considerations: General Line Items Project In Progress This project will require approval from Ecology due to capacity increases, pumping analysis, wet well sizing analysis, structural evaluation of existing wet well, and an electrical evaluation for short term and long term impacts. Project Title:Location: COF Wastewater Pump Upgrades 1303 W. Lakeside Dr. Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Objective: The COF pump station acts as a regional lift station and is a critical pumping facility. An increase in wastewater flows are expected over the next 20‐ year planning period. Replace aging electrical and mechanical infrastructure, increase pumping capacity and reduce O&M requirements. J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 678 of 774 Project Identifier:P2 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) In Progress Lake crossing, abandoning/replacing existing lift stations. General Line Items Project In Progress Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: New Northshore Lift Station Edgewater Ln Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The existing Sage Bay and Northshore lift stations are undersized and cause surcharging. Objective: Construct a new lift station and convey flows to COF. Design Considerations: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 679 of 774 Project Identifier:P3 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) In Progress General Line Items Project In Progress Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: Westshore and Hansen Road Odor Control Westshore Dr Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Odor issues have been an issue at the discharge of the Moses Pointe force main. Objective: Install odor control devices to reduce odor. Design Considerations: Number of odor control devices to be installed, locations of devices J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 680 of 774 Project Identifier:P4 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) In Progress General Line Items Project In Progress Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: Peninsula 10" Gravity Sewer and Wetwell Replacement Penn Ivy St, Lakeside Dr Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Existing pipe does not meet railroad depth requirements. Objective: Replace pipe with deeper pipe, upgrade Peninsula to triplex system. Design Considerations: Method of bypass pumping, railroad permitting, method of pipeline replacement. Costs assume conservative open trenching. Replacement of existing Peninsula wetwell and room for third pump. J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 681 of 774 Project Identifier:P5 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 50,000$ 100,000$ 1 LS 180,000$ 180,000$ 2 EA 60,000$ 120,000$ 1 LS 60,000$ 60,000$ 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 485,000$ 10% 48,500$ 15% 80,025$ 5% 26,675$ 8.4%44,814$ 30%205,504$ 891,000$ 0% ‐$ 0% ‐$ LS ‐$ 3% ‐$ $891,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 1 month construction) WA Prevailing Wages Subtotal Upgrade pumps to deliver flow and head to the Main LS force main. Design Considerations: Multiple pump stations share the same force main; the new Northlake upgrade and Wheeler extension will feed into this shared force main. General Line Items Submersible Pumps Mechanical Material and Installation Electrical SCADA Integration and Upgrades Wet Well Replacement Project Title:Location: Upgrade Division Lift Station Pumps S Division St. Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Existing pumps need to be sized for the new forcemain extension and connection. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 682 of 774 Project Identifier:1.1 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 120,000$ 240,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 EA 13,000$ 13,000$ 1 LS 61,000$ 61,000$ 1 LS 70,000$ 70,000$ 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 EA 300,000$ 300,000$ 909,000$ 15%136,350$ 10%104,535$ 10%104,535$ 5%62,721$ 8%100,354$ 30%425,248$ 1,843,000$ 15%276,450$ 5%92,150$ LS 20,800$ 3%10,631$ $2,244,000 Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 20 hrs/week, 2 months construction) Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit WA Prevailing Wages American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) Project Title:Location: Upgrade Wheeler Lift Station Pumps & Controls Wheeler Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: To serve immediate and 20‐year flows, replace aging pumps, add controls and connect to SCADA. Objective: Subtotal Upgrades the lift station to handle anticipated flow, O&M improvements. Design Considerations: Size pumps for Wheeler force main extension and connection to the Main force main; Multiple pump stations share the same force main. Potential coordination with the Industrial lift station for phasing. General Line Items Submersible Pumps (75‐100 hp per pump) Control Upgrade and SCADA Connection Electrical Improvements Backup Generator and ATS Electrical Service Upgrades Mechanical Improvements Valve Vault Improvements J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 683 of 774 Project Identifier:1.2 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2,500 LF 164$ 409,700$ 2 EA 6,321$ 12,700$ 2,500 LF 29$ 71,900$ 2,500 LF 9$ 23,000$ 1 EA 11,492$ 11,500$ 1 LS 24,000$ 24,000$ 553,000$ 15%82,950$ 10%55,300$ 5%27,650$ 5%27,650$ 8.4%46,452$ 30%237,901$ 1,031,000$ 15% 154,650$ 10% 103,100$ LS 43,200$ LS 20,000$ LS 5,000$ 3% 5,948$ $1,363,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit WA Prevailing Wages American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 40 hrs/week, 2 months construction) Subtotal Bypass the downstream Main LS and tie into the Main force main. Design Considerations: Design considerations include permitting issues, right‐of‐way/easement and construction schedule. General Line Items 8‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Connect to existing pipe Half Lane Pavement Repair Traffic Control ‐ With Flagging Bypass Pumping Cleanout (<=12") Project Title:Location: Wheeler Lift Station Force Main Extension 5th Ave, 6th Ave Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The intent is to reduce capacity on the Main pump station and pump in a more direct route to the COF. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 684 of 774 Project Identifier:1.3 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 13,000 LF 213$ 2,763,800$ 43 EA 9,194$ 398,500$ 2 EA 5,065$ 10,200$ 3,173,000$ 15%475,950$ 10%364,895$ 5%158,650$ 5%182,448$ 8.4%365,815$ 30%1,416,227$ 6,137,000$ In‐house In‐house LS In‐house LS By County LS 25,000$ LS In‐house 3%153,425$ $6,316,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location . This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding ,or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids .or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 5 months construction) Subtotal Construct a gravity main to replace the Moses Pointe lift station and service the Mae Valley area. Design Considerations: Service area, dewatering of trench, depth of pipelines, traffic control along Westshore Drive. Coordinate work with Westshore Drive Roadway Project General Line Items 18‐inch Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Manholes (48") Connect to existing manhole Project Title:Location: Westshore Drive Gravity Main Extension Westshore Dr Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Moses Pointe Lift Station is not sized to convey future flows. The Mae Valley area is expected to experience major growth within 20 years. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 685 of 774 Project Identifier:1.4 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 LS 95,000$ 95,000$ $95,000 General Line Items Master Plan Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: Larson WWTP Facility Plan 6691 Randolph Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Larson Treatment Facility requires a planning study to inform future improvements and operations. Objective: To identify defects and provide recommended improvements to treatment and operations. Planning Considerations: Includes reviewing reuse feasibility at the treatment plant. Can be combined with the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan for some cost savings. J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 686 of 774 Project Identifier:1.5 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 LS 95,000$ 95,000$ $95,000 General Line Items Master Plan Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: Sand Dunes WWTP Facility Plan Road K Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Sand Dunes Treatment Facility requires a planning study to inform future improvements and operations Objective: To identify defects and provide recommended improvments to treatment and operations Planning Considerations: Includes reviewing reuse feasibility at the treatment plant. Can be combined with the Larson Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan for some cost savings. J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 687 of 774 Project Identifier:2.1 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1,400 LF 177$ 247,400$ 1,100 LF 577$ 634,500$ 2 EA 6,321$ 12,700$ 200 LF 29$ 5,800$ 2 EA 11,492$ 23,000$ 924,000$ 15%138,600$ 10%106,260$ 5%53,130$ 5%61,100$ 8.4%107,780$ 30%417,261$ 1,809,000$ 15%271,350$ 10%180,900$ LS 43,200$ LS 4,000$ LS 15,000$ LS 8,000$ LS 10,000$ 3%45,225$ $2,387,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Permitting Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 2 months construction) Subtotal Construct a parallel force main from the Northshore lift station to the Main force main. Design Considerations: Assumed directional drilling under the lake. Other considerations include environmental permitting, operations of parallel force mains. General Line Items 10‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Directional Drillng, hard rock, 24,000+ psi, 18" diam Connect to existing pipe Half Lane Pavement Repair Cleanout (<=12") Project Title:Location: New Parallel North Shore LS Force Main Edgewater Ln, Dogwood St Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: City identified redundancy and condition concerns with the existing Sage Bay force main. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 688 of 774 Project Identifier:2.2 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1,650 LF 253$ 418,000$ 418,000$ 15%62,700$ 10%48,070$ 5%24,035$ 5%27,640$ 8.4%48,757$ 30%188,761$ 818,000$ 15%122,700$ 10%81,800$ LS 21,600$ LS 5,000$ LS 12,000$ LS 15,000$ 3%20,450$ $1,097,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Permitting Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 1 month construction) Subtotal Replace existing AC force main, increase capacity and resolve defects. Design Considerations: Assumed laying pipe along the bottom of the lake. Other considerations include environmental permitting, pipe protection within lake. General Line Items 24‐inch Pressure Pipe, lake installation Project Title:Location: New COF Lift Station Lake Crossing Force Main W Lakeside Dr, W Nelson Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: City identified capacity and condition concerns with the existing COF force main. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 689 of 774 Project Identifier:2.3 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 23,210 LF 305$ 7,069,600$ 9 EA 22,984$ 202,100$ 450 LF 1,034$ 465,500$ 22,760 LF 25$ 569,000$ 22,760 LF 9$ 209,300$ 2 EA 6,321$ 12,700$ 8,529,000$ 15%1,279,350$ 10%980,835$ 5%490,418$ 5%563,980$ 8.4%994,861$ 30%3,851,533$ 16,690,000$ 15%2,503,500$ 5%834,500$ LS 109,200$ LS 5,000$ LS 25,000$ LS 40,000$ LS 15,000$ 3%417,250$ $20,640,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Permitting Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 120 hrs/month, 7 months construction) Subtotal Construct new parallel COF force main to the Sand Dunes WWTP, replace AC pipe. Design Considerations: Assumed construction of pipeline within existing ROWs. Rock Excavation may be required, include geotechnical investigation. General Line Items 24‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Cleanout (>12") Highway Boring Half Lane Pavement Repair Connect to existing pipe Traffic Control ‐ With Flagging Project Title:Location: 24" COF Force Main Potato Hill Rd, Baseline Rd E, Road K Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The existing COF force main is experiencing defects and may be undersized for 20‐year flows. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 690 of 774 Project Identifier:2.4 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 29 EA 4,900$ 142,100$ 142,100$ 15%21,315$ 10%16,342$ 8%13,073$ 5%9,641$ 8.4%17,008$ 15%32,922$ 253,000$ 3%6,325$ $260,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Subtotal Add Davit Fall Arrest cranes at each lift station, excluding the new Northshore and COF lift stations Design Considerations: Space constraints at each site General Line Items DAVIT Fall Arrest on Wetwell Project Title:Location: City‐wide Lift Station Safety Upgrades City Owned Lift Stations Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The City needs fall arrest cranes on each of the lift stations to provide safety for operators. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 691 of 774 Project Identifier:2.5 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 EA 40,000$ 40,000$ 2 EA 35,000$ 70,000$ 1 EA 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 EA 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 335,000$ 15% 50,250$ 10% 38,525$ 10% 38,525$ 5% 16,750$ 8.4% 40,240$ 30% 155,787$ 676,000$ 15% 101,400$ 10% 67,600$ LS 20,800$ 3% 16,900$ $883,000 Project Title:Location: Patton Lift Station Control and Pump Upgrades Patton Blvd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Patton lift station's pumps and electrical equipment are in poor condition and in need of replacement. Objective: WA Prevailing Wages This work will replace the existing pumps and bring the lift station up to current City standards, move controls above ground, allow operators to monitor these pumping facilities remotely, and improve operator response time and reduce risk of catastrophic failure. Design Considerations: Panels will be designed to current City standards. During design, methods of communications will need to be determined for each site. General Line Items Panel Fabrication SCADA Integration Legal, Administrative, and Funding Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding ,or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids .or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Submersible Pumps Generator and ATS ‐ 50kW Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 20 hrs/week, 2 months construction) Telemetry Subtotal Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 692 of 774 Project Identifier:2.6 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 4 EA 40,000$ 160,000$ 4 EA 20,000$ 80,000$ 4 EA 5,000$ 20,000$ 4 EA 20,000$ 80,000$ 340,000$ 15% 51,000$ 10% 39,100$ 8% 31,280$ 5% 17,000$ 8.4% 40,184$ 30% 155,569$ 675,000$ 15% 101,250$ 10% 67,500$ LS 20,800$ 3% 16,875$ $882,000 Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding ,or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids .or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 20 hrs/week, 2 months construction) Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit Taxes Contingency American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Subtotal This work will bring these lift stations up to current City standards, bring controls above ground, allow operators to monitor these pumping facilities remotely, and improve operator response time and reduce risk of catastrophic failure. Design Considerations: Panels will be designed to current City standards. During design, methods of communications will need to be determined for each site. General Line Items Panel Fabrication SCADA Integration Telemetry Wetwell Liner Project Title:Location: Controls Upgrade @ Carswell, Carnation, Castle, Larson Lift Stations Carswell, Carnation, Castle, and Larson Lift Stations Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: These five locations have been identified as areas of improvement that don't meet City's controls standards. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 693 of 774 Project Identifier:2.7 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 EA 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 15%30,000$ 10%23,000$ 8%18,400$ 5%13,570$ 8.4%23,937$ 30%92,672$ 402,000$ 15%60,300$ 5%20,100$ LS 5,400$ 3%10,050$ $498,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 2 hrs/day, 1 month construction) Subtotal Install emergency power generators and electrical upgrades at the Larson Lift Station. Design Considerations: Size electrical upgrades for new generator and ATS. May be able to reuse the Sage Bay generator at Larson. General Line Items Larson Generator & ATS ‐ 50 kW Project Title:Location: New Generator for Larson LS 6691 Randolph Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Backup power is needed at the Larson Lift Station. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 694 of 774 Project Identifier:2.8 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 30,000$ 60,000$ 1 LS 18,500$ 18,500$ 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ 81,000$ 15% 12,150$ 10% 9,315$ 10% 9,315$ 5%5,589$ 8.4%9,859$ 30%38,168$ 166,000$ 15%24,900$ 10%16,600$ LS 21,600$ 3%4,150$ $234,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 1 month construction) Subtotal Replace the pumps in the Marina Lift Station, replace mechanical and electrical components as necessary. Design Considerations: Recommended inspection to determine cause of low pumping rate prior to replacement. General Line Items Submersible Pumps Mechanical Materials & Labor Electrical Materials & Labor Project Title:Location: Marina Lift Station Pump Replacement W Marina Dr Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Pump tests reveal that the Marina Lift Station is operating well below its reported capacity. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 695 of 774 Project Identifier:3.1 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 6,000 LF 224$ 1,344,600$ 6,200 LF 155$ 961,900$ 1 LS 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$ 41 EA 9,194$ 377,000$ 1 EA 5,746$ 5,800$ 5,500 LF 5$ 25,300$ 6,700 LF 29$ 192,500$ 6,700 LF 5$ 30,800$ 4,000 LF 494$ 1,977,500$ 4,000 LF 164$ 655,500$ 6,820,900$ 10%682,090$ 15%1,125,449$ 5%375,150$ 5%450,179$ 8.4%794,116$ 30%3,074,365$ 13,323,000$ 11%1,465,530$ 5%666,150$ LS 216,000$ LS 25,000$ LS 20,000$ LS 60,000$ 3%333,075$ $16,109,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Legal, Administrative, and Funding Permitting & Environmental Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit WA Prevailing Wages American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 10 months construction) Subtotal Service the Cascade Valley area with City sewer. Design Considerations: Location of the lift station, pipe route and installation methodology, environmental impacts, land purchasing, gravity line alignments General Line Items 21‐inch Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Medium Lift Station (<25 hp pumps) Connect to existing manhole Half Lane Pavement Repair 8‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Manholes (48") Lake Boring, 6" to 8" pipe Traffic Control ‐ Without Flagging Miscellaneous Surface Repair 8‐inch Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Project Title:Location: Cascade Valley Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity Sewer H.4 NE, Cascade Valley Peninsula Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Cascade Valley area includes existing homes on septic, and land which is anticipated to grow, which can be served by the City's collection system. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 696 of 774 Project Identifier:3.2 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ $50,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Project Title:Location: Mae Valley Treatment Plant AKART Analysis TBD Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Mae Valley is expected to experience significant growth, may be more reasonable to create a new treatment facility. Objective: Determine the feasibility of a new Mae Valley Wastewater Treatement Plant. Planning Considerations: Topology, anticipated growth, service areas, geotechnical aspects, discharge limits. General Line Items Treatment Plant Feasibility Study J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 697 of 774 Project Identifier:3.3 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 50,000$ 100,000$ 1 LS 67,500$ 67,500$ 1 LS 25,125$ 25,200$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 193,000$ 15% 28,950$ 10% 22,195$ 10% 22,195$ 5%13,317$ 8.4%23,491$ 30%90,944$ 395,000$ 15%59,250$ 10%39,500$ LS 7,800$ 3%9,875$ $512,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 20 hrs/mo, 3 months construction) Subtotal Upgrade the existing Blue Heron pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary. Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. Mae Valley Treatment Plant eliminates this improvement. General Line Items Submersible Pumps Mechanical Materials & Labor Electrical Materials & Labor Generator and ATS ‐ 50 kW Project Title:Location: Blue Heron Lift Station Upgrade Westshore Dr Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Blue Heron Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20‐year flows. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 698 of 774 Project Identifier:3.4 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 75,000$ 150,000$ 1 LS 101,250$ 101,250$ 1 LS 37,700$ 37,700$ 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 LS 275,000$ 275,000$ 614,000$ 15% 92,100$ 10% 70,610$ 10% 70,610$ 5%42,366$ 8.4%74,734$ 30%289,326$ 1,254,000$ 15%188,100$ 10%125,400$ LS 3,900$ 3%31,350$ $1,603,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 20 hrs/mo, 3 months construction) Subtotal Upgrade the existing Nelson pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary. Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. General Line Items Submersible Pumps Mechanical Materials & Labor Electrical Materials & Labor New Electrical Service Backup Generator & ATS Project Title:Location: Nelson Lift Station Upgrade W Nelson Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Nelson Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20‐year flows. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 699 of 774 Project Identifier:3.5 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 LS 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$ 2,000 LF 158$ 315,400$ 1 EA 6,321$ 6,400$ 1 EA 11,492$ 11,500$ 1,584,000$ 15% 237,600$ 10%182,160$ 10%182,160$ 5%109,296$ 8.4%192,798$ 30%746,404$ 3,235,000$ 15%485,250$ 10%323,500$ LS 43,200$ LS By Developer LS By Developer LS By Developer LS By Developer LS By Developer 3%80,875$ $4,168,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding ,or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids .or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Easement Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Permitting Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 4 hrs/day, 4 months construction) Subtotal Construct a new lift station to service anticipated residential growth. Design Considerations: Location of the lift station, sizing of the pumps for area buildout, service area. General Line Items Medium Lift Station (<25 hp pumps) 6‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Connect to existing pipe Cleanout (<=12") Project Title:Location: Southern Residential Lift Station and Force Main South of Interstate 90, east of Potato Hill Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: Future development is planned for this area but cannot be serviced by existing collection infrastructure. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 700 of 774 Project Identifier:3.6 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 2 EA 75,000$ 150,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 EA 13,000$ 13,000$ 1 LS 47,000$ 47,000$ 1 LS 70,000$ 70,000$ 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 EA 275,000$ 275,000$ 780,000$ 15% 117,000$ 10% 89,700$ 10% 89,700$ 5%53,820$ 8.4%94,938$ 30%367,548$ 1,593,000$ 15%238,950$ 10%159,300$ LS 7,800$ 3%39,825$ $2,039,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 10 hrs/mo, 6 months construction) Subtotal Upgrade the existing Carnation pumps, make electrical and mechanical upgrades as necessary. Design Considerations: Mechanical and electrical upgrade needs as the pumps are upgraded, assumed a new electrical service is required. General Line Items Submersible Pumps Mechanical Improvements Valve Vault Improvements Backup Generator and ATS Electrical Improvements Control Upgrade and SCADA Connection Electrical Service Upgrades Project Title:Location: Carnation Lift Station Upgrade Wheeler Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Carnation Lift Station does not have the capacity to convey 20‐year flows. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 701 of 774 Project Identifier:3.7 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 1 LS 1,750,000$ 1,750,000$ 7,000 LF 158$ 1,103,600$ 10‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Connected to Bridge 130 LF 130$ 16,900$ 2 EA 6,321$ 12,700$ 6,870 LF 101$ 693,900$ 7,000 LF 12$ 84,000$ 1 LS 3,448$ 3,500$ 3,665,000$ 15%549,750$ 10%421,475$ 5%210,738$ 5%242,348$ 8.4%427,502$ 30%1,655,044$ 7,172,000$ 15%1,075,800$ 10%717,200$ LS 86,400$ LS 15,000$ LS 20,000$ LS 10,000$ 3%179,300$ $9,276,000Total Project Cost (rounded) The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location . This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding ,or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids .or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Contingency Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 4 months construction) Subtotal Construct new lift station and force main to send flows to COF force main. Design Considerations: Would likely start with a smaller flowrate, then phase into a peak flow of 1,000 gpm. Other considerations include environmental permits of the land bridge, coordination with state highway district, routing of pipeline, right‐of‐way. Mae Valley WWTP eliminates this improvement. General Line Items Large Lift Station (>=25 hp pumps) Connect to existing pipe 10‐inch Pressure Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Full Lane Pavement Repair Traffic Control ‐ With Flagging Permitting (Highway) Project Title:Location: New LS on Peninsula Dr, Extension to COF Force Main Interstate 90 Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The trunkline upstream of the Peninsula and COF Lift Stations are undersized for 20‐year flows. Flow needs to be diverted away from this trunkline. Objective: J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 702 of 774 Project Identifier:3.8 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost (2023 Dollars) 9,400 LF 213$ 1,998,500$ 34 EA 9,194$ 312,600$ 2 EA 5,065$ 10,200$ 9,400 LF 29$ 270,100$ 9,400 LS 5$ 43,300$ 100 LF 264$ 26,500$ 2,662,000$ 15%399,300$ 10%306,130$ 5%153,065$ 5%176,025$ 8.4%310,508$ 30%1,202,108$ 5,210,000$ 15%781,500$ 10%521,000$ LS 108,000$ LS 10,000$ LS 25,000$ LS 5,000$ 3%130,250$ $6,791,000 The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or .actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein Total Construction Costs Engineering ‐ Design and Bid Phase Services Engineering ‐ Construction Contract Administration Engineering ‐ Inspection (assumes 8 hrs/day, 5 months construction) Geotechnical Investigation Surveying Environmental Legal, Administrative, and Funding Total Project Cost (rounded) Contingency 18‐inch Pipe ‐ Excavation, Backfill Manholes (48") Connect to existing manhole Half Lane Pavement Repair Traffic Control ‐ Without Flagging Subtotal Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration Contractor Overhead and Profit American Iron and Steel / BABA (if federally funded) WA Prevailing Wages Taxes Railroad Casing ‐ 30" Pipe General Line Items Project Title: Location: Wheeler Rd Gravity Main Upgrade Wheeler Rd Insert graphic/image here Need for Project: The Wheeler Rd gravity trunkline is inadequate to convey future flows. The Wheeler area is expected to experience major growth within 20 years. Objective: Upsize the existing gravity trunkline to convey future flows. Design Considerations: Service area, dewatering of trench, depth of pipelines, traffic control along Westshore Drive, potential rock excavation. J:\222036 Moses Lake WW Coll Plan\b_PLAN\CIP_RATES\Moses Lake WW CIP, updated 2024‐03‐15 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 703 of 774 COF Pump Station Tech Memo APPENDIX L Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 704 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 705 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: City of Moses Lake Mark Beaulieu, PE FROM: Keller Associates, Inc. Curtis Butterfield, PE Matthew Hansen, EIT DATE: July 31th, 2023 SUBJECT: Moses Lake, WA Central Operating Facility (COF) Lift Station Improvements 1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.1. INTRODUCTION The City of Moses Lake (City) is in the process of updating their citywide sewer plan. During these efforts it was determined that additional flows are anticipated at the COF. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate different alternative improvements to aid the city in determining which improvements to make at the COF lift station. Information includes but is not limited to pump size and selection, backup power, and wet-well sizing and location. Following the City’s review, this technical memorandum will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for approval. 1.2. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS During pre-design for the proposed COF wet well project, three alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives were as follows: ➢ 1. Retaining the current wet well and replacing the pumps. See Figures A.1 (Appendix A). ➢ 2. 14’x14’ wet-well with Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). See Figure A.2 (Appendix A). ➢ 3. 20’x20’ wet-well without VFD’s. See Figure A.3 (Appendix A). Each of these alternatives were evaluated by the city. The main concern with keeping the existing wet well was that the existing infrastructure was failing and required structural repairs. The pumps selected were also too large to fit through the hatches, therefore the hatches would need to be expanded requiring additional retrofitting. Consequently, the City determined that the overall cost to renovate the existing building was too great and therefore Option 1 was dismissed. The City’s final decision drew elements from both Options 2 and 3. The proposed wet well will be 20’x20’ with VFD’s on each pump. Further details of the proposed wet well are described in the remainder of this technical memorandum. 2. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 2.1. PROPOSED SITE OVERVIEW 2.1.1. Location and Site Plan The COF Lift Station is located at 1303 W. Lakeside Dr., Moses Lake, WA 98837. The COF receives influent wastewater from the several upstream lift stations including the Division, Main, Northshore, and Peninsula lift stations. The COF pumps directly to the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) through an existing 20” force main that is approximately 25,000-feet long and crosses 07/31/2023STATEOFWASHING T ONREGISTERE D22018424 E N G IN EERP RO FESSIONALCURTIS B U TTER F I ELDDocument Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 706 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 2 beneath Moses Lake. A map of the project site is shown in Figure 2.1 and a proposed layout for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 2.2 and A.4 (Appendix A). FIGURE 2.1 – SITE MAP (SCALE: 1/2”=35’) FIGURE 2.2 – ALTERNATIVE 3, SITE LAYOUT Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 707 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 3 2.1.2. Wastewater Collection Plan The City has tasked Keller Associates with evaluating the city-wide wastewater collection system that will result in published findings in the 2023 Wastewater Collection Plan (WWCP). It is expected that the WWCP will be submitted to Ecology in the third quarter of 2023 for review and approval. This technical memorandum will refer to some of the information being developed in the ongoing 2023 WWCP planning efforts. To be proactive, the City expedited the proposed improvements to the COF lift station because of various issues that have been identified with the current lift station. These issues include but are not limited to aging infrastructure, complex hydraulic pump control valves, long shutdown periods to service backup pumps, challenges with obtaining spare parts, and a need for increased pumping capacity for future conditions. 2.1.3. Flood Protection No changes are proposed to existing flood protection conditions. 2.1.4. Access for Maintenance Vehicles The existing COF site currently has adequate parking available. A new asphalt lane will be provided for vehicle access to the proposed wet well, valve vault, and electrical equipment pad. See Figure 2.2 for proposed site plan for the proposed paved road. 2.1.5. Fire Protection The COF site improvements will conform to local standards and the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 820 fire code. 2.1.6. Site Piping Layout Flow diagram The overall flow path will remain effectively unchanged as it maintains the same entrance and exit to and from the site. The flow path (existing & new) can be described as the following: Influent flow is pumped to the COF from upstream lift stations and is received at the headworks of the COF. The headworks removes screenings after which, the wastewater gravity flows to a wet-well where the raw wastewater is pumped to the WWTP. Hydraulic Profile The inverts at the entrance and the exit to the site will remain unchanged. The only modifications will be to reroute gravity flow at the site to the new wet-well location, see Figure 2.2. As a result, wet well inverts and wet well depth will change. The existing and proposed inverts are listed in Table 2.1. Proposed inverts are based on record drawings and converted to current datums. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 708 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 4 TABLE 2.1 – EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Existing Elevation Proposed Elevation Invert Exit Headworks 1 1063.8’ 1063.8’ Invert Enter Wet-well 1 1055.0’ 1061.0’ Bottom of Wet-well 1046.5’ 1050.0’ Invert Exit Wet-well 2 1057.0’ 1062.0’ Note: 1. Gravity Flow 2. Pressure Pipe Additionally, the proposed wet well will have different operation levels. The existing levels compared to the proposed levels are listed in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 – EXISTING AND PROPOSED WET WELL LEVELS Existing Water Level Proposed Water Level High Level Alarm 1054.5’ 1063’ High Water Level 1054.0’ 1062.5’ Operation Depth 5.0’ 5.5’ Low Water Level 1049.0’ 1056’ Low Level Alarm 1048.5’ 1055.5’ 2.1.7. Land Application Not applicable to this project 2.1.8. Other Site Design Factors Groundwater The COF site is located on the west bank of Moses Lake, shown in Figure 2.1. Therefore, groundwater and infiltration are concerns for the proposed wet well construction. To account for these concerns a geotechnical exploration will be completed at the COF site. The design will follow the guidance and recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to mitigate groundwater concerns. Demolition Upon completion of the wet well and transfer of pumping operations to the new facilities, the demolition of the existing attenuation basin and mechanical equipment and piping in the existing dry well will take place. Additionally, all adjacent piping to the attenuation basin, wet Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 709 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 5 well and central operations building will be cut and capped. The attenuation basin will be demolished and filled before the new access road to the new wet well can be paved. Phasing ➢ Electrical: Existing electrical in the central operation building will remain online during construction. During construction a second service will be provided to the proposed wet well site. During the transition of flow both lines will temporarily be online simultaneously. Once flow is transferred to the new wet well the electrical in the Central Operations Building (COB) will be demolished. ➢ Mechanical Construction: Existing COF wet well and pumps will continue operation throughout construction. Once construction on the proposed wet well is completed, flow at the COF site will be directed through the new wet well and pumps. Then demolition of the clarifier and COB can be completed. 2.2. DESIGN FLOW RATES, HYDRAULICS, AND NUMBER OF PUMP UNITS 2.2.1. Design Flow Rates The 2023 WWCP includes a study on projected flows for Moses Lake and the COF lift Station. The 2023 WWCP reports steadily increasing flow over the next 20-years. The proposed wet well design has taken these flow projections into account. The current flow capacity of the COF raw lift station is 3,800 gallons per minute (GPM). By 2042 it is projected that the COF will receive a peak influent flow of 4,830 GPM. The proposed lift station design will account for this increase in projected flow with an additional factor of safety of 15%. 2.2.2. Water Quality Standards Current water quality standards will be maintained. Industrial Wastes Not applicable to this project. No industrial waste is expected at the COF site. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) A SEPA checklist will be prepared and submitted as part of this project prior to construction. It is anticipated that this will result in a Determination of Non-significance (DNS). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance NEPA is not anticipated to be required. 2.2.3. Pump Selection Pump Sizing Selecting pumps required using the projected flow rates outlined in Section 2.1 above and determining the system requirements based on pipe length and fittings count between the COF and the Sand Dunes WWTP. From these values the necessary flow rate and the total dynamic head (TDH) were determined and used to select a pump. Refer to Appendix B for calculations and associated pump curves used to size these pumps. The two alternatives evaluated were four (4) 160-HP pumps and three (3) 250-HP pumps. Number of Pumps After reviewing all proposed alternative the City has selected three (3) 250-HP pumps with 2 duty pumps and 1 standby pump operating on VFD’s and sized for buildout conditions. The Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 710 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 6 determining factors in this decision were phasing, cost, space, and redundancy. The cutsheet for the 250 HP pumps are found in Appendix C. 2.2.4. Wet wells Location The location of the new wet well was placed to the south of the attenuation basin as shown in Figure 2.2. This location was determined to be most beneficial due to its proximity to the influent pipe and the existing force main. This location is currently unused and allows for easy access to existing piping connected to both the headworks and the emergency storage basin. Furthermore, this location is also favorable from a hydraulic standpoint and allows for gravity flow from the headworks. Sizing Once the location of the proposed wet well was selected, the size of the wet well was determined. Because the pumps will be operated on a VFD, wet well size is inconsequential. However, the City emphasized the desire for additional emergency storage capacity. Therefore, the wet well was sized based on a draw-and-fill application and buildout conditions with a conservative three (3) starts per hour. The result was a 20’ x 20’ wet well with an operational depth of 6.5’. The wet well will have a total depth of 20’ below grade (1071’) and will have a valve vault directly adjacent for access to the valves and header. A diagram of the proposed wet well and valve vault is found in Appendix A (Figure A.4). 2.2.5. Grit, Grease, and Clogging Protection The headworks at the COF has existing grit, grease and clogging protection. No changes will be made to these existing facilities. 2.2.6. Flow Measurement The existing site is already equipped with flow measurement through a 14” Diameter totalizer pulse flowmeter installed in the force main. Therefore, there will be no change to flow monitoring at the facility. 2.2.7. Surge Analysis General A conceptual level evaluation of the force main indicates that surge would not be a concern given the following components that will be included in the system which mitigate surge concerns. ➢ Soft start / stop motors ➢ Open discharge ➢ No valves on the force main ➢ Combination Air/Vacuum release valves at isolated high points ➢ Low velocities, less than 6 ft/s ➢ No dead heads ➢ Gradual grade changes 2.2.8. Odor and Noise Control Residence Proximity Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 711 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 7 As seen in Figure 2.1, there are residences to the North, West and South of the COF. Even though the facility is in close proximity to residences, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will cause any changes to existing COF noise and odor control. Odor Control A change to the overall site odor is not anticipated. As outlined in the project description a new wet well will be located at the center of the site. This wet well will consist of a below grade concrete structure with gas tight access hatches and Wager odor reducing canisters on the vents, see Appendix C for product literature. Noise Control A change to the overall site noise is not anticipated. As outlined in Section 2, the new wet well will have submersed pumps in a sealed vault. Above ground, VFDs are not expected to pose a noise risk. Construction activities will likely be the greatest source of noise. During construction, the City noise ordinance regulations will be followed. 2.2.9. Operations and Maintenance Staffing Requirements It’s anticipated that the COF lift station improvements will not require any changes to staffing. 2.2.10. Testing Requirements The improvements to the COF will not require any changes in testing requirements for wastewater. All current testing procedures are expected to be maintained, which are conducted at the Sand Dunes WWTP. There will be no testing performed at the COF. 2.3. RELIABILITY 2.3.1. Overview The COF site has multiple levels of redundancy and reliability to ensure that it will maintain operation and provide a buffer in the case of a major emergency. These redundancies include a standby pump, emergency storage basin, bypass pumping, onsite generator and fuel tank. Each of these accommodations provides protection and mitigates risk against various emergencies that might beset the facility. 2.3.2. Equipment Redundancy As previously mentioned, the proposed wet well will have three (3) 250 HP pumps. Two (2) pumps will be duty and one (1) will be standby. The pumps will be programmed in a lead-lag configuration and alternate position regularly to equalize wear between the units. The pumping capacity of 2 duty pumps is designed to be able to accommodate 2042 projected flow of 7 MGD. Until the flows into the COF reach the average daily flow of 7 MGD it is projected that only one pump will be needed to accommodate the experienced flows. 2.3.3. Emergency Power Portable Engine Generators The COF site has no portable engine generators. No portable engine generators are expected to be required or added as a result of this project. Permanent Engine Generators Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 712 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 8 The COF site currently has a 750 kVA diesel generator. This generator is adequately sized to operate two (2) VFD controlled pumps at full capacity. Fuel Storage The fuel storage tank is located on site and adjacent to the generator. This fuel storage tank will be retained and is adequate to meet minimum fuel storage requirements. The fuel tank has a capacity of 1,000-gallons which equates to 24-hours of continuous running of two (2) 250 HP pump at 100% capacity. Secondary Power Grid The COF is a single power grid service site. No secondary service is planned to be brought to the site. 2.3.4. Bypass Capability The COF site has an existing bypass connection and a portable pump trailer on-site. A “straw” will be included as part of the proposed wet well design. This straw will allow for the portable pump to pump directly from the wet well to the force main via the bypass connection. A bypass connection on the force main was installed a few years ago and can be utilized in the event that the new lift station is inoperable. 2.3.5. Overflow Storage Capability The Washington State lift station design standards recommend emergency storage when permanent backup power is not provided and with a reasonable response time. The COF site currently has an 800,000 gallon emergency storage basin as is seen in the southwest corner of Figure 2.1. This basin is currently utilized for emergency overflow purposes and will be retained and used in the new design. The wet well will have an overflow pipe on the south side at the high-water level. This pipe will route overflow west to the emergency storage basin. Based on buildout flows, the emergency storage basin has the capacity to hold 4.25 hours of average flow (3,120 GPM) at build out conditions. 2.3.6. Alarms and Telemetry Below is a list of proposed alarms for the wet well operation. These controls will tie into the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). This is a preliminary list and more controls maybe be added by request from the controls design engineer or the city of Moses Lake. ➢ High water. ➢ Low water. ➢ Power failure. ➢ Pump failure. ➢ Engine generator failure. ➢ Overcurrent Alarm ➢ Pump seal Leak ➢ Fire alarm. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 713 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 9 3. SPECIAL DESIGN DETAILS 3.1. SUBMERSIBLE PUMP STATIONS 3.1.1. Electrical Design Instrumentation Each pump will have a dedicated VFD. All the sensors and controls will be new including level sensing, seal-leak, motor temperature, etc. Alarms Refer to section 2.3.6 for the list of proposed alarms. Lighting Site lighting will be determined during final design of the lift station. 3.1.2. Water Supply No changes to the potable water supply are anticipated at this moment. Determination of water use will be made during final design. If water is brought to the wet well site, it will be done in an approved manner to prevent cross-connection or cross-contamination. 3.1.3. Corrosion Control To reduce or prevent corrosion, the wet well will be lined with no corrosive concrete lining. Additionally, all metal design features will be made of Stainless Steel including all piping, hardware, guide bars, supports, hatches, etc. 3.1.4. Temperature and Ventilation The wet well will vent to atmosphere with WAGER odor control canister affixed to the end of the vent as mentioned above, refer to Appendix C. Wet well temperature is not anticipated to be a concern since the wet well in enclosed and below grade. 3.1.5. Accessibility Equipment Removal and Replacement The City has a vac truck as well as a utility truck with a crane to pull the pumps out for cleaning and servicing. Pumps in the wet-well are accessed through a hatch and retrieved on a rail system. Under normal operating conditions, a pump can be removed and serviced, after it is de-energized, without impacting the operations of the other pumps in the wet well. Valves and Piping Piping in the wet well is expected to be 8” ductile iron pipe with mechanical and flanged joints. The pipes from the pumps will exit the wet-well and enter a valve vault before combining flows in a 24” header. The header is 24” in order to accommodate the City’s future plans. For more information refer to Section 3.1.6. The valve vault will provide access to the check valves, plug valves and header. For information on the bypass valve refer to Section 2.3.4 3.1.6. Future Needs The City intends to install a 24” parallel force main at an unspecified future date. The COF Lift Station improvement plans include installing a 20” x 24” tee to accommodate this future force main improvement. For more information on this project please contact the City. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 714 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 10 3.1.7. Cost and Expenses The following planning level opinion of probable cost is shown below. Cost estimates will be updated in the final design phase. TABLE 3.1 – PLANNING LEVEL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Item Subtotal Site Work $256,000 Structural $236,000 Mechanical $941,000 Electrical and Controls $616,000 Subtotal $2,049,000 Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding, and Administration 15% $308,000 Subtotal $2,357,000 Contractor OH&P 10% $236,000 Subtotal $2,593,000 WA Prevailing Wage 5% $130,000 Subtotal $2,723,000 Contingency 30% $817,000 Total Construction Cost $3,540,000 3.1.8. Force Mains The existing force mains on the influent and effluent sides of the COF will be retained and unmodified by this project. Any future force main changes will be coordinated by others. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 715 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 11 Appendix A FIGURE A.1 – OPTION 1 PUMP LAYOUT FIGURE A.2 – OPTION 2 PUMP AND WET-WELL LAYOUT Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 716 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 12 FIGURE A.3 – OPTION 3 PUMP AND WET-WELL LAYOUT FIGURE A.4 – PROPOSED WET-WELL DIAGRAM Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 717 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 13 Appendix B FIGURE B.1- SINGLE PUMP, PUMP CURVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 718 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 14 FIGURE B.2 – DOUBLE PUMP, PUMP CURVE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000TDH GPM Flow vs. TDH2 Pump efficiency 2 Pump Curve Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 719 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 15 FIGURE B.3 – PUMP CALCULATION INPUTS Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 720 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 721 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | 222036-001 16 Appendix C Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 722 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 723 of 774 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS 18 CANISTERMEDIA CAPACITYEst. 900 LBS. (46kg) EST CFM. 900-13502050-900 8 INTAKE VALVES 4MIST PADS www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com The 2050-900 Odor Control System is designed to allow for ventilation and odor control located at lift stations, wet wells,vaults containing ARV’s and forced mains flowing into gravity fed lines. The valve is constructed from aluminum, and is epoxy coated for protection from the harsh outside environment. Each valve contains (18) 50lb (23kg) canisters of media to allow for odor scrubbing where concentrations of H2S gas and accompanying CFM are both very high. A mist eliminator is incorporated into the unit in order to prevent moisture from entering into the media bed. The 2050-900 includes eight (8) vacuum relief valves, each capable of 300 cfm of airflow. These VRV’s assure that over-pressurizing will not occur during pumping sequences on vacuum sewer systems that require additional airflow to operate. Airflow will still pass through the media bed. These vacuum relief valves simply provide additional air, but do not bypass the media bed. Four mist eliminator pads are incorporated into the unit to prevent damage to the media bed from moisture. The 2050-900 is a passive unit and requires no electricity or fans.It is designed to fit beautifully into residential as well as commercial locations. Each vent has louvered covers to allow for maximum air flow of deodorized air. Every vent is equipped with lockable latches to prevent tampering. It is available with a 8” or 10” outlet. Optional sizes and metric flanges are available. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 724 of 774 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEMS 570 MONTROAL RD, RURAL HALL, NC 27045 (336) 969-6909 • 1-800-562-7024 (US) • WWW.WAGERUSA.COM 2050-900 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 725 of 774 SPECIFICATIONS www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com A.This specification defines the requirements for a Wager 2050-900 Vent Scrubber 2050FAPC-900 manufactured by Wager Company in Rural Hall, NC. ISO 9001 : 2015REGISTERED COMPANY Cert No. US4050 B. The 2050FAPC-900 consists of dry-scrubbing media contained in a fabricated 5052 aluminum or 316SS housing, with a 10” inlet. C. The 2050FAPC-900 shall contain 900 lbs of dry-scrubbing media that is engineered for the removal of H2S gas. The media is contained in 18 corrugated plasticcontainer that is 11” x 18” in size. D. The airflow shall be designed for passive applications. The configuration shall be arranged so that the contaminated air shall flow from the bottom flange and be forcedupward through the water separator/media bed and discharged through ventilated openings. E. The 2050FAPC-900 contains 8 air admittance valves, Intake air directly into the lines without any restrictions from the unit’s media bed. This assures continued airflowduring pumping sequences needed with air release valves, and also with a vacuum sewer system where outside fresh air is required for system operation. F.. All components of the 2050FAPC-900 shall include:1 A fabricated Aluminum plate body. Powder coated grass green2 900 lbs. of odor controlling media engineered in pellet form3 10“ flanged connection – Optional metric flange4 Tamper proof lockable hook and security latches5 Disposable media corrugated plastic insert G. Vent Scrubber Material1. Fabricated Aluminum plate2. Eighteen corrugated plastic canisters measuring 11 ó” x 18“ each containing 1.5³ cf. of media.3. Latches in 316SS4. Bug screen vents5. 27³ cf. of odor controlling media designed for removal of H2S gas6. 10” Flanged Connection7. Plastic Drum vent scrubbers that contain activated alumina media or carbon will not be accepted.8. Media must be Non-Hazardous before and after it is spent. H. Media Specification1. Moisture Content: 35% Max2. Crush Strength: 35%-70% Max3. Abrasion: 4.5% Max4. Pellet Diameter: 1/16” – .” (1.5mm-6.5mm) I. Wager media only will be accepted due to the high level of capacity. No equals will be accepted. Carbon will not be accepted. J. Only UL certified media will be accepted in Wager’s vent scrubber. K. Registered ISO 9001 company only L. The general contractor is responsible for all design cost changes, engineer review time, and testing verification. M. Analytical Services:1. Samples of the media may be analyzed in order to predict the life of the system media at Wager’s expense. N. Built in Water Separator / mist eliminator 1. The body of the water separator is constructed from 50-52 H32 aluminum plate and is epoxycoated for protection from harsh environments.2. The overall measurements of the unit are 26.25” x 31.25” x 35”3. 10” flanged threaded aluminum connection provided for attaching to the 2050-9004. A Kerick Valve Assembly with float allows for excess accumulated water to be expelled.5. An inlet stem provides an exit for accumulated moisture from the air release valve.6. A Nitrile gasket allows for a tight fit of the aluminum plate cover. O. Mist Eliminators 1. Highest collection efficiency of ANY mesh-type media: 99+% @ 1 µm.2. Composite pads of various mesh styles allow for optimization of efficiency, pressure drop, and pluggage resistance.3. Able to handle the widest range of gas velocities and contaminant levels.4. High void spaces (94-97%) and the largest fiber diameters contribute to the highest resistance to fouling.5. Lower pressure drops than traditional knitted mesh.6. Custom fabrication to conform to any Wager 2050 series.7. The media is cleanable & reusable for extended service life in the harshest environments.8. Wide range of materials of construction available, including polypropylene, PVDF, ETFE and PFA, to meet\ any level of temperature and corrosion requirements. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 726 of 774 REPLACEMENT PARTS LIST www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com 2050-900-T 2050-900-B-8 AAU-200-G OCU-2050-50 VRV-2050 233-GASKET-3 SV- LATCH 2500 ACFM WS-DRAIN 2050-900 COVER 2050-900 BOTTOM COMPLETE 2050-200-DOOR BUNA GASKET 50 LB. CARTRIDGE ODOR CONTROL MEDIA VRV ASSEMBLY-TRANS GASKET, 3.0 “I.D.x 3.5” O.D. UNDER CENTER DRAW LATCH MIST ELIMINATOR PAD WATER SEPARATOR VALVE Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 727 of 774 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com • Pour a concrete pad with bolts in place for slated feet on the unit. • If preferred, a level crush stone pad may be used in lieu of concrete. • Set the 900 on pad or stone, and bolt it down. • Remove media from the unit. • If the 900 is being used in conjunction with an ARV, get a complete blowout of the ARV so that there is no big slug of air through the media bed. • Unwrap the media canisters and place in the unit. • Reinstall the 900 cover, and lock down. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 728 of 774 INSTALLATION GUIDE www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com 2. Reinstall media canisters ensuring they are ush with the valve’s inner chamber. *Model 450 shown. 3. Place unit in desire location. Bolt flange to vent stack.4. Secure the lid with the four lockable latches 1. Remove media canisters. Ensure all of the original plastic wrap is removed from canisters. Media is in pellet form and should move freely to allow air to vent through. Check media pellets to ensure they are NOT wet. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 729 of 774 TEST PROCEDURES www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com 1. Place Odor Logger in the bottom chamber of the unit, below the media baskets. 2. Place Odor Logger on top of media baskets, or place tube through the vent louvers. ( Example of bottom flange procedure.)( Example of Side flange procedure.) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 730 of 774 MAINTENANCE GUIDE 6. Reinstall water separator pads, gaskets, and water separator pad plates back onto the unit. Secure the lid with the four lockable latches 2050-450 pictured. 1. Unlatch and remove lid from unit. Visually inspect the media canisters and air intake valves. 2050-450 pictured. 3. Unbolt water separator access plates. Inspect bolts, washers, and gasket. Remove water separator pads. 2050-450 pictured. 4. Wash water separator pad with hose. 5. With the water separator pad out, inspect oat drain assembly. Remove any debris and ensure drain is clean. 2. Inspect the media. Make sure it is dry. Shake or stir media pellets inside canisters every 3-6 months for maximum media life. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 731 of 774 MEDIA INDICATOR STICKERS www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com a. Ensure that packaging pouch is intact. b. Open packaging pouch by tearing o the top part from one of side notches c. Remove indicator sticker from the packaging pouch. d. Peel o the protective liner to expose the bottom adhesive (Figure 1). e. Hold the sticker from the edges, as shown in Figure 2, and place it on center clean area of the lter’s outlet with the reading area (glossy surface) of the sticker facing up. f. Press rmly to attach sticker to the lter’s outlet (Figure 3). g. Replace lter when the reading area of the indicator changes color to brown or black. Operating Instructions AdhesiveExposure area Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Reading area *Caution: Do not touch bottom adhesive or the exposure area. Replace Filter Over Exposed Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 732 of 774 WARRANTY ACTIVATION GUIDE www.wagerusa.com336.9696909LWager@wagerusa.comMpowers@wagerusa.com • Download the APP on your smartphone or tablet (ios or android) SLATE PAGES ( The Slate Pages LLC) • Open the APP. • Create your profile. • Scan the QR Code on the Wager unit. UNDER ACTIVATE WARRANTY: • Tap Activation Date and enter it. • Tap Contact information and enter it. • Tap Installation Instructions and review. • Capture GPS location. • Capture installation photo (optional).. • Tap Save (Upper Right Corner). . WAGER SLATES TO ACTIVATE YOUR WARRANTY Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 733 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT 40 °C Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal for pumping in waste water applications. Modular based design with high adaptation grade. Head 38%44% 44% 50% 50% 55% 55% 60% 60% 65% 65% 70% 70% 75% 78%79%80% 480 430mm 80.8% Eff. 80.5%80.1%79.7%79.3%78.8%78.3%77.7%77.1%76.5% 75.2%74.5%73.8%73.1%72.4%71.7%71% 480 340mm 70.3% 480 380mm 75.8% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60708090 100110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340350 360370 [ft] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3231/745 3~ 480 380 mm Number of blades 3 Technical specification P - Semi permanent, Wet Configuration 8 inch Impeller diameter 380 mm Discharge diameter 8 inch Motor number Installation type N0745.000 43-44-4AA-W 250hp Inlet diameter Maximum operating speed 1780 rpm Material Curves according to: Pump information Discharge diameter 250 mm Impeller diameter Impeller Hard-Iron ™ Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Max. fluid temperature Water, pure Configuration Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 734 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT NP 3231/745 3~ 480 Technical specification Motor - General Frequency Rated voltage Rated powerRated speed Rated current 460 V 250 hp1780 rpm 284 A 3~N0745.000 43-44-4AA-W 250hp Phases Total moment of inertia 62.3 lb ft² Power factor - 1/1 Load 0.88 0.84 0.76 93.9 % 94.0 % 93.3 % ATEX approved 60 Hz Number of poles 4 Stator variant 1 Insulation class H Type of Duty Motor - Technical Power factor - 3/4 Load Power factor - 1/2 Load Motor efficiency - 1/1 Load Motor efficiency - 3/4 Load Motor efficiency - 1/2 Load Starting current, direct starting Starting current, star-delta 2030 A 677 A S1 Starts per hour max. 15 FM Version code 000 Motor number External cooling Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 735 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT NP 3231/745 3~ 480 Performance curve Duty point 186 ft2940 US g.p.m. HeadFlow Curves according to: Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Power input P1 Shaft power P2 NPSHR-values 480 430mm 80.8% Eff. 80.5%80.1%79.7%79.3%78.8%78.3%77.7%77.1%76.5% 75.2%74.5%73.8%73.1%72.4%71.7%71% 480 340mm 70.3% 480 380mm 75.8% 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 480 430mm 480 340mm 480 380mm 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 480 430mm 480 340mm 480 380mm 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 480 430mm (P2) 480 340mm (P2) 480 380mm (P2) 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 480 430mm (P1) 480 340mm (P1) 480 380mm (P1) 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 480 430mm 480 340mm 480 380mm 186 ft 73.9 % 69.7 % 187.6 hp 18.2 ft 2944 US g.p.m. 199 hp 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 [%] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 [hp] 20 30 40 50 60 70 [ft] 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 [US g.p.m.] Water, pure [100%],39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney Schumacher 4/5/2023 Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 736 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT US g.p.m. Pumps / Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff. Spec. Energy NPSHreSystems 2 / 1 2940 186 188 5890 186 375 73.9 %840 18.2 1 / 1 4270 149 217 4270 149 217 74.5 %668 32.2 US g.p.m. NP 3231/745 3~ 480 Duty Analysis Curves according to: Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Head 55 Hz55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz40 Hz 75.8% 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 75.8% 186 ft 5888.6 US g.p.m.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 [ft] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000[US g.p.m.] Operating characteristics kWh/US MGfthpUS g.p.m.ft hp ft Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 737 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT Head Efficiency Overall Efficiency Power input P1 Shaft power P2 NPSHR-values 55 Hz55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz40 Hz 75.8% 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 75.8% 55 Hz55 Hz 50 Hz50 Hz 45 Hz45 Hz 40 Hz40 Hz 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1]55 Hz55 Hz 50 Hz50 Hz 45 Hz45 Hz 40 Hz40 Hz 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 55 Hz 55 Hz 50 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 40 Hz 480 380mm [Pump 1+2] (P2) 480 380mm [Pump 1] (P2) 55 Hz 55 Hz 50 Hz 50 Hz 45 Hz 45 Hz 40 Hz 40 Hz 480 380mm [Pump 1+2] (P1) 480 380mm [Pump 1] (P1) 55 Hz55 Hz 50 Hz50 Hz 45 Hz45 Hz 40 Hz40 Hz 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 [ft] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [%] 0 100 200 300 400 [hp] 10 20 30 40 50 60 [ft] 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 [US g.p.m.] NP 3231/745 3~ 480 VFD Curve Curves according to:,39.2 °F,62.42 lb/ft³,1.6891E-5 ft²/s Curve: ISO 9906 Water, pure Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 738 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT Head 55 Hz55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz40 Hz 75.8% 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 75.8% 186 ft 5888.6 US g.p.m.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 [ft] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000[US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3231/745 3~ 480 VFD Analysis Curves according to: Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps / Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff. Specific energy NPSHreSystems 2 / 1 60 Hz 2940 186 188 5890 186 375 73.9 %840 18.2 2 / 1 55 Hz 2470 163 140 4930 163 281 72.4 %755 15.1 2 / 1 50 Hz 1950 142 101 3890 142 201 69.5 %695 12.5 2 / 1 45 Hz 1350 124 67.5 2700 124 135 62.8 %690 10.4 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 739 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT Head 55 Hz55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz40 Hz 75.8% 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 75.8% 186 ft 5888.6 US g.p.m.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 [ft] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000[US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3231/745 3~ 480 VFD Analysis Curves according to: Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps / Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff. Specific energy NPSHreSystems 2 / 1 40 Hz 543 111 39.2 1090 111 78.5 38.8 %1060 1 / 1 60 Hz 4270 149 217 4270 149 217 74.5 %668 32.2 1 / 1 55 Hz 3510 136 160 3510 136 160 75.8 %601 22.6 1 / 1 50 Hz 2670 124 112 2670 124 112 75 %559 14.7 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 740 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT Head 55 Hz55 Hz 75.8% 50 Hz50 Hz 75.8% 45 Hz45 Hz 75.8% 40 Hz40 Hz 75.8% 480 380mm [Pump 1+2]480 380mm [Pump 1] 75.8% 186 ft 5888.6 US g.p.m.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 [ft] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000[US g.p.m.] 1 NP 3231/745 3~ 480 VFD Analysis Curves according to: Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s ft Pumps / Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hydr.eff. Specific energy NPSHreSystems 1 / 1 45 Hz 1760 115 73.5 1760 115 73.5 69.6 %572 10.5 1 / 1 40 Hz 641 109 40.3 641 109 40.3 43.7 %919 8.97 ft Operating Characteristics kWh/US MGUS g.p.m.ft hp US g.p.m.hp ft Water, pure [100%] ; 39.2°F; 62.42lb/ft³; 1.6891E-5ft²/s Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 741 of 774 67.0 - 2/2/2023 (Build 105) Program version Data version 3/27/2023 9:31 A3P3 User group(s) Xylem: USA - EXT NP 3231/745 3~ 480 Dimensional drawing Weights (lbs) Drive unit Pump Stand 735 / 745 3905 280 736 / 746 4345 280 Ø15 16 (4X) Z Z Outlet center lineDN200 Min water levelZ Z Ref. line MAX. 2 CABLES 95-120mm²ADDITIONAL 330lbsRequired for 746 FM, allcables Scale Date RevisionDrawing number Suctioninlet Pump inlet Pump outlet Dischargeoutlet 735,745,736,746 CP,NP 3231 Ø8" Ø8"1:30 200702 6446100 11 351 4 2" 55 16 317 8 67 8 1413 16 17111613341"191675386615 16 5013 16 139 16 13 16 13916143439 16 15°min133815341911 16 97 8 77827383" Guide bars 8614VIEW Xylect-20393021 4/5/2023Last updateCreated on 4/5/2023 Sydney SchumacherCreated byProject Block Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 742 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 743 of 774 Industrial WWTP Evaluation Tech Memo APPENDIX M Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 744 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 745 of 774 CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1 Technical Memorandum TO: City of Moses Lake FROM: Keller Associates, Inc. – Stillman Norton, Eric Roundy DATE: February 28, 2024 INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION 1.1. BACKGROUND There are existing industries in the Wheeler Area within Moses Lake. The City expects future industrial growth within this area. The industries may want to connect to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. Rather than connecting to the City’s existing treatment plants, the City is interested in evaluating the possibility of a new industrial wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). This technical memorandum discusses the possible treatment alternatives for the industries in the Wheeler Area. A separate all known available and reasonable treatment (AKART) evaluation that can be used to support an Engineering Report to meet WAC 173-240-130 would be needed prior to an industrial wastewater treatment plant moving forward. Figure 1.1 depicts the Wheeler Area (red shaded area), along with the City Limits (blue dashed line) and the Urban Growth Area (black line). It is the City’s preference to treat domestic wastewater and industrial wastewater separately. This evaluation looks at alternatives to construct a wastewater treatment plant focused solely on industrial wastewater treatment separate from domestic/sanitary wastewater. FIGURE 1.1 – INDUSTRIAL STUDY AREA 1.2. INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTS The industries included in this evaluation and their current products are shown below: ➢ D&L Foundry: Metal Casting ➢ International Paper: Corrugated Packaging Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 746 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 2 ➢ Americold Logistics: Refrigerated and Frozen Food Warehouse ➢ Norco: Medical Equipment Supplier ➢ Eka Chemicals (Nouryon): Chemicals ➢ Cascade Agronomics: Fertilizer ➢ McKay Seed Inc.: Crop Seed Treatment ➢ Nutrien Ag Solutions: Seed Treatment and Fertilizer ➢ Helena Agri-Enterprises: Seed Treatment and Fertilizer ➢ REC Silicon: Solar Grade Polysilicon The following industries were also considered as potential future industries to the area: ➢ Sila Nanotechnologies: Lithium-ion Batteries ➢ Group 14: Lithium-ion Batteries ➢ Twelve: Produce Jet Fuel from CO2 Electrolysis There are a couple of other industries in the area. However, due to the anticipated flows and loads, it was decided not to consider the City’s Industrial WWTP to accept wastewater from the industries below: ➢ J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot) owns and operates a year-round potato processing facility with private wastewater treatment. The process wastewater is pretreated by screening and a clarifier to remove solids followed by a facultative storage lagoon comprised of four cells. Final treatment is by spray irrigation onto agriculture fields during the growing season. Wastewater is stored in the lined storage lagoon during the non-growing season. Management of the process water is regulated under state waste discharge permit ST-0005354. The maximum month flow limit for the processing facility is 2.88 MGD. ➢ National Frozen Foods (NFF) operates a seasonal vegetable processing facility with private wastewater treatment. Process water generated during facility operations is treated using rotary screens and solids settling tanks. The effluent is irrigated onto surrounding agricultural land for treatment. Management of the process water is regulated under state waste discharge permit ST- 8032. Treated wastewater is discharged into equalization ponds to be blended with surface water from the canal for irrigation. The maximum daily flow limit for the processing facility is 2.49 MGD. In addition to these two industries, REC Silicon has a few wastewater streams. REC Silicon is able to discharge its low chloride process wastewater and plant sanitary wastewater to the City’s Dunes WWTP; however, it is currently only discharging its sanitary wastewater. It is also discharging non-contact cooling water to a 125-acre land application site, with seasonal storage using a 60-million-gallon lined pond. High sodium, chloride and silicate process wastewater are being discharged to series of lined evaporation ponds. For the evaluation in this technical memorandum, it was assumed that the cooling water and low chloride wastewater would be treated in the new Industrial WWTP, but the privately operated evaporative ponds would continue to be used for the high chloride, high sodium, and high silicate wastewaters. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 747 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 3 1.3. ANTICIPATED FLOWS AND LOADS Information on the current and anticipated flows and contaminant concentrations for each industry is summarized in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. TABLE 1.1 – INDUSTRIAL AREA FLOWS AND LOADS Time Year 2015 2013 2011 2007 2010 2008 Average Day GPD ----12,797 106,000 ---- Maximum Daily GPD --2,490,000 20,785 106,000 39,400 73,440 Maximum Month GPD 2,880,000 ---------- Influent Temperature, Low oF ------------ Influent Temperature, High oF ----95 ------ Influent Temperature, Average oF ----91 ------ mg/L 1,664 3687 380 333 2 -- ppd 39,957 76,566 23 294 245 -- mg/L 535 --1,200 550 533 300 ppd 12,860 --120 486 175 2 mg/L --987 3,000 420 734 1,300 ppd --20,497 520 371 500 500 mg/L ----381 ------ ppd ----66 ------ mg/L --20 -------- ppd --415 -------- mg/L --240 -------- ppd --4,984 -------- mg/L ------------ ppd ------------ mg/L --129 -------- ppd --2,679 -------- mg/L --41.8 -------- ppd --868 -------- mg/L ------------ ppd ------------ mg/L --32 -------- ppd --665 -------- mg/L --190 -------- ppd --3,946 -------- mg/L --24 -------- ppd --498 -------- pH SU 7.5-8.0 3.5-7.8 6.4-10.1 --8.33 6.5-9.2 BOD5, Maximum Daily TSS, Maximum Daily TDS, Maximum Daily FOG, Maximum Daily NorcoParameterUnitInternational Paper D&L Foundry Americold Logistics Calcium, Maximum Daily Chloride, Maximum Daily Fluoride, Maximum Daily Nitrate, Maximum Daily Sodium, Maximum Daily National Frozen Foods TKN, Maximum Daily Total Phosphorus, Maximum Daily J.R. Simplot Ammonia, Maximum Daily Sulfate, Maximum Daily Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 748 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 4 TABLE 1.2 – INDUSTRIAL AREA FLOWS AND LOADS 1) Includes Cascade Agronomics, McKay Seed Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions and Helena Agri-Enterprises. 2) Non-contact cooling water is stored, and land applied. Low chloride wastewater is discharged to the Dunes WWTP. 3) Sila Nanotechnologies, Group 14, and Twelve Aviation Fuel. The estimated flow rates were provided by the City. Time Year 2006 --2009 2010 2022-2032 Average Day GPD 105,605 --286,540 84,750 1,584,000 Maximum Daily GPD 138,082 20,000 573,660 144,090 2,736,000 Maximum Month GPD ---------- Influent Temperature, Low oF 60 ----61 61 Influent Temperature, High oF 89 ----100 100 Influent Temperature, Average oF 66 ----74 74 mg/L --120 --405 405 ppd --20 --487 9,241 mg/L 161 20 --1,422 1,422 ppd 185 3 --1,709 32,448 mg/L 2,006 1,000 887 4,074 4,074 ppd 2,310 167 4,244 2,198 92,962 mg/L ------159 159 ppd ------191 3,628 mg/L 47 ----636 636 ppd 54 ----765 14,522 mg/L ------79 79 ppd ------94 1,791 mg/L ------18 18 ppd ------21 404 mg/L ---------- ppd ---------- mg/L ---------- ppd ---------- mg/L --10 --129 129 ppd ------155 2,944 mg/L ---------- ppd ---------- mg/L ------506 506 ppd ------607 11,535 mg/L ------2,064 2,064 ppd ------2,480 47,097 pH SU 7.6-10.4 --6.0-8.9 5.5-10.8 5.5-10.8 Calcium, Maximum Daily Chloride, Maximum Daily Parameter Unit Eka Chemicals (Nouryon) Seeds Treatment and Fertilizer Industry1 REC Silicon, to Land Application2 REC Silicon, to POTW BOD5, Maximum Daily TSS, Maximum Daily TDS, Maximum Daily FOG, Maximum Daily Future Industries3 Sodium, Maximum Daily Sulfate, Maximum Daily Fluoride, Maximum Daily TKN, Maximum Daily Ammonia, Maximum Daily Nitrate, Maximum Daily Total Phosphorus, Maximum Daily Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 749 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 5 The composition of the wastewater flows from Sila Nanotechnologies and Group 14 were assumed to closely mirror the REC Silicon wastewater flow to the City’s Dunes WWTP since their products are silicon-based materials. Additionally, no wastewater flow or characterization data was available for the seeds treatment and fertilizer industry; therefore, assumptions were made based on literature values (Wastewater Management Review for The Fertilizer Manufacturing Sector, 1999, Alberta Environment). The City is anticipating designing and constructing a facility to treat the combined flows and loads shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, with the exception of the Simplot and NFF flows and loads. Table 1.3 provides a summary of the current and future combined industrial area flows and loads. The peak hour flow was assumed to be 50% higher than the maximum day flow. The analysis assumes 1 million gallons per day (MGD) for the initial peak hour flow for the initial planning phase, and then 1 MGD peak hour increments thereafter (total of 5 phases is estimated). For the first phase, the annual average, maximum month, maximum day, and peak hour flows are 0.37, 0.50, 0.67 and 1.0 MGD, respectively. TABLE 1.3 – COMBINED INDUSTRIAL AREA FLOWS AND LOADS 1.4. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The City currently discharges effluent from both of their existing wastewater treatment plants via rapid infiltration (RI) basins. The permits are included in Appendix J. For this evaluation, it was assumed that the Industrial WWTP effluent would be disposed in RI basins and the biosolids would be land applied. The disposal methods would need to be analyzed further as part of the AKART evaluation. The AKART evaluation would consider beneficial reuse as well as discharge to the City’s existing WWTPs. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 750 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 6 An RI basin process is entirely dependent on the soil and hydrogeological characteristics at a particular site. The soil must have sufficient hydraulic capacity to allow the wastewater to infiltrate, and then percolate to move with the groundwater. To determine a suitable site for RI basins, the hydraulic loading rates, nitrogen loading rates, organic loading rates, land area requirements, hydraulic loading cycle, infiltration system design, and groundwater mounding must all be considered. General design criteria for RI basins are listed in Table 1.4. TABLE 1.4 – GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RI BASINS Since the Industrial WWTP is assumed to utilize a similar discharge method to the Dunes WWTP, the Dunes WWTP limits were utilized to approximate the regulatory limits for this evaluation as shown in Table 1.5. As noted in Chapter 1 of the General Sewer Plan, the effluent limitations for total dissolved solids (TDS) may become more stringent based on the groundwater quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC and in RCW 90.48.520). WAC 173-200 040 notes a groundwater quality standard of 500 mg/L for TDS. Additionally, there are some anti and non-degradation requirements. TABLE 1.5 – ANTICIPATED INDUSTRIAL WWTP EFFLUENT LIMITS Maximum Daily GPD 4,640,000 3,052,800 BOD5, Maximum Daily mg/L -29 CBOD5, Maximum Daily mg/L 23 - TSS, Maximum Daily mg/L 23 23 TDS, Maximum Daily mg/L 1,000 1,000 TN, Maximum Daily mg/L 10 10 Nitrate-N, Maximum Daily mg/L 6 6 Fecal Coliforms, Maximum Daily CFU/100 mL 50 50 Parameter Unit Dunes WWTP Limits New Industrial WWTP Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 751 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 7 At a high level, reuse of the WWTP effluent at the industries was considered. However, reverse osmosis or another cost prohibitive treatment method may be needed to treat this water to acceptable reuse quality for these industries. For this reason, wastewater reuse was not considered further. It should be noted that constituents in the industrial wastewater can inhibit microbiology activity. It is assumed that pretreatment would be required at the industries so that inhibitory substances, and those that would cause the effluent not to meet discharge requirement would be removed prior to the WWTP (e.g., high TDS, toxic chemicals, and metal concentrations, etc.). Sampling and compliance monitoring will be required for each of the industries. An equalization basin and multiple reactors are included in the alternatives in the next section to store and monitor the influent, protect the WWTP and keep the effluent in compliance. If the Industrial WWTP were responsible for TDS removal to meet groundwater requirements, additional treatment would be required that could make the Industrial WWTP cost prohibitive. 1.5. WWTP ALTERNATIVES There are several options for industrial treatment to meet the requirements in Table 1.5. After discussions with the City, the three (3) alternatives that were selected for further investigation in this technical memorandum were: ➢ Alternative 1: Influent Equalization, Fine Screen and Grit Removal, Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) with Secondary Clarifiers, and Chlorination. ➢ Alternative 2: Influent Equalization, Screen and Grit Removal, Extended Aeration with Secondary Clarifiers, and Chlorination. ➢ Alternative 3: Influent Equalization, Screen and Grit Removal, Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR), and Chlorination. The City preference is for ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection. However, high TDS and color may decrease UV light transmittance; therefore, chlorine disinfection is included until sampling can be conducted on the wastewater to confirm the best disinfection method. Each alternative includes preliminary treatment using an influent screen and grit removal to protect downstream equipment, such as pumps, mixers, and diffusers. Wastewater temperature is expected to be between 61 and 100°F with an average of 74°F (Table 1.3). The influent pH is expected to be in the range of 5.5 to 10.8. Considering the significant variation of pH and temperature in the influent, an influent equalization lagoon will help to create a more uniform flow and load to the plant for better treatment performance and less chance for washout or process upsets. Submerged aeration will be included to keep the influent from going septic and keep it thoroughly mixed. Chemical pH adjustment is included in front of an automatic screen and grit removal system to maintain the optimum pH for the secondary treatment. 1.5.1. Alternative 1: Influent Equalization, Fine Screen and Grit Removal, IFAS with Secondary Clarifiers, and Chlorination Following treatment in the headworks, wastewater would be sent to the IFAS system. Figure 1.2 shows a picture of a typical IFAS floating media (enlarged), as well as an IFAS floating media basin. Aeration in the floating-media IFAS system is provided by blowers, which deliver air to coarse or medium bubble stainless steel diffusers (depending on the manufacturer). Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 752 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 8 FIGURE 1.2 – IFAS SYSTEM Figure 1.3 shows the process flow diagram for this alternative. The IFAS system requires a finer screen in the headworks than the other alternatives to avoid materials plugging the IFAS media. The IFAS system would be installed in concrete basins. Retention screens are included to retain the media within the IFAS basins. Diffused aeration with full-floor coverage is used to keep the floating media suspended. Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) from the IFAS basins flows into secondary clarifiers. The activated sludge and solids that sloughs off the media are collected and returned with the returned activated sludge (RAS) to the IFAS basins. Waste activated sludge (WAS) from the secondary clarifiers would be pumped to a dewatering system. For this alternative, screw presses were included for dewatering. Secondary effluent, after disinfection with liquid chlorine, would be discharged to RI basins. It is estimated that the new Industrial WWTP will need a total (WWTP and RI basins) of approximately seven acres for each phase. The number of phases will be determined by the amount of actual industrial growth that occurs. Any property acquisition should be sized to conservatively estimate the number of phases that will be required. 1.5.2. Alternative 2: Influent Equalization, Screen and Grit Removal, Extended Aeration with Secondary Clarifiers, and Chlorination This alternative is similar to the previous alternative, except the IFAS system is replaced with an extended aeration process. For this alternative, it was assumed the same secondary treatment technology would be used that is currently in use at the City’s other WWTPs. The process flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.4. Extended aeration would be provided in lagoon-type basins for easier construction. Clarifiers will be installed to settle and recycle the extended aeration solids. Influent equalization and effluent disinfection would be the same as Alternative 1. The influent screen openings would not have to be as fine for this alternative as Alternative 1. The estimated total land needed for this alternative is 10 acres for each phase. The number of phases will be determined by the amount of actual industrial growth that occurs. Any property acquisition should be sized to conservatively estimate the number of phases that will be required. 1.5.3. Alternative 3: Influent Equalization, Screen and Grit Removal, SBR, and Chlorination In this last alternative, similar preliminary and pretreatment steps to Alternative 2 were included (influent equalization lagoon, screening, and grit removal). The downstream treatment would include an SBR in concrete basins. SBRs do not need secondary clarifiers as the MLSS settles in the SBR basin. However, the SBR process does result in an intermittent discharge. To avoid having a larger disinfection system to treat the decant flow, an equalization basin, following the SBR treatment, is included to dampen the flow. The process flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.5. Similar to Alternative 1, the total land needed for this alternative is approximately 7 acres for each phase. The number of phases will be determined by the amount of actual industrial growth that occurs. Any property acquisition should be sized to conservatively estimate the number of phases that will be required. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 753 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-9 FIGURE 1.3 – ALTERNATIVE 1: IFAS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 754 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-10 FIGURE 1.4 – ALTERNATIVE 2: EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 755 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-11 FIGURE 1.5 – SBR PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 756 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-12 1.6. WWTP ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION The advantages and disadvantages of each of the treatment alternatives are summarized in Table 1.6. TABLE 1.6 – ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Alternative 1: IFAS Alternative 2: Extended Aeration Alternative 3: SBR Advantages • Smaller footprint than extended aeration. • Stable process. • Less prone to upset than SBR. • Additional capacity can be added later through adding more media. • Multiple manufacturers. • Operator familiarity. • Stable process. • Less prone to upset than SBR. • Can save power by changing the aeration times. • Most process flexibility of the alternatives. • Smaller footprint than extended aeration. • No clarifier or RAS pumping required. • Can save power by changing the aeration times. • Most efficient oxygen transfer of the alternatives. • Multiple manufacturers. Disadvantages • Influent screen needs smaller openings to protect the IFAS media from being plugged. • Higher aeration than extended aeration and SBR is required to keep the IFAS media in suspension. • Secondary clarifiers required. • Foam can be an issue. • Largest footprint. • Less efficient oxygen transfer since the basins are not as deep as the other alternatives. • Secondary clarifiers required. • Foam can be an issue. • Fewer manufacturers. • Equalization recommended downstream to provide good disinfection. • More complex control than other alternatives. • Generates larger volume of sludge. • Foam can be an issue. A Class 5 (as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE)) 20-year life- cycle cost analysis was completed to compare the three alternatives as shown in Table 1.7. As part of this analysis, operation, and maintenance (O&M) expenses were estimated and incorporated into the life-cycle cost. The 20-year life-cycle cost analysis is based on a real discount rate (inflation removed) of 1.5%. The equipment (unless a short-lived asset) is assumed to have a 20-year useful life, so no depreciation or salvage value is included for comparing the alternatives. An average rate of $0.05 per kWh was used for estimating power costs and an average labor cost of $75 per hour (wage and benefits) was used to estimate operation and maintenance costs. Due to the topography and location of the current collection system, it was assumed that the WWTP would be located near the Carnation Lift Station of the Wheeler Area. A cost for construction of a collection system is included in the cost estimate. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 757 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-13 TABLE 1.7 – ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON COSTS FOR PHASE 1 (2023)* * The cost estimate herein is concept level information only based on our perception of current conditions at the project location and its accuracy is subject to significant variation depending upon project definition and other factors. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. This cost opinion is in 2023 dollars and does not include escalation to time of actual construction. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein. Item Alt. 1 - Equalization, IFAS, and Chlorination Alt. 2 - Equalization, Extended Aeration with Clarifiers, and Chlorination Alt. 3 - Equalization, SBR, and Chlorination Collection System 4,260,000$ 4,260,000$ 4,260,000$ Equalization Lagoon and Pump Station 1,870,000$ 1,870,000$ 1,870,000$ Headworks Building and Equipment 1,910,000$ 1,890,000$ 1,890,000$ IFAS Treatment including Clarifiers and Blowers 12,730,000$ -$ -$ Extended Aeration Treatment including Clarifiers and Blowers -$ 4,690,000$ -$ SBR Treatment including Blowers -$ -$ 6,960,000$ Chlorine Disinfection 790,000$ 790,000$ 790,000$ Effluent Monitoring and Transmission 440,000$ 440,000$ 440,000$ RI Basins 1,820,000$ 1,820,000$ 1,820,000$ Sludge Dewatering 2,750,000$ 2,750,000$ 2,750,000$ Utility Water System 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ Backup Power / Control / SCADA 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ Subtotal 29,020,000$ 20,960,000$ 23,230,000$ General Conditions (10%)2,910,000$ 2,100,000$ 2,330,000$ Subtotal 31,930,000$ 23,060,000$ 25,560,000$ Contingency (30%)9,580,000$ 6,920,000$ 7,670,000$ Subtotal 41,510,000$ 29,980,000$ 33,230,000$ Contractor OH&P (15%)6,230,000$ 4,500,000$ 4,990,000$ Total Construction Cost 47,740,000$ 34,480,000$ 38,220,000$ General and Administrative Costs (25%)11,940,000$ 8,620,000$ 9,560,000$ Land Purchase 224,000$ 320,000$ 224,000$ Total Project Cost 59,904,000$ 43,420,000$ 48,004,000$ Electricity 166,000$ 60,000$ 52,000$ Parts 82,000$ 62,000$ 67,000$ Chemical 844,000$ 844,000$ 844,000$ Disposal 171,000$ 171,000$ 171,000$ Personnel 312,000$ 312,000$ 312,000$ Estimated Annual O&M 1,575,000$ 1,449,000$ 1,446,000$ 20-Year Life Cycle Cost 90,440,000$ 71,510,000$ 76,040,000$ Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 758 of 774 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | INDUSTRIAL WWTP EVALUATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE | KA 222036 1-14 The 20-year life cycle costs are similar between the alternatives; however, due to staff familiarity and the stability of the process, the Extended Aeration system is recommended. The project could include up to five phases. Additional phases would be required to build out the facility to accommodate the future flows beyond what is shown in Table 1.3. The capital cost for each additional phase is estimated to be the same as Phase 1: $43.5M (2023). 1.7. IMPLEMENTATION Additional evaluations would be required prior to the Industrial WWTP moving forward. For example, the disposal methods would need to be analyzed as part of the AKART evaluation. The industrial wastewater characteristics would also need to be analyzed to confirm there are no inhibitory substances for biological treatment and if the wastewater characteristics would allow for UV disinfection. The AKART evaluation could be used to support an Engineering Report to meet WAC 173-240-130. The wastewater that is permitted into the City’s collection system from the Wheeler Area flows into the Carnation Lift Station through a 12-inch gravity trunkline and is then conveyed to the Dunes WWTP. Construction of the new Industrial WWTP will likely reduce flows on the existing collection system. Approximately 10 acres of land would be required for each phase. It is recommended to construct the Industrial WWTP and RI basins somewhere in the yellow highlighted area in Figure 1.6. Keller recommends constructing the Industrial WWTP near the Carnation Lift Station to minimize changes to the existing gravity collection system. The soil and hydrogeological characteristics in this area need to be evaluated before determining the location for RI basins. Due to the topography, land availability, and unknown locations of future industry users, it may not be possible to gravity flow to the Industrial WWTP through an extension of the existing gravity trunkline. In this case, the City would construct a new Industrial Lift Station near the Carnation Lift Station and construct a new force main that conveys flows to the Industrial WWTP. FIGURE 1.6 – INDUSTRIAL WWTP LOCATION Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 759 of 774 City Wastewater Regulations APPENDIX N Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 760 of 774 (BLANK PAGE) Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 761 of 774 13.05.010 13.05.020 13.05.030 13.05.040 13.05.050 13.05.060 13.05.070 13.05.080 13.05.090 13.05.100 13.05.110 13.05.120 13.05.130 13.05.140 13.05.150 13.05.160 13.05.170 13.05.180 13.05.190 13.05.200 13.05.210 13.05.220 13.05.230 13.05.240 13.05.250 13.05.260 13.05.270 Chapter 13.05 WASTEWATER REGULATIONS Sections: Purpose. Abbreviations. Definitions. Discharge of Wastewater into Natural Outlets. Use of Privies and Septic Tanks. Private Wastewater Systems. Prohibited Wastes. Dangerous Wastes. Significant Industrial Users. Control Manholes. Tests and Analyses. Waste Discharge Permit. Discharge to the POTW Without Physical Connection. Connection to the POTW Outside of the Corporate Limits. Requirement to Connect to the POTW. Wastewater Industrial User Survey. Permit Requirements. Discharge to the POTW. Building Sewers. Separate Building Sewers. Connection to Force Mains. Sewer Main Grades. Community Street and Utility Standards. Ownership. Notice to Cease Violation. Penalties for Continued Violation. Liability for Expense or Damage. Note: Chapter 13.05 created by Ord. 2642 on 2/14/12 and replaced Chapter 13.04 - Prior Ordinances are: Ord. 879, 1978; Ord. 1023, 7/14/81; Ord. 1187, 1985; Ord. 1235, 11/25/896; Ord. 1255, 1987; Ord. 1279, 7/14/87; Ord. 1481, 5/28/91; Ord. 1548, Ord. 12/22/92; Ord. 1815, 10/13/98; Ord. 2139, 11/25/03; Ord. 2275, 10/24/06; Ord. 2309, 3/27/07; Ord. 2395, 5/27/08; Ord. 2508, 7/28/09 Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 1 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 762 of 774 13.05.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to set forth uniform requirements for discharges into the City of Moses Lake’s POTW and to enable the City to protect public health in conformity with all applicable local, state and federal laws. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.020 Abbreviations: The following abbreviations, when used in this Chapter, shall have the designated meaning: A. BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. B. FOG Fats, Oil, and Grease. C. mg/L Milligrams per liter, generally interchangeable with parts per million in water treatment calculations. D. POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works. E. TDS Total Dissolved Solids. F. TSS Total Suspended Solids. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.030 Definitions: Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the meaning of terms used in the chapter shall be as provided in this section: A. “BOD” means the quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedures during five (5) days at 20° Celsius, usually expressed as a concentration of mg/L. B. “Building Sewer” means the sewer service line beginning two feet from the edge of the building and ending at the POTW’s sewer main. C. “Dangerous Waste” is defined in WAC 173-303-040. D. “Domestic Wastewater” means water that carries human wastes, including toilet, kitchen, bath, and laundry wastes. E. “FOG” means polar and non-polar fats, oil, and grease that originate from animals, vegetables, petroleum, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, and mineral oil. F. “Force main” means a sanitary sewer main that is pressurized by a POTW lift station, or a sanitary sewer main that is pressurized by commercial or industrial users. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 2 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 763 of 774 G. “Garbage" means solid wastes from the preparation, cooking, and dispensing of food, and from the handling, storage, and sale of produce. H. “Industrial User” means a person that discharges industrial wastewater to the POTW. I. “Industrial Wastewater” means water or liquid that carries waste from industrial or commercial businesses. Apartment buildings containing three or more dwellings are considered a commercial business. J. “Interference” means a discharge alone or in conjunction with discharges by other sources that inhibits or disrupts the POTW, or the POTW’s treatment operation, or biosolids processes, or that causes a violation of any requirement of the City’s state waste discharge permit. K. “Low Pressure Main” means a sanitary sewer main that is not pressurized by a POTW lift station, and receives wastewater from low volume pumping systems. L. “May” means permissive as allowed by the City Manager, City Council, Municipal Services Director, or the Department of Ecology. M. “Medical Waste” means isolation wastes, infectious agents, blood, blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes. N. “Municipal Services Director” is the director who is responsible to the City Manager for management of the Public Works and Engineering Divisions, the supervision of departmental employees, and for the effective administration, construction, and development of public works, engineering, and related public facilities. The Municipal Services Director may designate representatives to assist in the performance of these duties. O. “Natural Outlet” means any outlet into a watercourse, pond, ditch, lake, or other body of surface water or groundwater. P. “Owner” means property owner, part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, joint tenant, tenant by the entirety, of the whole, or a part of such building or land. Q. “Pass Through” means a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources that create a violation of any requirement of the City’s state waste discharge permit. R. “Person” means any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation, or group. S. “pH” means a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, expressed in standard units. T. “POTW” means the City owned system of gravity mains, force mains, pump stations, and wastewater treatment plants that convey and treat wastewater. U. “Pretreatment Standards” means general discharge prohibitions, City’s specific limitations on discharge, State standards, or the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards for any specific pollutant, whichever standard is most stringent. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 3 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 764 of 774 V. “Pretreatment” means the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in industrial wastewater prior to or in lieu of introducing such pollutants into the POTW. This reduction, elimination, or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes; by process changes; or by other means. Diluting the concentration of the pollutants is only allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard. W. “Stormwater” means precipitation, groundwater, surface water, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage. X. “Shall” means a mandatory requirement. Y. “Significant Industrial User” means an industrial or commercial user that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. Subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N. 2. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of industrial wastewater to the POTW. 3. Discharges industrial wastewater that exceeds 5 percent of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant. 4. The Department of Ecology determines that the industrial user has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for violating pretreatment standards or requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 8(f)(6). Z. "Slug Discharge” means any discharge at a flow rate or concentration that could cause a violation of this chapter, and any discharge not of a routine, regular, or episodic nature. AA. “Total Dissolved Solids” means the portion of total solid in water or wastewater that passes through a specific filter. BB. “Total Suspended Solids” means the portion of total solids that are floating or suspended in water, or wastewater; and that are removable by laboratory filtering. CC. “User” means a person that is responsible for discharging wastewater to the POTW. DD. “Wastewater” means domestic wastewater or industrial wastewater. EE. “Waste Discharge Permit” means a permit required for every significant industrial user granting the privilege of discharging their industrial wastewater into the POTW. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.040 Discharge of Wastewater into Natural Outlets: It is unlawful to discharge wastewater into any natural outlet. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 4 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 765 of 774 13.05.050 Use of Privies and Septic Tanks: Except as permitted by the Grant County Health District, it is unlawful to construct any privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool, or other facility intended to be used for the disposal of wastewater. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.060 Private Wastewater Systems: A. Septic tanks and alternative onsite disposal systems are prohibited for new subdivisions, except in heavy industrial zones where sewer treatment systems and onsite disposal systems may be allowed by City Council. B. Wastewater systems including mains, manholes, lift stations and their appurtenances located in private streets, binding site plans and on private property shall be privately owned. C. The construction plans for the installation of privately owned wastewater systems that discharge to the POTW shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Community Street and Utility Standards, and shall be approved by the Municipal Services Director prior to construction. Furthermore, the Municipal Services Director will observe the installation of the wastewater system. The engineer of record shall inspect and direct the contractor to assure that the installation complies with the approved plans and specifications. D. Before privately owned metered sewer mains and service lines connect to the POTW, a perpetual access easement, access easement dedication on a plat, or other legal device approved by the City Attorney is required to be accepted by the City Council to allow City staff to access the meters and electronic reading devices. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2657, 10/9/12; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.070 Prohibited Wastes: Except as provided in this chapter, no person shall discharge wastewater to the POTW that contains the following characteristics: A. A Temperature greater than 104°F. B. A FOG concentration greater than 100 mg/L. C. Substances that can solidify or become discernibly viscous at temperatures greater than 32°F. D. Pollutants that could create a fire or explosive hazard in the POTW, alone or by interaction, including waste streams with a closed-cup flashpoint of less than 140°F using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21, 40 CFR 403.5(b)(1), or are capable of creating a public nuisance per WAC 173-216-060(2)(b)(ii). E. Solids or viscous substances that could cause an obstruction, pass through, or any other interference with the operation of the POTW. F. A pH less than 6.0 or greater than 11.0. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 5 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 766 of 774 G. Corrosive properties capable of causing damage or that are hazardous to POTW structures, equipment, or maintenance personnel. H. Dangerous wastes. I. Toxic or poisonous substances in sufficient quantity to interfere with any POTW processes, or constitute a hazard to humans, animals or the receiving waters of the POTW. J. Noxious or malodorous gases or substances capable of creating a public nuisance. K. A five (5) day BOD concentration greater than three hundred (300) mg/L. L. A TSS concentration greater than three hundred and fifty (350) mg/L. M. Unacceptable amounts of TDS that could cause an interference with the normal operation of the POTW. Limitations for TDS will be set after the Department of Ecology and the City review the engineering reports from the prospective discharger, and investigate alternatives to reduce TDS in the wastewater. N. A greater color than 100 color units. O. Stormwater. P. High volumes of wastewater with a low BOD per volume ratio that could adversely affect the treatment plants’ process capabilities. Q. Swimming pool water. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.080 Dangerous Wastes: The owner shall notify the Municipal Services Director, and the Department of Ecology, Eastern Region Dangerous Waste Unit, upon discovery of a discharge of dangerous waste to the POTW. The notification shall include the following: A. The contact person with phone number. B. The location and time. C. The name of the dangerous waste as set forth in Chapter 173-303 WAC. D. The dangerous waste number. E. The type of discharge (continuous, batch, or other). (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 6 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 767 of 774 13.05.090 Significant Industrial Users: All significant industrial users shall obtain a waste discharge permit from the Department of Ecology and from the City prior to discharging industrial wastewater to the POTW. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.100 Control Manholes: The Municipal Services Director may require an industrial user to install a suitable control manhole on the building sewer to facilitate observation, sampling, and measurement of the wastewater. Such manhole shall be accessible, safely located, and constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Municipal Services Director. The manhole shall be installed by the industrial user at the industrial user’s expense, shall be maintained by the industrial user, and shall be safe and accessible at all times. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.110 Tests and Analyses: All measurements, tests, and analyses of the characteristics of wastewater shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater by a Department of Ecology accredited laboratory. The samples shall be taken at the control manhole, when installed. When a specific control manhole is not required, the sample location shall be taken at the nearest downstream manhole in the POTW. When requested by the Municipal Services Director, a user shall submit information on the nature and characteristic of its wastewater to assure full compliance with this chapter. Samples taken to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be representative of the volume and nature of the test parameters, including representative sampling of any unusual discharge or discharge condition. All costs associated with testing and analyses shall be borne by the user. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.120 Waste Discharge Permit: Statements contained in this chapter shall not be construed as preventing any waste discharge permit between the City Council, Department of Ecology, and an industrial user, whereby the wastewater of unusual strength or character may be approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology for treatment, which may be subject to conditions. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.130 Discharge to the POTW Without Physical Connection: Approval to discharge wastewater to the POTW without a physical connection to the POTW may be granted by the City Council provided the discharge shall not have any deleterious or damaging effects on the health and welfare of the City’s residents, and that the discharge will be in the City’s best interests. No wastewater shall be discharged Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 7 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 768 of 774 in such a manner until the user receives a letter from the City stating that the City Council approved the request. Approval letters should include the following information: A. The payment rate. B. The limitations on the quantity and quality of the wastewater. C. A statement that “the approval is terminable by the City Council within thirty (30) days of written notice by the City to the user.” D. The location and method that the wastewater is allowed to be discharged to the POTW. E. The periodic testing requirements of the wastewater. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.140 Connection to the POTW Outside of the Corporate Limits: No connection shall be allowed unless authorized by the City Council. The authorization to discharge wastewater to the POTW shall include the requirement of the property owner to execute an extraterritorial utility extension agreement upon forms prepared by the City, unless the City Council enters into the record a finding that the property owner is incapable of executing such an agreement, as distinguished from the property owner’s reluctance to execute the agreement. As a condition of approval, all building sewers and mains are subject to review and approval by the Municipal Services Director. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.150 Requirement to Connect to the POTW: A. New Buildings. Newly constructed buildings having human occupancy, as defined in the International Building Code, shall be connected to the POTW. B. Existing Buildings. The owner of an existing building having human occupancy, as defined the International Building Code, that is situated within two hundred feet (200') of the POTW, is required at the owner’s expense to connect such building directly to the POTW within six (6) months after the date of official notice to do so. Provided that, the connection shall not be required if the cost of making the connection, including system development charges, exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The owner shall submit a detailed cost estimate to the Municipal Services Director for review. The determination of the cost of making the connection shall be made by the Municipal Services Director. Furthermore, if the owner is not required to make a connection because of cost, at such time as the septic system fails, either the tank or the drain field, the connection to the City’s sewer system shall be required and made. 1. In accordance with RCW 35A.21.390, the owner of a single-family residence can appeal the requirement to connect to the POTW to the City Council within ten (10) days after notice of the Municipal Services Director’s decision is mailed via certified mail to the owner. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be signed by the owner by declaration under penalty of perjury as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal, Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 8 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 769 of 774 pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085. The written appeal notice shall contain or be accompanied by the following information: a. Specific basis on which the owner contests the Municipal Services Director’s decision. b. All documentation or other evidence supporting the owner’s appeal, including any expert testimony. c. The current address of the owner. d. A brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the Municipal Services Director’s decision should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. 2. The appeal hearing before the City Council shall be scheduled for the next available City Council meeting, and notice of the appeal hearing date shall be mailed via certified mail to the owner at the address listed in the notice of appeal. Failure of the owner to appear and prosecute the appeal shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal granted under this section. The decision of the City Council shall be final. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.160 Wastewater Industrial User Survey: When requested by the City, owners of all commercial and industrial facilities that discharge or plan to discharge wastewater to the POTW shall complete a Wastewater Industrial User Survey on forms supplied by the City. The Wastewater Supervisor shall determine if the Industrial User Survey form is complete. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.170 Permit Requirements: A. A Street and Utility Construction Permit is required and shall be obtained before uncovering, connecting to, opening into, altering, or disturbing any municipal improvement. B. A waste discharge permit is required and shall be obtained from the City and the Department of Ecology before a significant industrial user discharges wastewater into the POTW. C. A plumbing permit is required and shall be obtained before a building sewer is installed, except for building sewers that are installed outside of the City’s corporate limits. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.180 Discharge to the POTW: The following items are required to be completed, when applicable, prior to discharging to the POTW: A. Application forms are submitted as follows: 1. Utility Service Request to Engineering Division. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 9 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 770 of 774 2. Request for Utility Service to Finance Department. B. Fees are paid as follows: 1. Utility service fee to Finance Department. 2. System development charges listed in MLMC 3.62 to Engineering Division. 3. Private reimbursement fees to Engineering Division. 4. Reimbursement fees listed in MLMC 13.08 to Engineering Division. 5. Waste Discharge Permit fees listed in MLMC 3.54 to Operations Division. C. The wastewater improvements that are being dedicated to the City have been completed and accepted by the City. The private wastewater improvements that are not being dedicated to the City have been satisfactorily pressure tested and videoed. D. An extraterritorial agreement is recorded at the Grant County Auditor’s Office. E. The waste discharge permits are executed by the City and the Department of Ecology. F. A Wastewater Industrial User Survey has been submitted to the Wastewater Division Supervisor that is deemed to be complete. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.190 Building Sewers: All costs and expenses incident to the installation and connection to the POTW shall be borne by the owner. The property owner shall indemnify the City from loss or damage that is directly or indirectly occasioned by the connection of the building sewer to the POTW. New buildings may only connect to existing building sewers when the building sewer meets all requirements of this chapter and the Washington State adopted International Building Code. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.200 Separate Building Sewers: A separate and independent building sewer shall be provided for every building and subdivided lot, each with separate connection to the POTW, with the following exceptions: A. When separate buildings are an integral part of a single business or industry and are located on the same lot. B. When separate buildings are under the same ownership and located on the same lot. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 10 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 771 of 774 C. When buildings are located within a binding site plan and the buildings are connected to a private sewer main. D. When buildings are located within a planned development district zone and the buildings are connected to a private sewer main. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.210 Connection to Force Mains: A. The Municipal Service Director may allow owners to connect to a POTW force main. A valve shall be installed on the owner’s service line at the tee on the City-owned main. Furthermore, all wastewater that contains solids must pass though a septic tank prior to being pumped into the POTW’s force main. B. The City shall not be responsible for any backflow from the POTW into the owners service line nor shall the City be responsible for any damages, claims, or losses resulting therefrom. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/ 12) 13.05.220 Sewer Main Grades: All new sewer mains shall be installed at the minimum grade per the current edition of the Department of Ecology’s publication Criteria for Sewage Design (Orange Book). The Municipal Services Director may approve a steeper grade if the gravity sewer service to future developments will not be impacted. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.230 Community Street and Utility Standards: Construction for the installation and repairs of municipal and privately owned wastewater systems that discharge to the POTW shall meet the requirements of the Community Street and Utility Standards. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.240 Ownership: The limits of ownership for mains and building sewers that are located within the City’s right-of-way and municipal easements are defined below. A. City-Owned Mains. The City shall have ownership of the sewer mains and appurtenances, provided that they have been accepted by the City Council. B. Privately Owned Mains. Owners shall retain ownership for sewer mains and appurtenances that only serve their property. The owner’s sewer main shall include all its pipe and appurtenances up to the point of connection to a city-owned sewer main, including the wye, tee, or other connecting device to a city-owned sewer main, but does not include the manhole that is installed on a city-owned sewer main; and where a valve is installed to a tee Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 11 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 772 of 774 on a city-owned force main, the City shall own the tee and valve, and the owner shall retain ownership of all pipe and appurtenances upstream of the city-owned valve. C. Gravity Building Sewers. Property owners shall retain ownership for gravity building sewers, up to and including the wye, tee, or other connecting appurtenance on a city-owned sewer main. D. Pressurized Building Sewers. Property owners shall retain ownership for pressurized building sewers up to and including the wye, tee, or other connecting device to a city-owned sewer main; except that, if a valve is installed to a tee on a city-owned sewer main, the City shall own the tee and valve and the owner shall retain ownership of all pipe and appurtenances upstream of the city-owned valve. (Ord. 2810, 5/10/16; Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.250 Notice to Cease Violation: Any person found to be violating any provision of this chapter shall be served by the City with a Notice of Violation and Order to Correct or Cease Activity as provided in Chapter 1.20 issued by the Municipal Services Director. The offender shall permanently cease all violations within the period of time stated in such notice. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.260 Penalties for Continued Violation: Failure or refusal to comply with the Notice and Order provided in this chapter shall constitute grounds for discontinuing water and sewer service to the premises until the Municipal Services Director determines that such requirements have been satisfactorily met. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) 13.05.270 Liability for Expense or Damage: A. Damage resulting from an accident or from unauthorized or improper use of the POTW shall become an obligation against the person causing such damage. B. Additionally, any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall become liable to the City for any expense, loss, or damage occasioned to the City by reason of such violation. The City shall be compensated for such loss within thirty (30) days of notification to the violator of the costs. If not satisfied by that time, the costs shall be filed as a lien against the property. (Ord. 2642, 2/14/12) Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 12 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 773 of 774 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk has the official version of the Moses Lake Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.cityofml.com Staff Directory Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. Ch. 13.05 Wastewater Regulations | Moses Lake Municipal Code Page 13 of 13 The Moses Lake Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3042, passed December 12, 2023. Document Ref: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Page 774 of 774 Signature Certificate Reference number: PZGVY-6K7Z5-MPPBQ-IBBRQ Document completed by all parties on: 20 Sep 2024 15:32:47 UTC Page 1 of 1 Signer Timestamp Signature Mayor Dustin Swartz Email: dswartz@cityofml.com Shared via link Sent:11 Sep 2024 23:58:54 UTC Viewed:16 Sep 2024 21:11:36 UTC Signed:16 Sep 2024 21:12:02 UTC IP address: 74.82.240.250 Location: Moses Lake, United States Debbie Burke Email: dburke@cityofml.com Recipient Verification: Sent:11 Sep 2024 23:58:54 UTC Viewed:20 Sep 2024 15:32:10 UTC Signed:20 Sep 2024 15:32:47 UTC ✔Email verified 20 Sep 2024 15:32:10 UTC IP address: 63.135.54.162 Location: Moses Lake, United States Signed with PandaDoc PandaDoc is a document workflow and certified eSignature solution trusted by 50,000+ companies worldwide.